Turquoise is a writer in France.
Turquoise is a mutant Ninja Turtle.
Turquoise is a three toed Sloth bear in South America.
Turquoise is a Klingon on the Federation hit list.
Turquoise is a plant eating Bug in a Rain Forest in Congo..!
Turquoise is a drink in a Mexican restaurant.
Turquoise is a mighty Roman Warrior in 200 BC.
Turquoise is a pea brained Snail in Galapagos islands.
Turquoise is an abandoned rusting Tank used in the Second World War.
Turquoise is an ET living 230 million light years away.
Which one is correct..??
TurquoiseB <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Date: Wed, 06 Jun 2007 07:50:26 -0000
Subject: [FairfieldLife] Re: Spirituality Paradox Contradictions Spirituality
All True
Interesting, but I also found it interesting that
she didn't offer much justification for *why* she's
saying what she's saying about becoming comfortable
with contradiction. She did mention the "mental body"
vs. the "heart," but to me that's NewAgeSpeak.
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.
If you need an example of this, look at Rory's
recent post #140834. 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?"
---------------------------------
Looking for earth-friendly autos?
Browse Top Cars by "Green Rating" at Yahoo! Autos' Green Center.
