--- In [email protected], "PaliGap" <compost1uk@...> wrote: > > > > --- In [email protected], maskedzebra <no_reply@> wrote: > > > > --- In [email protected], "PaliGap" <compost1uk@> wrote: > > > > > > --- In [email protected], 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!).
RESPONSE: If you don't mind, Tom, I will send you my proposed postsbefore posting them. You can winnow them down into the limned prose and syntax that will insure that they have the optimal effect (on all these oh so subservient readers). Deal? I think I was just not prepared to be taken to the woodshed as I have beeneven as I have, so far at least, fought back against my tormentersor those who would punish me for my unconscious arrogance. Not to mention the convoluted, dense, fustian character of my prose style. Hey, give me a break! I'm only human. Trying to see whether my efforts at self-rehabilitation make me game-ready. For writing on this blog, OMG, it is a contact sport. But so far at least, I love it. Despite getting taken down a peg by critics such as yourself. Yeah, I never was that proud of my writing style. But if YOU KNOW THE TRUTH (as I always know I do, and have always known I did) why should I let a little awkwardness or bombast or abstraction get in the way of the message? After all, what I am hear for is to lead others towards the new Jerusalem. Don't worry, Tom: I will say Uncle at the right time. But yes, I probably over-use that word metaphysical. But then again my total focus always in my life is metaphysical. As a famous Englishman once said, "All quarrels are theological." [That's a paraphrase.] How much reality am I able to bear in this moment? How accurately am I seeing and understanding reality in this moment? I am obsessed with this. So when I go through the death experience, it won't seem that differentthat is, my focus. I am sure the actual experience of dying will shock me beyond what is conceivable. Just like it shocked Maharishi. My feeling is he will never get over it. >
