--- In [email protected], turquoiseb <no_reply@...> wrote: > > --- In [email protected], "Xenophaneros Anartaxius" <anartaxius@> > wrote: > > > > Turq's original 4 (or perhaps 3-1/2 or 3 questions). (Some slight > > emphasis added) (-: <snip> [quoting Barry from an earlier post:] > > > I'm serious in this, and will try my best not to dump on > > > anyone who replies with an opinion. I honestly don't know, > > > or don't remember. And it would help me with a writing > > > project if I were to know the distinction he was drawing, > > > or attempting to draw. Thanks in advance. > > > > Now, if Turq wanted to know what the distinction is, why would > > he be soliciting opinion, and regarding it as merely opinion... > > Duh. Because I believe that nothing exists BUT opinion?
If so, why did you say you wanted to *know* (see quote immediately above) the distinction MMY was drawing? <snip> > As it turned out, only two people here seem to have had > a clear enough memory of what Maharishi's opinion was > on this subject to put it into a clear explanation. Those > two people were, interestingly enough, Curtis and Vaj, > two people who don't have anything to do with the TMO > any more, and don't think that much of Maharishi. That > did not prevent them from remembering what he said. Except that the two of them remembered what he said quite differently, of course. <snip> > I do not delude myself -- as you seem to -- that some opinion > is "true" and other opinion "false." It's all opinion. I take > each opinion for what it is -- pure opinion -- and then form > my own opinions on the basis of other people's, bounced off > of opinions I've heard from other sources, my own subjective > experience, and my own intuition. That is what we ALL do -- you > included -- although some seem to "weight" certain opinions to > make it seem as if some of them AREN'T opinion but some kind > of "fact" or "truth." What some do that you resist mightily (when you think it serves you to do so, at least) is give weight to opinions depending on how well thought out they are, how logical they are, and to what degree they take consensus reality into account. Of course, you do this *yourself* when someone else's opinion differs from yours. > I get the impression that you're struggling mightily to draw > me into some kind of protracted discussion with you as if you > were worthy of my time in doing so. If that is your intent, > backtrack to a statement you made earlier and justify it. > > You said ( paraphrasing from memory, because at this point you > don't interest me enough to go look it up :-) that you (or one) > could "know" at least one thing. Here, let me help you out. He said: "There is probably just one thing one can really know, and what we know intellectually does not qualify for that experience." > What's that? > > How would you (or one) claim to "know" the truth or accuracy > of that thing? > > Ball's in your court, Chucko. Explain how someone could "know" > something that is based purely on their personal subjective > experience, and "know" it on the level of being absolutely > certain it is more than just opinion. I'll wait. :-)
