--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, maskedzebra <no_reply@...> wrote: > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "PaliGap" <compost1uk@> wrote: > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, maskedzebra <no_reply@> wrote: > > > > > > ...Werner believes his metaphysical totalitarianism... > > > ...that might just smash open the metaphysical falseness... > > .... > > > Isn't there SOMEONE out there willing to become a devotee > > > of the ex-enlightened man? > > > > I would perhaps, if only I felt worthy! > > > > I understand "totalitarianism" - but what's "metaphysical > > totalitarianism"? > > > > I understand "falseness" - but what's "metaphysical > > falseness"? (An oxymoron in a more earthy philosophy?) > > > > I understand "metaphysical" - but what's..(heck, you get > > my drift!) > > > > I've noticed you have a nice line in "ontological" whatnots too. > > > > "Ontological" and "epistemological": You'd think they'd be > > ugly enough to be safe from kidnappers, wouldn't you. But no. > > RESPONSE: Eastern Bloc communist was a totalitarian political system. Werner Erhard's context is a totalitarian metaphysical system (i.e. there is only one truth, and you shall submit to it and no other: and not only that: YOU SHALL LIVE UNDER THIS TRUTH. Reality is what I, Werner, have proved to you that it is). Metaphysical totalitarianism, then, is consciously or otherwise living under a context in which you experience reality through the mind of someone other than yourself. In this case, Werner's mind. Just as all CubansI've spent time in Havanalive under the totalitarian mind (and system) of Fidel. >
[diffidently] So, er met.tot. is just tot.? Simpler, eh? [/diffidently] > Falsenness = something other than the truth (as measured by CONTENT). As opposed to measured by, what? "FORM"? Sorry, me no get it. > Metaphysical falseness = the apprehension of the universe and reality in a way which is not in accordance with the way the universe actually, objectively is, and what reality actually, bjectively is. OK... That what I just call "false". It saves a lot of typing. '"The cat is on the mat" is false' = the cat is not on the mat. Who needs metaphysics? > E.g. the metaphysical difference between believing in Fallen > Nature (Catholic) and believing in the divinity of the Self > (Hindu). That is not only a distinction of what is false > and what is true (either one or neither is true), Er... couldn't the divine [S]self have tripped? Or pretended to itself to trip. So both are true? > its implication extends to a determinative interpretation > of what reality is. Because when one goes through the death > experience, one will know: is it reincarnation for me, or is > it personal judgment?or something else. This is the metaphysics > of dying. Not just dying. I think what are you saying is this: There's dying, and then there's our beliefs about dying. When we die we find out if our beliefs about dying are true or false (which is quite possibly false. On one view we've all died a squidillion of times, yet we STILL don't know!).
