Making great progress with the next book.  Its well over two thirds completed now and looks as if it will meet the late Spring schedule.  There was (still is) great interest in the autobiography of course, but people seem to want the next one even more.  The reason is this will prove to be greatly controversial (that seems to be an ‘open secret’) and people just seem to love scandal!  Not that I’d personally call it ‘scandal’; it simply tells the truth about events as these actually happened fairly recently, and some of these are quite tragic if anything.  If there was any scandal involved at all; well, then this was created by the characters themselves. People really ought to think twice before putting untruth’s on public record!
 But its coming along nicely but, as I’ve already said, it will not be accessible on the Internet; although I may publish a few advanced extracts due to demand.  But then people will just have to go out and order it!
 

My recent Facebook membership has not really helped its progress though..  I have been besieged by PM’s and/or emails from people asking the most complex questions.  Answering questions takes time, of course, but as a dedicated author, I feel obliged to answer questions – at least, the serious one’s.  Let me explain:  most of the questions I receive on the main Wedsite are ‘filtered’ for me and then forwarded.  This itself saves a lot of work, but there are still quite a few personal queries to answer.
 I don’t mind too much if these  questions are simple, but when I get impossible one’s such as . . . “Can you define God?” I have to decline from answering.  I’m sorry Cassie!  Look, nobody can define THAT which is indefinable.  The closest I maybe got to doing this was by spending over 7 months on the James Randi Forum in the midst of dedicated sceptics.  What I was pointing out, I suppose, could be summarised in a few words:  If you want to understand Divine Principle (or prove that such exists) first you have to understand your own Consciousness.  For it is only this Consciousness that can connect us with God – there is no other way.  So that is really your answer, Cassie, to save me going through all that again!
 

But I did try, I can say that.  So maybe it wasn’t all a waste of time, in general anyway.  Though a bigoted minority could not understand what I was conveying,  and I was branded as a heretic or a ‘Satanist’ for my trouble!  How strange is petty human nature sometimes!
 Well its nearly 11 (pm) so I suppose I better get on with some more work.
 

I’ve still got to write to get that written apology from the TV people, but that can really wait – at least, for a little!
  For the moment everyone,
 David

  • reply David Farrant ,

    DEFINE DEFINITION
    Today’s Internet thinkers can certainly ask some tough questions, David, since Cassie wants you to ‘define God’. This reminds of when I was back in the sixth form, and studying chemistry amongst other subjects. A philosophy graduate challenged me upon my knowledge of this, and said: “Define matter”. All I could think of was to quote a textbook which began: “Matter. We shall attempt no definition”. To which he replied, “If you can’t define matter, how can you know anything about chemistry?” This was an academic joke, of course, but I doubt very much whether today’s (very vocal) materialists could define matter either. And if you can’t define matter, how can you expect to define something far more complex? Also, when I was twelve, we were taught that life has various characteristics, growth, feeding, reproduction, and so on, but even at that age it occurred to me that this was a description, not a definition, of life. No-one could define ‘a cat’, except in something like the ‘reductio ad absurdum’ sense suggested by Aleister Crowley, that it is an animal created by placing the letters C-A-T together. Precise definitions can only really be made of things that are in a sense human creations, as, for instance, when mathematicians define things like points and circles. The celebrated error of Copernicus was to assume that perfect circles have a real existence. Economists also have their definitions, but this is a most notoriously inaccurate science, as demonstrated by the way that we are all suffering from the world-wide ‘credit crunch’. Materialists of the Richard Dawkins (of whom ‘Dr. Who Magazine’ recently observed that he is unable to hold a conversation on any subject for long without stating that God does not exist) school, who would say that God is simply a fictional creation of human beings, ought then to be able to produce a definition, but not people of a religious outlook.
    Gareth J. Medway
    (Posted by David Farrant)

    Leave a comment