wrote:
>
> --- In [email protected], "authfriend" <jstein@> wrote:
>
> > Actually, it's primarily the folks I've challenged
> > (my guess is this anon person has been one of them
> > in the past) who have said this, most notably Barry.
>
> Yes, this would be a very accurate guess when seasoned with
contempt.
> But when contempt is absent, it is a very inaccurate guess.
>
> We have never interacted in any way.
>
> > But *he* decided to pursue it, even after I suggested
> > that was a bad idea--again, because I didn't want to
> > get into an argument with me.
>
> "because I didn't want to get into an argument with me."
>
> Here lies the basis for great insight.
Beat you to it, smartypants.
Actually, I had originally written "...didn't want
him to get into an argument with me," then realized
that suggested I wasn't pissed off at him, which
wasn't the case.
Anyway, I went back and took out the "him," but
forgot that I also needed to change the "me" at the
end to "him."
> Contempt always involves some
> aspect of a person disliking another aspect of themselves.
No, it doesn't. It may, but not always by any means.
That's a cheap and superficial bit of psychobabble.
> It is then
> externalized onto a "seeming other". Alas, there is no other!
Well, if you're saying it's "another aspect of
themselves" because there's only one Self, you're
shifting ground. You get to have that meaning *or*
the original psychobabble one, but not both. Only
if it's the original one can you use it to bash me,
so maybe you want to think twice, eh?
> Until this is recognized and realized, inner and outer conflict and
> their natural consequence, contempt, continue. There are better
> seasonings for the feast of life. Yes?
Ya know, I really hope enlightenment doesn't turn out
to be conflict-free. Where's the impetus for further
growth? Sometimes I wonder if people are so hot to
get enlightened simply because they're afraid to deal
with conflict and believe after they're enlightened,
it will all just go away.
(And by the way, conflict doesn't always lead to
contempt by any means. It's entirely possible to
end up respecting the person with whom one is in
conflict, even if the conflict itself is never
resolved. Contempt is inspired by dishonesty and
lack of authenticity, not conflict per se. For
that matter, it's entirely possible to be
contemptuous of someone with whom one is *not* in
conflict.)
And are you including Curtis in this criticism of
conflict? Because according to him, his conflict with
me on alt.m.t was tremendously beneficial to him.
So perhaps you should have a word or two with him
as well, don't you thini?
To subscribe, send a message to:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Or go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/
and click 'Join This Group!'
SPONSORED LINKS
| Maharishi university of management | Maharishi mahesh yogi | Ramana maharshi |
YAHOO! GROUPS LINKS
- Visit your group "FairfieldLife" on the web.
- To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
- Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service.
