--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "curtisdeltablues" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Jim: from the perspective of dense waking state, it does sound ludicrous > > doesn't it? I'd stick to material science if I were you. > > > > On a serious note Jim: > > If you can understand this you will understand why you get accused of > using your self proclaimed state of consciousness as a position of > condescension to the rest of us. You and I have gone through most of > the levels of rapport and non rapport at different times. There is an > original side of you that I can relate to and I enjoy. > > But the statement above is obnoxious in every way to me. It is using > your self created position of superior awareness as a snide weapon, as > if you were talking down to a child. Referring to anyone here as > living in a "dense waking state" is simply rude. This is an extremely > conscious group of humans posting here, including the ones I disagree > with on a regular basis. > > I hope you can take a second to understand how offensive the posture > of intrinsic superiority contained in your comment is to me. And I > hope you also can consider that this perspective of intrinsic > superiority may be leaking out in your posts more than you realize. > It is an assumptive premise of superior consciousness. This is > completely different from people here attempting to show that they are > using superior reasoning skills or presenting facts unknown to the > person they are debating a point with. > > I dig you at the reindeer games Jim, but your nose isn't glowing > bright enough to guide our sleigh tonight. We killed Rudolph and are > roasting his ribs over the campfire. Pull up a chair man. > I was stating a conclusion based on Turq's misunderstanding and consequent condescending take on what Rory had originally posted.
Turq's condescension apparently escaped your sensitivity to being offended-- which leads to an obvious conclusion-- that you are not offended by comments which no matter how condescending, are in line with your values. My reply was meant to say, "Yes, I understand how you didn't understand a word of what Rory posted, because knowledge *is* different in different states of consciousness, and that you choose to take Rory's statement out of context and dismiss it as a joke. Therefore, to make yourself more comfortable, I suggest that you confine your musings in the future to the sensory comforts of material science." Better?
