--- In [email protected], TurquoiseB <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: <snip> > One additional point of information that can actually > give some justification for her stance is in MMY's > olde saying, "Knowledge is different in different > states of consciousness." Even *within* his system > there are paradoxes, depending upon which state of > consciousness he is speaking about, or from. The > description of "reality" is different from the POV > of waking state, or CC, or GC, or UC. Total contra- > dictions. But very possibly all true. > > It seems to me that the attempt to claim that some- > thing is "true," and to actively get someone else > to "buy into" that "truth," is an attempt to get > them to *share your state of consciousness*. > > Any appeal to others to believe something that is > true only from the unenlightened waking state is, > almost by definition, an appeal to these others > to look at the situation *from* the POV of unenlight- > ened waking state. If these others are looking at > the situation from another state of consciousness, > from the POV of, say, UC, then the situation as > described by someone in the state of ignorance is > *not* true, for them. > > But the folks who feel the need to *convince* these > others that they "know" the "truth" often keep ham- > mering away at the UC POV, telling it that it's > "wrong," and that they should look at things from > the "right" POV. Which in this case, of course, is > ignorance.
Actually, I don't recall having seen many, if any, disputes of this nature here. I think the assertion above is being used to lump all disputes about what is true and what isn't into this category and thereby stigmatize anybody who takes a stand on anything as being in "ignorance," as well as to excuse those who contradict themselves or get their facts wrong or express an opinion that is not well founded. > If you need an example of this, look at Rory's > recent post #140834. Actually, it's the difference between what Rory said in that very post in response to Barry, and then Barry's instant capitulation to it, that Jim was commenting on. I thought that was a marvelous > example of "stepping back" and expressing the same > situation from a completely different POV and SOC, > from which it looks entirely different. What *seems* > true when looking at the situation from one POV is > no longer true when looking at the same situation > from another POV. > > Something to bear in mind when trying to claim that > your POV is "true." When you make that claim, aren't > you *really* saying, "*Mine* is the POV or SOC from > which 'truth' is determined?" Nope. Depends entirely on the claim and the nature of the POV. For example, in the post to which Rory was responding (although he didn't comment on it specifically): Most folks on this forum already ignore her, and > > never bother to respond to her posts. This is *factually* false. Just for one thing, most people here tend to respond selectively to some folks and not others, simply because of differences in interests. For another, if you add up all the people in Barry's two groups of those who respond to me, allowing a conservative three people for each of his "and a few others," you get a total of 15, which happens to be a substantial percentage of the regular posters here. I haven't done a tally--perhaps Barry would like to spend some time on it?--but I'd guess that there are few here who have a whole lot more than 15 regular respondents, including Barry himself. On the whole, > > the only people who still DO respond fall into two > > categories. The first is the TBs who agree with her > > because she's a TM TB, one of the few left on the > > forum; this group would include Nablus and Off and > > Jim and occasionally others. > > > > The second group consists of those (in my *opinion*) > > who, although they may be fools for doing so, still > > have some hope that there really IS a human being > > inside Judy Stein somewhere, and that if they try > > long enough, someday they might actually help it to > > "come out of its closet" and express itself. This > > group -- whom I henceforth dub as The Compassion > > Group -- consists of you, Shemp, Vaj, Rick, Curtis, > > myself, and a few others. The difference here between Barry's take and Rory's, who sees no such division into "camps," is probably not a matter of a difference between states of consciousness, but simply a relative disagreement. Others have expressed the same disagreement on the relative level. Rory's assertion that he's not in this latter group, on the other hand, may well be a matter of a different state of consciousness. (Whether Shamp, Vaj, Rick, Curtis, and Barry are expressing genuine compassion in their interactions with me I'll leave as an exercise for the reader.) > > Just as a matter of definition, the first group is > > always RIGHT; the second group is always WRONG. :-) And this, again, is *factually* false if Barry is attributing the right/wrong "definition" to me. Barry also wrote: > > You still don't understand, Rory! That makes > > you WRONG!!! There IS only one way of looking > > at things, the Judy Way. Anything else is > > delusion or mean-spiritedness, and if it's > > repeated several times after she's "refuted" > > it by expressing the RIGHT way of looking at > > things, the repetition becomes lying. > > > > Face it, dude...you're on the road to becoming > > Yet Another FFL Liar. :-) Again, patently factually false. > > You want to see Judy REALLY hit the roof? Express > > compassion towards her. Watch what happens. In fact, > > watch how she reacts to this post of yours. As is this. I didn't have any problem with this post of Rory's, because it was clearly a matter of different states of consciousness. All she does is *get mad* when you > > remind her that she's already enlightened. And this is a matter of Barry's gross deficiencies of emotional and intellectual insight; it's "wrong" because it's simplistic and shallow, purely on the relative level. What I "get mad" at is when folks who are enlightened (or who pretend to be speaking from an enlightened perspective) tell me I'm already enlightened *and expect simply saying so* to enable me to realize that enlightenment, or who insist that being enlightened is already my experience. Rory gets that; Barry does not. In other words, the whole issue of "truth" is a *lot* more complicated than Barry understands. Charles Manson is reported to have said, "If all is One, nothing can be wrong." That's true, but it's irrelevant, even if we accept for the sake of argument that Manson was in UC. To claim that it makes a difference on the level of human interaction is just sophistry. It's an extreme case of what Barry's attempting to do here, which, as Jim pointed out, is distinctly and egregiously self-serving--and that's very definitely small-s "self."
