Thanks for explaining that in some detail. I think we go about connecting to new posters in different and sometimes opposite ways. And I am using what your way discovers about someone as I hope you are mine. I try for rapport an common ground and you break rapport and see how they react. Both seem valid and suite our own personality and interests here.
Seeing if a person can discuss their inner life in a non defensive manor is certainly a prerequisite to being able to hang, and we are both sensitive to the implications of claims of higher states with regard to what kind of higher ground they are claiming in a discussion. I think we both have a pretty negative reaction to that. But I don't share your conclusions about what it shows about the "ego". In my model it reveals the health of emotional and intellectual boundaries. It they are healthy and strong then we can discuss. But if they are not, then there is a fragility of personality that I want to respect. To answer your first question, I didn't miss your point but I did miss some of your motivation so thanks for clearing that up. Personally I think MZ is going to stimulate a LOT of discussions with posters here and I am all for that. --- In [email protected], turquoiseb <no_reply@...> wrote: > > --- In [email protected], "curtisdeltablues" <curtisdeltablues@> > wrote: > > > > -- In [email protected], maskedzebra <no_reply@> wrote: > > > > > > I am, via your post, alerted to the contingent solipsistic > > > tendency in meI have never shaken this since I was a small > > > child. But you are the first person on this blog to convince > > > me I should be aware of the need to mortify this temptation > > > whenever my putative enlightenment is undergoing a vivisection. > > > > It kind of comes with the territory of discussing your > > experience doesn't it? I wasn't suggesting that you were > > more that way than I would be if I were doing the same. It > > wasn't as pointed as that. I was speculating on why Turq's > > reaction was different than my own in relating to you here. > > I could understand why he went that way, but for me it is > > not how I believe I will get the most from our interaction. > > I would never take part in a vivisection of someone's > > important inner life. > > I'm curious, Curtis, as to whether you think that's > what I was doing -- trying to slice and dice his > "important inner life." From my side, what I thought > I was doing was saying that I didn't CARE much about > his inner life, and that it wasn't important to me. > > As for vivisecting claims of supposed higher states > of consciousness, Yes, I sometimes indulge in that > (although I don't think I was in this case). I find > it's an interesting way to see whether someone who > claims to have achieved a state beyond ego or small > self or whatever can walk the talk of their claim. > > As we have seen in the past, some can and some can't. > > I think that Tom Traynor did a pretty good job of > presenting himself as somewhat self realized on this > forum, without feeling the need to lash out at those > who might not either buy it or be impressed by it. I > think that Dr. Pete, in the rare times that he's made > suggestions about where he's at, has similarly mainly > walked his talk. I think that Rory, in his most recent > appearance on this forum (as opposed to his earlier > playdates) did a pretty good job of keeping it in his > pants, emotional-reaction-wise. > > Others...uh...not so much. As I've said before, I don't > think we can "vivisect" what is essentially unprovable. > Those who claim to be in higher states of consciousness > are undoubtedly having *some* experience. What it is > neither I nor (in my opinion) they can really say. It's > when they (as blastedactresses has pointed out so well > recently) try to turn their subjective experiences into > some kind of "truth" or pronouncement that I might be > tempted to have a little "Let's poke at the supposedly > enlightened person and see if there's really no self > in there or whether there's a really BIG one waiting > to lash out in defensiveness and anger" fun with them. > > Like blastedactresses, I do not buy that anyone can > extrapolate from their subjective experience something > called truth. In my view, whatever they experience is > nothing more -- or less -- than subjective experience. > As such, there is nothing that I or anyone else can say > to prove or disprove it. > > When they cross the line from relating a subjective > experience to making pronouncements about what that > experience "means," and calling those pronouncements > "truth," I might try to remind them that what they're > saying may be nothing more than opinion, and thus no > more "truth" than anyone else's opinion. ANYONE > else's opinion. And that includes supposed holy men > from the present or past. I don't swing behind the > idea that ANY of their opinions is "truth." >
