--- In [email protected], "curtisdeltablues" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Rory: > > "Right, you didn't offer me that marvelous image to play with > > -- but you *did* (in my reality anyhow) offer me your pain, > > which was all I really wanted. To whatever degree You and I > > are separate, my heartfelt thanks to You :-)" > > Me: I have been enjoying lurking I have been thinking something > about how you write that I would like to run by you Rory. I > think you are using language that very carefully does separate > you from the person you are responding to. Almost to a post there > is an assertion of your separateness, specialness. I think it is > very important for you to present yourself as having a special > relationship with the world.
Very, very interesting insight, Curtis. Now that you've mentioned it, "We're all one" *is* a putdown compared to "We're all separate and equal." > I offer you another option and perspective for consideration. > We may all actually be the same with regard to our states of > consciousness. What you are describing in sometimes Baroque > detail may just be an affectation of your use of words to > describe states that everyone else is living in without needing > all the descriptions. If you really want a unitive experience, > I suggest trying out the following premise: You and I are > actually the same. No states of awakening separate us. > Neither of us are on any continuum of awareness before or > after each other. We are both just simply human with the same > limitations and capacities. Then go to the supermarket and look > at everyone that same equal way. Everyone is just equally human > and not on a path of "awakening". Just folks. > > I hope this wont be taken as an attack although it is a judgment > I am making. (BTW nuts are actually very hard to kick so their > use in fights is really overrated!) I think we have established > enough rapport in previous posts to actually explore this topic > a bit. I suspect Turq will have some perspective to share on this. He does, but not in any "pile on Rory" sense. I honestly have never thought about this subject this way, in terms of "language as ranking system," but now that you've brought it up, it's a *very* interesting way of seeing things. > In my daily life I notice people's language as an attempt to > assert a ranking. It is a version of monkey oneupmanship. As > a performing artist I must push some people's buttons because > I get a regular stream of guys (always guys) who feel the need > to try to find out what I make as a performer. It seems important > for them to make sure I am not making much money while having > this much fun. They ask a serious of roundabout questions to > determine that even though they hate their jobs (their words) > at least they are making more money. Boy, have I seen that. Similarly, have you ever known guys who feel compelled to hit on every woman they encounter, *especially* the girlfriends or dates of the other guys? Ranking system. > Here on FFL it seems that there is another ranking system in > place between guys. An enlightenment-O-meter. Also a knowledge-O-meter. "My understanding of this esoteric scripture is superior to yours." There are a few posts lately that seem to come with a measuring tape attached, with which to measure the dick of the person being addressed and compare its length to that of the poster. :-) > It isn't easy for guys to drop all the affections of our > primate politics. But it is sometimes an option when chosen. > Are you willing to actually see me as an equal? Completely > equal? Not in some cosmic perspective way that you > unequally comprehend, but brother to brother? Best question posed on this group in quite a long while, dude. And so appropriate *to* this group. It's appropriate to *most* spiritual groups, of course, and each has its own "measuring tape language," but the lingering effects of the TM movement have drummed its better than/higher than language and concepts into people Big Time. Think the "flying contests." Think the jockeying for who can contribute the most $ and thus sit the closest to Maharishi, or even be in the same room with him while the peons watch on TV. Think the distinctions between raja, purusha/MD, recert governor, governor, recert TM teacher, TM teacher, citizen siddha, and lowly peon. Think the flowing robes and the crowns and the titles appropriated from royal courts, ferchis- sakes. The whole *movement* is structured in levels of oneupsmanship, so *of course* that's going to bleed over into one's thought patterns and language. What you say about Rory's use of language as a ranking device certainly strikes a resonance with me, but now that you've brought it up, I can see it in many others as well. And yes, occasionally in myself. Rarely in you, for the record. There's a Bruce Cockburn line in one of his songs that speaks to this subject: Why don't you cool out? Can it be so hard to love yourself without thinking someone else holds a lower card? Why is it that a few people "win" arguments on FFL by asserting their "higher ranking" within some kind of ranking system? They're more evolved, or more honest, or more this or more that. But the bottom line, now that you've brought my attention to it, is that they're always "more." And, now that you've brought the subject up, I find myself appreciating the few here who are *rarely* "more." They don't seem to need the ranking system. They're just *fine* with being equals with the people they're addressing. All the difference in the world. Thanks for mentioning it. > --- In [email protected], "Rory Goff" <rorygoff@> wrote: > > > > > > --- In [email protected], TurquoiseB <no_reply@> > > wrote: > > > <snip> > > > > > Question, short form: Is Katie's "the work," whether > > > > > valuable or not, just another form of moodmaking? > > > > "Rory Goff" <rorygoff@> wrote: > > > > Answer, short form: No. > > > > > > --- In [email protected], TurquoiseB <no_reply@> > > wrote: > > > > > I don't know. I'm just wondering. Those of you who know > > > > > more, please explain it to me. > > > > "Rory Goff" <rorygoff@> wrote: > > > > Try it and see for yourself, or keep on spinning rationalizations > > > > why Not to try it, it makes no difference to me. I'm still gonna > > > > kick you in the nuts every time I see you on crack waving a > > > > pistol around -- metaphorically speaking of course :-) > > > > "authfriend" <jstein@> wrote: > > > > > > I'm chuckling, remembering when you suggested the > > > Byron Katie approach to me some time back, and I > > > rejected it on similar grounds to what Barry's > > > putting forth here. > > > > Hah! Yes! I LOVE the mirror-like quality of FFL, like Life cubed, as > > Self reflects Self to Self....next it'll be *my* turn to use the > > infinite-recursion argument! > > > > > He proceeded to try to kick me in the nuts for > > > purportedly spinning rationalizations on why not to > > > try it. > > > > Priceless, isn't it? :-) > > > > (You refrained from doing so, apparently > > > because I didn't seem to you to be metaphorically > > > on crack waving a pistol around.) > > > > Right, you didn't offer me that marvelous image to play with -- but > > you *did* (in my reality anyhow) offer me your pain, which was all I > > really wanted. To whatever degree You and I are separate, my > > heartfelt thanks to You :-) > > > > *L*L*L* > > >
