--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "do.rflex" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB wrote:
> >
> > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Rory Goff" wrote:
> > >
> > > (P.S. It looks as though you've apparently chosen yet again
> > > to ignore the main point of the post: the distinction between
> > > sattva and purusha, or judging "it's a really, really *good*
> > > movie" vs. actually freeing oneself from belief in the movie.
> > > While I enjoy sattvic behavior as much as the next guy, judging
> > > anyone's behavior as "enlightened" or "not enlightened" would
> > > to me fall into the category of judging the quality of the
> > > movie.)
> >
> > Ah, the light dawns.
> >
> > Rory and Jim just don't have any *discrimination*.
> >
> > It's all about upholding their moodmake-y views of
> > their own states of consciousness, in the same way
> > that Ed Wood actually believed that he was a
> > good filmmaker.
> >
> > One *can* "suspend disbelief" and enjoy even an
> > Ed Wood movie, but if one has been around the
> > film block a few times, that suspension of dis-
> > belief doesn't prevent one from knowing that one
> > is watching a Really Bad Movie.
> >
> > The problem with you guys and your claims about
> > your own states of consciousness is *not* that
> > you don't believe them. I'm sure that you both
> > believe them, and that, like Ed Wood, you believe
> > that you're creating great works of "consciousness
> > cinema" with your posts here.
> >
> > The problem IMO is that you're acting, and you're
> > both really bad actors,
> >
> > What you mistake for high drama and uplifting
> > cinema many of the rest of us -- our discrimination
> > still intact -- see as a Really Bad Movie.
> >
> > Bottom line: moodmaking isn't enlightenment, unless
> > your audience can be convinced to moodmake along
> > with you. You guys just aren't that convincing.
>
>
> Their 'script' appears as a transcription of Timothy Leary
> heavily dosed out on LSD and babbling stuff only 'he' sees
> in his head - and that has ZERO actual value to anyone else.
Ok, I understand that you were just riffing on my
movie riff to question Rory's and Jim's claims of
enlightenment again, and that's Ok. But I'm going
to riff in another direction, if you don't mind.
There IS a situation in which someone who is only
"seeing stuff in his head" CAN have a value to some-
one else, and that is what I was referring to in my
last paragraph by saying that they weren't very
convincing.
Other people can be more convincing.
You sit with them, and *by definition* the stuff that
they're seeing is all in their heads, but *you see
it, too*.
In my opinion, this phenomenon, which many here are
familiar with, is most often a proximity thing. If
you are sitting in the same room with someone who is
having some extraordinary subjective experiences,
you can "share" in those experiences, sorta "tag along"
and have the *same* subjective experience.
This phenomenon can be called by many names -- empower-
ment, shakti, darshan, charisma, mind-modeling, trans-
mission or (less flattering and in my opinion less accurate)
hypnosis or suggestion. The latter two terms just don't
fully explain the phenomenon for me, because I've exper-
ienced being able to "tag along" with someone else's
subjective experience and have the *same* subjective
experience myself when there was NO suggestion or hypnosis
involved. Not a word was spoken, not a suggestion was
given, and yet most of the people in the room, when
comparing the experience afterwards, had the same
subjective experience.
So clearly there IS something that CAN happen where a
person who is having some subjective experience that they
interpret as a "higher state of consciousness" can trans-
mit or "share" that experience with others. It happens
all the time, and it shows up all the time in spiritual
literature.
It's even possible that if one were in the same room
with Rory or Jim one might feel something of what they
are describing. I doubt it, but it's possible, because
I've certainly experienced this phenomenon myself.
But what neither of them seems to understand is that they
just don't have the chops to "transmit" this experience
in words on an Internet talk forum. Just doesn't work.
They, lost in their subjective experience (whatever it
might be) feel one thing. We feel quite another. They
don't see any problem when they talk about having no
self one moment, and then follow that statement up with
10 posts defending themselves against someone's criticism.
They see no problem with claiming the ability to "cognize"
things perfectly, and yet making stupid errors of fact
and judgment. These contradictions don't bother them,
because the subjective experience that they "favor" is
more "overshadowing" for them than the use of discrim-
ination or the intellect or just making sense.
As you said, it's *exactly* the same situation as if
th
