--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Rory Goff" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > (P.S. It looks as though you've apparently chosen yet again > to ignore the main point of the post: the distinction between > sattva and purusha, or judging "it's a really, really *good* > movie" vs. actually freeing oneself from belief in the movie. > While I enjoy sattvic behavior as much as the next guy, judging > anyone's behavior as "enlightened" or "not enlightened" would > to me fall into the category of judging the quality of the movie.)
Ah, the light dawns. Rory and Jim just don't have any *discrimination*. It's all about upholding their moodmake-y views of their own states of consciousness, in the same way that Ed Wood actually believed that he was a good filmmaker. One *can* "suspend disbelief" and enjoy even an Ed Wood movie, but if one has been around the film block a few times, that suspension of dis- belief doesn't prevent one from knowing that one is watching a Really Bad Movie. The problem with you guys and your claims about your own states of consciousness is *not* that you don't believe them. I'm sure that you both believe them, and that, like Ed Wood, you believe that you're creating great works of "consciousness cinema" with your posts here. The problem IMO is that you're acting, and you're both really bad actors, What you mistake for high drama and uplifting cinema many of the rest of us -- our discrimination still intact -- see as a Really Bad Movie. Bottom line: moodmaking isn't enlightenment, unless your audience can be convinced to moodmake along with you. You guys just aren't that convincing.
