Jim, I want you to know from the outset that I am *wasting* one of my last remaining posts to deal with this silliness, because you really are missing the point on something, and it would be unkind of me to allow you to keep missing it. If you choose to keep on trying to debate it, it will be with others on this forum, because I'll be saving my last few posts for something more interesting.
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "jim_flanegin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB <no_reply@> > wrote: > > > > I think I covered all of this in my earlier reply > > to larry.potter's posting. To claim that your beliefs > > equate with truth, you pretty much have to be claiming > > that your state of consciousness equates with truth. > > To state that such-and-such belief is one of your > > "convictions," you have to assume that you will *remain* > > in the state of consciousness from which that belief > > appears to be true forever. To assert that this convic- > > tion is "true" for others, you have to declare that > > attaining that SOC/POC (or *regressing* to that SOC/POV) > > would be "better" for them than the SOC/POV they have > > currently. You may be comfortable doing that. I am not. > > End of story. > > > > Those who are uncomfortable with contradictions are > > uncomfortable with life. > > It appears you have misunderstood meI am not making the point > that if I believe something, others should believe it, or attempt > to believe it too. Not at all. Understood, although that has *not* been your position consistently on this forum. I remember several instances in which you have declared one of your *beliefs* -- such as Maharishit's enlightenment -- to be indisputable fact. > Rather, I am making the point that if I believe something (not > necessarily "forever"), and if someone contradicts my belief, I can > reconcile it with my own belief, as opposed to folding up and > declaring, "Well said". I didn't "fold up." I still hold my opinion. I can *also* appreciate Rory's. You and Judy seem to be incapable of understanding that. But as to what you said above, who is this "I" you speak of that has beliefs? :-) If it is your current small s self, doesn't the belief that your beliefs will *endure* and be "true" tomorrow imply that you believe you'll have the *same* small s self tomorrow? I do not have the luxury of such an assumption. Chances are there will be a different "I" tomorrow, and "his" beliefs may not be the same as the ones that this one holds. The opinions I write on this forum are written by the "self in charge" at the time I write the posts. As the selves change, so might the beliefs that each of them hold *at the time of writing*. If you're still claiming that what you refer to as "I" is the Self, well, I'll leave you to make the case for *it* having beliefs. :-) > That was the nature of my question to you, and it still remains > unanswered. It's based on a faulty assumption, that I "capitulated," as Judy put it earlier and as you put it later. I did not. The current "I" still believes what "yesterday's I" said yesterday. But at the same time I can *completely* grok where Rory is coming from, and appreciate his point of view on the matter. I have no problem with *both* points of view being valid, with *both* perceptions being "true," as much as *anything* can be said to be "true." > It seems from your answer to Rory that you have no > answer for his statement that there is no difference between > self and Self, which you plainly don't see the same way. On the contrary, I see it exactly the same way. Sometimes. It all depends on point of view. > Rather than resolving the contradiction, you stated, "Well > said". It was this capitulation to which my remarks were > addressed. And, as I have said, it's based on your inability to "get" the nature of seeming contradictions, and "get" that I can understand and appreciate another point of view while holding my own. That's not my problem; it *would* clearly seem to be yours. > Should I then conclude that it is you who are uncomfortable with > contradictions, and choose to dismiss them as "just another SOC", > vs. resolving them? And further, that anything else you disagree > with or see another way is handled the same way, by simply > capitulating without resolution? :-) You can conclude anything you want. That doesn't keep you from being incapable of juggling contradictory concepts at the same time. "I" seem to have no such limitation, so I don't even see what you're on about, unless it's Just Another Attempt To Make Barry Seem Stupid Or Without Values. I would say that if the latter was your intent, you haven't succeeded, at least as far as I am concerned. I can *fully* appreciate Rory's position on this matter. His point of view and opinions on the subject are *just* as valid as mine, more so from a certain point of view. At the same time, I still hold to my previously-stated opinions. Tomorrow I may not. That's not a problem in my view, because the self that holds those opinions may have changed by tomorrow. T'would seem that your selves change more slowly than mine do. My condolences. You're missing out on a lot of fun by being stuck with the same old self day after day. :-)
