Peter: Irmeli, do you really think we can have a rational discussion after you take a dump like that? Maybe we can, I don't know... Let me respond to you below:
Irmeli: I have for a long time tried to create a discussion with you in a much more friendly tone, but ended in difficulties I have been explaining earlier. Peter: > > There two reasons why I tend not to take these > > discussions too far with you. We are coming from > two > > very different conceptual systems. I try to stick > to > > MMY's model of the 7 states. I'm not sure what > > conceptual model you are coming from. You also > become > > insulting in your responses to me. As soon as this > > happens I stop responding. I find your posts > > interesting, but I'm not going to argue with you. > Irmeli: > Who has got insulted here, if there is no "I" Peter > Suthpen? Peter: You don't understand what I'm talking about when I say no "I". Irmeli: I clearly don't. Why don't you explain me, what you are talking about? Irmeli: > Why don't you discuss with people, who don't share > your conceptual > framework, or your stories. Wouldn't it be a good > starting point to > get beyond one's stories to discuss with people who > have different > stories than you? Peter: Of course, and I have done this with you in the past. Irmeli: In a tone of saying my understanding and the ideas I present are waking-state phenomenon. And you haft left it there. Not worth discussing. What if you dropped using the concept waking-state as a weapon to put down other's ideas and started to treat people respectfully. Seeing in every person a Buddha. You have yourself explained many times that enlightenment cannot be judged from external behaviour. The language and concepts we use is also part of external behaviour. Never come to think about that? > Peter Stuthpen wrote in a post earlier: > "The mind wants to have a story as a defense against > experiences that contradict its primary story. Why > have any story at all? MMY is a con artist; MMY is a > great saint. He's both, he's neither, he's nothing. > Why have any story/position at all. Does it matter? > Attached, non-attached...just more stories." Irmeli: > Why does Peter experience my criticism of his "No I" > story so > insulting. Peter: I don't experience that as insulting. Passive aggressive comments like, "hiding behind concepts," and "he doesn't bother to answer me." are indicative of another agenda going on in the conversation. Irmeli: The latest post of mine is the only one where I have used those phrases. In that post I was discussing your long term way of treating my posts. And most probably I will continue with my new style with you for a while to see if it will lead to an opening. Your getting hurt by critical comments of your ideas, tell me a lot of the prevalent developmental stage of your "I". Irmeli: > Why is he so attached to that story. "No > I" is a story, a > description by words of an inner state. Peter: Because the concept/story articulates my phenomenological reality. I'm "attached " to it the same way you'd be attached to the phrase, "It's raining" if you went outside and rain drops were falling from the sky. When the phenomenological reality changes, then the concept will be useless. And I understand that the phenomenological reality of no "I" is useless to you. Fine. Just don't infer that it's useless for me. Irmeli: That is fine. I accept this comment wholeheartedly. Just remember one thing: we don't always observe correctly. This becomes more and more true the subtler the areas and the less travelled those areas are by humans collectively. We are not separate entities from each other in no way. This is my thesis: you cannot have a high level of realization independent of others. The phenomenon of raining is therefore in an other category. That phenomenon and its correct interpretation you can be rather sure about. The "No I" experience not. It is a description of something new emerging. We often make the mistake that we take shelter behind absolute certainty in those very issues that are the most vague and uncontested, something for which we have no clear expressions yet. There may be much more clear ways to express the state of awareness you call "no I". I don't dispute your awareness. I dispute the meaning, the interpretation you give to it. Irmeli: > Peter's claims are often in conflict with his > behaviour. He asks > others to leave all stories, as if it were possible. > When his own > cherished favourite story is questioned, he gets so > hurt that, if he > bothers to answer, he uses all is energy, not to > discuss the proposed > ideas, but to tell me, how my ideas are low waking > state ideas. They > don't belong to enlightened reality. Apparently > somehow these > structures I have brought up, that define also our > use of language, > vanish totally in enlightened state according to > Peter's reasoning. Peter: Yes, they do, pretty much! The shift from waking state to Realization; the shift from a bound, limited, subjective sense of self to an "unbounded" no-self radically alters many cherished concepts of waking state. The first being that there is no such thing as an individual. But this is not the reality of "lowly" waking state. Irmeli: You apparently shift between different stages of awareness on a daily bases. I don't. Partly therefore I have difficulties to understand you. What ever my stage of awareness is, it is wary stable. There are no such shifts. I do also inside this stage of awareness experience passingly many kinds of more intense and flowing states, which may have features of my future permanent stages. If I ever decided to discuss them, I would emphasis strongly that they are just transient states to me. Irmeli: > Why does Peter still all the time express himself > with the waking > state language in his enlightened state if those > strucuteres don't > exist in enlightened state. Peter: I don't follow you here. How else am I going to communicate with you or anyone else? Silence? Irmeli: When we humans collectively evolve on higher stages the language follows. People at the leading edge has to do this work of finding proper accurate expressions. But don't confuse this to mean the problem is taken care of by stopping using the concept "I". You would just be making a fool of yourself. But you could try to explain your "No I" awareness in a way that even I could grasp it. Irmeli: > That man is full of > bullshit. Peter: Have you been talking to my wife? ;-) Irmeli: No, but she seems to have a good capacity of discrimination as wives often have of their husbands. They have to deal with those features in their husbands, which the men skilfully try to hide from the outer world. This shit tends to get thrown on the wife. Irmeli: Now I first > time say a personal insult of him. He is full of his > superiority that > he hides behind his sacred "No I" story. To be > convincing he tries to > avoid the word "I". Pathetic. Peter: I try to avoid the word "I"? I don't think so. That truly would be pathetic! I'm sorry if I come off as sounding superior. That certainly isn't my intent at all. I've been accused of that before in this newsgroup, so I guess it does happen. Irmeli: In some of your posts you have explained that using language in the manner of " I did that" and "I'm having that" is a sign of waking state awareness. Stop commenting people's ideas to be waking-stage level. Treat ideas as just ideas and don't dismiss them because of your putting them on a certain stage. Dismiss them by showing the problems and weaknesses you can show in them. Then you treat others respectfully. Irmeli: > I find it also quite interesting that he has not > bothered to comment > any of the ideas of the function of "I" presented by > me. He just > dismisses them as low waking state ideas. Why has he > this need to show > off his superiority by putting others down? Peter: I don't say they are "lowly". The problem comes about because you are talking about enlightenment within the phenomenological limitations of waking state. Enlightenment can not be understood within waking state because it is such a radical shift of self (even this does not express the idea correctly because it implies a relationship between the self of waking state and the unbounded no-self of enlightenment as if there is some sort of a continuum between the two. There isn't) Irmeli: I don't share your view here. I have made several efforts to discuss with you what kind of entity the "I" is. It is not at all stupid to start with the contemporary leading edge waking stage understanding of the concept and see were it leads to us. In the area of "I" development the understandings of modern evolutionary psychology seems to be a taboo to you. An area not allowed to touch. You dismiss these ideas as they were a plague. You are a doctor in psychology. Is that the problem? Are you afraid you are drawn into a conceptual swamp? Irmeli: > He claims I have insulted him. I have not. It is me, > who should feel > hurt because of his nonchalant, and condescending > treatment of my > comments. Peter: Perhaps nonchalant, but not condescending. If you haven't had experiences of enlightenemnt, what are you doing trying to talk about it? You can't! This might seem condescending to you, but of what value is a discussion of chocolate cake by a person who has never tasted chocolate cake? Irmeli: I have many times written at FFL that I have gone through many transformations and I think I know what kind of stage you are referring to. I think I have passed beyond it very long ago. I have no experience of a separate, individual "I". I haven't seen a glimpse of it since age 16. I hardly remember how it operates. I only remember that I wasn't stable and happy, when that "I" reigned. I have stated that the quality of the "I" changes, but it doesn't vanish. In a way it actually becomes much stronger, more universal. That "I" doesn't get so easily hurt and it is very stable in the storms of life. In this lifetime I have been learning to sail successfully and enjoyably in a stormy weather. Although often when a new "I" has appears it is good to be able to learn to operate first in calmer waters. Based on my experience I claim your interpretation of your peak experiences to be inaccurate. To me your enlightenment is just peak experiences as long as it has not become a permanent stage. And as long as it has not become a permanent stage, you interpret your experiences through the lenses of your prevalent stage. The lower the prevalent stage is the more extravagant those interpretations tend to be. But it is also possible that I'm just blind and cannot understand you. Then you should compassionately to try to find new pathways to help me to understand you. It is also possible that as we evolve we specialize ourselves in different directions. I may be on a totally different course than you. Still I would like to learn to learn at least intellectually to understand about your path. Irmeli: > His behaviour shows that he has an "I" and an ego, > that is in > desperate need to prove his superiority above > others. He has spent a > long time in spiritual circles and he has figured > out that > enlightenment and "No I" are very highly appreciated > in those circles. > Apparently his ego has started to interpret his > subtle experiences in > those terms. Had he taken a nonspiritual path the > stories he would be > telling himself about himself to prove his > superiority would be > something else. Peter: Yes, that I have a dissociative disorder! Irmeli: > But the inner pattern would be > precisely the same, > only the outer form different. > > Why did he not comment the quote of Ken Wilber and > Andrew Cohen > discussion in my latest post on this topic. Peter: I read it, but I have to understand what their talking about before I can say anything about it. Irmeli: > Are also > their > understanding and insights so low waking state > descriptions that it > doesn't interest him? Why did he instead concentrate > on blubbering how > I have insulted him? Peter: Blubbering? Okay. Irmeli: > I have no memory of any personal attack on Peter > Suthpen. I have > heavily criticised MMY, but he is a public figure. > It is not my habit > to attack personally the members of FFL. This post > is an exception. Peter: I was just pointing out your hostile feelings towards me that came out in a passive-aggressive manner in your earlier posts. This post confirms the hostility and is quite refreshing in its straight forward honesty. Irmeli: I have felt no hostile feelings towards you as a person. You mix aggressive attacks against your stories as personal insults. That tells me a lot about the stage of your "I". Yesterday your post created in me some feelings of fury. And I decided to express my frustration with your behaviour. And as you have observed yourself also I'm not the only one who has here experienced frustration in your slippery way of being in dialogue. With slippery I mean avoiding answering questions made to you and starting to attack the inquirer on an other front. Irmeli: > I add the Wilber/Cohen quote again here. > The quote is from the newest issue of "What is > Enlightenment" . It is > from the Ken Wilber and Andrew Cohen Dialogue and I > feel it to be a > very good description that pretty well describes > also my own inner > reality. > > Quote: > "Wilber: Moment to moment there is this ever-present > is-ness, and yet > as soon as you locate yourself in it, there is an > `I'. > Cohen: Yes. The minute you locate yourself, the > whole world appears. > Wilber: Exactly. As soon as there is an `I', there > is an it or an > object, and then there is a `we'; there is some > resonance with some > other subjectivity someplace". > > Wilber explains also a little bit further in the > text: "When you are > in a causal, or nondual, open-eyes, ever-present, > non-effort state, an > I arises that is an authentic self." > > Is this too low for Peter Suthpen to comment? > Actually I suspect this > is far too advanced for Peter Suthpen. Peter: Maybe it is too advanced for me, but these guys seem to be jerking each other off. Irmeli: Again the same pattern. You are not discussing the ideas presented here. But you make condensencing hurtful remarks of the persons. The very thing I have observed you have done to me too. ------------------------ Yahoo! Groups Sponsor --------------------~--> Get fast access to your favorite Yahoo! Groups. Make Yahoo! your home page http://us.click.yahoo.com/dpRU5A/wUILAA/yQLSAA/JjtolB/TM --------------------------------------------------------------------~-> To subscribe, send a message to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Or go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/ and click 'Join This Group!' Yahoo! Groups Links <*> To visit your group on the web, go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/ <*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] <*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to: http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
