Theos-Talk Archives (October 1997 Message tl00250)

Nicole Suter wrote:
> 
> To Bart Lidofsky: "The reason is trivial: Ego conflict without a binding
> tradition."
> 
> Trivial - does it mean it has tree parts? Could you please explain what kind
> of ege-conflict you mean? What kind of binding tradition are you speaking
> about? I would be thankful for your help.

	Trivial, as in near-obvious, simple, ot requiring much thought.

	Essentially, in these groups, two people have a disagreement as to what
to do, and neither will back down. Members pick one of 3 sides: 1) The
first person is right, 2) The second person is right, 3) They're BOTH
wrong, and should shut up.  If the group has a tradition, then members
have something to hold to, and use it to get past the fight. With no
tradition, the group has no particular reason to stay together, and
falls apart.

> 
> "> I take dropping the ego to mean not letting it be center stage.  What do you
> > see as the magic ingredients making that possible?
> 
>         Other way around. It is the ingredient that makes magic possible."
> 
> I do not understand how you mean that. Could you please explain how
> an ingredient makes magic possible?

	The high level of predictability of profits in casinos proves that
psychic ability/magic is almost certainly not based in ego. Therefore,
to properly utilize magic, one must be able to put one's ego aside.

	Bart Lidofsky