--- In [email protected], TurquoiseB <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
>
> --- In [email protected], "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.
>
Hilarious Barry, simply hilarious!!!
