User talk:Antireconciler

• Archive 1: 17 April 2006 - 21 July 2006

---

ACIM

• The ACIM article is no longer protected. I have done some basic housekeeping that was, IMHO, logical and well documented. I would appreciate your help.--Who123 22:37, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

Sure. I've tried to help out a little, but my time is limited here. Consider the argument I've made against the claim of original research in ACIM's discussion. I think it is right, but if you find it unhelpful, let me know. —Antireconciler ◊ talk 00:56, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

My time is limited too. I had no intention of becoming this involved in the article. I do think the material is of great importance and should have a good set of articles. I understand your argument about OR but it is a foundational element of WP. People have claimed that the article is not sourced. I disagree with this. The problem is that it is not cited properly. I have recently ordered a few books so that I can help in the citing (and re-writing if necessary).--Who123 17:55, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

Simultaneously, I'm not especially concerned if ACIM ends up as a short stub-like article. The principles of ACIM are easy enough to derive, no one in their right mind could miss it if they looked. It's somewhat like insisting that Wikipedia carry a multiplication table. Just because some editors wouldn't understand that 5 * 6 = 30 need not be sourced because it is evident, if it were not at Wikipedia, five times six would still equal thirty and it would still be evident. Whatever wisdom ACIM has catalyzed for me, it is primarily useless. It cannot be used in any way, for any end. It just is. I can't use it as if it were a tool. I can't bring light to anyone. What an empty gesture to suppose they didn't have light beforehand. So much time I've spent on this thinking I could spend time, and that spending time would help me, but I look at all I've given and spent and all of it is nothing. I have gained the obvious for nothing and for nothing. —Antireconciler ◊ talk 02:13, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

BTW, I added your page to my watchlist so I should be alerted to your responses here. I believe that ACIM should be more than a stub. The problem is that none of us are in our right mind. It is like the fish saying, "Where is the water?". I do not understand your comment about the wisdom that you have realized with the help of ACIM being useless. What is the old story about us not being able to see the moon for someone but we can point to it.--Who123 18:05, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

Boiled down, my argument is that logic is not OR, and that ACIM is logic. WP:OR is important, it's that ACIM couldn't violate it. Note that this is why it's no problem if ACIM ends up stub-like. ACIM is like a book of right-thinking ... but right-thinking to the right-thinking is not rare or difficult, for wrong-thinking to the right-thinking is harmless misunderstanding. And it is harmless. People can get obsessed with crusading against their wrong-thinking as if it was their bitter enemy, but what are these people fighting? Is misunderstanding something anyone can fight against? Surely understanding is good, but right-understanding is for the sake of curiosity, and is so natural you instead think "what is this I see that I wish to destroy and silence?" and what will you see except yourself? They look in mirrors and fight with their images, not recognizing that they are the same thing as what they are fighting. Notice that something cannot both apply and not apply to the same thing in the same respect at the same time, unless contradictions are true. If I can fight with myself (be wrong-thinking, or, not in my right mind) then I can only fight myself in so far as contradictions are true, because fighting myself is the same as fighting against something that I think applies to mirror-me, and that I think does not apply to me, and yet mirror-me is me. Do you understand? If mirror-me is not me (if I am in my wrong-mind), then contradiction follows. This is why I can't be in my wrong-mind, and why you can be either.

Also notice that if the fish asks "Where is the water?" and that this is wrong-mindedness, then, by analogy, as I take it, our asking "where is the truth?" is similarly wrong-minded. It follows that truth is obvious and that it can't matter if ACIM ends up stub-like if what it explains is truth. It also follows from what I said before (that I can't be in my wrong-mind), that if I ask "where is the truth?" I can't actually be asking this question. If I say these words, I am not asking this question, but making a nonsensical assertion. But nonsensical assertions are harmless because harm can't come from nonsense. If harm could come from nonsense, then something could come from nothing, which is what nonsense is, or don't you agree? Since something cannot come from nothing, nothing could cause me to be in my wrong-mind, since causes are things. Again we must conclude that I am in my right mind, and so must you be too. —Antireconciler ◊ talk 21:32, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

I agree that logic is not OR and that ACIM is logical. Pure logic has its own beauty. Problems arise when logic is applied to the world of form. I do not know if you like Sci-Fi. Star Trek VI: The Undiscovered Country comes to mind. The segment where Spock speaks of logic as the beginning of wisdom. I see ACIM as a path to lead us from wrong-thinking to right-thinking. You are correct that we need not crusade against wrong-thinking but should focus instead on right-thinking. We do look in mirrors and fight with ourselves. A problem is that we are insane and create worlds where wrong-thinking seems true. The images we fight are our own images that we create. It is the dissolution of the insanity of separation that will return oneness to our awareness.

I agree that nonsense comes from nothing. We have created nonsense from nothing and it is there it will return. Nothing external to ourselves can cause us to be in our wrong-mind. We have seemingly done it to ourselves. We are in our right-mind but alas, we do not realize it. ACIM is a path to guide us to that realization.—Who123 15:04, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

It's rare enough for someone to engage comments like this, so I won't be like those who glance over it and shake it off. At the same time, we're only talking and I talk about it because I find it enjoyable to think and talk about. You mention that "a problem is that we are insane and create worlds where wrong-thinking seems true." Then, you would agree that insane thinking is creating worlds where wrong-thinking seems true? And also that it is insane to even think that what is made from wrong-thinking is true? Let's also agree that insanity is wrong-thinking, and that wrong-thinking is insanity. So, we are insane because we create worlds were insanity seems true, and we are insane to even think that what is made from insanity is true. If it is insane to think that what is made from insanity is true, then we are right in thinking that what is made from insanity is false. This means that we are right in thinking that insanity makes nothing. Now, if nothing comes of something, then that something may as well not exist, because it is behaving as if it did not, and we would have no reason to say that it actually did existed because we couldn't distinguish it from non-existence. So, we are right in saying that insanity does not exist because there is nothing that it is. When we say "a problem is that we are insane..." we must then be saying that "a problem is that nothing" because nothing follows from insanity. If a problem is that nothing, then a problem is not that something, which is the same as saying there are no problems! What a relief! —Antireconciler ◊ talk 15:59, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

Yes, it is rare enough to even think along these lines. I do find it enjoyable to think and talk about as well. I agree with the first half above. When you say, "This means that we are right in thinking that insanity makes nothing.", I think we get into the contradiction you were discussing earlier. Logically, insanity makes what is false. Is what is false nothing? I think it is. However, it may seem like something in time. It may exist in time but not in reality. I do get lost in long streams of thought. There remains one problem as long as the mind is insane: the appearance of separation.—Who123 16:24, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

←

I apologize for writing in long strings. There is little I enjoy more than when two understand each other completely. You are right that we are continuing our thought about the contradiction I mentioned earlier. Again, I want to draw from your words toward conclusion. You state, "Logically, insanity makes what is false. Is what is false nothing? I think it is." You agree then that the false is nothing? Since you say "insanity makes what is false", then if the false is nothing, then perhaps you agree that insanity makes nothing (this will be our first point).

I probably skipped steps last time at this point, so let me be more careful. The question now is "is insanity something?" and either insanity is something or it is nothing. If it is something, then this means simply that this something is making nothing. I will want to say that it is impossible for something to create nothing. If this is true, it would mean that insanity would have to be nothing, and not something. If insanity is nothing, then something, like the mind, could not be insane, or have that characteristic, or else something (the mind) would be nothing (insane) and something cannot be nothing.

Furthermore, since insanity is nothing, it can't be a problem. Being a problem means something is problem (nothing can't be a problem for the same reason it can't be anything else). If all this is true, then we cannot say that "there remains one problem as long as the mind is insane: the appearance of separation." For if the mind cannot be insane, then the necessary condition for there being a problem does not obtain, which means that the appearance of separation is just that, an appearance, and not actually a problem. Can an appearance after all be a problem? If appearances are false, as we agreed, and the false is nothing, then this question is the same as "Can nothing be a problem?" Surely not.

So what I've said has relied on the impossibility of something being able to create nothing, which we should return to if you were not at first convinced that this must be true. —Antireconciler ◊ talk 06:20, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

• You do not need to apologize. Sometimes I find I am exhausted. If what ACIM says is true, and I believe that it is, we are making our own world from moment to moment in opposition to God. This includes making time and space. ACIM and other spiritual books and paths teach that reality is in the present moment, "Be Here Now". In order to communicate verbally we need to distort the present moment into the appearance of time. The longer the train of thought, the more we have to distort. If we did not do this distortion then words would have no meaning, sentences and longer discourse would not hold together. The more we distort the moment the less peace we have. This is a long digression but this is my experience at times. I get tired. :~)

The first question you bring up is, Does false=nothing? From a pure logic standpoint I do not think we can say this. In time false seems like something. The reason I think that it is true is based on my study of ACIM. The reason why I tend to believe the material in ACIM is that I have had many "paranormal" experiences. ACIM is the only work that I have studied that puts them all in a logical framework. If I completely believed in ACIM I would not be here in physical form to be typing on this keyboard. As I have more belief in ACIM than doubt then I can say a part of me thinks false is nothing and insanity makes nothing.

It seems part of the problem here is level confusion (ACIM talk). There is reality and there is the distortion of reality where we make our worlds of space and time. In this distortion what is not real seems real, what is nothing seems like something. So here we have our contradiction. In time, insanity seems like something as it seems part of our mind is insane. At time's end, which is now, insanity is nothing and the mind is not insane. The problem is that we seem caught in this distortion and so what is nothing seems like something. So, part of me thinks insanity is nothing and the mind cannot be insane. Part of me perceives the insanity.

In time there is a problem. The problem ends when we collapse time and return our awareness to the present moment.

The power of our mind is so great that it seems to be able to create the appearance of nothing and then become entangled in what it has made. Does any of this make any sense to you?—Who 14:01, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

---

Thanks for helping with the ACIM article. I made a slight change to your recent changes. The Introduction is part of the book. It is therefore the Introduction of the book. Hope this makes sense.--Who123 17:47, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

Good call —Antireconciler ◊ talk 21:34, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

There is a problem with the duplication of the references. It seems the first set of references need to be merged with the notes section using the WP referencing system. Do you know how to do this?--Who123 18:08, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

Thank you

Thanks!—Who123 13:52, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

Well Deserved

The Surreal Barnstar Awarded for adding his special flair to WP as well as staying and working on the the difficult article A Course in Miracles —Who123 14:05, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

Thank you, Who123. ^_^ —Antireconciler ◊ talk 14:48, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

ACIM 2

I have re-written the Terminology section. Please let me know what you think.—Who123 18:16, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

It probably needed it. I think in general it is better to use direct quotes only where you can't say something better yourself, because we will want to know when we read it, "why has the author used a quote here?", and you've used quite a few. It definitely does it's job though. I can tinker with it if you welcome this. Take care, —Antireconciler ◊ talk 23:48, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

I could not think of a better way to say what I quoted. I think it is much better than what was there before, do you agree? Yes, please tinker with it. I decided to do this section because I had the book. The others are ordered.—Who 00:33, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

I'm glad you revised this part. If I hesitate to embrace the section fully, it is not because it is not an important edit, but that I think the author of your book is not as clear as he could be. I think it is important not to break WP:NOR, but I find myself wanting to modify the quotations to make the content clearer. I'm probably somewhat of a perfectionist. I think our most important task then is to find and use information from these sources that is most clear, and best catalyzes the reader's understanding. In many ways, the section already does this, but my fear is that the section has grown beyond its original boundaries, and is spilling into other sections. This is not a fault of yours, but of the holistic nature of the material. It is difficult to present single aspects and topics where they really all collapse into each other. Still, I think we should have a very clear message we want to communicate in this section, and we will want that message to be an important element of the reader's understanding of the whole when (s)he completes a read of the article for the first time. When I read the section, my thought is "how will this help?" but it seems almost obvious that the Course is going to use a modified vocabulary, that's what learning is after all. Is it important for the reader to understand that the vocabulary is a little different? It seems not. So what can we communicate in this section that will give the reader a stronger grasp of what they are reading about? I believe there is something important to communicate concerning vocabulary, but I think we've shot our arrow with only a general idea of the target. I think we likely only need alter our aim little, but, first, let's be specific about our target. Are you understanding? I write a lot for a very subtle thought, but being subtle, it is difficult for me to pin down. —Antireconciler ◊ talk 05:35, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

ACIM 3

Thanks for the note. That's nice of you. In truth, it's probably not justified for me to say that Ste4k chased me away. I left because it seems like I come across editors like her every other month or so, and it gets very stressful. I'm not accustomed to having to argue with others about what I write. Plus, I have other things I have to work on, and Wikipedia was keeping me from them. I will most likely always read Wikipedia, but contributing to articles is too stressful and difficult for me. Thanks, though. :) Andrew Parodi 08:08, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

I do not like conflict or arguing either. I am hoping that Ste4k was an anomaly. It seems that a general concern for many articles at WP is that they are either not sourced or cited. Ste4k seemed to carry these policies beyond reason. If I run into someone like Ste4k every month I probably will leave as well. Hopefully things will be better here and you will change your mind.—Who 12:52, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

Antireconciler, thanks for the edit at the ACIM article. It reads much better. I am going to hold on that article for now until the books that I ordered arrive and I have a chance to read through them. Will work on the EA article. I also need to learn to use the WP reference system. Is it difficult?—Who 12:58, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

Quite honestly, I don't know how to use WP's reference style that well either. I more or less duplicated what I saw at other articles, and briefly referenced the style guides. The notes at ACIM are probably wanting, but we have enough to polish them later at some point. —Antireconciler ◊ talk 17:10, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

My WP project list is to work on the EA article and then begin to study the WP citation system until the ACIM books arrive. For now I will use the Harvard referencing system. I think the references can all be fine tuned when the article is in better shape. It is a pleasure working with you on this.

BTW, how about the new sig?—Who 17:50, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

Oh, thanks ^_^. Likewise. I might think you are User:Who123 masquerading as User:Who with a your current sig, so I think I like the one you used just before this one best. As for your plan: fair enough. I'll help where I can, although I won't be around very often. —Antireconciler ◊ talk 19:07, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

OK, will revert sig although I doubt I will cross paths with "Who". I have cleaned up the EA article the best that I can. Can you copy the ACIM Litigation references to the section in the EA article?—Who 20:44, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

EA

Thanks for looking at the EA article. From what I have read here the numbered references go in the Notes section. This leaves the Reference section open for Harvard referencing system. There seem to be perhaps two important references that have been left off. Let me put what you have done in Notes and put the missing references back in References. Let me know and we can discuss it. Thanks!—Who123 03:21, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

Nevermind, I see you are working on it. Thanks!—Who123 03:26, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

Ah, I'd forgotten that you had a referencing system picked out. If you're going to use the Harvard style, it might be best to revert my changes. I was beginning to work off the Footnotes style. Let me know what you'd prefer. I'll need to read up on your citation style ... —Antireconciler ◊ talk 03:33, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

Near the end of Endeavor Academy you mention ref 4 and ref 6. I'm having trouble making sense of it ... —Antireconciler ◊ talk 03:34, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

ref 4 and ref 6 are from the ACIM article for the litigation section. Also, both of the CBS transcripts plus a couple of other references perhaps should be added to the ? Cult section.—Who123 03:38, 31 July 2006 (UTC)