Truth is not supposed to be determined by social popularity.
On Sep 3, 2013, at 10:03 AM, Andre Broersen <[email protected]> wrote: > Ron to Marsha: > I can forgive the use of the term "objectivly" and replace it with "directly" > but the meaning of "objective" still asserts itself in the phrases : "You > will learn for the first time what is (truly) happening to you, around you > and within you." "I want to understand the (true) nature of life." "You'll > find yourself observing things objectively, exactly as they are". It > continues to assert an "ultimate truth" that we can experience "exactly" as > it "is". Marsha, it just doesent get much more objective. I believe it is > this "objective" type of attitude which is causing alot of the conflict. > Direct experience is the test of any and all ideas, it is the proving ground > and in this way we may only gain a better "greater" understanding of ideas we > already posess, but it can not be known as it "is". Our knowledge > (understanding) of direct experience is always culturally derived. > > dmb replied: > > Yes, this is another version of the mistake that Marsha makes over and over > again. It confuses and conflates the static with the Dynamic. Why does she so > often mention mindfulness & meditation as if it granted her some kind of > ultimate truth? Because she is confused about the meaning of the > static-Dynamic distinction. The paragraphs are worded quite badly, such that > they expose this mistake. The quotes frame the issue as a Platonist or SOMer > would, and they're very much at odds with the MOQ in that respect. > > Andre: > Spot on Ron and dmb (as usual) but you both already know that this is lost on > Lucy. She's convinced that the MoQ is a metaphysics (a statement of reality) > to be 'overcome' and that, 'beyond' the MoQ the 'true' state of things will > appear in shining lights of armour. Or even worse, that the MoQ IS the > 'beyond' and therefore cannot be a static intellectual pattern of value (a la > Bodvar). This also shows conviction in the truth of her own pseudo new-age > bent that her states of experience are hallowed by their name, have moved > 'beyond' the MoQ (thus being the only 'true' MoQ) and hence her behaviour of > responding to criticisms in the way she does. She feels she doesn't need to > explain or defend or refute or clarify or whatever because we, petty little > people with our petty little lives are too caught up in our own intellectual > worlds from which she has taken leave. We are all reified and she's free > having to take no responsibility for anything or anybody. And the result? Oh > boy , what a disaster. One karmic SOM dump after another. > > And she keeps on hanging on to this exploration of Buddhism and the MoQ (or > was it the other way around?). With her presentation of the quote I > immediately thought of the anecdote of the excited Zen student who came to > the master: 'Master, Master, I have seen the Buddha on top of the > Lotusflower, with radiating golden light shining from him and all around him. > To which the master replied: 'Don't worry, it will go away'! > > All the perennial philosophies, esoteric teachings, religions and > contemporary 'mystic' teachers deny the existence of a 'beyond'. Jesus > said:'The kingdom of heaven is right here'. Su Tung-Po wrote his 'Misty rain > on Mount Lu' (the mountains are still mountains) yet Lucy expects to be able > to (magically) speak Chinese after she has 'seen the light' (Ken Wilber took > away this fantasy especially for those who think that 'enlightenment' will > solve all the personal problems this world is an expression of). For all > those who think that after enlightenment people will be seen as angels with > wings, aeroplanes flap their own wings and chemical plants will be > transformed into gold covered domes radiating peace and tranquility as is > happening in Fukushima today. > > These philosopies and teachers all warn against 'states of experience'(the > devil's temptation stories) and suggest quite simply the adoption of one's > 'natural state'. And if the MoQ is not an expression of and a finger pointing > to this 'natural state' I don't know what is. Anything else (eg a > subject-object metaphysics) IS an altered state of consciousness, an altered > state of experience. To wit, a distorted state. > > Sad really. I suggested a temporary ban because of her antics over the last > 10 odd years. Perhaps she will show the beginning light of wisdom by imposing > it on herself...if only to learn some decent social communication skills. > > > Moq_Discuss mailing list Listinfo, Unsubscribing etc. http://lists.moqtalk.org/listinfo.cgi/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org Archives: http://lists.moqtalk.org/pipermail/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org/ http://moq.org/md/archives.html
