Re: [FairfieldLife] RE: Deification and the Uncreated Engergies of God
On 2/25/2014 3:21 PM, emptyb...@yahoo.com wrote: This article misrepresents the smarta sampradaya. > We should probably get into the details of this Advaita Vedanta system and sort it all out, since this is the tradition TMers are supposed to be interested in. Swami Brahmananda Saraswati the Shankaracharya of Jyotir Math followed the Smarta tradition. Smartas worship the Supreme in one of six forms - that's where the TMer bija mantras come from. So, let's review what we know: The Sanskrit word "Smarta" is derived from "smriti" - "what is remembered by human teachers." The Smarta Sampradaya follows the Advaita Vedanta philosophy, the tradition of the Adi Shankaracharya. The Sringeri Sharada monastery founded by Adi Shankara Acharya in Karnataka is headquarters of the sect. According to Smartism, the supreme reality, Brahman, transcends all of the various forms of personal deity and God is both Saguna and Nirguna Brahman.
Re: [FairfieldLife] RE: Deification and the Uncreated Engergies of God
On 2/24/2014 5:50 PM, emptyb...@yahoo.com wrote: Our members driving this very thread are the sheer eh-pee-tomee-s of deification. > You've lost them, so now we will have to go back and start this thread over again. Lett's review what we know: "Absolute monists see one unity with all personal forms of God as different aspects of one Supreme Being, like a single beam of light separated into colors by a prism. Thus Smartas consider all personal forms of God as equal including Devi, Vishnu, Siva, Ganesh and Skanda but generally limit the recognized forms to be six." http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hindu_views_on_monotheism
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Deification and the Uncreated Engergies of God
On 2/24/2014 10:40 AM, anartax...@yahoo.com wrote: > I was thinking of the quote Judy originally made about not discussing > anything with me, and Judy was probably thinking of the quote she > subsequently made when she responded to me (where she tried to worm > around not being able to respond to me without lying by 'commenting' > on what I wrote), so the 'best' interpretation is we both misconstrued > the specific item each thought the other was referring to. > Maybe we should just move this whole discussion over to WhatsApp since NOBODY in less than 24 hours is going to EVER again read this discussion about theism and " Deification and the Uncreated Engergies of God". NEVER. Somebody prove me wrong.
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Deification and the Uncreated Engergies of God
Actually, Barry, it's Xeno who has been "stalking" me. I made it very clear what I would and would not do where Xeno was concerned (quoted below) unless he either retracted his false accusations or documented them (which he couldn't do because they were, duh, false). Xeno and Barry have both misrepresented what I said, no surprise there. They have no case, so the only thing they can do is lie. Let's see whether batshit crazy Judy can admit that the *only* thing wrong with Xeno's statement is the message number. :-) In other words, she's jumping through all these hoops just to avoid admitting that she is stalking a person who she swore she would never discuss anything with again until he retracted the *true* things he said about her. What a devious, lying cunt. And crazy to boot. And to make it worse, she thinks no one notices... Let's see if Xeno can admit to his whopping error (or "direct unvarnished lie") instead of trying to blame it on me. He wrote: << 'In post #358357, 22 September 2013 you said: Why don't you fuck off? I'm not going to discuss anything with you until you've documented your accusations, or withdrawn them.' >> The actual post in question: https://groups.yahoo.com/neo/groups/FairfieldLife/conversations/messages/ https://groups.yahoo.com/neo/groups/FairfieldLife/conversations/messages/358537358537 https://groups.yahoo.com/neo/groups/FairfieldLife/conversations/messages/358537 "A particular discussion of which I am part" = one of Xeno's repeated attempts to force me to respond to him so he can accuse me of "lying" when I said what he quotes (an utterly absurd canard he picked up from Barry). His twisted, malevolent dishonesty is quite amazing in a person who has publicly asserted his freedom from such entanglements--when he is actually helpless even to unpress his own buttons. He pretends to need a reference for my "I could have sworn..." post when in fact he knows precisely which very recent post I'm talking about. And he got the number of the post he quotes wrong (deliberately?). Here's the right one: https://groups.yahoo.com/neo/groups/FairfieldLife/conversations/messages/358537 https://groups.yahoo.com/neo/groups/FairfieldLife/conversations/messages/358537 This is precisely the post I mentioned (#358357) for in post #374410 I wrote: ' In post #358357, 22 September 2013 you said: Why don't you fuck off? I'm not going to discuss anything with you until you've documented your accusations, or withdrawn them.' So the statement above that I quoted the wrong quote is a direct unvarnished lie, unless you admit to having made a mistake. Note that his belligerent fury is at my response to his own knowingly false accusations about my purported "pattern of deviousness" and "lack of integrity"--which he himself admitted he could not document. The above in red is an example of your deviousness, for the most part it is the observation of your pattern of behaviour, and you tend to be more subtle than the blatant example above. In a subsequent post, I addressed his misrepresentation of what he quotes me as saying: I was not referring to this one below (though there was a one-sided discussion about it at the time) but commenting on a post is a sly (sly = devious here) way of entering the discussion without directly saying that is what you are doing. Having said what you said, of course I have been baiting you to see if you would slip up more directly and actually directly respond to me rather than tangentially. If that makes me a bad person, so be it. But someone who proclaims honesty so vociferously really should be tested for veracity continually. I said I wouldn't discuss anything with you unless you withdraw your accusations (you can't document them because they're patently not true). I didn't say I wouldn't comment if I found it appropriate to do so (e.g., if you make any more false or insulting statements about me, I may respond to them). But your accusations, as long as they're on the table, have effectively foreclosed on the possibility of our having a friendly discussion of "philosophy or science or music" or any other neutral topic. You could have sworn (reference please) but I do not think that is it. In post #358357, 22 September 2013 you said: Why don't you fuck off? I'm not going to discuss anything with you until you've documented your accusations, or withdrawn them. Because those accusations have not been withdrawn, nor documented you, cannot enter into a discussion with me without having lied. You seem to skirt the edges of this pronouncement rather closely, by talking about me in the third person, by attempting to 'comment' to appear as if you are not involving yourself in a particular discussion of which I am part. The lengths to which you go to 'prove' you are the paragon of truth and honesty are beyond credulity. Advertising simply c
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Deification and the Uncreated Engergies of God
Let's see whether batshit crazy Judy can admit that the *only* thing wrong with Xeno's statement is the message number. :-) In other words, she's jumping through all these hoops just to avoid admitting that she is stalking a person who she swore she would never discuss anything with again until he retracted the *true* things he said about her. What a devious, lying cunt. And crazy to boot. And to make it worse, she thinks no one notices... From: "authfri...@yahoo.com" To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com Sent: Monday, February 24, 2014 6:52 PM Subject: [FairfieldLife] Re: Deification and the Uncreated Engergies of God Let's see if Xeno can admit to his whopping error (or "direct unvarnished lie") instead of trying to blame it on me. He wrote: << 'In post #358357, 22 September 2013 you said: Why don't you fuck off? I'm not going to discuss anything with you until you've documented your accusations, or withdrawn them.' >> The actual post in question: https://groups.yahoo.com/neo/groups/FairfieldLife/conversations/messages/358537 > >"A particular discussion of which I am part" = one of Xeno's repeated attempts >to force me to respond to him so he can accuse me of "lying" when I said what >he quotes (an utterly absurd canard he picked up from Barry). > > >His twisted, malevolent dishonesty is quite amazing in a person who has >publicly asserted his freedom from such entanglements--when he is actually >helpless even to unpress his own buttons. > > >He pretends to need a reference for my "I could have sworn..." post when in >fact he knows precisely which very recent post I'm talking about. > > >And he got the number of the post he quotes wrong (deliberately?). Here's the >right one: > > >https://groups.yahoo.com/neo/groups/FairfieldLife/conversations/messages/358537 > > >This is precisely the post I mentioned (#358357) for in post #374410 I wrote: > > >' In post #358357, 22 September 2013 you said: > > >Why don't you fuck off? I'm not going to discuss anything with you until >you've documented your accusations, or withdrawn them.' > > >So the statement above that I quoted the wrong quote is a direct unvarnished >lie, unless you admit to having made a mistake. > > > >Note that his belligerent fury is at my response to his own knowingly false >accusations about my purported "pattern of deviousness" and "lack of >integrity"--which he himself admitted he could not document. > > >The above in red is an example of your deviousness, for the most part it is >the observation of your pattern of behaviour, and you tend to be more subtle >than the blatant example above. > > >In a subsequent post, I addressed his misrepresentation of what he quotes me >as saying: > > >I was not referring to this one below (though there was a one-sided discussion >about it at the time) but commenting on a post is a sly (sly = devious here) >way of entering the discussion without directly saying that is what you are >doing. Having said what you said, of course I have been baiting you to see if >you would slip up more directly and actually directly respond to me rather >than tangentially. If that makes me a bad person, so be it. But someone who >proclaims honesty so vociferously really should be tested for veracity >continually. > > >I said I wouldn't discuss anything with you unless you withdraw your >accusations (you can't document them because they're patently not true). I >didn't say I wouldn't comment if I found it appropriate to do so (e.g., if you >make any more false or insulting statements about me, I may respond to them). >But your accusations, as long as they're on the table, have effectively >foreclosed on the possibility of our having a friendly discussion of >"philosophy or science or music" or any other neutral topic. > > >You could have sworn (reference please) but I do not think that is it. In post >#358357, 22 September 2013 you said: > > >Why don't you fuck off? I'm not going to discuss anything with you until >you've documented your accusations, or withdrawn them. > > >Because those accusations have not been withdrawn, nor documented you, cannot >enter into a discussion with me without having lied. You seem to skirt the >edges of this pronouncement rather closely, by talking about me in the third >person, by attempting to 'comment' to appear as if you are not involving >yourself in a particular discussion of which I am part. The lengths to which >you go to 'prove' you are the paragon of truth and honesty are beyond >credulity. Advertising simply cannot cover up the basic fact of the matter. > > >I could have sworn I made it clear I wasn't at all interested in commenting on >what Xeno had to say unless he deliberately misrepresented me or something I >said. If anyone else happens to be curious about the answers to the questions >he asks, let me know. > >>>
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Deification and the Uncreated Engergies of God
---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, wrote: Richard, I think we got our signals crossed. I was thinking of the quote Judy originally made about not discussing anything with me, and Judy was probably thinking of the quote she subsequently made when she responded to me (where she tried to worm around not being able to respond to me without lying by 'commenting' on what I wrote), so the 'best' interpretation is we both misconstrued the specific item each thought the other was referring to. I rather like her not being able to respond to me directly because then she has to act just like Barry does when he mentions her, she takes on Barry's method of tangential interaction, modeling her adversary in form and style, for as she considers him the most nefarious of liars, voilá, Nothing could be more ironic (in the sense that this is a state of affairs that is the reverse of what was desired). Judy has become the very image of her nemesis, except perhaps she has no heart at all, whereas Barry shows definite signs of normal humanness when not confronting Judy. Judy's snarkiness, as you put it, seems to be a well defined character trait she has that Barry does not have. That does not mean Barry is Mr. Nice with a halo by comparison, he can grind people's heads to powder with the best of them (that is a reference to Krishna in the BG by the way). Barry is an emotional, intellectual and socially inept slob. I recall you posting a number of items with Classical orchestras. Here is one of my favorite pieces: http://youtu.be/qPl2LUq-vpw http://youtu.be/qPl2LUq-vpw ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, wrote: On 2/24/2014 8:31 AM, anartaxius@... mailto:anartaxius@... wrote: So the statement above that I quoted the wrong quote is a direct unvarnished lie, unless you admit to having made a mistake. > So, let's set the record straight: which is the correct quote?
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Deification and the Uncreated Engergies of God
Richard, I think we got our signals crossed. I was thinking of the quote Judy originally made about not discussing anything with me, and Judy was probably thinking of the quote she subsequently made when she responded to me (where she tried to worm around not being able to respond to me without lying by 'commenting' on what I wrote), so the 'best' interpretation is we both misconstrued the specific item each thought the other was referring to. I rather like her not being able to respond to me directly because then she has to act just like Barry does when he mentions her, she takes on Barry's method of tangential interaction, modeling her adversary in form and style, for as she considers him the most nefarious of liars, voilá, Nothing could be more ironic (in the sense that this is a state of affairs that is the reverse of what was desired). Judy has become the very image of her nemesis, except perhaps she has no heart at all, whereas Barry shows definite signs of normal humanness when not confronting Judy. Judy's snarkiness, as you put it, seems to be a well defined character trait she has that Barry does not have. That does not mean Barry is Mr. Nice with a halo by comparison, he can grind people's heads to powder with the best of them (that is a reference to Krishna in the BG by the way). I recall you posting a number of items with Classical orchestras. Here is one of my favorite pieces: http://youtu.be/qPl2LUq-vpw http://youtu.be/qPl2LUq-vpw ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, wrote: On 2/24/2014 8:31 AM, anartaxius@... mailto:anartaxius@... wrote: So the statement above that I quoted the wrong quote is a direct unvarnished lie, unless you admit to having made a mistake. > So, let's set the record straight: which is the correct quote?
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Deification and the Uncreated Engergies of God
On 2/24/2014 8:31 AM, anartax...@yahoo.com wrote: So the statement above that I quoted the wrong quote is a direct unvarnished lie, unless you admit to having made a mistake. > So, let's set the record straight: which is the correct quote?
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Deification and the Uncreated Engergies of God
Speaking from personal experience, B is showing symptoms of past emotional abuse - chronic rejecting, criticizing, terrorizing, or isolating, or any combo, by a parent or caregiver, leads to the ways he expresses himself. I am not trying to out him, but having been through an exhaustive process of discovering my own history, and consequences, of such emotional abuse, it is easy to recognize the signs in others - specifically, being emotionally abusive, as a way of relating socially, and personally. Being under such an onslaught, at such a young age, is unbearable, and we all develop unhealthy coping mechanisms, as a result, until the light of awareness dawns, through whatever means. B probably doesn't like his negative behavior, any more than anyone else does, who is exposed to it. I sure didn't like mine, which was similar, though not as pervasive. Anyway, I sympathize, and empathize, with B, and hope he works it out. No one likes to be the asshole all the time. Peace. ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, wrote: ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, wrote: A cunt, and a coward, too. Talk about karma. :-) Bawwy, so classy, so erudite, so sophisticated. You really do take the cake when it comes to exhibiting yourself as an example of the lowest common denominator. What a guy, can anyone imagine spending time with someone like this? How about trying this on for size: ignorant, sad, loser. From: "authfriend@..." To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com Sent: Sunday, February 23, 2014 6:31 PM Subject: [FairfieldLife] Re: Deification and the Uncreated Engergies of God I could have sworn I made it clear I wasn't at all interested in commenting on what Xeno had to say unless he deliberately misrepresented me or something I said. If anyone else happens to be curious about the answers to the questions he asks, let me know. I do not give much of a damn about classical theism. It has a certain interest for me in relation to understanding others. I think that certain aspects of classical theism prevalent in my environment when I was a child were part of the reason theism slipped away from me; certain things did not compute even at an early age, so I had to strike out in other directions to find information and understanding. The rejection or acceptance of a view does not necessarily require detailed knowledge of a subject. For example, it is not necessary to read and understand in detail the life of Bruce Wayne, his world and acquaintances and the psychology of Batman in order to reject Batman as person that is real in the world; it is not even necessary to understand the real world writers that keep Batman a presence in the world. Batman has a virtual existence, a secondary kind of existence. In the world of our own consciousness, thoughts are our virtual existence, but there is no way to delineate exactly or to even understand how this kind of experience that seems to result from meditation, etc., works the way it does to reveal thought as a secondary reality. Those trapped in the ideologies of thought can argue endlessly about their virtual worlds if it is important to them. They do come up with amazing arguments sometimes. A person who argues about a subject that is not dear to them for meaning in life is simply engaging in trivial combat. On the Internet they are called trolls. In 'real life' such argumentation can be valuable in honing debating skills, or for a career (say, politics) where you can argue a point as a support for your job. However such argumentation does undermine the experience of truth, if the experience of 'truth' is not established in awareness. The real question I would ask of Judy is 'what is the value of classical theism to her?' Does she have a genuine interest in classical theism? Is that interest intellectual, or spiritually motivated? Does it help her job? If classical theism is not what she thinks is true, what is its relationship with what she does think is true? What is she trying to find out, if anything? If she is not trying to find out anything that has meaning for her experience, then we can probably find a classification for her presence here. Some have been suggested, which she has not dispelled as yet. I keep waiting to see if something breaks in a genuine positive direction. (Sorry Barry, if I seem delusionally hopeful.)
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Deification and the Uncreated Engergies of God
On 2/23/2014 11:45 AM, TurquoiseBee wrote: A cunt, and a coward, too. Talk about karma. :-) > Somebody got their button pushed. Go figure.
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Deification and the Uncreated Engergies of God
---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, wrote: A cunt, and a coward, too. Talk about karma. :-) Bawwy, so classy, so erudite, so sophisticated. You really do take the cake when it comes to exhibiting yourself as an example of the lowest common denominator. What a guy, can anyone imagine spending time with someone like this? How about trying this on for size: ignorant, sad, loser. From: "authfriend@..." To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com Sent: Sunday, February 23, 2014 6:31 PM Subject: [FairfieldLife] Re: Deification and the Uncreated Engergies of God I could have sworn I made it clear I wasn't at all interested in commenting on what Xeno had to say unless he deliberately misrepresented me or something I said. If anyone else happens to be curious about the answers to the questions he asks, let me know. I do not give much of a damn about classical theism. It has a certain interest for me in relation to understanding others. I think that certain aspects of classical theism prevalent in my environment when I was a child were part of the reason theism slipped away from me; certain things did not compute even at an early age, so I had to strike out in other directions to find information and understanding. The rejection or acceptance of a view does not necessarily require detailed knowledge of a subject. For example, it is not necessary to read and understand in detail the life of Bruce Wayne, his world and acquaintances and the psychology of Batman in order to reject Batman as person that is real in the world; it is not even necessary to understand the real world writers that keep Batman a presence in the world. Batman has a virtual existence, a secondary kind of existence. In the world of our own consciousness, thoughts are our virtual existence, but there is no way to delineate exactly or to even understand how this kind of experience that seems to result from meditation, etc., works the way it does to reveal thought as a secondary reality. Those trapped in the ideologies of thought can argue endlessly about their virtual worlds if it is important to them. They do come up with amazing arguments sometimes. A person who argues about a subject that is not dear to them for meaning in life is simply engaging in trivial combat. On the Internet they are called trolls. In 'real life' such argumentation can be valuable in honing debating skills, or for a career (say, politics) where you can argue a point as a support for your job. However such argumentation does undermine the experience of truth, if the experience of 'truth' is not established in awareness. The real question I would ask of Judy is 'what is the value of classical theism to her?' Does she have a genuine interest in classical theism? Is that interest intellectual, or spiritually motivated? Does it help her job? If classical theism is not what she thinks is true, what is its relationship with what she does think is true? What is she trying to find out, if anything? If she is not trying to find out anything that has meaning for her experience, then we can probably find a classification for her presence here. Some have been suggested, which she has not dispelled as yet. I keep waiting to see if something breaks in a genuine positive direction. (Sorry Barry, if I seem delusionally hopeful.)
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Deification and the Uncreated Engergies of God
Try to imagine the obsessive narcissism of Barry fantasizing that he knows anything about my psychology. She argues because something in her deep, dark past has convinced her that she's only really ALIVE when she's arguing. And, in her mind, "winning." Try to imagine the poverty of that. W
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Deification and the Uncreated Engergies of God
Oopsie, you didn't read my last sentence. (And with all due respect, you are in no position to call anybody else either a cunt or a coward, let alone both.) A cunt, and a coward, too. Talk about karma. :-) From: "authfriend@..." To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com Sent: Sunday, February 23, 2014 6:31 PM Subject: [FairfieldLife] Re: Deification and the Uncreated Engergies of God I could have sworn I made it clear I wasn't at all interested in commenting on what Xeno had to say unless he deliberately misrepresented me or something I said. If anyone else happens to be curious about the answers to the questions he asks, let me know. I do not give much of a damn about classical theism. It has a certain interest for me in relation to understanding others. I think that certain aspects of classical theism prevalent in my environment when I was a child were part of the reason theism slipped away from me; certain things did not compute even at an early age, so I had to strike out in other directions to find information and understanding. The rejection or acceptance of a view does not necessarily require detailed knowledge of a subject. For example, it is not necessary to read and understand in detail the life of Bruce Wayne, his world and acquaintances and the psychology of Batman in order to reject Batman as person that is real in the world; it is not even necessary to understand the real world writers that keep Batman a presence in the world. Batman has a virtual existence, a secondary kind of existence. In the world of our own consciousness, thoughts are our virtual existence, but there is no way to delineate exactly or to even understand how this kind of experience that seems to result from meditation, etc., works the way it does to reveal thought as a secondary reality. Those trapped in the ideologies of thought can argue endlessly about their virtual worlds if it is important to them. They do come up with amazing arguments sometimes. A person who argues about a subject that is not dear to them for meaning in life is simply engaging in trivial combat. On the Internet they are called trolls. In 'real life' such argumentation can be valuable in honing debating skills, or for a career (say, politics) where you can argue a point as a support for your job. However such argumentation does undermine the experience of truth, if the experience of 'truth' is not established in awareness. The real question I would ask of Judy is 'what is the value of classical theism to her?' Does she have a genuine interest in classical theism? Is that interest intellectual, or spiritually motivated? Does it help her job? If classical theism is not what she thinks is true, what is its relationship with what she does think is true? What is she trying to find out, if anything? If she is not trying to find out anything that has meaning for her experience, then we can probably find a classification for her presence here. Some have been suggested, which she has not dispelled as yet. I keep waiting to see if something breaks in a genuine positive direction. (Sorry Barry, if I seem delusionally hopeful.)
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Deification and the Uncreated Engergies of God
A cunt, and a coward, too. Talk about karma. :-) From: "authfri...@yahoo.com" To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com Sent: Sunday, February 23, 2014 6:31 PM Subject: [FairfieldLife] Re: Deification and the Uncreated Engergies of God I could have sworn I made it clear I wasn't at all interested in commenting on what Xeno had to say unless he deliberately misrepresented me or something I said. If anyone else happens to be curious about the answers to the questions he asks, let me know. I do not give much of a damn about classical theism. It has a certain interest for me in relation to understanding others. I think that certain aspects of classical theism prevalent in my environment when I was a child were part of the reason theism slipped away from me; certain things did not compute even at an early age, so I had to strike out in other directions to find information and understanding. The rejection or acceptance of a view does not necessarily require detailed knowledge of a subject. For example, it is not necessary to read and understand in detail the life of Bruce Wayne, his world and acquaintances and the psychology of Batman in order to reject Batman as person that is real in the world; it is not even necessary to understand the real world writers that keep Batman a presence in the world. Batman has a virtual existence, a secondary kind of existence. In the world of our own consciousness, thoughts are our virtual existence, but there is no way to delineate exactly or to even understand how this kind of experience that seems to result from meditation, etc., works the way it does to reveal thought as a secondary reality. Those trapped in the ideologies of thought can argue endlessly about their virtual worlds if it is important to them. They do come up with amazing arguments sometimes. A person who argues about a subject that is not dear to them for meaning in life is simply engaging in trivial combat. On the Internet they are called trolls. In 'real life' such argumentation can be valuable in honing debating skills, or for a career (say, politics) where you can argue a point as a support for your job. However such argumentation does undermine the experience of truth, if the experience of 'truth' is not established in awareness. The real question I would ask of Judy is 'what is the value of classical theism to her?' Does she have a genuine interest in classical theism? Is that interest intellectual, or spiritually motivated? Does it help her job? If classical theism is not what she thinks is true, what is its relationship with what she does think is true? What is she trying to find out, if anything? If she is not trying to find out anything that has meaning for her experience, then we can probably find a classification for her presence here. Some have been suggested, which she has not dispelled as yet. I keep waiting to see if something breaks in a genuine positive direction. (Sorry Barry, if I seem delusionally hopeful.)
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Deification and the Uncreated Engergies of God
From: "anartax...@yahoo.com" To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com Sent: Sunday, February 23, 2014 5:56 PM Subject: [FairfieldLife] Re: Deification and the Uncreated Engergies of God I do not give much of a damn about classical theism. It has a certain interest for me in relation to understanding others. I think that certain aspects of classical theism prevalent in my environment when I was a child were part of the reason theism slipped away from me; certain things did not compute even at an early age, so I had to strike out in other directions to find information and understanding. The rejection or acceptance of a view does not necessarily require detailed knowledge of a subject. For example, it is not necessary to read and understand in detail the life of Bruce Wayne, his world and acquaintances and the psychology of Batman in order to reject Batman as person that is real in the world; it is not even necessary to understand the real world writers that keep Batman a presence in the world. Batman has a virtual existence, a secondary kind of existence. In the world of our own consciousness, thoughts are our virtual existence, but there is no way to delineate exactly or to even understand how this kind of experience that seems to result from meditation, etc., works the way it does to reveal thought as a secondary reality. Those trapped in the ideologies of thought can argue endlessly about their virtual worlds if it is important to them. They do come up with amazing arguments sometimes. A person who argues about a subject that is not dear to them for meaning in life is simply engaging in trivial combat. On the Internet they are called trolls. In 'real life' such argumentation can be valuable in honing debating skills, or for a career (say, politics) where you can argue a point as a support for your job. However such argumentation does undermine the experience of truth, if the experience of 'truth' is not established in awareness. The real question I would ask of Judy is 'what is the value of classical theism to her?' Does she have a genuine interest in classical theism? Is that interest intellectual, or spiritually motivated? Does it help her job? If classical theism is not what she thinks is true, what is its relationship with what she does think is true? What is she trying to find out, if anything? If she is not trying to find out anything that has meaning for her experience, then we can probably find a classification for her presence here. Some have been suggested, which she has not dispelled as yet. I keep waiting to see if something breaks in a genuine positive direction. (Sorry Barry, if I seem delusionally hopeful.) While I may admire your hopefulness, I cannot encourage it. She argues because something in her deep, dark past has convinced her that she's only really ALIVE when she's arguing. And, in her mind, "winning." Try to imagine the poverty of that. W
