Discussion:
Form vs Content
(too old to reply)
Pieter
2010-02-25 20:58:10 UTC
Permalink
Imo conflict is only possible when focusing on form.
If one wants to go Home, the focus has to be on content.
So when I, for example, read a post here, I should always
only look for the content of it. What does the writer convey?
According to the Holy Spirit it can only be either love or
a call for love. That is something to at least keep in mind.
In any case there is no question of attack or conflict at all.
That is but the surface (in truth: illusion) the Course asks us
to look past.
- Any comment is welcome!
Carrie
2010-02-25 21:54:41 UTC
Permalink
"Pieter" <***@zonnet.nl> wrote in message news:4b86e46c$0$778$***@news.tele2.nl...
Imo conflict is only possible when focusing on form.
If one wants to go Home, the focus has to be on content.
So when I, for example, read a post here, I should always
only look for the content of it. What does the writer convey?
According to the Holy Spirit it can only be either love or
a call for love. That is something to at least keep in mind.
In any case there is no question of attack or conflict at all.
That is but the surface (in truth: illusion) the Course asks us
to look past.
- Any comment is welcome!

Content and form isn't something that can been seen and/or judged/decided
in someone else.
It probably can't be really defined in oneself, either.
The simple way woud be to think (if and when one remembers to) "which
teacher am I followring, which state of Mind am I in?" If it doesn't feel
like love... peace... One with God, then get into that feeling place, in any
way possible.
Trying to figure out if one (or another) is coming from content or form
probably puts one IN form, just by doing it.
Pieter
2010-02-25 23:12:22 UTC
Permalink
Post by Pieter
Imo conflict is only possible when focusing on form.
If one wants to go Home, the focus has to be on content.
So when I, for example, read a post here, I should always
only look for the content of it. What does the writer convey?
According to the Holy Spirit it can only be either love or
a call for love. That is something to at least keep in mind.
In any case there is no question of attack or conflict at all.
That is but the surface (in truth: illusion) the Course asks us
to look past.
- Any comment is welcome!
 Content and form isn't something that can been seen and/or judged/decided
in someone else.
- What you write here are words, which are form.
They are the means for what you want to convey,
which is their content.
Post by Pieter
 It probably can't be really defined in oneself, either.
 The simple way woud be to think (if and when one remembers to) "which
teacher am I followring, which state of Mind am I in?"
Sure, very important!
Post by Pieter
If it doesn't feel
like love... peace... One with God, then get into that feeling place, in any
way possible.
Yes!
Post by Pieter
  Trying to figure out if one (or another) is coming from content or form
probably puts one IN form, just by doing it.
We all come from God, and He is Love. ;-)
Carrie
2010-02-26 03:04:04 UTC
Permalink
Post by Pieter
Post by Pieter
Imo conflict is only possible when focusing on form.
If one wants to go Home, the focus has to be on content.
So when I, for example, read a post here, I should always
only look for the content of it. What does the writer convey?
According to the Holy Spirit it can only be either love or
a call for love. That is something to at least keep in mind.
In any case there is no question of attack or conflict at all.
That is but the surface (in truth: illusion) the Course asks us
to look past.
- Any comment is welcome!
Content and form isn't something that can been seen and/or
judged/decided in someone else.
- What you write here are words, which are form.
They are the means for what you want to convey,
which is their content.
Post by Pieter
It probably can't be really defined in oneself, either.
The simple way woud be to think (if and when one remembers to) "which
teacher am I followring, which state of Mind am I in?"
Sure, very important!
Post by Pieter
If it doesn't feel
like love... peace... One with God, then get into that feeling
place, in any way possible.
Yes!
Post by Pieter
Trying to figure out if one (or another) is coming from content or
form probably puts one IN form, just by doing it.
We all come from God, and He is Love. ;-)
Taking this a little further, there's also the question who is deciding
the content or form? Of course, the words are form, and I can believe they
are coming form a content of love (Right Mind/Spirit) but, if the
reader/listener isn't in the same place (but in ego) will he/she perceive
them as a content of love? Or as form?
Form, words, or books, or anything that isn't content, seems to be a
"vehicle" (don't know another word to use, like something to carry it?) for
the content. Just picking up a book like ACIM or the bible, for some people
conveys a content/feeling of Love. Even without reading the actual words.
Or it can, in come cases. So, it's not the words themselves but the feeling
they convey to the reader/listener?
I have thought of that with sheet music. Chopin, for example. We look at
little marks and squiggles on a page (notes and notations) and going by
them, we can recreate what Chopin was feeling, where he was coming from, 200
or so years ago. We can connect with and join with his spirit? When he
first put down the notes on paper (in his time) he was sending a message
into the future to everyone who interprets the notes, plays the music or
listens to it being played. A joiniing in Content, though it seems to be
form.
I don't know if, or how well these things can be put into words. We try
and those who read/hear them come from wherever they are at the time, and to
them it's content (something to join in) or form, something to see from ego
and separate.
Pieter
2010-02-26 10:35:02 UTC
Permalink
Post by Carrie
Post by Pieter
Post by Pieter
Imo conflict is only possible when focusing on form.
If one wants to go Home, the focus has to be on content.
So when I, for example, read a post here, I should always
only look for the content of it. What does the writer convey?
According to the Holy Spirit it can only be either love or
a call for love. That is something to at least keep in mind.
In any case there is no question of attack or conflict at all.
That is but the surface (in truth: illusion) the Course asks us
to look past.
- Any comment is welcome!
Content and form isn't something that can been seen and/or
judged/decided in someone else.
- What you write here are words, which are form.
They are the means for what you want to convey,
which is their content.
Post by Pieter
It probably can't be really defined in oneself, either.
The simple way would be to think (if and when one remembers to) "which
teacher am I following, which state of Mind am I in?"
Sure, very important!
Post by Pieter
If it doesn't feel
like love... peace... One with God, then get into that feeling
place, in any way possible.
Yes!
Post by Pieter
Trying to figure out if one (or another) is coming from content or
form probably puts one IN form, just by doing it.
We all come from God, and He is Love. ;-)
Taking this a little further, there's also the question who is deciding
the content or form?
Any decision we make is either
with the ego or with God.
What the ego calls content,
still is but form.
Post by Carrie
Of course, the words are form, and I can believe they
are coming form a content of love (Right Mind/Spirit) but, if the
reader/listener isn't in the same place (but in ego) will he/she perceive
them as a content of love? Or as form?
The ego cannot perceive love,
because it is the denial of it.
Post by Carrie
Form, words, or books, or anything that isn't content, seems to be a
"vehicle" (don't know another word to use, like something to carry it?) for
the content. Just picking up a book like ACIM or the bible, for some people
conveys a content/feeling of Love. Even without reading the actual words.
Or it can, in come cases. So, it's not the words themselves but the feeling
they convey to the reader/listener?
I have thought of that with sheet music. Chopin, for example. We look at
little marks and squiggles on a page (notes and notations) and going by
them, we can recreate what Chopin was feeling, where he was coming from, 200
or so years ago. We can connect with and join with his spirit? When he
first put down the notes on paper (in his time) he was sending a message
into the future to everyone who interprets the notes, plays the music or
listens to it being played. A joining in Content, though it seems to be
form.
I don't know if, or how well these things can be put into words. We try
and those who read/hear them come from wherever they are at the time, and
to them it's content (something to join in) or form, something to see from
ego and separate.
Nicely said!
Carrie
2010-02-26 22:53:13 UTC
Permalink
Post by Pieter
Post by Carrie
Post by Pieter
Post by Pieter
Imo conflict is only possible when focusing on form.
If one wants to go Home, the focus has to be on content.
So when I, for example, read a post here, I should always
only look for the content of it. What does the writer convey?
According to the Holy Spirit it can only be either love or
a call for love. That is something to at least keep in mind.
In any case there is no question of attack or conflict at all.
That is but the surface (in truth: illusion) the Course asks us
to look past.
- Any comment is welcome!
Content and form isn't something that can been seen and/or
judged/decided in someone else.
- What you write here are words, which are form.
They are the means for what you want to convey,
which is their content.
Post by Pieter
It probably can't be really defined in oneself, either.
The simple way would be to think (if and when one remembers to)
"which teacher am I following, which state of Mind am I in?"
Sure, very important!
Post by Pieter
If it doesn't feel
like love... peace... One with God, then get into that feeling
place, in any way possible.
Yes!
Post by Pieter
Trying to figure out if one (or another) is coming from content or
form probably puts one IN form, just by doing it.
We all come from God, and He is Love. ;-)
Taking this a little further, there's also the question who is
deciding the content or form?
Any decision we make is either
with the ego or with God.
What the ego calls content,
still is but form.
Post by Carrie
Of course, the words are form, and I can believe they
are coming form a content of love (Right Mind/Spirit) but, if the
reader/listener isn't in the same place (but in ego) will he/she
perceive them as a content of love? Or as form?
The ego cannot perceive love,
because it is the denial of it.
Post by Carrie
Form, words, or books, or anything that isn't content, seems to be a
"vehicle" (don't know another word to use, like something to carry it?) for
the content. Just picking up a book like ACIM or the bible, for some people
conveys a content/feeling of Love. Even without reading the actual
words. Or it can, in come cases. So, it's not the words themselves
but the feeling
they convey to the reader/listener?
I have thought of that with sheet music. Chopin, for example. We
look at little marks and squiggles on a page (notes and notations)
and going by them, we can recreate what Chopin was feeling, where he
was coming from, 200
or so years ago. We can connect with and join with his spirit? When
he first put down the notes on paper (in his time) he was sending a
message into the future to everyone who interprets the notes, plays
the music or listens to it being played. A joining in Content,
though it seems to be form.
I don't know if, or how well these things can be put into words.
We try and those who read/hear them come from wherever they are at
the time, and to them it's content (something to join in) or form,
something to see from ego and separate.
Nicely said!
Thank you
expires
2010-02-26 00:32:34 UTC
Permalink
Post by Pieter
Imo conflict is only possible when focusing on form.
If one wants to go Home, the focus has to be on content.
So when I, for example, read a post here, I should always
only look for the content of it. What does the writer convey?
According to the Holy Spirit it can only be either love or
a call for love. That is something to at least keep in mind.
In any case there is no question of attack or conflict at all.
That is but the surface (in truth: illusion) the Course asks us
to look past.
- Any comment is welcome!
Well then, Pieter, tell ''me/us'':
Is the "content" if what you wrote,
as the first posting in this thread,
"love" or "a call for love"?
--expires
Pieter
2010-02-26 10:24:29 UTC
Permalink
Post by expires
Post by Pieter
Imo conflict is only possible when focusing on form.
If one wants to go Home, the focus has to be on content.
So when I, for example, read a post here, I should always
only look for the content of it. What does the writer convey?
According to the Holy Spirit it can only be either love or
a call for love. That is something to at least keep in mind.
In any case there is no question of attack or conflict at all.
That is but the surface (in truth: illusion) the Course asks us
to look past.
- Any comment is welcome!
Is the "content" if what you wrote,
as the first posting in this thread,
"love" or "a call for love"?
--expires
Both I guess; love was intended.
- How did it come across to you,
as "love" or "a call for love"?
Or neither of the two?
expires
2010-03-13 20:44:04 UTC
Permalink
On Fri Feb 26 2010 11:24:29 GMT+0100
Post by Pieter
Post by expires
Post by Pieter
Imo conflict is only possible when focusing on form.
If one wants to go Home, the focus has to be on content.
So when I, for example, read a post here, I should always
only look for the content of it. What does the writer convey?
According to the Holy Spirit it can only be either love or
a call for love. That is something to at least keep in mind.
In any case there is no question of attack or conflict at all.
That is but the surface (in truth: illusion) the Course asks us
to look past.
- Any comment is welcome!
Is the "content" if what you wrote,
as the first posting in this thread,
"love" or "a call for love"?
--expires
Both I guess; love was intended.
- How did it come across to you,
as "love" or "a call for love"?
Or neither of the two?
"How did it come across to you"?
Exactly as you answered: You guessed,
you didn't know, you didn't love,
you simply just intellectualized.
I don't believe "a call for love"
as answered by telling anyone in
pain/conflict that there is no
pain/conflict, unless you are
*know* that they are ready for
it. It's quite simple: If someone
is not ready for what you preach,
they will not trust what you are
saying, will not trust you. IOW,
"a call for love", for example
from someone in pain/conflict,
is answered by (your) love, by
loving, and not by preaching or
intellectualizing love.
--expires
Pieter
2010-03-14 21:32:41 UTC
Permalink
Post by expires
On Fri Feb 26 2010 11:24:29 GMT+0100
Post by Pieter
Post by expires
Post by Pieter
Imo conflict is only possible when focusing on form.
If one wants to go Home, the focus has to be on content.
So when I, for example, read a post here, I should always
only look for the content of it. What does the writer convey?
According to the Holy Spirit it can only be either love or
a call for love. That is something to at least keep in mind.
In any case there is no question of attack or conflict at all.
That is but the surface (in truth: illusion) the Course asks us
to look past.
- Any comment is welcome!
Is the "content" if what you wrote,
as the first posting in this thread,
"love" or "a call for love"?
--expires
Both I guess; love was intended.
- How did it come across to you,
as "love" or "a call for love"?
Or neither of the two?
"How did it come across to you"?
Exactly as you answered: You guessed,
you didn't know, you didn't love,
you simply just intellectualized.
Thanks for honestly telling
how I came across to you.
Post by expires
I don't believe "a call for love"
as answered by telling anyone in
pain/conflict that there is no
pain/conflict, unless you are
*know* that they are ready for
it. It's quite simple: If someone
is not ready for what you preach,
they will not trust what you are
saying, will not trust you. IOW,
"a call for love", for example
from someone in pain/conflict,
is answered by (your) love, by
loving, and not by preaching or
intellectualizing love.
--expires
You are quite right; completely agreed!
r***@tahoe.blue
2010-03-13 14:34:29 UTC
Permalink
Post by Pieter
Imo conflict is only possible when focusing on form.
If one wants to go Home, the focus has to be on content.
So when I, for example, read a post here, I should always
only look for the content of it. What does the writer convey?
According to the Holy Spirit it can only be either love or
a call for love. That is something to at least keep in mind.
In any case there is no question of attack or conflict at all.
That is but the surface (in truth: illusion) the Course asks us
to look past.
- Any comment is welcome!
Good morning,

That there is "another" in the first place is an indication that I'm
hooked on form. The practice of forgiveness dictates that I ignore
(not quite the right word) what's happening "out there" and focus,
instead, on what's happening "in here". It is my reaction (choice of
teachers; ego or Holy Spirit) that will determine content, regardless
of what anything looks like.

Richard
expires
2010-03-14 09:13:26 UTC
Permalink
Post by r***@tahoe.blue
Post by Pieter
Imo conflict is only possible when focusing on form.
If one wants to go Home, the focus has to be on content.
So when I, for example, read a post here, I should always
only look for the content of it. What does the writer convey?
According to the Holy Spirit it can only be either love or
a call for love. That is something to at least keep in mind.
In any case there is no question of attack or conflict at all.
That is but the surface (in truth: illusion) the Course asks us
to look past.
- Any comment is welcome!
Good morning,
That there is "another" in the first place is an indication that I'm
hooked on form. The practice of forgiveness dictates that I ignore
(not quite the right word) what's happening "out there" and focus,
instead, on what's happening "in here". It is my reaction (choice of
teachers; ego or Holy Spirit) that will determine content, regardless
of what anything looks like.
Richard
Well, yes, except that, at least from my POV,
form has no content. To believe that form has
or must have content, is basically believing
that (some) projections/illusions are (more)
real (than others), the crazy idea that Self
can create/perceive not-me/not-mine.
--expires
Pieter
2010-03-14 21:56:51 UTC
Permalink
Post by r***@tahoe.blue
Post by Pieter
Imo conflict is only possible when focusing on form.
If one wants to go Home, the focus has to be on content.
So when I, for example, read a post here, I should always
only look for the content of it. What does the writer convey?
According to the Holy Spirit it can only be either love or
a call for love. That is something to at least keep in mind.
In any case there is no question of attack or conflict at all.
That is but the surface (in truth: illusion) the Course asks us
to look past.
- Any comment is welcome!
Good morning,
That there is "another" in the first place is an indication that I'm
hooked on form. The practice of forgiveness dictates that I ignore
(not quite the right word) what's happening "out there" and focus,
instead, on what's happening "in here". It is my reaction (choice of
teachers; ego or Holy Spirit) that will determine content, regardless
of what anything looks like.
Richard
- A call for love perceived in "another" still
is *my* call for love I perceive in him/her;
when this call is answered, that is: when I am
ready to let my call be answered, then it will
no longer be in my brother either -
since he is one with me.
That is why is said that the sole responsibility
of the miracle worker is to accept the
Atonement for himself. So the greatest gift
one can offer "another" is to let oneself
be healed.
mr bill
2010-03-17 04:44:12 UTC
Permalink
Post by Pieter
Imo conflict is only possible when focusing on form.
If one wants to go Home, the focus has to be on content.
So when I, for example, read a post here, I should always
only look for the content of it. What does the writer convey?
According to the Holy Spirit it can only be either love or
a call for love. That is something to at least keep in mind.
In any case there is no question of attack or conflict at all.
That is but the surface (in truth: illusion) the Course asks us
to look past.
- Any comment is welcome!
content determines form
so
form is the demonstration of content
therefore
to know content
all one ever need do
is see through form
the demonstration of content
:)
expires
2010-03-17 08:35:26 UTC
Permalink
On Wed Mar 17 2010 05:44:12 GMT+0100
Post by mr bill
Post by Pieter
Imo conflict is only possible when focusing on form.
If one wants to go Home, the focus has to be on content.
So when I, for example, read a post here, I should always
only look for the content of it. What does the writer convey?
According to the Holy Spirit it can only be either love or
a call for love. That is something to at least keep in mind.
In any case there is no question of attack or conflict at all.
That is but the surface (in truth: illusion) the Course asks us
to look past.
- Any comment is welcome!
content determines form
so
form is the demonstration of content
therefore
to know content
all one ever need do
is see through form
the demonstration of content
:)
I doubt that "content [mostly] determines
form": What is the content of an empty box?
What is the content of a wheel/circle?
Does the form of a brain determine its
content? Can you "see through" the brains
of living creatures? What difference
in form *and* content respectively is there
between a body before and after death?
What difference in form *and* content
respectively is there between a mountain
and a beach? What in the content of a
hand determines and sustains the hand's
form? What is the content of a book?
Just letters/words on paper/wood?
Are not all forms just temporary
appearances in space-time? Is space-time
itself not also just an appearance?
--expires

Continue reading on narkive:
Loading...