Hive of Lights to Perfections

Frank and honest endeavoring for the truth, and if possible along the way, a few pence. Whatever comes I hope it's good. Otherwise this could end up being one major waste of time and bandwith, your's and mine.

Name:
Location: United States

I enjoy creating. I enjoy wondering why I enjoy creating. I like to think that I like to think, but when it really comes to brass tacks--I try not to sit on them. In other words I'm a fair weather thinker. My experience is that intuition grants us far more value than any self induced knowledge, though I by no means advocate the abondonment of ration or logic. I simply believe that it's not all of which some seem to think it is. At least not in it's current state of accessability to humanity at large. I gladly forsake any semblance of openmindedness or equality in the view of mortals to touch, and remain as close to, that which is truly divine in life.

Tuesday, February 21, 2006

Experience has shown me that those who are careless in their manners of critiquing things held as sacred to others, even when these things seem, in their view, ridiculous, tend to be the very people who, when it comes down to the core of their beliefs, really hold nothing sacred, consider nothing to be truly holy.

They may claim to hold things sacred. They may exercise extremes in mannerisms and exercises to try and give some appearance of great labor to compensate for their failures in holding those things in the level of sanctity they proclaim. But if the truth be told those who have no consideration for the things held sacred by others (I’m not saying they must hold these things sacred themselves—just that when they interact with respect to these items, and those who hold them sacred, they will not exercise a light-minded, or hateful intent centered, response) will eventually find their lives utterly void of sacredness and of holiness. Those who strive to profane will attain their desires in manner reminiscent of the mythological Midas’s “golden touch.” They will allow their desire to profane and ridicule those items held by others extend their capacity to profane to the point of no return. They will find those things closest to their heart profaned in the most egregious manner by themselves. They will become their own worst enemy.

Thursday, February 16, 2006

Meek Children and Saturday

Who are these children coming down, coming down.

Like gentle rain though darken skies.

With glory trailing from their feet as they go.

And endless promise in their eyes!

Who are these youn ones growing tall, growing tall.

Like silver trees against the storm.

Who will not bend with the wind or the change,

But stand to fight the world alone!

These are the few, the warriors

Saved for Saturday, to come

The last day of the world

These are they, on Saturday.

These are the strong, the warriors

Rising in the might to win

The battle raging in

The hearts of men, on Saturday.

Strangers from a realn of light

Who have forgotten all.

The memory of their former life.

The purpose of their call.

And so they must learn why they're here

And who they really are.

They must learn why they're here

And who they are!

These are the few, the warriors

Saved for Saturday, to come

The last day of the world

These are they, on Saturday.


--Saturday's Warrior

Had a good friend point out something to me today. Jesus statest that it is the meek who will inherit the earth. The question then, who's meek?

Children.

Children are the meek.

Those who have many children have lives that can have more potential to be filled with meekness.

But there's also the fact that the only people, through the ages, that have really inherited the earth, have been those who have been willing to have kids, and alot of them.

Look at the current ethnic makeup of the Italians. It's almost completely foreign to the ethnic makeup of the original Romans. Those who currently occupy Italy are mostly descended from those who were held as slaves and lower classes by the Romans. When the Romans stopped having kids sufficient to replace themselves their meek servants' children inherited their master's land.

We look at one of the aims of Christ. Namely world domination carried out by the meek. If you gain dominion over the earth without sword or force of arms or cunning what other way is there? Meekness. Meek children.

What think ye?

--Find the Hive

Thursday, February 09, 2006

To Cope with the Mundane.

There seems to be a superstition among many thousands of our young who hold hands and smooch in the drive-ins that marriage is a cottage surrounded by perpetual hollyhocks, to which a perpetually young and handsome husband comes home to a perpetually young and ravishing wife. When the hollyhocks wither and boredom and bills appear, the divorce courts are jammed.

Anyone who imagines that bliss is normal is going to waste a lot of time running around shouting that he's been robbed. The fact is that most putts don't drop. Most beef is tough. Most children grow up to be just ordinary people. Most successful marriages require a high degree of mutual toleration. Most jobs are more often dull than otherwise. . . .

Life is like an old-time rail journey--delays, sidetracks, smoke, dust, cinders, and jolts, interspersed only occasionally by beautiful vistas and thrilling bursts of speed. The trick is to thank the Lord for letting you have the ride.


--Jenkin Lloyd Jones

This quotes helped me alot. Life is not so much lowering expectations as it is insuring we have the most correct and noble ones we can have.

--Find the Hive

Wednesday, February 08, 2006

To be a fool.

"Only fools trifle with the souls of men"

--Joseph Smith Jr.


I think this is one of the truest statements there are. I wish I could say I've never been a fool with regard to the above. While I've never done anything terrible to anyone else I have been foolish in some of my interactions with other souls. I pray those offenses will be the only ones I ever commit with regard to the evil of "trifling" with souls. Who we are is essentially how we treat other souls. I hope I never forget that. I hope I always remain aware of the endurance of everyone’s soul and the responsibility I have to only edify the souls of others.

--Find the Hive

Monday, February 06, 2006

Mind Self and Completeness in Love.

"Katrina said...

Being called beautiful or handsome may be seem so great a compliment, but I find it more meaningful in being respected not due to one's physical attributes but by the personhood and the ideals that a person upholds. One's body is not of one's choosing. One's race, one's nationality are not part of the agreed contract to be born, they are not chosen by the person and therefore are not worthy to be taken as basis of one's compatibility with others. The physical body is nothing more than just a representation, an instrument of a higher, much more complex being, the self.

If someone could delve into another's mind, and appreciate him/her for his thoughts and ideals, then that perhaps is of a higher form of association than physical intimacy. To know a person is to deny oneself the luxury of being fixated on another's physical limitations, see past all the blemishes and pimples and cracks that line their faces, but instead see them as a person. Another individual with their own unique storyline, their own personalized character, their own identity. To see the person as he/she sees himself, to accept him/her wholly and not conditionally, to come to understand that what is he is, is so, because he is given the right to choose the way he wants to be. To be really serious with a person, one perhaps should see beyond the limitations of the eyes, but instead to meet each other and see each other within one's minds.

Just a thought. :D"



I'll start by saying I generaly agree with the above. While I'm not going to presume to know either way what our current positions in life are due to, or if they are due to anything. I tend to think there's some reason behind the permiting of all things but that would get deeper into a side issue.

A few questions came to mind as I thought on this.

First off how much can we really know a person on an intellectual and/or emotional level? I've gotten to be use to a good many people I fell are close to me. My Father, Mother, siblings, a few close friends. But a quote I've read comes to mind when I think of knowing people.

"What a laugh, though. To think that one human being could ever really know another. You could get used to each other, get so habituated that you could speak their words right along with them, but you never knew why other people said what they did, because they never even knew themselves. Nobody understands anybody.
And yet somehow we live together, mostly in peace, and get things done with a high enough success rate that people keep trying. Human beings get married and a lot of marriages work, and they have children and most of them grow up to be decent people, and they have schools and businesses and factories and farms that have results at some level of acceptability—all without having a clue what’s going on inside anybody’s head.
Muddling through, that’s what human beings do."

-Beans thoughts from the book "Shadow of the Hegemon" by Orson Scott Card


In advance I ask you to excuse the disorderly shape this whole post will likely take. I'm winging it.

So looking at the above and thinking, with regard to the connection I believe there is between love and knowledge between two entities in which love exists. One thing I get to wonder about, with respect to this correlation and the realization that we don't really know each other, can't, on our own, know each other would this demand that for love to exist that there would have to be some outside capacitor of such? I mean since we are unable to really, fully, know someone, then the only way (assuming my assumptions are correct) we could truly love someone would be to have the capacity granted to us vicariously through some other being who DOES know the being we desire to love.

Then, another pontification, can we utterly isolate various aspects of ourselves with regard to love in the context of certain relationships? I mean clearly most relationships can only be love when it is utterly platonic. Only love between life mates, those who are meant to share their souls completely, on both a physical, mental and spiritual level, are those in whom physical relations are manifestations of parts of the wholeness of love. I think it's important to emphasize that external interactions, be they sexual or those carried out through other forms of languages and interchange, can never be, by themselves, love. It seems to me that when one truly 'loves' a person, again in context of the paradigm of the particular relationship, when they have attraction, interaction and communion with that person in every dimension appropriate to that particular relationship.

I believe this can account for the need of trust on all levels. Since trust defied, or maintained, is reflected in all aspects of ones interaction with someone else, the only thing that trust, or it's absence can do, in any part of a relationship, is to build or destroy the whole of the love in the relationship.

Loyalty and honor are demanded. But true loyalty and honor, while they demand one not have unjust prejudices, they also, in our finite state, demand that we hold to what we perceive to be truth, and that we act in our relationships in accordance to our understanding of truth. My point then is, if one is to love someone, to love them regardless who they are, what they chose, what they can and can't accomplish or be, if they are to truly love and to try to know this person they must, at some point, agree to some conditions. To me the idea of 'unconditional love' in it's sense of FOREVER discarding conditions, past, present and future, seems impossible, for love, at it's core, is a judgment. It is a pronouncement of what is and isn't acceptable and when and where it is and isn't acceptable. For love to have any meaning it must have some law, something within it that validates it and vindicates it in light of all other conditions. It must, itself, BE a condition. And you can't have a conditionless condition. For if such could momentarily exist it could just as quickly loose it's existence. So if love is a condition, and if that condition has parts and segments, physical, mental, emotional, spiritual (and whatever other unknown "-al"(s} that may or may not exist).

So I might say that love is in the eye of the beholder, or conversely, that it's NOT in the eye of the one who refuses to see. Those who set up their paradigms so that they can never come to know truth, those who tell and/or accept lies or refuse to publish or learn truth, damn themselves to never being able to access love. While I don't agree with all the lyrics, nor the overall political view, of the song "Where's the love y'all?" it's true in it's connection. But what would then be more important than trying to achieve the best knowledge one could have of love?

I'm not pretending that I'm even close to having a comprehensive definition. I agree that we need to come closer to a divine view of others--

7 But the LORD said unto Samuel, Look not on his countenance, or on the height of his stature; because I have refused him: for the LORD seeth not as man seeth; for man looketh on the outward appearance, but the Lord looketh on the heart.

So it may come down to the 'heart'. I think that the heart, when good, can accent even physical aspects in a person.

For example there are some women that, at initial view, my hormonal, biological, indicators will make the general rash judgment based on the 'outward appearance'. Yet as time goes on it seems that the substance, or lack thereof, in a person’s heart (as long as the perceiver doesn't allow their biology to totally overcome all reason and logic and sense of truth) seems to even be manifested in their physical appearance. Some of the most normal, ordinary in physical features-even deficient in such, people I've met have been able to seemingly actually enhance, at least my, perception of them physically. I know that this is probably partly due to simple subjective perception, and it's limitations. But I can't help but think that there are, in people that are good at heart SOMETHING that becomes at least partially apparent in the physical persona to those that are perceptive. Likewise with those who are vile at heart. They may be striking people, may have incredible personalities, but I think they cannot avoid some degree of actual physical, outward, appearance of beauty when their hearts are not right. So often the only way in which they can overcome this seems to be by intentionally blinding those who view them. They take purposeful actions to try and compensate, through means of some type of deception, to fool the perceptive abilities of those that they wish to overcome so that their deficiencies, both internal and external, can be hid.

Anyway. I don't know how much of that's an actual answer, but It's a response. I hope it enlightens someone so they can then enlighten me. Remember

“If you tell what you know, everybody is wiser. If you keep a secret, than everyone is a fool.”

--Xenocide

Of course the above is only true if telling what you know will actualy be accepted by others as appliable knowledge, otherwise it's simply casting pearls before swine. And that does little good for the swine or the one casting.

Thursday, February 02, 2006

Conditions in Love? /Love - segment Beta

-------
Inspired by a comment on my initial "Love" post given by katrina
-------

Love is more than just trying to love someone unconditionally. Unconditional love, in its fullness, is only obtainable if there's the assurance that, at some point, the love will produce, and not just once but continually, the fruits of love. If there is no hope for what love is suppose to bring then love cannot endure. The view of love as being stuck to someone or something, despite that thing or entities determination to not reciprocate love, ever, then I would not call it love, rather an addiction. Like someone in a relationship that is, and is set to forever remain, terribly abusive. To remain in that situation is not something that is motivated by love, rather sickness. And I don’t mean love sickness.

This "unconditional" love has its limits tied to the free will of the entities involved. One side may have the perfect attributes and express love fully and without concern for reciprocation, or for adequacy in such, but that cannot continue forever if one side is forever rejecting the stipulations of true love.

I see love as being able to endure wherever there is a desire on the part of both sides. This love can continue on as long as both sides have determination in common, and to whatever magnitude and degree to which love can be expressed by both sides, respective to their capacities.

Wednesday, February 01, 2006

Love - segment Alpha

Previously I touched upon the requisite for there being the need for the existence of a degree of knowledge, or awareness, for love to exist. I don't think I can prove such but neither do I necessarily feel proofs necessary in this wandering pontification of the possible aspects and attributes of love.

My thought currently is that the awareness must either be, to some degree, something that both entities have. In other words for true love, of any degree, to exist both objects must have some form of intelligence. Not necessarily sentience, but intelligence OR the entity must be a form of an intelligence. I'll leave the definition of such 'till later.

So it would seem to me that the capacity for an object or entity to reciprocate to what ever it loves or whatever loves it determines, to at least some degree and at the very least, the profundity of which love can exist between the two objects.

This, to me, would help in explaining the relationship between God and His creation(s). He loves us all as His children, and we all, currently, are on an equal plane with respect to His love. We are all imperfect, and in sin, and His desire and power to free us from all evil is equal. But there will come a point where, if we do not chose to accept such, that we, of our own choice, will limit how much we permit God to express His love, and it would at some point seem to affect His actual love for us if we became terminally beings that he could not love without defying His own Holiness. (Again this is not set in stone truth, these are simply my scattered thoughts on such displayed with the hopes to refine such into a well ordered, and as pure as possible) This is both a testament to God's current love for us, as well as his 'love' for truth. The very fact that he will permit us to a path of self-determination, the fact that he will also grant all the materials necessary for such AND provide away to obtain his aid to leave the difficulties we place on ourselves, is a demonstration of His love.

I hold to the belief that God has told us concerning His view that "...the worth of souls is great in the sight of God;" This would make a great deal of sense if we consider the possibility that we can sever, through our own choice, a connection which God takes a great deal of joy in. His love for us, under this theory, would have the joy He has for us, due to the Love he extends toward us, as being eternal. For if his love for each one of us is eternal, for us to cut that off would sever an entire eternity of love, at least in some degree. This would explain the great expediency God expresses despite the fact that he's eternal and self-sufficient in all ways. It would seem that this would be the only way a being such as himself could suffer outside of the Atonement. That brings to mind the concept of suffering and it's seemingly eternal nature. If God could not feel sorrow then could he feel joy? I mean if there was nothing ventured, if it was a sure thing that his creation would chose Him then could it really be joy to be connected to such robotic beings?

More later.

--Find the Hive