--- In [email protected], "curtisdeltablues" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > > FWIW, same here. That's why I get particularly > > annoyed when he falls back into that intellectually > > dishonest defensive mode when anything he says is > > challenged. > > I think we'll have to agree to disagree about this point. > > > > > > > This is a Vedic sounding poopy pants argument. Claiming to > > > > perceive "self-evident truth" reveals a lack of understanding > > > > of epistemology. > > > > Something that is, of course, self-evident to Curtis... > > I would hate to bring up the obvious ID mode that this response > contains, but that would distract me from the point that interests me. > > I am not appealing to an argument of self evident truth concerning my > opinion of Rory's use of the term. It is my opinion from his writing. > > The problem with claims of self evident truth is a a central theme in > the history of philosophy, even Vedic thinkers created all sorts of > systems to verify statements. Socrates started with "all I know is > that I know nothing at all" when he began his Socratic method as the > only sure self evident truth. Descartes started with "I think > therefor I am". If people started with their awareness of being > conscious as a starting point for knowledge, that would make sense to > me. But that is not where Rory is stopping. As soon as you add on > any other value like, I am experiencing my Self as the ground of being > of the universe you are jumping too many steps to claim self evidence > IMO. I know you can feel like you are experiencing this but that > doesn't mean it is more than a subjective experience, or true for > others. People use this type of experience to make a lot of > assumptions about reality based on their belief structure coming into > and out of th experience.
Yes, I first noticed the blind-spot phenomenon when I was attempting to point out the self-evident and was watching the apparently willful (but actually unconscious) machinations of the personality in maintaining ignorance, but I am not particularly basing my current observation that you (and we all) have blind spots on my understanding of the self. I am basing it on the fact that --to borrow a nice term from Barry -- where blind spots are involved, there is no *equanimity*; one is coming from a place of ungrounded attack. What the critic tends to miss IMO is that Judy and I are generally *not* defending MMY and the TMO; we're just pointing out *that the critic is attacking in an unbalanced manner*. Again, you, Curtis, have noted that you cut slack for Thai beliefs -- that is, you have equanimity there, more than you do for TM beliefs. That's certainly understandable; you used to identify with TM beliefs; there's a residue there. Personally, I've noticed that much if not all of my suffering -- my reactive residue -- has come from places where I falsely assumed responsibility for something, identified with something that was actually not my business. I used to actually feel pain, for example, when driving through my neighborhood and seeing a downright ugly house. How could the architect be so stupid as to design such a God- awful monstrosity, and the home-owner so blind as to choose it, etc., etc.? I finally realized *I am not responsible for the classically aesthetic perfection of my neighborhood* -- it is what it is, period. Same for BushCo and so on. What a relief! I'd write more, but my wife really wants to go out for brunch *now* so.. to be continued! :-) LLL
