Re: [FairfieldLife] The insulted Peter Suthpen
God, I know! Everybody else is so fascinated with it. --- Sal Sunshine [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Keep this going, you two, and you'll be able to grab the championship away from Barry and Judy. Sal On Nov 2, 2005, at 6:16 PM, Peter wrote: 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: __ 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] The insulted Peter Suthpen
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Peter [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: 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. Who has got insulted here, if there is no I Peter Suthpen? 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 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. Why does Peter experience my criticism of his No I story so insulting. Why is he so attached to that story. No I is a story, a description by words of an inner state. 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. Why does Peter still all the time express himself with the waking state language in his enlightened state if those strucuteres don't exist in enlightened state. That man is full of bullshit. Now I first time say a personal insult of him. He is full of his superiority that he hides behind his sacred No I story. To be convincing he tries to avoid the word I. Pathetic. I find it also quite interesting that he has not bothered to comment any of the ideas of the function of I presented by me. He just dismisses them as low waking state ideas. Why has he this need to show off his superiority by putting others down? He claims I have insulted him. I have not. It is me, who should feel hurt because of his nonchalant, and condescending treatment of my comments. His behaviour shows that he has an I and an ego, that is in desperate need to prove his superiority above others. He has spent a long time in spiritual circles and he has figured out that enlightenment and No I are very highly appreciated in those circles. Apparently his ego has started to interpret his subtle experiences in those terms. Had he taken a nonspiritual path the stories he would be telling himself about himself to prove his superiority would be something else. But the inner pattern would be precisely the same, only the outer form different. Why did he not comment the quote of Ken Wilber and Andrew Cohen discussion in my latest post on this topic. Are also their understanding and insights so low waking state descriptions that it doesn't interest him? Why did he instead concentrate on blubbering how I have insulted him? I have no memory of any personal attack on Peter Suthpen. I have heavily criticised MMY, but he is a public figure. It is not my habit to attack personally the members of FFL. This post is an exception. I add the Wilber/Cohen quote again here. The quote is from the newest issue of What is Enlightenment . It is from the Ken Wilber and Andrew Cohen Dialogue and I feel it to be a very good description that pretty well describes also my own inner reality. Quote: Wilber: Moment to moment there is this ever-present is-ness, and yet as soon as you locate yourself in it, there is an `I'. Cohen: Yes. The minute you locate yourself, the whole world appears. Wilber: Exactly. As soon as there is an `I', there is an it or an object, and then there is a `we'; there is some resonance with some other subjectivity someplace. Wilber explains also a little bit further in the text: When you are in a causal, or nondual, open-eyes, ever-present, non-effort state, an I arises that is an authentic self. Is this too low for Peter Suthpen to comment? Actually I suspect this is far too advanced for Peter Suthpen. Irmeli 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
Re: [FairfieldLife] The insulted Peter Suthpen
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 Mattsson [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Peter [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: 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. 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. 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? Of course, and I have done this with you in the past. 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. Why does Peter experience my criticism of his No I story so insulting. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. Why does Peter still all the time express himself with the waking state language in his enlightened state if those strucuteres don't exist in enlightened state. I don't follow you here. How else am I going to communicate with you or anyone else? Silence? That man is full of bullshit. Have you been talking to my wife? ;-) Now I first time say a personal insult of him. He is full of his superiority that he hides behind his sacred No I story. To be convincing he tries to avoid the word I. Pathetic. I try to avoid the word I? I don't think so. That truly would be pathetic! I'm sorry if I come off as sounding superior. That certainly isn't my intent at all. I've been accused of that before in this newsgroup, so I guess it does happen. I find it also quite interesting that he has not bothered to comment any of the ideas of the function of I presented by me. He just dismisses them as low waking state ideas. Why has he this need to show off his superiority by putting others down? I don't say they are lowly. The problem comes about because you are talking about enlightenment within the phenomenological limitations of waking state. Enlightenment can not be understood within waking state because it is such a radical shift of self (even this does not express the idea correctly because it implies a relationship between the self of waking state and the unbounded no-self of enlightenment as if there is some sort of a continuum between the two. There isn't) He claims I have insulted him. I have not. It is me, who should feel hurt because of his nonchalant, and condescending treatment of my comments. Perhaps nonchalant, but not condescending. If you haven't had experiences of enlightenemnt, what are you doing trying to talk about it? You can't! This might seem condescending to you, but of what value is a
Re: [FairfieldLife] The insulted Peter Suthpen
Keep this going, you two, and you'll be able to grab the championship away from Barry and Judy. Sal On Nov 2, 2005, at 6:16 PM, Peter wrote: 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:
