--- In [email protected], "jim_flanegin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > --- In [email protected], new.morning <no_reply@> > wrote: > > > > What is really odd and funny, if not delusional, is that we > > are asked, by implication, to suspend disbelief and support the > > notion, that Jim who has such poor comprehension skills, and who > > regularly makes cognitive errors, is able to clearly interpret his > > experiences, and self-proclaim himself as in BC. > > > > Where on earth do you get this idea that when someone posts > something they are asking by implication that it be supported by > those on this board?
First, lets clarify that "support the notion" is casual conversational language. It would be, formally, more precise, to have said "find plausible the notion". Does your point and objection change if I make that innoccuous substitution? > > What is really odd and funny, if not delusional, is that we > > are asked, by implication, to suspend disbelief and find plausible > > the notion, that Jim who has such poor comprehension skills, > > and who > > regularly makes cognitive errors, is able to clearly interpret his > > experiences, and self-proclaim himself as in BC. But on to the primary point of your obsfucation or low comprehension. Are you really, in your mind, equating all posts on FFL to a far smaller class of posts -- claims (explicit or implicit) one makes about "attainments"? If so, you support my above premise again. You have weak reading, comprehension and analytical skills. Hardly the sort of fellow one would trust in discriminating the subtlest and trickiest of ontological and espistimological problems. Many posts are quite simple observations. Light. Not hard claims being made. The issue of plausibility is not so much an issue. Another, perhaps more rigorous type of post is a POV post. One states a point of view, and often, hopefully, tries to support the point made -- that is they try to make the case for their POV plausible. A third, more rare type of post, the type you have been made at times, are or imply a more rigourous "claim" with regards ones expertise to address a particular area with some degree of authority, validity and correctness. For example, Peter is a certified psychoanalyst. Markus (sp) is a member of his states bar, a practicing lawyer. When they makes comments within the area of their profession, its implied that their comments are plausible -- because they have established their credibility in that field. We find their comments plausible because we find their expertise plausible. A further example, if one claims to have expertise in an area, explicity -- or implicitly* by making copious definitive statements about a topic -- then readers usually assume that the poster stands behind such claims -- at least to the degree of attempting to be plausible. In contrast, as touched on earlier, there are a much wider class of posts in which people state POVs. Some quite preliminary. They may caveat it by saying, "I am not sure about this, i may change my view tomorrow..." But EVEN then, they try to make a plausible case for todays POV. To assume (as you perhaps are -- by implication) that people post and they are not trying to make a plausible case for their assertion or POV is pretty funny. So, lets step back. When you state or imply you are in MMY/TMO style BC*, do you simply mean: *(which I reacall you have explicitly stated, and after three attempts to have you confirm or deny such, you continue to obsfucate) "I believe I am in MMY/TMO style BC. However, I am not really sure. This is just my opinion. Here are some reasons I think I am. Any clarifications to help me better interpret my experiences are welcome." If so, then this would be a quite welcome and refreshing observation. Is that all you have been attempting to convey regarding your assessment, interpretations and proclamations of your state of consciousnss? Still, I suggest even in the above, you are attempting to make a plausible case for your belief. (which is equivalent in my intent of meaning, by my use of the casual "we are lead to believe" -- that is "we have been presented with a POV that the poster believes is plausible". > I am stupified yes, though I would not state it so harshly. :) > I've always just seen any of the > posts here as points of view offered up as the poster's truth of the > moment, but not necessarily anyone else's. So as i have asked repeated before, and you have obsfucated, when you make repeated definitive statements about MMY/TMO BC, are you simply basing this on some POV -- derived from some memory of some TMO course or tape? Or are you implying that you feel you are living TMO/MMY BC, as i have inferred. (Perhaps inferred incorrectly, but I have repeatedly asked for clarification and only recieved diversions and obsfuction.) If you are implying such, Is language usually such a large hurdle for you? If so, you can understandably share my skepticism that you are accurately interpreting your experiences in a most subtle and delicate region. But thanks for your feedback on how minor and innocuous language choices can be interpreted by some readers in quite radical, rigid and unexpected ways. I know its alwayd good to try to keep honing ones language so that even the smallest percentage of readers don't misinterpret ones meaning. So the huge needles you appear to find in my intended innocuous phrasing choices provide insight. I note that after I have made repeated and multiple substatantive points, you divert or obsfucate with minor issues of language choice -- issues that evaporate with innocuous and minor language changes. Your behavior further supports my thesis: you are hardly the sort of fellow one would trust in discriminating the subtlest and trickiest of ontological and espistimological problems. Your interpretations of your experiences as MMY/TMO BC* are hardly plausible. Your interpretations of your experiences as any sort of awakening, i personally find implausible. However as rory says, define your own enlightenment and go fo it. For some, i suppose enlightenement is being able to tie their shoes. *if that is what you believe you are doing -- you offer no denial after numerous requests to confirm of your experiences 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/
