[FairfieldLife] Re: The insulted Peter Suthpen
Peter: Irmeli, do you really think we can have a rational discussion after you take a dump like that? Maybe we can, I don't know... Let me respond to you below: Irmeli: I have for a long time tried to create a discussion with you in a much more friendly tone, but ended in difficulties I have been explaining earlier. Peter: There two reasons why I tend not to take these discussions too far with you. We are coming from two very different conceptual systems. I try to stick to MMY's model of the 7 states. I'm not sure what conceptual model you are coming from. You also become insulting in your responses to me. As soon as this happens I stop responding. I find your posts interesting, but I'm not going to argue with you. Irmeli: Who has got insulted here, if there is no I Peter Suthpen? Peter: You don't understand what I'm talking about when I say no I. Irmeli: I clearly don't. Why don't you explain me, what you are talking about? Irmeli: Why don't you discuss with people, who don't share your conceptual framework, or your stories. Wouldn't it be a good starting point to get beyond one's stories to discuss with people who have different stories than you? Peter: Of course, and I have done this with you in the past. Irmeli: In a tone of saying my understanding and the ideas I present are waking-state phenomenon. And you haft left it there. Not worth discussing. What if you dropped using the concept waking-state as a weapon to put down other's ideas and started to treat people respectfully. Seeing in every person a Buddha. You have yourself explained many times that enlightenment cannot be judged from external behaviour. The language and concepts we use is also part of external behaviour. Never come to think about that? Peter Stuthpen wrote in a post earlier: The mind wants to have a story as a defense against experiences that contradict its primary story. Why have any story at all? MMY is a con artist; MMY is a great saint. He's both, he's neither, he's nothing. Why have any story/position at all. Does it matter? Attached, non-attached...just more stories. Irmeli: Why does Peter experience my criticism of his No I story so insulting. Peter: I don't experience that as insulting. Passive aggressive comments like, hiding behind concepts, and he doesn't bother to answer me. are indicative of another agenda going on in the conversation. Irmeli: The latest post of mine is the only one where I have used those phrases. In that post I was discussing your long term way of treating my posts. And most probably I will continue with my new style with you for a while to see if it will lead to an opening. Your getting hurt by critical comments of your ideas, tell me a lot of the prevalent developmental stage of your I. Irmeli: Why is he so attached to that story. No I is a story, a description by words of an inner state. Peter: Because the concept/story articulates my phenomenological reality. I'm attached to it the same way you'd be attached to the phrase, It's raining if you went outside and rain drops were falling from the sky. When the phenomenological reality changes, then the concept will be useless. And I understand that the phenomenological reality of no I is useless to you. Fine. Just don't infer that it's useless for me. Irmeli: That is fine. I accept this comment wholeheartedly. Just remember one thing: we don't always observe correctly. This becomes more and more true the subtler the areas and the less travelled those areas are by humans collectively. We are not separate entities from each other in no way. This is my thesis: you cannot have a high level of realization independent of others. The phenomenon of raining is therefore in an other category. That phenomenon and its correct interpretation you can be rather sure about. The No I experience not. It is a description of something new emerging. We often make the mistake that we take shelter behind absolute certainty in those very issues that are the most vague and uncontested, something for which we have no clear expressions yet. There may be much more clear ways to express the state of awareness you call no I. I don't dispute your awareness. I dispute the meaning, the interpretation you give to it. Irmeli: Peter's claims are often in conflict with his behaviour. He asks others to leave all stories, as if it were possible. When his own cherished favourite story is questioned, he gets so hurt that, if he bothers to answer, he uses all is energy, not to discuss the proposed ideas, but to tell me, how my ideas are low waking state ideas. They don't belong to enlightened reality. Apparently somehow these structures I have brought up, that define also our use of language, vanish totally in enlightened state according to Peter's reasoning. Peter: Yes, they do, pretty much! The shift from waking state to Realization; the shift from a bound, limited, subjective sense of self to an unbounded
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: The insulted Peter Suthpen
--- akasha_108 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: But your words are so much focussed on the subjective Experience no I that people seem to think that you are saying there is no genetic Peter, no social Peter, no Professional Peter. Which is silly. I know you don't mean that, but your words appear to some as so emphatic sometimes, the totality of the situation is not clear to evryone. That must be the case. Saying I don't exist could be a tad confusing for someone listening. Its like you let go of genetic Peter, social Peter, professional Peter. Or genetic Peter, social Peter, professional Peter let go of (their binding claim on) you. You let go. Only you didn't do anything. Its like you got let go. Which is (in amerian idiom) you got fired. You no longer work. Work happens but you are retired. Not retired, but dead. Actually not, dead, but never born. Like a dream character seen from waking state, you just laugh and say, boy, what a nut, I thought I was a tree! You never were a tree, never. This is a good point. no I is one story. Its one marker. Its one way to describe IT. There are other stories. 9 million in the Naked City alone. It appears you have some qualm about letting go and enjoying and celebratng other stories. it not clear why. Arrogant bastard that I am? ;-) I don't experience that as insulting. Passive aggressive comments like, hiding behind concepts, and he doesn't bother to answer me. are indicative of another agenda going on in the conversation. IMO, you are reading way to much into simple words, finding things that are insulting or other agendas (tom is into seeing agendas also. go figure) Why can't the words just be a story. Someones story about you. So many stories. What does one more matter. If they like their story, should that be enough? And who cares if someone is passive agressive. That is their issue. Something is bothering them. Why is that a crime? No crime. Maybe its my profession. I'm very sensitive to experiencing implicit psychological agendas. That's what I get paid to do. (Its roughlyparallel to the fact that people have thoughts. Are the thoughts true? Maybe. maybe not. But its not a crime to have a thought, regardless of whether its true of not.) Why is he so attached to that story. No I is a story, a description by words of an inner state. Because the concept/story articulates my phenomenological reality. I'm attached to it the same way you'd be attached to the phrase, It's raining if you went outside and rain drops were falling from the sky. But its not the only true story. Of course, and maybe that is where my fault lies in that I usually ignore a posting if the thread takes a turn towards something that holds no interest for me. This is not meant to be a commentary upon the value of the postings in the thread for others. Another problem is that exchanging thoughts with more intelligent, philosophical types such as Iremili and yourself becomes extremely time consuming and difficult in this medium. A live conversation would work much better with instant feedback and more subtle, nuanced explanations. When the phenomenological reality changes, then the concept will be useless. And I understand that the phenomenological reality of no I is useless to you. Its not all black and white. I read into Irmeli's words, over time, certanly some Experience. It seems a lot of the debate is semantics, you each previeve words of the other in ways different than they were meant. I see that too and it becomes very tedious to attempt to clarify all the mis-matching concepts so I leave the conversation. __ Yahoo! Mail - PC Magazine Editors' Choice 2005 http://mail.yahoo.com Yahoo! Groups Sponsor ~-- Get fast access to your favorite Yahoo! Groups. Make Yahoo! your home page http://us.click.yahoo.com/dpRU5A/wUILAA/yQLSAA/JjtolB/TM ~- To subscribe, send a message to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Or go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/ and click 'Join This Group!' Yahoo! Groups Links * To visit your group on the web, go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/ * To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] * Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to: http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
[FairfieldLife] Re: The insulted Peter Suthpen
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Peter [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Who has got insulted here, if there is no I Peter Suthpen? You don't understand what I'm talking about when I say no I. Well, I do. But I also see why people call you on it, or im my case, rib you a lot about it. There is a genetic Peter. There is a social Peter. (sort of the outcome of nature/nuture effects). There is a professional Peter. And none have anything to do with Experienceness. aka Fullness. aka Home. aka IT. Its not that you identify now with IT or the SELF, but that there is no identication. There actually never was, it was as a mirage is on the desert. Seems real, until its gone. But your words are so much focussed on the subjective Experience no I that people seem to think that you are saying there is no genetic Peter, no social Peter, no Professional Peter. Which is silly. I know you don't mean that, but your words appear to some as so emphatic sometimes, the totality of the situation is not clear to evryone. Its like you let go of genetic Peter, social Peter, professional Peter. Or genetic Peter, social Peter, professional Peter let go of (their binding claim on) you. You let go. Only you didn't do anything. Its like you got let go. Which is (in amerian idiom) you got fired. You no longer work. Work happens but you are retired. (and this is what Dylan was referring to when he sang I ain't going to work on Maggie's farm no more! Why don't you discuss with people, who don't share your conceptual framework, or your stories. Wouldn't it be a good starting point to get beyond one's stories to discuss with people who have different stories than you? This is a good point. no I is one story. Its one marker. Its one way to describe IT. There are other stories. 9 million in the Naked City alone. It appears you have some qualm about letting go and enjoying and celebratng other stories. it not clear why. I don't experience that as insulting. Passive aggressive comments like, hiding behind concepts, and he doesn't bother to answer me. are indicative of another agenda going on in the conversation. IMO, you are reading way to much into simple words, finding things that are insulting or other agendas (tom is into seeing agendas also. go figure) Why can't the words just be a story. Someones story about you. So many stories. What does one more matter. If they like their story, should that be enough? And who cares if someone is passive agressive. That is their issue. Something is bothering them. Why is that a crime? (Its roughlyparallel to the fact that people have thoughts. Are the thoughts true? Maybe. maybe not. But its not a crime to have a thought, regardless of whether its true of not.) Why is he so attached to that story. No I is a story, a description by words of an inner state. Because the concept/story articulates my phenomenological reality. I'm attached to it the same way you'd be attached to the phrase, It's raining if you went outside and rain drops were falling from the sky. But its not the only true story. When the phenomenological reality changes, then the concept will be useless. And I understand that the phenomenological reality of no I is useless to you. Its not all black and white. I read into Irmeli's words, over time, certanly some Experience. It seems a lot of the debate is semantics, you each previeve words of the other in ways different than they were meant. On top of that, you each have different stories. I do recognize that different experiences can and will give rise to different stories. And, for example, if one hs no experience of Self, then anothers story of Self will not make sense. But from all of Irmeli's posts, it appears likely she has abundant Experience, Self knows Self. (I say appears, because words can be said by anyone.) Thus it appears you are debating stories about Experience. Which seems odd. All stories, if authentically based, are good, fun, interesting. Fine. Just don't infer that it's useless for me. I don't think she is. But why do you care if she infers it or not? its like SO WHAT! ... Apparently somehow these structures I have brought up, that define also our use of language, vanish totally in enlightened state according to Peter's reasoning. Yes, they do, pretty much! The shift from waking state to Realization; the shift from a bound, limited, subjective sense of self to an unbounded no-self radically alters many cherished concepts of waking state. The first being that there is no such thing as an individual. But this is not the reality of lowly, waking state. Yes. That is the subjective experience. And yet there is still a genetic Peter, a social Peter, a professional Peter I believe that is her main point. No need for each to be digging trenches. Why does Peter still all the time express himself with the waking state language in his enlightened state if
