--- In [email protected], "Rory Goff" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > --- In [email protected], "jim_flanegin" <jflanegi@> > wrote: > > > > > Yes, spacetime and growth *are* a big joke, and while we are > > laughing at them, they are laughing right back at us, watching our > > every move, evaluating, seeing if we are slave or master, with > neck, > > hand and leg-irons at the ready! Ha-Ha! You are bringing out the > > mirth and giggles in me again...could we call the Peck stages, 1- > > sleepwalking, 2-awakened point value, 3-awakened multi-point value, > > 4-awakened infinite point value, which then transcends its point > > value altogether? > > > > A beautiful model. It certainly explains the dynamics here on FFL > > sometimes where the eclectics (you know who you are! hehe) will > > mistake a state of unconditional love for that of fundamentalism > > and/or chaos. > > > > And I can totally relate to that moment of recognition when > > unconditional Love was recognized clearly and unmistakably by me as > > the goal and being simultaneously completely terrified! HA-HA! > Seems > > gently silly now, but at the time and whenever I would think of it > > afterwards, I'd have a visceral reaction like I knew I could no > > longer hide in my skin. Unnerving to say the least. Like the joke > > about the General watching the opposing army advance on him, and he > > turns to his aide, and barks, "Bring me my brown pants!". > > > > In any case, yes, all that is left after that is the steady and > > exciting journey towards death and dissolution (!), all resistance > > is futile. Once bitten by the Supreme Love Bug we all succumb > > eventually. :-) > > *lol* Yes; I like all this! I think too for me the deepest lesson > from M. Scott Peck is, if the model helps me understand another, see > myself in the other and the other in myself, then it's useful. If I > am tempted to use it to pigeonhole another, to exalt myself over > another or place myself ahead of another, then I can remember the > deeper implication -- that I cannot ever really judge where another > lies on this scale. After all, all we can see is where we are -- and > where we've been. And if another looks to be *behind* us, how can we > know that they're not really *ahead* of us, on another turn of the > spiral entirely? In truth, on several levels, all I ever really know > is myself! And appreciate the Other :-) > > *L*L*L* > Yes, it is a good point, and a constant reminder, lest I begin to take my movie subtitles as gospel. :-) And the issue at hand isn't whether someone is "behind" us or "ahead" of us. It is what we do with the information. Peck's model just seems to fit so elegantly, and the dynamics of [albeit illusory] spiritual growth can be seen as fitting perfectly into such a model.
So, on the one hand Peck's model may explain a situation to the point where we can realize an A-HA experience from the clarity that the model imposes on such dynamics. Yet to take it a step further and condemn another for where they might be seen realistically in Peck's model irreperably destroys the model, because its pinnacle is the inclusive nature of unconditional love, not the exclusivity of the prior states. So recognizing things for what they are, and always being cognizant of our surrender to His and Her Creation is the important lesson. That's what I got when you said the other person may be several turns ahead of us. I don't believe that they are with regard to Peck's model if they in fact are not. On the other hand if I use such a situation for condemnation, I am no longer adhering to the ultimate truth of Peck's model. Its a difficult and precise pathway to take, to at once see things for what they are, the point value, and the valid interrelatedness of the points, and at the same time recognizing that the relationships as they appear are sacred because they are within Brahman. A similar analogy could be used for the much abused Caste system of India, the purpose of which is to allow for quickest growth within one's dharma. How is this then abused? By becoming a system of one group lording their status over another. Instead of recognizing different levels as being a natural part of life, there is our temptation to instead use them as a means of subjugating and negatively categorizing another. The way out lies not in deciding to ignore such natural distinctions as are made in Peck's model or the caste system, and pretend that such a model is stood on its head, or doesn't really exist, but rather to work to accept such a model, and not abuse the Divine information we gain from understanding and seeing clearly such distinctions.
