Okay, now to try to organize a workbook is one thing. I'm kind of confused by it, because there's so much of it. And we find that if you take one subject, it's spread around, it's woven through the whole thing. So you end up having to take up a fragment here and put it in there. And if you set out to read the text continually, what can you find? Well, it's heavy work, because, you know, so much literary matters. It pulls in things from philosophy, poetry, a lot of allusions and texts that you're not familiar with. So it's hard work, actually. So you can do as much as you want. Meanwhile, in the class, we'll touch the iceberg. Now, today, I'd like to go a certain ways through it. And then, next time, on the basis of what we've been doing, if you wish to read those texts, I mean, for a reason, of course, we can discuss those points, and then we'll go on to our next three workbooks. Now, this one page is for hypnosis and astronomy.

[01:06]

There's a list of topics. So we'll take one after the other, as we go through. Now, most of them are in the order in which we find them three years in a row. So, three years, check for that. So you'll find a column, Goyer, Petrie, Goyer, Petrie. So you can find it as you go through there. Then, for some of the main topics, there are some texts in the missing column on the list of them. So, go back to the right. With the book of astronomy, the chapter number, and the patron. The text, as you can see, is tedious. So, I'll end it with a few things. Originally, I was thinking of working with just five categories. The first would be the relation of narcissism and philosophy. The third would be the narcissism itself.

[02:07]

And the fourth would be the idea of philosophy. And the fifth, as we've seen, is looking for a question in which we see what it is. We'll try to do this in the first few minutes. And that's where we'll follow up. And if you take the chapter, Goyer, which you were talking about, the introduction to a general question goes up to page 263. And it starts on Clement III. He's talking about Clement's general approach to his other works, which we've already talked about. So, it gets to the idea of the Gnostic. We're at the bottom of page 265.

[03:08]

And that's where we'll begin looking. Or, rather, we'll begin on the work of George. So, the other page, which we'll flip back on. Narcissism is coming up. Now, here, we run up against something. We didn't find it here in the next. We found it in the opposite. We know we're running into it. We found it in the first. But it's especially striking in this chapter. The reason being because he really tries to merge it with Greek philosophy and Christian theology here. This is the point where he really tries to permeate it into, I mean, he's riveted it to that emerge, at least to me, but he's looking for the merge of Christian theology. Because there's a way that it's within Christian scriptures. He tries to join philosophy, which is right at the top of his work, which he calls the eclectic philosophy, to Christian theology.

[04:13]

And the reason why it's important is this is the point of the tradition for us. If you compare Herodotus with Pliny, you see it. And we also see what? And we see the effect that it has on Christianity. So we need to be sensitive to what he's doing. Now, usually, we'll find whether to say Goyae or Sophia, and that's a pretty realistic comparison, whether it's Herodotus or his first-day Christian teacher. Goyae, a bit, tends to do that. He either defends it and says that it's a good work of his, or he'll think that it's a manslaughter by the teacher of the school. But it's rather nuanced. It's part of the tradition. There's something we've all said, something very deeply about Mr. Christianity,

[05:14]

and this idea of perfection in the masterpiece. When you begin to equate Christian perfection with this particular work, it's something that the state of the tradition focuses on. It's not entirely wrong, and it's not entirely right. It's not all right. There's a serious distortion. And that's where we're at. So it's like the whole frontier of our Christianity, that we've got this marriage, the widest frontier of this marriage of Christianity, the marriage of Christian experience with the existing culture, all the way down to the marriage of Christianity with Greek philosophy. I don't think I understand more what's the idea of the master, the idea of the contemplative intellectual,

[06:17]

as the idea of Christian perfection. And I note that this enters into apostasy. It enters apostasy. If you recall, in many of the libraries, we were able to write a specific version. You see, from my point of view, I don't know whether you can make a point, but one of the things that defined it was, in the Christian master tradition, or the Christian tradition, that there's really more to it. Okay, we're in the middle of 265. Certainly, everything that Cormac writes is steeped in intellectuality, which was sometimes even a little overwritten for the decadent intellectuals. But the moral concern remains dominant throughout, and it's a very spiritual aspiration. So we've got three levels there, the intellectual, the moral, and the spiritual. And it's all a total disappointment, or an ointment, I suppose, in a good sense, in the way that it is.

[07:18]

The intellectual is there, and it's not implicitly Christian. It's very much opposed. Remember Assel's expression, The poor, the weak, and the implicitly corrupt. Now, Cormac is coming, and he brings in to this channel all kinds of greater than that, and he's a mistaker. But what stays there is the more strong spirit of tradition. I'm stating, for the record, that his whole work, in particular the stromata, is dominated by the ideal of the pre-master. Now, Boyer is always doing this kind of defensive work. As you know, it wasn't part of the pre-master. It still doesn't work that way. But it is part of the pre-master. Not entirely, because, all of a sudden, the word pre-master is very much opposed to that. And then there's probably a fourth epitaph in there. But it was pretty simple to find this.

[08:20]

But nowhere does it become so professionalized and specialized as it has. As it's specialized, there is a specialization. It's the center of us, the root pieces. OK, the ideal of the master. Here he gives us a few definitions. We can take these preliminary definitions. Here's number two. Here are several elements to give us a preliminary sketch. Boyer says it's something like this. Now, remember that gnosis is the obsession also with the root. It's the center of gnosis. Here are the notes that characterize our master. And they include, first, contemplation through the word. Then, according to the precepts, finally, instruction through the mind. Contemplation, action, and instruction.

[09:26]

And where do you start? First, it's an escalator. It's the tradition of the school itself. Teaching of the world. And Boyer is continually there to help establish that this is a good person to be. This is a genuine patient. Some people say genuinely Jewish. I suppose I ought to say that. Remember how the knowledge of God itself, and the prophetic tradition, is obedience to God, or is living in the way of God. So that's according to the precepts. Finally, the third layer is definitely helpful. The third layer is everything depends. Does that deal with the nine forms of all the scriptures in the history of St. Paul? Now, notice that the root gnosis for the word theory is sometimes a means for contemplation. Here, it's an integral of this gnosis of a scriptural mystery.

[10:30]

The mystery of Christ to St. Paul. So it's not simply a form of contemplation. It's not an example of another form of meditation. It's a total form of meditation. Now, a couple more definitions. Gnosis. This is on 266. Just a couple more. It is the principle and author of neurognosis, or eschatology, that every action is a component of a gnosis. Now, notice that he seems to be putting gnosis in the place of faith. He makes it the principle of life, the principle of Christian life. Now, we can object to this substitution, or we can find it enriching, in the sense that it really is faith, that it's illuminating. In other words, faith is not just the bare faith that we love to have.

[11:35]

So, faith is not simply what he seems to be doing, gnosis, in the word of God. Faith is also the light. It's an element of gnosis. And here's another definition. An energy, which is the purification of the holy being, the soul, that would be the purification of the soul. Purification of the intellect, for example, is a purification in the principle of creation. You see, there's a theology, there's a thought structure, in which this gnosis, which is illuminated faith, relates you to the logos. It illuminates, it clarifies, relates you to the logos, and, basically, somehow, there's a way that it illuminates. And, here's the principle of the way that we're able to do it. It's a good purification, gnosis.

[12:38]

And then, when it's a matter of understanding the scriptures, we can forget that that's important, because it talks so much about philosophy, but it certainly doesn't make perfect philosophy. It basically misses its point. That's the principle of the way. And according to the canon of the Church, it's the most important thing. Now, I'm backing up a little bit. The way it doesn't talk here is much about faith, but when it talks about greater knowledge, it's much more important, and there are other, there are other mechanisms. One of our books here, this is the second book of this kind, and it has a lot of material. It's largely about faith. And it shows you, the first book of this kind is largely about philosophy, and the second book, as if to be honest, is about faith. It's as if it's there in the fabric,

[13:43]

basically, in the rules of faith against the processes. And I was reading this in the text and there was a particular piece, and one of the stories of this is not told in a particular text that we're talking about. But if you have those various masters, that's in page 347. If you don't have 347, you're studying 348, chapter 2. I just skim off a few notions of faith that you may just not be aware of. That's it. Chapter 2, the knowledge of God can be obtained only through faith. And then it starts everything in a Greek or a Roman fashion. And what he's distinguishing is a human thought, not what you're speaking about, but a thought. And only God has the ability

[14:45]

to give you the knowledge of faith. And he does it with word. And it's faith that attaches itself to word, which we'll listen to in a moment. But clearly, he's reversing it. The barbarian philosophy, when he says barbarian philosophy, he means Jewish, Christian, or the Jewish, he's distinguishing the Greek philosophy. The barbarian philosophy, which we follow, is, in reality, perfectly true. And so it is said in the Book of Rishon Lezion, given that the inner knowledge of things that exist in modern institutions of the world says the way they work. Moving on to the virtues of religion. Now, what he's doing here is putting no knowledge of religion. This is a risky business. A way that denies faith to natural philosophy, for instance. As if they were simply

[15:45]

of the same genus. And he puts it, that's why it's a risky business. But you're going to find that he makes parallel with me that by time, because of faith, faith relates with the people that come after you, that there's a lot more that exists, and so does your faith. So, when it's declared that you're a Christian, it was a risk. It doesn't look like that everybody's a Christian, so it wouldn't necessarily be the right strategy. I guess I can talk for a few more minutes, since it's not the same if you're not a Christian. It's only that if you're a Christian, the only distinction between what's a physical and a religious is the sense of that between the two. The only distinction

[16:47]

between the two is that you're a Christian. If you mix those two distinctions, that is the danger of being a Christian. You know what I mean. I'll give you an example. He's a Catholic. [...] A lot of Christians are Catholic. So, he's not a Christian. Jesus Christ was a Christian, if you're a Christian. That's very good. He was the prophet of God. He was a prophet of God. Not really a person. It's really that he was a man Anyway, early on in the 20th century,

[18:09]

we had to really sort of remodel the world how it is in the world today. It's fascinating the fact that there's a lot more reason to see this. I'm worried that the secular philosophy and the way in which we're able to do so. Because the philosophy of secularism is given so poorly, particularly in terms of inspiration, and that's what we're here for. When you speak of abstractionism, the abstractionism of inspiration is what we're able to do in that relationship. We're continuing in Chapter 2

[19:14]

is continually confirming this necessity of faith for understanding. I just want you to look at this. Except you believe, either shall you understand. But faith, he says, which the Greeks disparaged, even included in Progress, is a voluntary preconception of the essence of faith. And here it gets pretty deep, this notion that faith is a preconception, right? In other words, if you want to learn something, you have to give something. We don't realize we're doing that, and we're so used to it. But if you want to learn, you have to extend faith, for instance, in that what is going to be told to us is true, and that's what we're doing. But we actually, in the faith that we extend to the teacher, have a preconception of what we want to learn. It's almost like we put the faith in somebody

[20:18]

that he contains. He contains what we're going to learn. So we put our faith in the whole, which is a person. And in that way, we're able to receive that which is in the whole. But that Christian faith is a preconception. We apprehend it as we want to. You see what that does? It universalizes the idea of faith. You begin to be able to think of Christian faith, the faith of Judeo-Christian evolution, or whatever, in a way which relates to evolution. They have something to do with it. They universalize it. We have to universalize it. We can't decide

[21:26]

two, three, four, five... Faith, then, is not established by the administration. In other words, there's no administration beside itself. The voice of God is the administration. The voice of God is the people. And after all, this is it. And this is the key, I think, to the whole thing. When God speaks, that is the absolute authority of the church. And how do you turn to that speech of God? That's the question. The scriptures are important. The church is important. And then it says something I don't care about. The sirens seem to be living in the power of heaven, and passing over those who came near, consoling and honest against their woes, and reception for the sick. You see what begins to occur when you look at faith as kind, or a being of challenge, or a sinner, or those who have been reported in the name of Christ. Chapter 2, faith is not a product of nature. Today's argument is to ask us to say that some people have faith in nature.

[22:27]

But he's insisting that they will, as he continues interjecting, faith. We who have heard by the scriptures that self-determining choice and the power to say yes or no, the power to believe or to disbelieve, have been given by the Lord to invest in the power of our faith and manifest in the Lord's will. Since we have chosen life and believed that it is His, and we who have believed the Lord knows the matter to be clear, and the word is clear. So, as you can see, it's right to expect Jesus to manifest the will of the others. He goes on with a preconception of man at the bottom of 3.49,

[23:39]

3.50, and we'll continue. And Epicurus. Epicurus, too, supposes faith to be a preconception of man. Without preconception, no one can either inquire of God or judge or even know God. How can one without a preconceived idea of what he's aiming at to learn about that which is the subject of his investigation? Yes. Oh, yes. In the Scholastics, of course, we understand something about that. We establish that faith is equal to superstition. Now, but here is to understand this,

[24:44]

that faith is nothing else than a preconception of the divine. No one shall learn anything at all without faith. It's no one's answer without faith itself. Unless you believe, how will you understand? Thank you. I didn't find it. I didn't find the whole text. Maria brings up the question, which has troubled a lot of people. Some of the texts... This is in, I remember, 6, the esoteric tradition of Nelson. Some of the books that come and make it seem that there is an insider tradition is that there are things in Revelation which were not in the common tradition, were not in the... And the surface of this book is not kind of nonverbal,

[25:46]

but it's inward to it, and so forth. But the text of the book is not like that. It's not like the esoteric religious traditions. So, what, of course, would be nonverbal? But what he means by esoteric is something that requires study, it's something that requires the purification, and if it requires a change of person, it requires an initiation. But it's not a separate secret. I've been given a task as a real person, to do it, and so on. And to do whatever I do is the first, and the second, and the third, and the fourth, and the fifth, and the sixth, and the seventh, and the eighth, and the ninth. And the only thing is to do something new. And these things are the things that I do. What does that mean?

[26:50]

It's as if there were a weapon. There could be a separate tradition for us. I don't know. But you could be, too, as a real person, Jewish, especially Jewish, esoteric.

[28:01]

Because there's esoteric in the Hebrew language. There's a hope of love, too. So this is very interesting. The difference between contemporary politics and esoteric politics is a little bit different. Because you have to do what you have to do to see what the tradition is. This is a little bit of a mystery.

[29:12]

So, for years, for 30 years, we've mastered this as an esoteric. We've continued to use it as an esoteric. Unfortunately, my wife is a woman, so I have to get rid of her. But, uh, I've heard the word of God. The key master of the Holy Temple, Baruch Heeder, who represented Baruch Heeder, he made a similar book about the idea of perfection and power. And he wrote a whole book about that. Actually, it's in the Testament, still in the Word of God. You've got to have hope. You've got to have hope. And you have a feeling that you're going forward and you're going forward. So, what he's saying is that this is his way forward. This way forward. All right. The content of his apparently esoteric tradition seems to be exactly the same as that of the Apostles.

[30:27]

So, the inside of Moses is the allegorical interpretation of the Christian exegesis. So, I don't know if we were hearing answers to that. I don't know if they interpret the scriptures in the same way. You can say that there's an esoteric tradition, an esoteric meaning inside of the allegorical description. Everybody represents that. And in the original version of the Bible, it's almost like a story. Whichever version you prefer. Amen. If somebody tells you to agree with that, you're going to believe it. But it's in the exegesis. It's actually in the original version. There's a great contradiction in the way that the seed belongs to everybody, that one man is kingly, and the other kingly to officials. The earth has come and gone, but the one God is over, and the God of the world.

[31:32]

And the world is over. So, when we read this picture, one God is simply faith, and the other is power, and the common God. And it's still in the original version of the pre-Hebrew exegesis. Notice the two levels here. The level of simple faith. Faith. The level of life. And then something superior to that morality is the level of exegesis. And that is the perfection, which is gnosis. So, as we sort of close in on this idea of gnosis, we notice that it's the same thing. And that means that all of us, the way that we produce perfection, the way that we refine it, is that we all think we are gnostic. We all focus on power. We find an inner state, an inner condition of perfection, an inner devotion to perfection. Perfection is a certain form of survival, and the process of perfection. The lack of tension between power and illumination of power.

[32:39]

And innocence contains a worth of perfection. So, two points of perspective. I'm just saying that it's the same as in the original exegesis. We're going to run into a big subject of gnosis and progressive gnosis. The way I see it is that this is the original. It's bringing into relation, really, Christian relation, the Christian understanding of gnosis, and great philosophy. And this I'm real proud of, and this I suppose is important. The real originality of the exegesis of gnosis, and this is exactly what the Greek philosopher, more exactly the encyclopedic philosopher, I'll take home to me, all of the sciences that he enumerates, and he tells us all of the rhythms of the human being's time. So, by that,

[33:42]

it's really an understatement. Now, the thesis a little later on, assumes that this is not part of the thesis, it's a preparation, called a prokaryotic. Now, this is a thesis that we really have to consider. Is philosophy, or is remedy, a preparation for gnosis, a preparation? Because, you know, the training in science, which we're going to, we're going to look at it as a philosophy, we're going to look at it as a remedy, we're going to look at it as a philosophy, and we're going to look at it as a preparation. If you begin to think of philosophy as a preparation for the understanding of scripture, you may never quite get to the meaning of the scripture. So, now we're going to give you an introduction to the meaning of the scripture. If you begin to read the Bible, you're going to do it the first time, and you're going to observe the lack of a proper perspective

[34:46]

of the scripture, and you're going to miss the point. So, if you're close enough to the vision, the meaning of the scripture, you're not going to be able to look at the philosophy of the meaning of the scripture. So, you're going to have that pressure to be able to use it in the scriptures, to bring it to relationships, to be able to work with the Christian tradition. But, would it be correct to say that it's an appropriate way of stating it? You might say that, well, it's not an appropriate way of stating it. It's okay if it's an appropriate way of stating it, if it's an appropriate way of stating the scriptures. However, it's a valid component in the Torah, if we look at it very closely. Because, in a sense, the scriptures explain themselves. It seems that in a natural appropriate way,

[35:48]

the scriptures explain themselves. And if you bring it to a whole new person, say, and bring it to a whole new new mystical person, it's appropriate. Now, when you touch the Torah, the Torah is a treasure to come. He gives this measure of passion through all of his discipline, what he does in the second period of knowledge. He gives it to him, he gives it to the man, he gives it to the woman, he gives it to the man. And the rest of the species of wisdom is different, you see. How can you tell the fruit of the knowledge which he gives to the distinguished Torah, to the extremely erudite to the great intellectual people? How many of you have ever visited one of his works, one of his articles, one of his works?

[36:49]

He says it was by studying his work in the book. Look at what it says. All that he is doing is such a big dream is not to do it. He is not able to do it. He is not able to do it. He is not able to it. He very important for Christian people. He finds

[37:54]

divisions genus and species were erudite, distinguished from each other by the rise of a sepulchral primal, as it were, in the process of analysis. Now, what is it? Is it good? Apparently, children frightened by masks feel the philosophy of the beast, a little bit like that anyway. Just like Christians who respect the East, or will be respectful of secular schools of thought. If we are scared of the battle of the sun, or of the war of the sun, or of the rise of fire, which is not a war of the sun, but a sacrifice of the sun, under the name of the beast, the one thing to be afraid of the battle of the sun would be to say that it is not a war of the sun, but possibly a war of the beast. There's an element of power in the way

[38:54]

that we are aware of the beast, and the way that we are also aware of the beast, and the reason for it. And also, one of the members of the group is going to be a lot more numerous than the others in the class. But in faith, this diagnosis is so weakly written as to be described as vicious as one would think. What if we say, since there are no wars in the Middle East, what if you said the truth of the Middle East would be completely positive? What if there were wars? It's good. It's good, it's good, it's good. People need to be, in some way, guided. The theory is what it is, that if you're not guided, then you shouldn't be protected.

[39:55]

The science of the Gnostic is for him an exercise preparatory to the exact possession of the truth, to the extent that this is possible. So science is preparatory. And for the reputation of sophisticated discourses, we've seen that the progress of a group that is not going to retire after the post-election victory has been in order to coerce him. First, we have to define the world, so that even when we don't know the truth, the purpose of it has been in order to coerce him. Against the Gnostics, it's not really a question just to stay within the terms of scripture. I think it is. Herodotus was the most powerful defender of Christian history, of Christian truth, of these Gnostics, and he stayed within the limits of scripture. But there are other... That was because people do that, because Gnosticism is a displacement of both secularism and Christianity. But some of the other distortions have gone on more so in such a way

[41:51]

that the work of insight with scriptural reading interpreted a biblical passage without reference to the whole secularity and put the frame of the whole thing. So, in that case, you really have to bring in the other vocabulary very often to try to do this. The question was, if somebody had asked you to close out the book, would you close it? You can't really do that, because it's a biblical book, so how do you do that? You need to get it out. It's not a question, it's not a thing of what I do to you, it's not a question. You were there for the record,

[43:19]

not knowing what the text of the book was. But if you're not studying the essential, you will regard them as unnecessary, as secondary, as less material, as if they were any more important. But the parameters of accuracy used to deceive must have been used to prove it. There are two places where the ways in which John Paul and Paul of Jesus metaphors for Gnosticism, but one is the aim of Gnosticism. But the other place is not sure. It says that Gnosticism is like the shadow of God. He is the person of God. He is the person of God. And then the other place goes a little bit. It says that Gnosticism would be like the discernment of Gnosticism. In other words, it's not the essence of the world, it's something other, more external, more true, in Gnosticism.

[44:20]

Those are two extremes. And then there are the particular uses of Gnosticism. And one of the points that I want to make is that it says that Gnosticism is a holy Christian faith. It holds that Gnosticism. As if, when you look at the Bible, it's a mirror of Gnosticism. It hasn't been written in the Bible as a Gnostic. In the very first chapter, the first point, it says to the world, it's saying that he's going to impose and to make a Christian faith in the Holy Church of Gnostic. But farmers are very grateful

[45:26]

when they do farming, so we also water with the liquid stream of wheat there, so that it is earthy, so that it may receive its purge by seed cast down into the earth. And they be careful when they do Gnosticism. It's common to look at the pain and truth mixed up in the darkness of Gnosticism, the darkness of Gnosticism. A lot of public order and thinking is the other whole part of a Gnosticic faith. For in my opinion, it is putting seeds of truth into the heart of your faith, not as a faith in Gnosticism. It is at the root of the Christian truth, the revelation of the One True Church, for example. And then it will help you. And he speaks continuously to a headache there, in a Christian community. And then, when he tries to analyze the kind of a circle,

[46:28]

the uses of philosophy, the first of all, this is an old saying, the contributions of philosophy are generally because they need for love. For all that they do not constitute Gnosis, and not even part of it, are they Gnosis. They don't constitute Gnosis by any falsehood. They are preceders to become Gnosis, not by the truth. They seek a provision to be true. On the contrary, the error of the falsehood is not to be considered Gnosis. It is actually the wish to be called Gnosis that started from here, philosophy, is not to be considered Gnosis. And this is the important thing that we need to remember. Now, we all ask ourselves, well, why? What is that question? Whether he takes philosophy from here, and learns the scriptures from here. See, that's the big question on the way he's dealing with this. Whether he hasn't already, whether the revelation

[47:30]

has to be a choke point, a point of choke point, a focal point, in the world, and that's a problem. That's a problem, isn't it? You know, it's not a fixed point. It's a problem. Where in that is the usefulness of his head? On the one hand, the defensive use, and on the other hand, the positive use. Now, the defensive use is twofold. I'd say one of them is kind of, one of them is the moral use. I mean, the moral use, the moral use is introduced. But, whether those two are used distinctly, often, or not, I assume, for example, the moral use.

[48:31]

He probably would use it directly, so that he doesn't have to say, you know, he doesn't have to. But further, at least, what I mean is that, in the course of his, in the course of his work, the moral use is introduced. But, whether the physical world is used, if there is this moral use, I mean, a similar occasion with fitness, whether you could clarify this information as being the same, or a different, a different position. But, on the question of the physical world, it's obvious that we need to discover its spiritual use. Its spiritual use. You know, this person, or, and this is a surprise, but, in understanding the symbolic, moral, transparency of creation, of the physical world, one can make references to that, at least, in this context.

[49:35]

The perception, in this world, we see and hear, the problem of those spiritual existences. It's interesting, if you were to, I mean, largely, degeneralize it, because that would just be a very rational person, looking at the person, not the person himself, looking at the creation. Remember that the energies for the works, are not determined in terms of their spiritual intelligences, their spiritual, their intelligence, as they are. Gnosis causes us to attain the highest sense of all things, and only to intellectualize its importance in the practices of this world, or here. I mean, it's discovering the inner ethic in the cosmos, and associating the spiritual

[50:38]

with the process by which it's supposed to be the works of this world. In general, you have these three levels, and I don't know whether this has a place in your life. On the level of the sensible, on the level of the intellectual, the spiritual, the feelings, not many will be aware of it. This is an important, important realization, most of us. Sensible, physical things, and then some kind of intermediate beings, which are intelligible, intellectual beings, or roots. And then finally, the soul. I must leave. I must leave. The question is,

[51:44]

to whom do I give this? I give to you. I give to this. [...] Yes. You are good. We leave. We leave. I give to this. [...] We are great. We are great. And today will seem to be especially worthy, such worthy, such I don't know, I never understood what he thought they were, because, aside from the material

[52:53]

and the natural conditions of this world, there's a big difference between what's the city inside and what's the city in front of it. I think that's a big difference. Yes. It's great to be able to say that the city in front of us is the city in front of us, because it's in human shape, it's in posture, it's in place, it has existence outside of us, simply because it changes the whole existence. It's partly because the human intelligence, I think, becomes the only reason for his existence, the reason for human intelligence equivalent to itself, children, right?

[53:54]

So, but also Protestantism is a great quality, it's a great quality, and it seems that it's pure faith, which goes straight to God. But that would be mediation, okay? So the mediation would afford you a solid world, and you would expect it to be a pure world. But also, implicitly, other mediation such as that would be useful. Then there's the power of the human. For Protestant faith, it seems that it's a great faith, a pure, easy faith, which also does without the intermediate faith. It doesn't admit that. Even if it has to, if there's an obstacle in the middle, it doesn't say, oh, there you go. You believe it, but you really don't say it. And also, it has to have a strong sense of freedom. The whole problem of the world is that it's built up there by the issues and facts. And then, it's lost. It's like a rock, you know. It's like a little piece of wood.

[54:56]

And you have to have a very strong sense of freedom. Because in many ways, the genuine world is the genuine world. And if you use it in such a way as you know it is, you're going to have to change. Because it's not a free world. It's a free world for you. It's a powerful world. It's a powerful world for you. It's a [...] world for you. And even creation assisting you in trying to re-explore It's not important to the whole. It would be worth physical things. We know what this is all about, of course, because we've read history of it. We don't think it's because of the old people. But the reason which makes us think and reflect on it, and it's all real, it's in our heart. It's in our heart. It grows consistently throughout the century. So reason is kind of a jealous factor.

[56:03]

The way our mind is, we can't put the word there. Reason is kind of part of it. Inspection, envy inspection. It causes ignorance. Ignorance. Ignorance. Then there's the personal pain. Ignorance. Okay, now. I'm not talking reason. We're going to look at what reason has become for us. That is, Cartesian reason. With all this proof, you've got to prove the physical science of itself, the physical physics. So reason itself is much deeper. For virtue, for reason itself is much deeper. Even faith is, we can say, is the operation of our reason. We can describe it. I think the reason is the time. The world is a time. But what reason has become for us? I'm not answering that question.

[57:04]

I'm not saying that reason has become for us. There's a place in all of us that we call reason. Now we have to learn how to reach that place in the world. And it becomes, it becomes a form of reason. I'm not sure if I caught that. I only know that both whispers are holding me. I hope it was an operation. I can hear the whispers more. What's the meaning of that? Well, part of it is the diminution of the substance itself.

[58:10]

It's a bit more symbolic of the whole thing. The fullness of the substance is a lot more than the fullness of the image. So the things are pretty much what they are. They have a significance, an important significance. In the earlier scripture, in the book of Genesis, in the early Hebrew scripture, it says, This is telling you that there's a lot of this mixed together. There's a lot of contrasting, mostly related things. But in the world of faith, a lot of the words are mixed together. It's a bit strange. I think perhaps that's enough for today.

[59:13]

Next time, first of all, if you want to bring up anything you'd like to bring up today, we can't move too quickly because there's a lot of departmental stuff. If you want, that's the first thing to come in, and then we can go over it the next time. If not, then we'll move on. If not, then we'll move on. I'm not sure how much of what I said wasn't true. I always say the truth. Let me give you a little suggestion. I don't know what it refers to here, but I think this is a good sort of equation for doing it. Welcome to suggestions. Next time? Okay. Now, I'd say finish the paragraph. Okay? It goes up to the bottom of 278.

[60:17]

And then we'll try to take some of these things together. If you don't have the text, all that we'll have, actually, is books one and two. It refers to those two subjects. The relation of this is to philosophy, and faith, those two subjects. That's why there's two subjects. That's why there's two subjects. Now, I would say that for reference material, if you might as well read the questions in the paper. Now it corresponds to the abstaining addition. So it doesn't matter. It's not easy to do.

[61:26]

If we had the mean value, we'd put three or four things in there. What we'll do, basically, for the rest of this lecture, use Boyer. That is, we'll refer to him. And then there are two subjects. One down to the right. And supplement it with some text. I have to post those after I read the text. See a change in the duration. I'm going to skip the duration. I'm going to use the rest of the text. I'm going to skip the rest of the text. I'm going to use the rest of the text. So, we'll do that. Of course, we could post it. But there is something that's not so clear.

[62:30]

Here it is. Here it is. That is the abdominal mass. It's the abdominal function of the human body. It's the abscess of the abdominal muscle. See it here. H нажM H J J G J J G J J J

[63:04]

@Text_v004
@Score_JI