--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Rory Goff" <rorygoff@> 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.
Their 'script' appears as a transcription of Timothy Leary heavily dosed out on LSD and babbling stuff only 'he' sees in his head - and that has ZERO actual value to anyone else.
