The shrill bitch who believes that aliens use fields of wheat as their coloring books and who can't stop obsessing on me: > > > > He also has an overwhelming fear of authority of any > > kind, because he's a control freak. To find wisdom > > in what an authority says--even via thoughtful > > personal interpretation--is anathema to him, because > > it would mean the authority knows something he does > > not, and that's unacceptable to Barry; it would mean > > he'd have to give up the notion that he is completely > > in control.
John from Brazil: > > He'll never admit it. His ego is just too invested in his act. This isn't at all true, John (do.rflex John). I was being very, very polite with the other John, in a "this isn't worth pursuing" kind of way. I find wisdom in *many* books of fiction, some of them Indian, some of them Western. But I never consider them anything other than fiction. And I won't pretend that they are "authorities" just because I found wisdom in these works of fiction. Hell, I used Stephen King as an example of another fiction writer, and I've found more wisdom in his books than I ever found in the Bhagavad-Gita. But that does NOT make Stephen King an "authority" of any kind. ALL that it means is that I found wisdom in something he wrote. In the preceding threads, the other John kept imply- ing that what the "vedic literature" said about the senses or about drugs that were still a couple of thousand years from being invented when the "authority" he's invoking wrote his stuff was *correct*. He gave no reason why he felt that it was correct *except* that it was part of the "vedic literature." It would seem that his only reason for believing that it is correct is that it comes from a set of books that HE has come to consider "wisdom," books that were written back in some fairytale age that cannot be found in recorded history. I don't buy it. I don't think that the writers of the Vedas knew all that much more than a lot of people do today. I don't hold any of the "today" people as "authorities," either, and I'm certainly not going to hold any of these writers of old Indian fairytales as "authorities." You might, and that is your privilege. But I don't have to. When I see a fairytale, I have a right to call it a fairytale, even if you or anyone else considers it holy scripture. That is what I did. If the other person *continues* to invoke the fairytale as if what the fairytale says somehow "trumps" the things I believe, then I laugh at them and politely beg out of the conversation. That is also what I did with the other John. What's the *alternative*? What do you want me to "admit" to? That there are people who know things I don't? Well, duh. OF COURSE there are. But that doesn't make them "authorities," merely people who know things that I don't. And that doesn't mean that I have to believe any of the things they believe, either. They are *welcome* to know the things they know and believe the things that they believe, and other people are *welcome* to consider them "authorities" if they want. But I don't have to. I think what you're really pissed off about is that I class the writers of so-called Indian "scriptures" in the same category as Stephen King. OK, that IS a little unfair. King is a *much* better writer than any of the authors of "vedic literature," and IMO often conveys a great deal more useful information about how to live a fulfilling life than they do as well. But that doesn't make him any kind of "authority" figure for me, any more than the fact that a few of the things in the "vedic literature" that make sense to me make the people who wrote them any kind of "authority" for me. I just don't DO "authority." I take what is said at its face value, irrespective of who said it or when. If what is said resonates with me, cool. If it doesn't, cool. In neither case is the author any kind of "authority," merely somebody who wrote something. Get a grip. These people were just people.
