--- In [email protected], Peter Sutphen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > I think the discussion has value not in statically > labeling and creating a stand-alone conceptual system, > but in a dynamic conceptual-experiential interaction.
Peter, thanks for your response, Your language is a bit obtuse for me, but if you are saying that there is much greater value in focussing on expriences and understanding and not on creating and debating increasingly complex and bizarre (IMO) systems to label and classify people and their experiences, then we agree. > Often I feel, akasha, that you are seeking some sort > of completely contradiction-free, coherent conceptual > system of higher states of consciousness. You may feel that, but it is polar opposite of what my posts are about. It is odd to see ones words flipped by a realatively intelligent guy. It makes mewonder how and why you read such into what I write. I will seek to be clearer. My constant themes themes have been: 1) as touched on above, constant labeling and classify people and their experiences is not productive. Use of loaded terms such as "enlightenment" are particularly strong roadblocks to clear communication and understanding. Creating and debating increasingly complex systems of alledgedly "higher states" is getting more and more bizzare and flim flamish and takes the discussion off actual experiences/understandings. 2) If people feel the need to label and classify themselves and others, fine, what ever makes people happy, even though IMO its a fool's exercise. However, if they use TMO or classic terms in their labeling exercises, then they should at least use these terms consistent with those traditions, or clearly state they are using the terms differently. Otherwise clear communication is severely clouded or simply shuts down. For example, Tom states he understands CC to be a state where a small self witness. I would have thought you would have gone postal with such nonesense -- given your history of rapid response, detailed and emphatic discourses in keeping such silliness at bay. But given Tom's stated uncerstanding, it helps me place his other claims and prouncements in perspective -- as well as Rory's since they claim to be speaking the same thing. Echoing Vaj, it would be quite funny if not so sad. And given that any attempted discussion of how their use of terms differs form the TMO and classic definitions, results in a barrage of logical fallacacies, particulurlay strawman arguments, and red herrings to keep the discussion off points they cannot effectively address. As Jack Nicholson said, quite metaphoricly" "We don't need no stinkin' badges". (That is, we don't need no stinkin labels and categories to have useful, knowledge exchanging discussions. To subscribe, send a message to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Or go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/ and click 'Join This Group!' Yahoo! Groups Links <*> To visit your group on the web, go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/ <*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] <*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to: http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
