[FairfieldLife] My Theory, Which Is Mine (was Re: Emotional Masturbation)
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, grate.swan no_re...@... wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend jstein@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, grate.swan no_reply@ wrote: Different from our perception, but logically reasonable and plausible. From that, I think is a crack in the cage by which the astute may wiggle free. (Which counters the notion prevalent is some new age and neo- advaita groups that the intellect is the problem, the enemy.) Well, but isn't that because the intellect, having realized that others have their own perspectives, are I see your point. However, my thought, perhaps weakly conveyed, is that if we can get to a reference free, or bias-free state -- where the light -- so to speak is white or clear -- comprehensive of all spectrums, not colored by a limited spectrum, then we see what actually is -- not just the color of the limited spectrum (of our individuality). Sure, but isn't the intellect (the working mind, not the abstraction) exactly what inhibits getting to the reference-free state? snip As may be obvious, I am a fan of intellect and see it as a tool not something to shun or push out the door. I don't think there is a fundamental mistake of the intellect. I'm a big fan of the intellect as well, but I find the concept of the mistake of the intellect, as I understand MMY's definition of it, compelling. The intellect's function is to discriminate between this and that, to make distinctions, to draw boundaries, which is essential for life in the relative. But enlightenment is the realization of no boundaries, of unity. The intellect is helpless to encompass unity, but it doesn't want to admit that, so it keeps trying to reduce enlightenment to something it can deal with. This can get in the way of experiential realization. The intellect needs to siddown and shaddup long enough for the realization to take place and become established. Once that occurs, the intellect can come back in the picture, but as a tool rather than what runs things. That's a *very* crude explanation. It's not that one has to be stupid to attain enlightenment, just that the intellect can be helpful only up to a point. As a sort of parallel, in meditation (TM), the intellect makes the distinction between the thought of the mantra and other thoughts, but in order to experience transcendental consciousness, the intellect has to let go of all thoughts, all distinctions. That's the sense, I think, in which the intellect can be viewed as the enemy. As I view it today, the mistake is caused by darkness -- seeing things in dim light -- and projecting what light we have in a limited spectrum. Crank up the amps on the light, and purify it towards white light -- and that which is becomes clearer. Not sure how or whether what I said above fits into the scheme of things as you see it...
[FairfieldLife] My Theory, Which Is Mine (was Re: Emotional Masturbation)
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Robert babajii...@... wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend jstein@ wrote: snip Sure, but isn't the intellect (the working mind, not the abstraction) exactly what inhibits getting to the reference-free state? I don't believe it's the intellect your speaking of? It's the ego, that keeps one from a reference free state. The ego becomes our reference point, and that is what needs transcendence...The intellect just notices this or that...it jumps to see what is the choice between this or that. Well, see my response to grate.swan. It's the situation in which the intellect is perceived as, or perceives itself to be, supreme that gets in the way. I'm not sure how the concept of ego fits into the concept of the mistake of the intellect; I'm not sure the ego can be said to be separate from the intellect, but that may be one way to put it. The ego dissolves when the mind experiences pure consciousness, beyond ego When the bliss of being is established in awareness, then the intellect becomes aligned with being, instead of the limited take of the ego... Yes, that's my understanding of what happens once enlightenment has been realized. Of course, all this analysis is being done *by* the intellect, so perhaps we shouldn't put all that much stock in it anyway! The ego begins to change it's identification, and begins to identify with being, beyond individual mind, emotion and intellect... When intellect experiences: Sat Chit Ananda, then it becomes aligned with 'Absolute Bliss Consciousness... R.G.
[FairfieldLife] My Theory, Which Is Mine (was Re: Emotional Masturbation)
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend jst...@... wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Robert babajii_99@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend jstein@ wrote: snip Sure, but isn't the intellect (the working mind, not the abstraction) exactly what inhibits getting to the reference-free state? I don't believe it's the intellect your speaking of? It's the ego, that keeps one from a reference free state. The ego becomes our reference point, and that is what needs transcendence...The intellect just notices this or that...it jumps to see what is the choice between this or that. Well, see my response to grate.swan. It's the situation in which the intellect is perceived as, or perceives itself to be, supreme that gets in the way. My view doesn't have anything to do with the intellect feels or perceives itself as supreme. First I don't even think that's possible -- a feeling of superiority would be ego identifying with intellect as in I am the intellect and I am supreme The intellect never does, and can't say this. It just computes. What the intellect can do, along with memory intuition etc, is break boundaries. i don't take my definitions from the TMO -- they have a catechism that may have some value, but is far from comprehensive. The intellect does not just discriminate Thats TM speak -- not reality, IMO. The intellect can draw powerful conclusions that defy what we perceive and the conceptual frameworks within which we view the world. That's far more than discrimination. For example, the intellect (or the work of others using their intellect) applied to data from observation can figure out for example that the earth revolves around the sun, and not vice versa. Thats not not simply discrimination. Its a whole lot more. And I don't suggest intellect takes to to all realizations. But it's findings can take you to the door that opens up new possibilities. The intellect may provide the conclusion that what I see, via my projection of my qualities onto everything I perceive mans that I perceive only a limited distorted piece of reality. This conclusion may lead me to find things that will purify the light that I shine on the world -- the light that enables my perception of it. At that point the intellect can rest for a while -- while the rest of the crew searches for something to whiten up the light. I'm not sure how the concept of ego fits into the concept of the mistake of the intellect; I'm not sure the ego can be said to be separate from the intellect, but that may be one way to put it. My view is that the ego is not a thing that exists, in and of itself. Its not an entity. Its smoke and mirrors. A mirage. Its real only to the extent that we don't understand, and see clearly, that its just smoke and mirrors. When none sees that, and the intellect can help immensely in that, then the ego (as I view the term) drops away. Ego is not the same as self-esteem. One can view ones output, performance, skills, attributes, and if these are consistent with ones values, then there is a sense of self-esteem in a broad sens as in all is good. Self-esteem has nothing to do, in my sense of it, with feeling smug, or superior. Its a love for qualities one has found to be ther, and have been refined to a degree to work well. In that sense, self-esteem is like feeling competent. I can do this well. And if one cannot first feel self-esteem, one cannot feel esteem for the world. Love thy neighbor as thy self to me means ones love the good qualities they find arising in themselves, and loves those same qualities on others. what defines a good quality is ones values. And true, strong values come from the intellect. The ego dissolves when the mind experiences pure consciousness, beyond ego The ego can dissolve long before that. When the bliss of being is established in awareness, then the intellect becomes aligned with being, instead of the limited take of the ego... When are things not aligned with being? That would make them non-being. When is something not being. That is an example of how we can get so caught up in the TM catechism, we see that as reality -- and parrot things that are silly when intellect bears down on them a bit. Yes, that's my understanding of what happens once enlightenment has been realized. Of course, all this analysis is being done *by* the intellect, so perhaps we shouldn't put all that much stock in it anyway! The ego begins to change it's identification, and begins to identify with being, beyond individual mind, emotion and intellect... When intellect experiences: Sat Chit Ananda, then it becomes aligned with 'Absolute Bliss Consciousness... R.G.
[FairfieldLife] My Theory, Which Is Mine (was Re: Emotional Masturbation)
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend jst...@... wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, grate.swan no_reply@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend jstein@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, grate.swan no_reply@ wrote: Different from our perception, but logically reasonable and plausible. From that, I think is a crack in the cage by which the astute may wiggle free. (Which counters the notion prevalent is some new age and neo- advaita groups that the intellect is the problem, the enemy.) Well, but isn't that because the intellect, having realized that others have their own perspectives, are I see your point. However, my thought, perhaps weakly conveyed, is that if we can get to a reference free, or bias-free state -- where the light -- so to speak is white or clear -- comprehensive of all spectrums, not colored by a limited spectrum, then we see what actually is -- not just the color of the limited spectrum (of our individuality). Sure, but isn't the intellect (the working mind, not the abstraction) exactly what inhibits getting to the reference-free state? snip As may be obvious, I am a fan of intellect and see it as a tool not something to shun or push out the door. I don't think there is a fundamental mistake of the intellect. I'm a big fan of the intellect as well, but I find the concept of the mistake of the intellect, as I understand MMY's definition of it, compelling. The intellect's function is to discriminate between this and that, to make distinctions, to draw boundaries, which is essential for life in the relative. Ah, but outside of the TMO catechism, the intellect is far more than that. But enlightenment is the realization of no boundaries, of unity. If you premise enlightenment as a thing, and a goal. I am more interested in Truth than Enlightenment -- though if such as thing as enlightenment exists and has value, it should a vehicle for realizing Truth. (And yes, Truth is a very nebulous word -- but surely less so than Enlightenment. The intellect is helpless to encompass unity, but it doesn't want to admit that, so it keeps trying to reduce enlightenment to something it can deal with. An intellect not wanting to admit things, that is it knows something is true bu won't admit it?! That's not what my intellect is about. This can get in the way of experiential realization. The intellect needs to siddown and shaddup long enough for the realization to take place and become established. As in adjacent post, I don't see the intellect as being useful all of the time. In the (somewhat silly) directive -- Plan your work and then work your plan. The intellect plans the work, it figures out actions to take to fulfill ones values. An it also helps sames our values. But after that, the work your plan part, the intellect is not much involved. Intellect can say -- go to door #2 -- but has little to do with opening the door and walking in and obtaining/ realizing that which i behind the door.. Once that occurs, the intellect can come back in the picture, but as a tool rather than what runs things. My intellect doesn't run things. An it can't even think in those terms. It does its job. Like a high priced consultant. That's a *very* crude explanation. It's not that one has to be stupid to attain enlightenment, Damn, and I thought I had an edge. just that the intellect can be helpful only up to a point. In any action/attainment/realization, the intellect is helpful only up to a point. As a sort of parallel, in meditation (TM), the intellect makes the distinction between the thought of the mantra and other thoughts, but in order to experience transcendental consciousness, the intellect has to let go of all thoughts, all distinctions. That's the sense, I think, in which the intellect can be viewed as the enemy. Then, Love thy enemy I guess. However, I never view the intellect as enemy. I don't see it involved in the activities that you feel are enemy-worthy. As I view it today, the mistake is caused by darkness -- seeing things in dim light -- and projecting what light we have in a limited spectrum. Crank up the amps on the light, and purify it towards white light -- and that which is becomes clearer. Not sure how or whether what I said above fits into the scheme of things as you see it... Everyone works on their own conceptions and frameworks and apply them as long as they are useful. One framework, like size, does not fit all.
[FairfieldLife] My Theory, Which Is Mine (was Re: Emotional Masturbation)
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, grate.swan no_re...@... wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend jstein@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Robert babajii_99@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend jstein@ wrote: snip Sure, but isn't the intellect (the working mind, not the abstraction) exactly what inhibits getting to the reference-free state? I don't believe it's the intellect your speaking of? It's the ego, that keeps one from a reference free state. The ego becomes our reference point, and that is what needs transcendence...The intellect just notices this or that...it jumps to see what is the choice between this or that. Well, see my response to grate.swan. It's the situation in which the intellect is perceived as, or perceives itself to be, supreme that gets in the way. My view doesn't have anything to do with the intellect feels or perceives itself as supreme. First I don't even think that's possible -- a feeling of superiority would be ego identifying with intellect as in I am the intellect and I am supreme The intellect never does, and can't say this. It just computes. Sure, I'm just anthropomorphizing for the sake of getting my point across. What the intellect can do, along with memory intuition etc, is break boundaries. i don't take my definitions from the TMO -- they have a catechism that may have some value, but is far from comprehensive. The intellect does not just discriminate Thats TM speak -- not reality, IMO. Gee, it's by no means just TM-speak. That the fundamental faculty of the intellect is discrimination is a very widespread concept. In any case, of course it does more than discriminate. But everything it *does* do is based on this fundamental faculty, in the sense that the fundamental faculty of a piano is the mechanism by which the depression of keys causes hammers to strike strings. Without that faculty, there would be no Hungarian Rhapsodies. And I don't suggest intellect takes to to all realizations. But it's findings can take you to the door that opens up new possibilities. Unquestionably. That's why I said in my post to you that it was useful up to a point. The intellect may provide the conclusion that what I see, via my projection of my qualities onto everything I perceive mans that I perceive only a limited distorted piece of reality. This conclusion may lead me to find things that will purify the light that I shine on the world -- the light that enables my perception of it. At that point the intellect can rest for a while Yup. I'd say that it *has* to rest for awhile, though. I'm not sure how the concept of ego fits into the concept of the mistake of the intellect; I'm not sure the ego can be said to be separate from the intellect, but that may be one way to put it. My view is that the ego is not a thing that exists, in and of itself. Its not an entity. Its smoke and mirrors. A mirage. Its real only to the extent that we don't understand, and see clearly, that its just smoke and mirrors. Well, but (to pull a Barry), what is it that does not understand and see clearly? Ego is not the same as self-esteem. Important point. The term is often *used* that way, as Barry did recently to make the claim that debate was just an ego-battle to prove one's own opinion better than another. That would be the self-esteem sense of ego, but there's more to the ego than that. snip When the bliss of being is established in awareness, then the intellect becomes aligned with being, instead of the limited take of the ego... When are things not aligned with being? That would make them non-being. When is something not being. That is an example of how we can get so caught up in the TM catechism, we see that as reality -- and parrot things that are silly when intellect bears down on them a bit. I understood him to mean when the intellect *identifies* with Being, identifies with the Self rather than the self.
[FairfieldLife] My Theory, Which Is Mine (was Re: Emotional Masturbation)
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, grate.swan no_re...@... wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend jstein@ wrote: snip The intellect's function is to discriminate between this and that, to make distinctions, to draw boundaries, which is essential for life in the relative. Ah, but outside of the TMO catechism, the intellect is far more than that. Obviously I didn't make myself clear. Please see my response to your reply to my response to Robert to clear up a bunch of this stuff.
[FairfieldLife] My Theory, Which Is Mine (was Re: Emotional Masturbation)
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, grate.swan no_re...@... wrote: I'll just say what I say and allow those I say it about to react the way that *they* see fit. I feel no obligation to back up any of my opin- ions (because that is, in fact, what they are), I am perhaps hopelessly naive, ... Or trying to start an argument. :-) ...but I had assumed that posts are primarily about sharing and working out ideas -- and passing on and discussing news. A forum is not a blog. Blogs are more for monologues. Forums are generally for discussions. And I have nothing against discussions. I'm just not interested in arguing with someone whose ego wants to argue to pump itself up. If one is throwing out ideas and has no inclination to enagage in dialog about them... Please notice that in this rant you said *nothing* about the idea contained in my post -- that a tendency to defend oneself indicates a great deal of self in the person who does it, and also indicates a lack of Self. All you did IMO was try to provoke an argument, not a discussion. I'm avoiding the argument, and seeing whether you really have any interest in discussing the idea. I don't think you do. I told you earlier what I think of your style, with the rule I added to your silly, trying-to-start-a-fight list of them. I'm suggesting the same thing again. *Often* your act seems to be about provoking a confrontation of egos, a battle of wits in which one ego is supposed to eventually reign supreme. Not interested. That is *exactly* what I was talk- ing about in the post you're reacting to. If something I say pushes your ego's buttons so much that it feels the need to argue about it, I will allow you to argue about it with whoever feels that they have so much time in their life that they can spend it arguing. I don't feel that way. If on the other hand you find an idea I throw out there interesting enough to springboard off of and discuss without the need to prove your puny ego right and mine wrong, I'm game. Sometimes. If the idea still interests me. (Often it doesn't... by the time someone responds I've lost interest in it.) There's a difference between discussing ideas for the fun of springboarding off of another's thoughts and arguing about those ideas. Curtis understands the difference...discussions with him are almost always really discussions. When he engages in one of them with even the most compulsive gotta-turn- everything-into-an-egobattle poster here, he generally tries to avoid being sucked into the game, and exits the scene as soon as she turns it nasty and confrontational. Marek does the same thing, as do a few others here. I'm trying to learn from them. There seems to me to be little point in wasting time on people with a track record of wanting *only* to provoke me into an argument so that they can win it in their minds. Such people include Judy, Edg, Willytex, enlightened_dawn11, and Nabby. Why even *bother* with them? Everyone here knows the direction they will take any pretend dis- cussion in within two exchanges before such a discussion even starts. There are others, though, with whom I may not necessarily agree on everything (or even on much of anything), but with whom I can often have an interesting discussion *as* discussion. No one is trying to win. No one is trying to prove their point of view right and the other person's wrong. They're just exchanging ideas. Frankly, you don't have a history of being one of them. I'm replying to your rant because you don't seem to understand that, and to explain why I don't reply to your posts in particular very often. One is that you often try to turn them into egobattles...as stated originally, I'm just not interested in that. The other, and this is not necessarily negative, just an expression of predilection, is that you often veer off into theoretical discussions of the intellectual type, with very little relationship to here-and-now pragmatic reality. I *understand* that many find this type of thinking fascinating, and I *under- stand* that many TMers in particular enjoy this sorta stuff. On the whole I don't. So I'm not likely to get involved in a discussion that seems to be going down that road. So there...I've responded to your taunt. But I'm *NOT* doing so to either start an argument or win one; I'm just explaining a point that you very obviously did not understand. If you have something to say about my original theory ( and FYI the Subject line is a line from an olde comedy routine that I like, and was meant as humor ), go for it. If it's really an attempt to discuss the concept or springboard off of it and not turn it into an argument, I might chime in. Or I might not. The original theory was: Theorem: Anyone can say anything about you that they want; that is out of your control. What is *not* out of your control is how to react, or whether to at all. It is my con- tention that those who react defensively or
[FairfieldLife] My Theory, Which Is Mine (was Re: Emotional Masturbation)
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB no_re...@... wrote: There's a difference between discussing ideas for the fun of springboarding off of another's thoughts and arguing about those ideas. Curtis understands the difference...discussions with him are almost always really discussions. When he engages in one of them with even the most compulsive gotta-turn- everything-into-an-egobattle poster here, he generally tries to avoid being sucked into the game, and exits the scene as soon as she turns it nasty and confrontational. Marek does the same thing, as do a few others here. She-Who-Must-Not-Be-Named and Curtis have interesting discussions defending their POV. A disagreement with a POV is a debate, not an ego battle. Judy and Curtis argue their POV, intelligently and respectfully, pointing out the weakness of each other's argument and promoting the strength of their own. They enjoy matching wits. On the other hand, when Judy engages you, Barry, using the same analytical skills she uses with Curtis, you see it as a personal attack rather than an opportunity to take stock of your POV and making a better case for it. If you want to learn from Curtis and elevate your discussions with Judy, just stop making up fantasy scenarios designed to push buttons and pick a fight. I don't expect that you can or will change anything about how you interact with Judy, nor will she with you, so just ignore anything I've said. I'm trying to learn from them. Theorem: Anyone can say anything about you that they want; that is out of your control. What is *not* out of your control is how to react, or whether to at all. It is my con- tention that those who react defensively or angrily to protect their self image have the most self to protect, and the least Self. I still think this is a viable theory. I think it accurately describes what's going on when someone feels compelled *on a regular basis* to defend themselves. That is, I think that the defensive behavior is a pretty good indi- cation of how much self or ego that person has to defend, and how attached they are to it. She-Who-Must-Not-Be-Named is not defending her self or her Self when she drills holes in your diatribes. An antagonistic rant that makes sweeping generalization, (such as the above theorem) meant to demonize others, deserves to be challenged. I'm glad Judy is here to take you on. Perhaps one day, (hope upon hope) you'll take council from Curtis an learn to engage Judy honestly and respectfully. Until then I'll just sit back and enjoy my ring side seat. Peace, Bro.
[FairfieldLife] My Theory, Which Is Mine (was Re: Emotional Masturbation)
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB no_re...@... wrote: Theorem: Anyone can say anything about you that they want; that is out of your control. What is *not* out of your control is how to react, or whether to at all. It is my con- tention that those who react defensively or angrily to protect their self image have the most self to protect, and the least Self. Interesting theorem. Barry has justified saying anything he wants about a person he doesn't like, even when he knows it isn't true, and has effectively stigmatized that person if they dare respond to correct the falsehoods. Barry has framed the issue so as to give himself free reign to demean and disparage his enemies by telling lies about them, and to demean and disparage them further if they object. Heads Barry wins, tails whoever he's dumping on today loses. snip In case no one has noticed, I've been trying not to defend myself. I've had many occasions to, but I don't. I may in fact do my best to portray those who spend the most time demon- izing me as being as ridiculous as I perceive them to be, in the hope that if enough people laugh at them, someday they might learn to laugh at themselves. And I may occasionally give them a taste of their own medicine. Anyone who criticizes Barry, even if their criticism is accurate, is to be perceived as ridiculous. But I don't waste time trying to nitpick each derogatory name they call me or defend myself by disputing their claims. What would be the point? Those on this forum who already dislike me still will, no matter what I say. If I were to waste time defending myself, all that would happen is that I'd be playing the game of the people who want me to do just that. No way. I'll stick to drive bys, thanks. I'll just say what I say and allow those I say it about to react the way that *they* see fit. I feel no obligation to back up any of my opin- ions (because that is, in fact, what they are), or to argue about them incessantly, the way some seem to want me to. If that's what they see as a good use of their time, so be it. I'll stick to expressing my opinion and allowing others to express theirs in response. Or not, depending on how much self they feel they have and how desperately they feel it needs defending. Barry perceives *his* image among the rest of us to be fixed, not subject to change, so there's no point in criticizing him. However, the folks he doesn't like have an image among others here that is vulnerable to criticism from Barry, criticism that he sees no need to back up, meaning it's OK for him to say whatever he wants about them, whether true or not, without any accountability. And (back to the beginnning) if they object (which he will graciously allow them to do), they are condemned as having too much self and too little Self. Pretty neat, eh? Barry, of course, has a tremendous amount of Self, proven by the fact that he doesn't defend himself (except, of course, when he's defending himself by explaining at great length that he doesn't defend himself). Also, not only does Barry not feel the need to back up his opinions, anything Barry says is to be understood as opinion, even when it involves factual matters. If someone he doesn't like says X, and he claims they said Y, even when the record shows they said X and not Y, it's OK, it isn't a falsehood, because it's just his opinion they said Y. Finally, a note on the post of his own that Barry is commenting on: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB no_reply@ wrote: snip My theory is this -- if a spiritual organization does not provide real spiritual experience on a regular basis, it learns very quickly that to keep followers on the line and contributing the big bucks it has to give them something *else*. That something else is often regular doses of strong emotion. snip Thus we get the phenomenon of manufactured outrage we see so often here on Fairfield Life. Someone pre- tends to be outraged about someone lying, and rants on and on about it for hundreds of lines of text, jacking themselves up into a mood of oh-so-righteous indignation and moral superiority. You see, if a TMer objects to Barry telling insulting and demeaning falsehoods about them, it's to be understood as a function of TM not having provided them with real spiritual experience on a regular basis, rather than as a natural human reaction to being slandered. For a TMer, there's no such thing as *real* outrage; it's always manufactured, no matter what the provocation. (At least if it's Barry doing the provoking.) And of course in Barry's view there's no moral superiority whatsoever in sticking to the truth, nor any bad karma in lying. So hopefully, given all the above, whatever thoughts you may have had about Barry's attacks on and lies about others have now been definitively stopped. The issue has been settled without your having to consider it. His
[FairfieldLife] My Theory, Which Is Mine (was Re: Emotional Masturbation)
Barry the enlightened shows how he can have a conversation that passes Grate Swan's test of is it a blog or a dialogue? We should be so honored to be in Barry's ego-free presence. Below we see that Barry amazingly holds back ego so much that, he is able to only mention himself 36 TIMES. --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB no_re...@... wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, grate.swan no_reply@ wrote: I'll just say what I say and allow those I say it about to react the way that *they* see fit. I feel no obligation to back up any of my opin- ions (because that is, in fact, what they are), I am perhaps hopelessly naive, ... Or trying to start an argument. :-) ...but I had assumed that posts are primarily about sharing and working out ideas -- and passing on and discussing news. A forum is not a blog. Blogs are more for monologues. Forums are generally for discussions. And I have nothing against discussions. I'm just not interested in arguing with someone whose ego wants to argue to pump itself up. If one is throwing out ideas and has no inclination to enagage in dialog about them... Please notice that in this rant you said *nothing* about the idea contained in my post -- that a tendency to defend oneself indicates a great deal of self in the person who does it, and also indicates a lack of Self. All you did IMO was try to provoke an argument, not a discussion. I'm avoiding the argument, and seeing whether you really have any interest in discussing the idea. I don't think you do. I told you earlier what I think of your style, with the rule I added to your silly, trying-to-start-a-fight list of them. I'm suggesting the same thing again. *Often* your act seems to be about provoking a confrontation of egos, a battle of wits in which one ego is supposed to eventually reign supreme. Not interested. That is *exactly* what I was talk- ing about in the post you're reacting to. If something I say pushes your ego's buttons so much that it feels the need to argue about it, I will allow you to argue about it with whoever feels that they have so much time in their life that they can spend it arguing. I don't feel that way. If on the other hand you find an idea I throw out there interesting enough to springboard off of and discuss without the need to prove your puny ego right and mine wrong, I'm game. Sometimes. If the idea still interests me. (Often it doesn't... by the time someone responds I've lost interest in it.) There's a difference between discussing ideas for the fun of springboarding off of another's thoughts and arguing about those ideas. Curtis understands the difference...discussions with him are almost always really discussions. When he engages in one of them with even the most compulsive gotta-turn- everything-into-an-egobattle poster here, he generally tries to avoid being sucked into the game, and exits the scene as soon as she turns it nasty and confrontational. Marek does the same thing, as do a few others here. I'm trying to learn from them. There seems to me to be little point in wasting time on people with a track record of wanting *only* to provoke me into an argument so that they can win it in their minds. Such people include Judy, Edg, Willytex, enlightened_dawn11, and Nabby. Why even *bother* with them? Everyone here knows the direction they will take any pretend dis- cussion in within two exchanges before such a discussion even starts. There are others, though, with whom I may not necessarily agree on everything (or even on much of anything), but with whom I can often have an interesting discussion *as* discussion. No one is trying to win. No one is trying to prove their point of view right and the other person's wrong. They're just exchanging ideas. Frankly, you don't have a history of being one of them. I'm replying to your rant because you don't seem to understand that, and to explain why I don't reply to your posts in particular very often. One is that you often try to turn them into egobattles...as stated originally, I'm just not interested in that. The other, and this is not necessarily negative, just an expression of predilection, is that you often veer off into theoretical discussions of the intellectual type, with very little relationship to here-and-now pragmatic reality. I *understand* that many find this type of thinking fascinating, and I *under- stand* that many TMers in particular enjoy this sorta stuff. On the whole I don't. So I'm not likely to get involved in a discussion that seems to be going down that road. So there...I've responded to your taunt. But I'm *NOT* doing so to either start an argument or win one; I'm just explaining a point that you very obviously did not understand. If you have something to say about my original theory ( and FYI the Subject line is a line from an olde comedy routine that I like, and was
[FairfieldLife] My Theory, Which Is Mine (was Re: Emotional Masturbation)
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB no_re...@... wrote: snip I'm avoiding the argument, and seeing whether you really have any interest in discussing the idea. I don't think you do. I told you earlier what I think of your style, with the rule I added to your silly, trying-to-start-a-fight list of them. I'm suggesting the same thing again. *Often* your act seems to be about provoking a confrontation of egos, a battle of wits in which one ego is supposed to eventually reign supreme. Note that none of Barry's attacks on those he doesn't like are to be seen as ego-based. Only challenges to *his* views are ego-based. Once we all recognize this Ultimate Truth and settle down, things will go so much more smoothly on FFL. We can comfortably stop thinking and simply accept whatever Barry says about the folks he doesn't like as valid and legitimate, whether it's true or not, because he has no ego involvement in any of it. Only those who don't share his views have any problems with ego.
[FairfieldLife] My Theory, Which Is Mine (was Re: Emotional Masturbation)
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB no_re...@... wrote: snip Please notice that in this rant you said *nothing* about the idea contained in my post -- that a tendency to defend oneself indicates a great deal of self in the person who does it, and also indicates a lack of Self. All you did IMO was try to provoke an argument, not a discussion. Actually, here's what grate.swan said about his post: (btw, This post is not a response directed at the original post, simply some (considered) ideas that the post has stimulated. I will be happy to discuss the content of my post with anyone and entertain different perspectives. If its a weak thought that I have had, better to figure it out now, than to cling to it for years.) So it seems grate.swan had noticed that he wasn't commenting on Barry's idea from the very start; it wasn't something he had overlooked, as Barry appears to believe. snip Not interested. That is *exactly* what I was talk- ing about in the post you're reacting to. If something I say pushes your ego's buttons so much that it feels the need to argue about it, I will allow you to argue about it with whoever feels that they have so much time in their life that they can spend it arguing. I don't feel that way. If on the other hand you find an idea I throw out there interesting enough to springboard off of and discuss without the need to prove your puny ego right and mine wrong, I'm game. Sometimes. If the idea still interests me. (Often it doesn't... by the time someone responds I've lost interest in it.) Interesting that the above comment is in response to a post in which grate.swan said the following: The non-separation of ideas from self is an interesting concept. If one posts an idea -- hopefully somewhat considered prior to posting -- and not just mind vomit -- the idea is not the poster. Well that's my view. Others, it would seem, may not distinguish the two. So a question about an idea is viewed as a personal challenge. My view is that the two are quite distinct. Barry comments further on the above from grate.swan: There are others, though, with whom I may not necessarily agree on everything (or even on much of anything), but with whom I can often have an interesting discussion *as* discussion. No one is trying to win. No one is trying to prove their point of view right and the other person's wrong. They're just exchanging ideas. Frankly, you don't have a history of being one of them. I'm replying to your rant because you don't seem to understand that, and to explain why I don't reply to your posts in particular very often. One is that you often try to turn them into egobattles...as stated originally, I'm just not interested in that. In his post, grate.swan went on to say: However, i can see the reluctance to address reactions, feedback, questions etc about an idea or claim made -- if one sees the idea as themselves. The ownership is so deep, they see no distinction between self and thought. Prescient.
[FairfieldLife] My Theory, Which Is Mine (was Re: Emotional Masturbation)
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, raunchydog raunchy...@... wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB no_reply@ wrote: snip I still think this is a viable theory. I think it accurately describes what's going on when someone feels compelled *on a regular basis* to defend themselves. That is, I think that the defensive behavior is a pretty good indi- cation of how much self or ego that person has to defend, and how attached they are to it. She-Who-Must-Not-Be-Named is not defending her self or her Self when she drills holes in your diatribes. An antagonistic rant that makes sweeping generalization, (such as the above theorem) meant to demonize others, deserves to be challenged. Thank you, exactly right. But Barry really has no other option than to portray me as defending my self once his demonizing diatribes have been thoroughly punctured. It's the only thought-stopper that has any hope of working. Question is, are his thought-stoppers designed to stop the thoughts of other FFLers, or only his own?
[FairfieldLife] My Theory, Which Is Mine (was Re: Emotional Masturbation)
Question: What doesn't Barry understand about Frost's heart? Discuss amongst yourselves. A Time to Talk by: Robert Frost When a friend calls to me from the road And slows his horse to a meaning walk, I don't stand still and look around On all the hills I haven't hoed, And shout from where I am, What is it? No, not as there is a time to talk. I thrust my hoe in the mellow ground, Blade-end up and five feet tall, And plod: I go up to the stone wall For a friendly visit. --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend jst...@... wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, raunchydog raunchydog@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB no_reply@ wrote: snip I still think this is a viable theory. I think it accurately describes what's going on when someone feels compelled *on a regular basis* to defend themselves. That is, I think that the defensive behavior is a pretty good indi- cation of how much self or ego that person has to defend, and how attached they are to it. She-Who-Must-Not-Be-Named is not defending her self or her Self when she drills holes in your diatribes. An antagonistic rant that makes sweeping generalization, (such as the above theorem) meant to demonize others, deserves to be challenged. Thank you, exactly right. But Barry really has no other option than to portray me as defending my self once his demonizing diatribes have been thoroughly punctured. It's the only thought-stopper that has any hope of working. Question is, are his thought-stoppers designed to stop the thoughts of other FFLers, or only his own?
[FairfieldLife] My Theory, Which Is Mine (was Re: Emotional Masturbation)
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Duveyoung no_re...@... wrote: Question: What doesn't Barry understand about Frost's heart? Discuss amongst yourselves. A Time to Talk by: Robert Frost When a friend calls to me from the road And slows his horse to a meaning walk, I don't stand still and look around On all the hills I haven't hoed, And shout from where I am, What is it? No, not as there is a time to talk. I thrust my hoe in the mellow ground, Blade-end up and five feet tall, And plod: I go up to the stone wall For a friendly visit. The stone wall is an interesting metaphor for artificial barriers between people, cold and unyielding. In contrast, the mallow ground is soft and yielding, receptive to sowing and harvesting life sustaining food. The farmer is of the earth, a yielding soul, patiently nourishing the land as well as a friendship. Beautiful. I can't speculate what Barry does or doesn't understand about Frost's heart. Great poem. Thanks. --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend jstein@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, raunchydog raunchydog@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB no_reply@ wrote: snip I still think this is a viable theory. I think it accurately describes what's going on when someone feels compelled *on a regular basis* to defend themselves. That is, I think that the defensive behavior is a pretty good indi- cation of how much self or ego that person has to defend, and how attached they are to it. She-Who-Must-Not-Be-Named is not defending her self or her Self when she drills holes in your diatribes. An antagonistic rant that makes sweeping generalization, (such as the above theorem) meant to demonize others, deserves to be challenged. Thank you, exactly right. But Barry really has no other option than to portray me as defending my self once his demonizing diatribes have been thoroughly punctured. It's the only thought-stopper that has any hope of working. Question is, are his thought-stoppers designed to stop the thoughts of other FFLers, or only his own?
[FairfieldLife] My Theory, Which Is Mine (was Re: Emotional Masturbation)
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, raunchydog raunchy...@... wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB no_reply@ wrote: There's a difference between discussing ideas for the fun of springboarding off of another's thoughts and arguing about those ideas. Curtis understands the difference...discussions with him are almost always really discussions. When he engages in one of them with even the most compulsive gotta-turn- everything-into-an-egobattle poster here, he generally tries to avoid being sucked into the game, and exits the scene as soon as she turns it nasty and confrontational. Marek does the same thing, as do a few others here. She-Who-Must-Not-Be-Named and Curtis have interesting discussions defending their POV. A disagreement with a POV is a debate, not an ego battle. We must agree to disagree. A debate *IS* an ego battle. By definition. What else could believe that its point of view was right enough to debate it with others.
[FairfieldLife] My Theory, Which Is Mine (was Re: Emotional Masturbation)
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend jst...@... wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB no_reply@ wrote: snip Please notice that in this rant you said *nothing* about the idea contained in my post -- that a tendency to defend oneself indicates a great deal of self in the person who does it, and also indicates a lack of Self. All you did IMO was try to provoke an argument, not a discussion. Actually, here's what grate.swan said about his post: (btw, This post is not a response directed at the original post, simply some (considered) ideas that the post has stimulated. I will be happy to discuss the content of my post with anyone and entertain different perspectives. If its a weak thought that I have had, better to figure it out now, than to cling to it for years.) So it seems grate.swan had noticed that he wasn't commenting on Barry's idea from the very start; it wasn't something he had overlooked, as Barry appears to believe. The humor and irony is not missed when someone says they do not care to discuss their ideas -- they are above discussion -- and then laments loudly when no one responds to or discusses the ideas in their posts. snip Not interested. That is *exactly* what I was talk- ing about in the post you're reacting to. If something I say pushes your ego's buttons so much that it feels the need to argue about it, I will allow you to argue about it with whoever feels that they have so much time in their life that they can spend it arguing. I don't feel that way. If on the other hand you find an idea I throw out there interesting enough to springboard off of and discuss without the need to prove your puny ego right and mine wrong, I'm game. Sometimes. If the idea still interests me. (Often it doesn't... by the time someone responds I've lost interest in it.) Interesting that the above comment is in response to a post in which grate.swan said the following: The non-separation of ideas from self is an interesting concept. If one posts an idea -- hopefully somewhat considered prior to posting -- and not just mind vomit -- the idea is not the poster. Well that's my view. Others, it would seem, may not distinguish the two. So a question about an idea is viewed as a personal challenge. My view is that the two are quite distinct. Again the humor and irony is not missed when someone repeats, a second time, that they are not interested in discussion, and when the request is honored, they complain that their buttons are being pushed by a response (to their post) that is non existent. It is a fascinating theme, the separation of ones thoughts from ones identity. Perhaps its as if my ideas/Me are too important and lofty to discuss and how dare you ignore my ideas/Me and not address them, and by ignoring my ideas/Me you are clearly trying to push my buttons -- well I tell you yesirrree you are not going to push my buttons by ignoring my thoughts/Me. My thoughts/Me are far to grand for that Barry comments further on the above from grate.swan: There are others, though, with whom I may not necessarily agree on everything (or even on much of anything), but with whom I can often have an interesting discussion *as* discussion. No one is trying to win. No one is trying to prove their point of view right and the other person's wrong. They're just exchanging ideas. Frankly, you don't have a history of being one of them. I'm replying to your rant because you don't seem to understand that, and to explain why I don't reply to your posts in particular very often. One is that you often try to turn them into egobattles...as stated originally, I'm just not interested in that. In his post, grate.swan went on to say: However, i can see the reluctance to address reactions, feedback, questions etc about an idea or claim made -- if one sees the idea as themselves. The ownership is so deep, they see no distinction between self and thought. Prescient.
[FairfieldLife] My Theory, Which Is Mine (was Re: Emotional Masturbation)
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB no_re...@... wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, raunchydog raunchydog@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB no_reply@ wrote: There's a difference between discussing ideas for the fun of springboarding off of another's thoughts and arguing about those ideas. Curtis understands the difference...discussions with him are almost always really discussions. When he engages in one of them with even the most compulsive gotta-turn- everything-into-an-egobattle poster here, he generally tries to avoid being sucked into the game, and exits the scene as soon as she turns it nasty and confrontational. Marek does the same thing, as do a few others here. She-Who-Must-Not-Be-Named and Curtis have interesting discussions defending their POV. A disagreement with a POV is a debate, not an ego battle. We must agree to disagree. A debate *IS* an ego battle. By definition. What else could believe that its point of view was right enough to debate it with others. Fifty people can have fifty POVs. The person who can put forward the best defense of his or her POV is more believable and has less ego involvement than the person who puts forward an indefensible ego driven fantasy and defends it as opinion because his ego is too frail to debate.
[FairfieldLife] My Theory, Which Is Mine (was Re: Emotional Masturbation)
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, raunchydog raunchy...@... wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB no_reply@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, raunchydog raunchydog@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB no_reply@ wrote: There's a difference between discussing ideas for the fun of springboarding off of another's thoughts and arguing about those ideas. Curtis understands the difference...discussions with him are almost always really discussions. When he engages in one of them with even the most compulsive gotta-turn- everything-into-an-egobattle poster here, he generally tries to avoid being sucked into the game, and exits the scene as soon as she turns it nasty and confrontational. Marek does the same thing, as do a few others here. She-Who-Must-Not-Be-Named and Curtis have interesting discussions defending their POV. A disagreement with a POV is a debate, not an ego battle. We must agree to disagree. A debate *IS* an ego battle. By definition. What else could believe that its point of view was right enough to debate it with others. Fifty people can have fifty POVs. All of them equal, none of them more right or better than any other. Or do you think that perhaps yours *is* more right or better? If so, WHAT is it that believes that? Is it Self (big S), or self (small s)? If the latter, is that not a synonym for ego? The person who can put forward the best defense of his or her POV is more believable... WHAT is it that wants to be believed?
[FairfieldLife] My Theory, Which Is Mine (was Re: Emotional Masturbation)
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, raunchydog raunchy...@... wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB no_reply@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, raunchydog raunchydog@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB no_reply@ wrote: There's a difference between discussing ideas for the fun of springboarding off of another's thoughts and arguing about those ideas. Curtis understands the difference...discussions with him are almost always really discussions. When he engages in one of them with even the most compulsive gotta-turn- everything-into-an-egobattle poster here, he generally tries to avoid being sucked into the game, and exits the scene as soon as she turns it nasty and confrontational. Marek does the same thing, as do a few others here. She-Who-Must-Not-Be-Named and Curtis have interesting discussions defending their POV. A disagreement with a POV is a debate, not an ego battle. We must agree to disagree. A debate *IS* an ego battle. By definition. What else could believe that its point of view was right enough to debate it with others. Fifty people can have fifty POVs. Including 50 POV on the meaning of debate. (well 60 POV if you include all the voices in my head). One contextual meaning of debate stems from debate team. In that process, one team, upon a coin flip, is called upon to defend, or put forth the merits of one position, the other team the other. If the coin had been heads and not tails, Team A would be debating, defending, making the case for, expounding the merits of the other side of the question. In that context, debate is hardly an ego-bound POV that will be defended to the death. the position is long-lived until the judges proclaim Switch! Lawyers do the same. The ytake a case. They may have their own opinions and POV. But they argue the merits of the case for the side they represent. But the main point I believe is beyond semantics. Whether we use the term discussion, debate, exploration of ideas, exchange of views, the underlying phenomenon is to the degree ones personal value, self-esteem, world view, etc is challenged and destabilized by a counter POV. On a debate team, members' personal value, self-esteem, world view are not challenged and destabilized when the other team presents its best case. A lawyer personal value, self-esteem, world view is not challenged and destabilized when the opposing counsel presents his clients best case. If any thing is challenged -- and I argue even that should not be -- it is ones self-esteem regarding ones analytical skills, factual knowledge base, depth of conceptual thinking, etc when faced with a better counter argument. That, to me is an opportunity to learn, Or at lease admire as you (Raunchy) have done with Curtis and Judy. However, if ones personal value, self-esteem, world view, etc is tied integral to ones POV, then a counter view does become a threat to ones internal appraisals of self-worth. And when this happens, fireworks often ensue. The mothership is being attacked, this is life and death situation, all hands on deck, damn the torpedos, full speed ahead, this is a fight to the death! And it can be glorious entertainment to watch such fireworks, to see the personal ego under attack and see the contortions, energy signatures, emotional frustration and intellectual hoops of dishonor such a challenged sense of self-esteem will pursue to infuse life back into the battered soul clinging to a dying, gasping POV. The person who can put forward the best defense of his or her POV is more believable and has less ego involvement than the person who puts forward an indefensible ego driven fantasy and defends it as opinion because his ego is too frail to debate. What is curious is the POV that the output of ones mind, ones opinion, is beyond reproach, beyond discussion, beyond modification. I had the thought damn it, it must be right. By God it IS right! And it is not subject to refinement or expansion. I think that's a classic description of a reactionary. On the opposite side of the spectrum are those who see their opinions and POVs as works in progress, something yet to be shaped, polished and perhaps discarded when a large crack is found in the midst of an -- up to that point -- elegant marble portrait.
[FairfieldLife] My Theory, Which Is Mine (was Re: Emotional Masturbation)
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB no_re...@... wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, raunchydog raunchydog@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB no_reply@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, raunchydog raunchydog@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB no_reply@ wrote: There's a difference between discussing ideas for the fun of springboarding off of another's thoughts and arguing about those ideas. Curtis understands the difference...discussions with him are almost always really discussions. When he engages in one of them with even the most compulsive gotta-turn- everything-into-an-egobattle poster here, he generally tries to avoid being sucked into the game, and exits the scene as soon as she turns it nasty and confrontational. Marek does the same thing, as do a few others here. She-Who-Must-Not-Be-Named and Curtis have interesting discussions defending their POV. A disagreement with a POV is a debate, not an ego battle. We must agree to disagree. A debate *IS* an ego battle. By definition. What else could believe that its point of view was right enough to debate it with others. Fifty people can have fifty POVs. All of them equal, none of them more right or better than any other. Or do you think that perhaps yours *is* more right or better? If so, WHAT is it that believes that? Is it Self (big S), or self (small s)? If the latter, is that not a synonym for ego? The person who can put forward the best defense of his or her POV is more believable... WHAT is it that wants to be believed? Two criminal defense lawyers, Billy and Bob, walk into a bar. Billy: My guy who was up for murder got life in prison today. What happened to your guy? Bob: Lethal injection. Billy: Wow. I thought sure you could have made a plea for self defense. After all, he did catch his wife was in bed with another man. In fact she smacked him over the head with chair and shot him in the ass BEFORE he strangled her. Bob: The Judge didn't buy his story that he was just exercising his arthritic fingers. Obviously, you are the better lawyer. Billy: I owe it all Judy.
[FairfieldLife] My Theory, Which Is Mine (was Re: Emotional Masturbation)
Grate Swan, I do both here. I blog, and also, I comment with the hope that I can get clearer about where I stand and where others stand when our poems are distilled for concepts. But the main reason I read the posts here -- virtually all of them -- is to be daily astounded by the utter individuality of each nervous system. Astounded means: how could they not be like me? And this question can only be answered: um, they are like you; open your eyes wider. It isn't about their debate skills, and it isn't about the POVs, it's about their spiritual travail -- that's where my identity flows into their posts. To me, each person is yet another personality I could also be trapped within just as I am now presently doing a life sentence for the crime of believing I'm an ego. How strange each stranger is, yet how like me that we are each facing the same spiritual challenges. Truth be told, Nab and Off are my peers in almost every spiritual analysis, and any differences fade to being mere aspects of the veneers with which we lacquer ourselves. Note that the light coming off of, say, an orange, tells us that the orange is every hue BUT orange. The orange colored photons are reflected off of the orange -- the rest are absorbed as like in kind. An orange is not orange. Just so, when we see what's reflected off someone's mind when our mind shines on it, do we get to understand, if we but consider it a bit, that most of our light is absorbed by the other mindfor, note, how little of our posts are reflected-rejected. E.G. Where we find Turq rejecting any concept about predation, we find him largely absorbing almost all our other radiations. He doesn't reject the meaning of individual words we use. His interpretations of our posts' definitions and usage are in harmony with our dictionaries. He doesn't reject our posts as uncommunicative, and insists that he's been truly informed about our POVs by our posts. He takes us almost wholly within, ya see? He surrenders to the validity and authenticity of our posts as data about our minds. We never see him questioning if we really mean what we post. See? He welcomes us into his home and only asks that we leave outside on the mat those parts of us he regards as muddy shoes. If not for our shoes, he's already there steeping tea to serve us with an overflowing heart. That's the spiritual take I have of Turq -- just like me, he can accept almost anything from anyone -- except for those damned shoes. That sure looks like my ego-cell. There's the bottom line of FFL: that we can have so much in common and yet feel such anomie. In Asia, I would walk down a street that was a sea of black haired heads undulating about chin level with me. Speckling my view were the heads of westerners -- they seemingly swimming almost fully immersed in that sea. How instantly I identified with each face. In a shop, if two westerners we next to each other, it was a gimme that they'd speak to each other - if only to find if they spoke one's language. Just so, if by happenstance any of you found yourselves encountering any of you, would not the first experience be attraction? Meaning: a worthy object of consciousness? If some voodoo allowed me to be a fly on the wall of your house, I'd try it out. Edg --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, grate.swan no_re...@... wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, raunchydog raunchydog@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB no_reply@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, raunchydog raunchydog@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB no_reply@ wrote: There's a difference between discussing ideas for the fun of springboarding off of another's thoughts and arguing about those ideas. Curtis understands the difference...discussions with him are almost always really discussions. When he engages in one of them with even the most compulsive gotta-turn- everything-into-an-egobattle poster here, he generally tries to avoid being sucked into the game, and exits the scene as soon as she turns it nasty and confrontational. Marek does the same thing, as do a few others here. She-Who-Must-Not-Be-Named and Curtis have interesting discussions defending their POV. A disagreement with a POV is a debate, not an ego battle. We must agree to disagree. A debate *IS* an ego battle. By definition. What else could believe that its point of view was right enough to debate it with others. Fifty people can have fifty POVs. Including 50 POV on the meaning of debate. (well 60 POV if you include all the voices in my head). One contextual meaning of debate stems from debate team. In that process, one team, upon a coin flip, is called upon to defend, or put forth the merits of one position, the other team the
[FairfieldLife] My Theory, Which Is Mine (was Re: Emotional Masturbation)
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Duveyoung no_re...@... wrote: Grate Swan, I do both here. I blog, and also, I comment with the hope that I can get clearer about where I stand and where others stand when our poems are distilled for concepts. But the main reason I read the posts here -- virtually all of them -- is to be daily astounded by the utter individuality of each nervous system. Astounded means: how could they not be like me? And this question can only be answered: um, they are like you; open your eyes wider. It isn't about their debate skills, and it isn't about the POVs, it's about their spiritual travail -- that's where my identity flows into their posts. To me, each person is yet another personality I could also be trapped within just as I am now presently doing a life sentence for the crime of believing I'm an ego. How strange each stranger is, yet how like me that we are each facing the same spiritual challenges. Truth be told, Nab and Off are my peers in almost every spiritual analysis, and any differences fade to being mere aspects of the veneers with which we lacquer ourselves. Note that the light coming off of, say, an orange, tells us that the orange is every hue BUT orange. The orange colored photons are reflected off of the orange -- the rest are absorbed as like in kind. An orange is not orange. Just so, when we see what's reflected off someone's mind when our mind shines on it, do we get to understand, if we but consider it a bit, that most of our light is absorbed by the other mindfor, note, how little of our posts are reflected-rejected. That's an interesting point -- I too have long been fascinated by the inversity of reflection and absorbsion. And your take is compelling. However, other takes are possible. For example, that the orange is reflecting its nature, and is eating and metabolizing that which it is not -- to transform it into its own image -- to make all things not orange into orangeness. For me, the intriguing part of this latter interpretation is consistent with projection -- which as a hypothesis long tested in my world -- is highly prevalent in many human interactions. That is, the orange reflects its own nature of orangeness onto everything else. Thus, it sees the world only from the perspective of its own orange light. Due to this, the orange sees orange everywhere. It sees its own limited qualities (orangeness) in everything. Even something that is actually purple (per its spectrum) the orange can only see its limited nature in that thing of purple. And to me, massive projection, yet being apparently unaware of such, is what can be quite entertaining here on FFL -- as well as the world. Of course that means that I am probably projecting my color -- lets call it the color medusa -- onto everything I see --and low and behold I see medusa and its limitations and foibles in everything. At least being aware that this may be the case, or can happen, provides a least a small tool to get outside of owns own limited spectrum. Or to generate a type of white light to shine upon things. That could be a working definition of enlightenment -- casting pure white light -- onto everything we see. Seeing things as they are, and not being anchored to a limited spectrum.
[FairfieldLife] My Theory, Which Is Mine (was Re: Emotional Masturbation)
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, raunchydog raunchy...@... wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB no_reply@ wrote: Fifty people can have fifty POVs. All of them equal, none of them more right or better than any other. Or do you think that perhaps yours *is* more right or better? If so, WHAT is it that believes that? Is it Self (big S), or self (small s)? If the latter, is that not a synonym for ego? The person who can put forward the best defense of his or her POV is more believable... WHAT is it that wants to be believed? Two criminal defense lawyers, Billy and Bob, walk into a bar. Billy: My guy who was up for murder got life in prison today. What happened to your guy? Bob: Lethal injection. Billy: Wow. I thought sure you could have made a plea for self defense. After all, he did catch his wife was in bed with another man. In fact she smacked him over the head with chair and shot him in the ass BEFORE he strangled her. Bob: The Judge didn't buy his story that he was just exercising his arthritic fingers. Obviously, you are the better lawyer. Billy: I owe it all to Judy. Billy and Bob continued: Bob: You owe what to Judy? Billy: She taught me that defending fiction by calling it opinion is indefensible. Bob: Say what? Billy: Arthritic fingers? Please. The goat defense would have been much more effective for arguing your case. Bob: Goat? Billy: If you had just told the judge, She got his goat, wouldn't that have been more honest than lying about what happened and giving the judge the finger excuse? Bob: I see your point. No ego involved there, Pal. Billy: Yep. It all comes down to who are you going to believe, the goat or your lying eyes? Bob: Well, that sums it up, defending fiction by calling it opinion is indefensible. Billy: Judy, my hero.
[FairfieldLife] My Theory, Which Is Mine (was Re: Emotional Masturbation)
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB no_re...@... wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, raunchydog raunchydog@ wrote: snip She-Who-Must-Not-Be-Named and Curtis have interesting discussions defending their POV. A disagreement with a POV is a debate, not an ego battle. We must agree to disagree. Says Barry, debating the meaning of debate and thus, by his very own definition, engaging in an ego battle. A debate *IS* an ego battle. By definition. What else could believe that its point of view was right enough to debate it with others. Fifty people can have fifty POVs. All of them equal, none of them more right or better than any other. In your opinion, which you clearly believe is more right and better than any other. Or do you think that perhaps yours *is* more right or better? If so, WHAT is it that believes that? Is it Self (big S), or self (small s)? Obviously not the Self. If the latter, is that not a synonym for ego? Yes, but not in the sense you're using the term. If the self is the ego, then every word you've ever posted here has been generated by your ego. Notice, again, that you are *debating* with raunchy, which means, in your very own definition, that you believe your take is more right or better than hers. It means your ego is doing battle in support of your point of view, precisely what you claim to disdain. It's the old infinite regress you have always had such trouble recognizing. Your difficulties in that regard are a function of your extreme solipsism, as has been pointed out to you before. It's why you constantly project your own flaws onto others without even realizing you're doing so. You're unable to recognize the implications of what you proclaim because in your mind, only *your* perspective exists. That's also why you lie so frequently and easily without the tiniest shred of remorse, because you don't believe there's any reality but what exists in your mind. The near-total lack of self-knowledge is truly fascinating to observe.
[FairfieldLife] My Theory, Which Is Mine (was Re: Emotional Masturbation)
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend jst...@... wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB no_reply@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, raunchydog raunchydog@ wrote: snip She-Who-Must-Not-Be-Named and Curtis have interesting discussions defending their POV. A disagreement with a POV is a debate, not an ego battle. We must agree to disagree. Says Barry, debating the meaning of debate and thus, by his very own definition, engaging in an ego battle. A debate *IS* an ego battle. By definition. What else could believe that its point of view was right enough to debate it with others. Fifty people can have fifty POVs. All of them equal, none of them more right or better than any other. In your opinion, which you clearly believe is more right and better than any other. Or do you think that perhaps yours *is* more right or better? If so, WHAT is it that believes that? Is it Self (big S), or self (small s)? Obviously not the Self. If the latter, is that not a synonym for ego? Yes, but not in the sense you're using the term. If the self is the ego, then every word you've ever posted here has been generated by your ego. Notice, again, that you are *debating* with raunchy, which means, in your very own definition, that you believe your take is more right or better than hers. It means your ego is doing battle in support of your point of view, precisely what you claim to disdain. I am not clear if debate means defending ones own POV. (see prior post on Debate Team). In fact debate, in that context (Debate Team) means quite the opposite; one defends A POV -- whether its ones own POV or not. That process seems liberating. Seeing multiple sides. And in the process probably modifying ones own POV. It's the old infinite regress you have always had such trouble recognizing. Your difficulties in that regard are a function of your extreme solipsism, as has been pointed out to you before. It's why you constantly project your own flaws onto others without even realizing you're doing so. And orange, casting its own orange light onto everything, sees a purple thing as orange. You're unable to recognize the implications of what you proclaim because in your mind, only *your* perspective exists. While we all shine our own limited light spectrum on everything -- even those called enlightened cast their cultural framework on things that in truth are devoid of such a framework. However, by recognizing that we ONLY see via the spectrum we project onto the world, allows the mind to conceive of other constructs. Different from our perception, but logically reasonable and plausible. From that, I think is a crack in the cage by which the astute may wiggle free. (Which counters the notion prevalent is some new age and neo-advaita groups that the intellect is the problem, the enemy.) However ,when is not aware that they only see the color of the light they reflect onto the world, it DOES seem that the only reality is my light. Perhaps we are all solipsism -- but some have joined a 12-step program to get that monkey off our back. Others are content to live drunk in the world. That's also why you lie so frequently and easily without the tiniest shred of remorse, because you don't believe there's any reality but what exists in your mind. The near-total lack of self-knowledge is truly fascinating to observe. Massive projection is entertaining. (Even when we see it in ourselves -- which for me is perhaps the most entertaining of all.)
[FairfieldLife] My Theory, Which Is Mine (was Re: Emotional Masturbation)
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, grate.swan no_re...@... wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend jstein@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB no_reply@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, raunchydog raunchydog@ wrote: snip She-Who-Must-Not-Be-Named and Curtis have interesting discussions defending their POV. A disagreement with a POV is a debate, not an ego battle. We must agree to disagree. Says Barry, debating the meaning of debate and thus, by his very own definition, engaging in an ego battle. A debate *IS* an ego battle. By definition. What else could believe that its point of view was right enough to debate it with others. Fifty people can have fifty POVs. All of them equal, none of them more right or better than any other. In your opinion, which you clearly believe is more right and better than any other. Or do you think that perhaps yours *is* more right or better? If so, WHAT is it that believes that? Is it Self (big S), or self (small s)? Obviously not the Self. If the latter, is that not a synonym for ego? Yes, but not in the sense you're using the term. If the self is the ego, then every word you've ever posted here has been generated by your ego. Notice, again, that you are *debating* with raunchy, which means, in your very own definition, that you believe your take is more right or better than hers. It means your ego is doing battle in support of your point of view, precisely what you claim to disdain. I am not clear if debate means defending ones own POV. I'm just pointing out to Barry that he's gotten caught in his own definition. Debate can mean lots of things besides an ego battle. Barry wants to convey that he is More Egoless Than Thou because he doesn't defend his self-image or engage in debate, but of course he does both, at great length. He wants to convey that he doesn't think his own opinions are any better than anyone else's, but of course he does think they're better and demonstrates it repeatedly. (see prior post on Debate Team). In fact debate, in that context (Debate Team) means quite the opposite; one defends A POV -- whether its ones own POV or not. That process seems liberating. Seeing multiple sides. And in the process probably modifying ones own POV. Many people use debate to challenge, modify, and refine their own point of view rather than to impose it on others. The person who refuses to debate either has no confidence in their POV or is so supremely confident it's right that they don't feel the need to challenge it. snip You're unable to recognize the implications of what you proclaim because in your mind, only *your* perspective exists. While we all shine our own limited light spectrum on everything -- even those called enlightened cast their cultural framework on things that in truth are devoid of such a framework. However, by recognizing that we ONLY see via the spectrum we project onto the world, allows the mind to conceive of other constructs. Exactly. Most of us learn this pretty early. I clearly recall the moment it first occurred to me, as a young child, that other people had a me inside them just as I did. Very uncomfortable realization, but necessary for getting along in the world. Different from our perception, but logically reasonable and plausible. From that, I think is a crack in the cage by which the astute may wiggle free. (Which counters the notion prevalent is some new age and neo- advaita groups that the intellect is the problem, the enemy.) Well, but isn't that because the intellect, having realized that others have their own perspectives, establishes a separation between self and others, whereas enlightenment is the realization that we are all One? It's that we-are-all-One step that the intellect inhibits, having learned the lesson about other constructs perhaps too well. We start out as solipsists, then grudgingly overcome that to recognize the existence of other minds, then have to overcome *that* recognition to realize there is only One Mind, in effect.
[FairfieldLife] My Theory, Which Is Mine (was Re: Emotional Masturbation)
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend jst...@... wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, grate.swan no_reply@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend jstein@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB no_reply@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, raunchydog raunchydog@ wrote: snip She-Who-Must-Not-Be-Named and Curtis have interesting discussions defending their POV. A disagreement with a POV is a debate, not an ego battle. We must agree to disagree. Says Barry, debating the meaning of debate and thus, by his very own definition, engaging in an ego battle. A debate *IS* an ego battle. By definition. What else could believe that its point of view was right enough to debate it with others. Fifty people can have fifty POVs. All of them equal, none of them more right or better than any other. In your opinion, which you clearly believe is more right and better than any other. Or do you think that perhaps yours *is* more right or better? If so, WHAT is it that believes that? Is it Self (big S), or self (small s)? Obviously not the Self. If the latter, is that not a synonym for ego? Yes, but not in the sense you're using the term. If the self is the ego, then every word you've ever posted here has been generated by your ego. Notice, again, that you are *debating* with raunchy, which means, in your very own definition, that you believe your take is more right or better than hers. It means your ego is doing battle in support of your point of view, precisely what you claim to disdain. I am not clear if debate means defending ones own POV. I'm just pointing out to Barry that he's gotten caught in his own definition. Debate can mean lots of things besides an ego battle. Barry wants to convey that he is More Egoless Than Thou because he doesn't defend his self-image or engage in debate, but of course he does both, at great length. He wants to convey that he doesn't think his own opinions are any better than anyone else's, but of course he does think they're better and demonstrates it repeatedly. (see prior post on Debate Team). In fact debate, in that context (Debate Team) means quite the opposite; one defends A POV -- whether its ones own POV or not. That process seems liberating. Seeing multiple sides. And in the process probably modifying ones own POV. Many people use debate to challenge, modify, and refine their own point of view rather than to impose it on others. The person who refuses to debate either has no confidence in their POV or is so supremely confident it's right that they don't feel the need to challenge it. snip You're unable to recognize the implications of what you proclaim because in your mind, only *your* perspective exists. While we all shine our own limited light spectrum on everything -- even those called enlightened cast their cultural framework on things that in truth are devoid of such a framework. However, by recognizing that we ONLY see via the spectrum we project onto the world, allows the mind to conceive of other constructs. Exactly. Most of us learn this pretty early. I clearly recall the moment it first occurred to me, as a young child, that other people had a me inside them just as I did. Very uncomfortable realization, but necessary for getting along in the world. Different from our perception, but logically reasonable and plausible. From that, I think is a crack in the cage by which the astute may wiggle free. (Which counters the notion prevalent is some new age and neo- advaita groups that the intellect is the problem, the enemy.) Well, but isn't that because the intellect, having realized that others have their own perspectives, are I see your point. However, my thought, perhaps weakly conveyed, is that if we can get to a reference free, or bias-free state -- where the light -- so to speak is white or clear -- comprehensive of all spectrums, not colored by a limited spectrum, then we see what actually is -- not just the color of the limited spectrum (of our individuality). Some saints I have encountered appear to have this. Everything is fresh, new, not shadowed by individual bias and limitations. Seeing things via projecting a white light, we see what is. If there is an underlying commonality to everything, then I would think we could only appreciate that from our reference free white light projection illuminating all we see. Indeed if we are only shining an orange light, we can never see the commonality of all things -- we can only see the commonality of orangeness -- which is false unity. The unifying factor is not the commonality of all things, but simply a mirage -- our artificial imposition of
[FairfieldLife] My Theory, Which Is Mine (was Re: Emotional Masturbation)
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, grate.swan no_re...@... wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend jstein@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, grate.swan no_reply@ wrote: snip] Different from our perception, but logically reasonable and plausible. From that, I think is a crack in the cage by which the astute may wiggle free. (Which counters the notion prevalent is some new age and neo- advaita groups that the intellect is the problem, the enemy.) Well, but isn't that because the intellect, having realized that others have their own perspectives, are I see your point. However, my thought, perhaps weakly conveyed, is that if we can get to a reference free, or bias-free state -- where the light -- so to speak is white or clear -- comprehensive of all spectrums, not colored by a limited spectrum, then we see what actually is -- not just the color of the limited spectrum (of our individuality). Sure, but isn't the intellect (the working mind, not the abstraction) exactly what inhibits getting to the reference-free state?
[FairfieldLife] My Theory, Which Is Mine (was Re: Emotional Masturbation)
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend jst...@... wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, grate.swan no_reply@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend jstein@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, grate.swan no_reply@ wrote: snip] Different from our perception, but logically reasonable and plausible. From that, I think is a crack in the cage by which the astute may wiggle free. (Which counters the notion prevalent is some new age and neo- advaita groups that the intellect is the problem, the enemy.) Well, but isn't that because the intellect, having realized that others have their own perspectives, are I see your point. However, my thought, perhaps weakly conveyed, is that if we can get to a reference free, or bias-free state -- where the light -- so to speak is white or clear -- comprehensive of all spectrums, not colored by a limited spectrum, then we see what actually is -- not just the color of the limited spectrum (of our individuality). Sure, but isn't the intellect (the working mind, not the abstraction) exactly what inhibits getting to the reference-free state? Perhaps. but we may be using terms a bit differently. to clarify my terms, to me, mind is the reservoir of thoughts -- a passive thing. You can't actively force; or command a thought to come. Across the hall from mind is memory -- impressions (not necessarily the actual perception at the time) of experience. And results of internal inquiry. Third is intellect -- that links one thought to another, applies logic, apprehends causality, chooses this over that, etc. A fourth thing, is intuition, which I feel personally are conclusions, learnings, and experiences from past lives -- that we can't put a finger on why -- but it sees right. My limited experience is that an eureka moment comes when we see that everything is a projection of our individual light onto the world -- as is the perception of others via their own spectrum of light. When that occurs, then the intellect, with a dash of intuition, can begin to pry loose the facades we mistake for reality -- and begin to shine a whiter (though not necessarily, initially, pure white) light on things. As may be obvious, I am a fan of intellect and see it as a tool not something to shun or push out the door. I don't think there is a fundamental mistake of the intellect. As I view it today, the mistake is caused by darkness -- seeing things in dim light -- and projecting what light we have in a limited spectrum. Crank up the amps on the light, and purify it towards white light -- and that which is becomes clearer.
[FairfieldLife] My Theory, Which Is Mine (was Re: Emotional Masturbation)
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend jst...@... wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, grate.swan no_reply@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend jstein@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, grate.swan no_reply@ wrote: snip] Different from our perception, but logically reasonable and plausible. From that, I think is a crack in the cage by which the astute may wiggle free. (Which counters the notion prevalent is some new age and neo- advaita groups that the intellect is the problem, the enemy.) Well, but isn't that because the intellect, having realized that others have their own perspectives, are I see your point. However, my thought, perhaps weakly conveyed, is that if we can get to a reference free, or bias-free state -- where the light -- so to speak is white or clear -- comprehensive of all spectrums, not colored by a limited spectrum, then we see what actually is -- not just the color of the limited spectrum (of our individuality). Sure, but isn't the intellect (the working mind, not the abstraction) exactly what inhibits getting to the reference-free state? I don't believe it's the intellect your speaking of? It's the ego, that keeps one from a reference free state. The ego becomes our reference point, and that is what needs transcendence... The intellect just notices this or that...it jumps to see what is the choice between this or that. The ego dissolves when the mind experiences pure consciousness, beyond ego When the bliss of being is established in awareness, then the intellect becomes aligned with being, instead of the limited take of the ego... The ego begins to change it's identification, and begins to identify with being, beyond individual mind, emotion and intellect... When intellect experiences: Sat Chit Ananda, then it becomes aligned with 'Absolute Bliss Consciousness... R.G.
[FairfieldLife] My Theory, Which Is Mine (was Re: Emotional Masturbation)
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, grate.swan no_re...@... wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend jstein@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, grate.swan no_reply@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend jstein@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, grate.swan no_reply@ wrote: snip] Different from our perception, but logically reasonable and plausible. From that, I think is a crack in the cage by which the astute may wiggle free. (Which counters the notion prevalent is some new age and neo- advaita groups that the intellect is the problem, the enemy.) Well, but isn't that because the intellect, having realized that others have their own perspectives, are I see your point. However, my thought, perhaps weakly conveyed, is that if we can get to a reference free, or bias-free state -- where the light -- so to speak is white or clear -- comprehensive of all spectrums, not colored by a limited spectrum, then we see what actually is -- not just the color of the limited spectrum (of our individuality). Sure, but isn't the intellect (the working mind, not the abstraction) exactly what inhibits getting to the reference-free state? Perhaps. but we may be using terms a bit differently. to clarify my terms, to me, mind is the reservoir of thoughts -- a passive thing. You can't actively force; or command a thought to come. Across the hall from mind is memory -- impressions (not necessarily the actual perception at the time) of experience. And results of internal inquiry. Third is intellect -- that links one thought to another, applies logic, apprehends causality, chooses this over that, etc. A fourth thing, is intuition, which I feel personally are conclusions, learnings, and experiences from past lives -- that we can't put a finger on why -- but it sees right. My limited experience is that an eureka moment comes when we see that everything is a projection of our individual light onto the world -- as is the perception of others via their own spectrum of light. When that occurs, then the intellect, with a dash of intuition, can begin to pry loose the facades we mistake for reality -- and begin to shine a whiter (though not necessarily, initially, pure white) light on things. As may be obvious, I am a fan of intellect and see it as a tool not something to shun or push out the door. I don't think there is a fundamental mistake of the intellect. As I view it today, the mistake is caused by darkness -- seeing things in dim light -- and projecting what light we have in a limited spectrum. Crank up the amps on the light, and purify it towards white light -- and that which is becomes clearer. Whether you speak of mind, the reservoir of thought, memory, intellect or intuition, it's all just consciousness, colorless Kentucky white lightening, isn't it? Consciousness connects all the variants of how we experience each flavor of consciousness, each distinct color of mind, intellect, and ego. In pragya paradh or mistake of the intellect the intellect, seeing through green or pink glasses and influenced by ever changing material consciousness, it loses its connection with its colorless light, the wholeness of consciousness. But, surprise, surprise, the loss is just a mistake of the intellect. We are that. Whiskey is to Kentucky white as a flower is to sap. In any case, the flower analogy was a better choice for Maharishi than whiskey. Cheers. I've enjoyed this discussion very much, thanks to you, Judy and Edg. You've been a good stand in for Curtis. Thanks.
[FairfieldLife] My Theory, Which Is Mine (was Re: Emotional Masturbation)
Theorem: Anyone can say anything about you that they want; that is out of your control. What is *not* out of your control is how to react, or whether to at all. It is my con- tention that those who react defensively or angrily to protect their self image have the most self to protect, and the least Self. Take Marek as yer classic example of how a person who is *not* heavily invested in his self acts. Several people on this forum have laid into him mercilessly; one threatened him in real life. But as far as I know he has *never* tried to defend himself. In my book, that indicates a lack *of* self, in its neg- ative connotation. And it indicates a presence of Self, in its positive connotation. Take Curtis, who rarely gets involved in defending himself, and when he does, usually manages to do so with humor. Now take a couple of other frequent posters who shall go unnamed because there is no need -- everyone here thought of them the moment I said those who react defensively or angrily. Then mentally count up the number of posts they spend each week defending themselves. Now extrapolate from that to the amount of self they believe that they have to defend. In case no one has noticed, I've been trying not to defend myself. I've had many occasions to, but I don't. I may in fact do my best to portray those who spend the most time demon- izing me as being as ridiculous as I perceive them to be, in the hope that if enough people laugh at them, someday they might learn to laugh at themselves. And I may occasionally give them a taste of their own medicine. But I don't waste time trying to nitpick each derogatory name they call me or defend myself by disputing their claims. What would be the point? Those on this forum who already dislike me still will, no matter what I say. If I were to waste time defending myself, all that would happen is that I'd be playing the game of the people who want me to do just that. No way. I'll stick to drive bys, thanks. I'll just say what I say and allow those I say it about to react the way that *they* see fit. I feel no obligation to back up any of my opin- ions (because that is, in fact, what they are), or to argue about them incessantly, the way some seem to want me to. If that's what they see as a good use of their time, so be it. I'll stick to expressing my opinion and allowing others to express theirs in response. Or not, depending on how much self they feel they have and how desperately they feel it needs defending. And that's all I have to say about that. Lit- erally, this being my last post of the week. :-) --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, raunchydog raunchy...@... wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB no_reply@ wrote: I've rapped a few times about the tendency of some spiritual seekers to mistake a feeling of strong emotion for spiritual experience. This morning over coffee, I'd like to rap about doing that in public, and link it to the phenomenon I think it's most similar to -- whacking off. Think about recent rants in which one of our resident emotional jackoffs went on and on inventing fantasies about about poor, victimized people and those who prey on them. Now go back and read that same rant and visualize him masturbating furiously while writing it. Doesn't it fit? Doesn't it seem like that's *exactly* what's going on? POT: Gather 'round children, and get a good picture in your head of Edg, jacking off and cleaning up after himself. (Ewww!) Now watch and be amazed as I, the biggest crybaby of all and master of irony, jacks off in public on FFLife. KETTLE: Pretend not to notice that Pot is desperately trying to convince you that Edg is just a big meanie for picking on him. GREEK CHORUS: Hey Pot, don't forget to clean up after yourself. My theory is this -- if a spiritual organization does not provide real spiritual experience on a regular basis, it learns very quickly that to keep followers on the line and contributing the big bucks it has to give them something *else*. That something else is often regular doses of strong emotion. The organization might do this in the form of telling stories about the teacher or root guru, stories cal- culated to make the followers feel strong emotion about them. And, over time, the followers begin to associate those strong emotions with real bhakti, and believe that the manipulated pseudo-emotions they're feeling were somehow spontaneous, and that they're growing in devotion to the teacher or root guru. A few might very well be, but IMO most of them are just being manipulated as effectively as addicts of soap operas are. Ooh...Guru Noname walked on water...I feel so uplifted and spiritual just thinking about it. Ooh...Genna is pregnant with Darin's baby and he dumped her but she managed to overcome her angst and saved the town from terrorists anyway...I feel
[FairfieldLife] My Theory, Which Is Mine (was Re: Emotional Masturbation)
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB no_re...@... wrote: Theorem: Anyone can say anything about you that they want; that is out of your control. What is *not* out of your control is how to react, or whether to at all. It is my con- tention that those who react defensively or angrily to protect their self image have the most self to protect, and the least Self. Take Marek as yer classic example of how a person who is *not* heavily invested in his self acts. Several people on this forum have laid into him mercilessly; one threatened him in real life. But as far as I know he has *never* tried to defend himself. In my book, that indicates a lack *of* self, in its neg- ative connotation. And it indicates a presence of Self, in its positive connotation. Take Curtis, who rarely gets involved in defending himself, and when he does, usually manages to do so with humor. Now take a couple of other frequent posters who shall go unnamed because there is no need -- everyone here thought of them the moment I said those who react defensively or angrily. Then mentally count up the number of posts they spend each week defending themselves. Now extrapolate from that to the amount of self they believe that they have to defend. In case no one has noticed, I've been trying not to defend myself. I've had many occasions to, but I don't. I may in fact do my best to portray those who spend the most time demon- izing me as being as ridiculous as I perceive them to be, in the hope that if enough people laugh at them, someday they might learn to laugh at themselves. And I may occasionally give them a taste of their own medicine. But I don't waste time trying to nitpick each derogatory name they call me or defend myself by disputing their claims. What would be the point? Those on this forum who already dislike me still will, no matter what I say. If I were to waste time defending myself, all that would happen is that I'd be playing the game of the people who want me to do just that. No way. I'll stick to drive bys, thanks. I'll just say what I say and allow those I say it about to react the way that *they* see fit. I feel no obligation to back up any of my opin- ions (because that is, in fact, what they are), or to argue about them incessantly, the way some seem to want me to. If that's what they see as a good use of their time, so be it. I'll stick to expressing my opinion and allowing others to express theirs in response. Or not, depending on how much self they feel they have and how desperately they feel it needs defending. And that's all I have to say about that. Lit- erally, this being my last post of the week. :-) So there! says Barry as he stamps his foot and fizzles into the ether. Adieu, Bro. --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, raunchydog raunchydog@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB no_reply@ wrote: I've rapped a few times about the tendency of some spiritual seekers to mistake a feeling of strong emotion for spiritual experience. This morning over coffee, I'd like to rap about doing that in public, and link it to the phenomenon I think it's most similar to -- whacking off. Think about recent rants in which one of our resident emotional jackoffs went on and on inventing fantasies about about poor, victimized people and those who prey on them. Now go back and read that same rant and visualize him masturbating furiously while writing it. Doesn't it fit? Doesn't it seem like that's *exactly* what's going on? POT: Gather 'round children, and get a good picture in your head of Edg, jacking off and cleaning up after himself. (Ewww!) Now watch and be amazed as I, the biggest crybaby of all and master of irony, jacks off in public on FFLife. KETTLE: Pretend not to notice that Pot is desperately trying to convince you that Edg is just a big meanie for picking on him. GREEK CHORUS: Hey Pot, don't forget to clean up after yourself. My theory is this -- if a spiritual organization does not provide real spiritual experience on a regular basis, it learns very quickly that to keep followers on the line and contributing the big bucks it has to give them something *else*. That something else is often regular doses of strong emotion. The organization might do this in the form of telling stories about the teacher or root guru, stories cal- culated to make the followers feel strong emotion about them. And, over time, the followers begin to associate those strong emotions with real bhakti, and believe that the manipulated pseudo-emotions they're feeling were somehow spontaneous, and that they're growing in devotion to the teacher or root guru. A few might very well be, but IMO most of them are just being manipulated as effectively as addicts of soap
[FairfieldLife] My Theory, Which Is Mine (was Re: Emotional Masturbation)
one of the Turqy's silliest posts ever- what's the point? definitely a masturbatory tirade of epic proportions... --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, raunchydog raunchy...@... wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB no_reply@ wrote: Theorem: Anyone can say anything about you that they want; that is out of your control. What is *not* out of your control is how to react, or whether to at all. It is my con- tention that those who react defensively or angrily to protect their self image have the most self to protect, and the least Self. Take Marek as yer classic example of how a person who is *not* heavily invested in his self acts. Several people on this forum have laid into him mercilessly; one threatened him in real life. But as far as I know he has *never* tried to defend himself. In my book, that indicates a lack *of* self, in its neg- ative connotation. And it indicates a presence of Self, in its positive connotation. Take Curtis, who rarely gets involved in defending himself, and when he does, usually manages to do so with humor. Now take a couple of other frequent posters who shall go unnamed because there is no need -- everyone here thought of them the moment I said those who react defensively or angrily. Then mentally count up the number of posts they spend each week defending themselves. Now extrapolate from that to the amount of self they believe that they have to defend. In case no one has noticed, I've been trying not to defend myself. I've had many occasions to, but I don't. I may in fact do my best to portray those who spend the most time demon- izing me as being as ridiculous as I perceive them to be, in the hope that if enough people laugh at them, someday they might learn to laugh at themselves. And I may occasionally give them a taste of their own medicine. But I don't waste time trying to nitpick each derogatory name they call me or defend myself by disputing their claims. What would be the point? Those on this forum who already dislike me still will, no matter what I say. If I were to waste time defending myself, all that would happen is that I'd be playing the game of the people who want me to do just that. No way. I'll stick to drive bys, thanks. I'll just say what I say and allow those I say it about to react the way that *they* see fit. I feel no obligation to back up any of my opin- ions (because that is, in fact, what they are), or to argue about them incessantly, the way some seem to want me to. If that's what they see as a good use of their time, so be it. I'll stick to expressing my opinion and allowing others to express theirs in response. Or not, depending on how much self they feel they have and how desperately they feel it needs defending. And that's all I have to say about that. Lit- erally, this being my last post of the week. :-) So there! says Barry as he stamps his foot and fizzles into the ether. Adieu, Bro. --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, raunchydog raunchydog@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB no_reply@ wrote: I've rapped a few times about the tendency of some spiritual seekers to mistake a feeling of strong emotion for spiritual experience. This morning over coffee, I'd like to rap about doing that in public, and link it to the phenomenon I think it's most similar to -- whacking off. Think about recent rants in which one of our resident emotional jackoffs went on and on inventing fantasies about about poor, victimized people and those who prey on them. Now go back and read that same rant and visualize him masturbating furiously while writing it. Doesn't it fit? Doesn't it seem like that's *exactly* what's going on? POT: Gather 'round children, and get a good picture in your head of Edg, jacking off and cleaning up after himself. (Ewww!) Now watch and be amazed as I, the biggest crybaby of all and master of irony, jacks off in public on FFLife. KETTLE: Pretend not to notice that Pot is desperately trying to convince you that Edg is just a big meanie for picking on him. GREEK CHORUS: Hey Pot, don't forget to clean up after yourself. My theory is this -- if a spiritual organization does not provide real spiritual experience on a regular basis, it learns very quickly that to keep followers on the line and contributing the big bucks it has to give them something *else*. That something else is often regular doses of strong emotion. The organization might do this in the form of telling stories about the teacher or root guru, stories cal- culated to make the followers feel strong emotion about them. And, over time, the followers begin to associate those strong emotions with
[FairfieldLife] My Theory, Which Is Mine (was Re: Emotional Masturbation)
I'll just say what I say and allow those I say it about to react the way that *they* see fit. I feel no obligation to back up any of my opin- ions (because that is, in fact, what they are), I am perhaps hopelessly naive, but I had assumed that posts are primarily about sharing and working out ideas -- and passing on and discussing news. A forum is not a blog. Blogs are more for monologues. Forums are generally for discussions. If one is throwing out ideas and has no inclination to enagage in dialog about them, then that, to me, says boatloads about what degree of depth a post has. That is, is it a momentary, mouth bypassing brain gut response -- or is it a well considered thought, reflecting some depth, and pre-challenging of the ideas by the poster. By the latter I mean -- has the poster critiqued his own ideas, looked at them from other perspectives -- worked them out a bit before posting. That doesn't have to be a lengthy process for a post. But to just throw things out there as Hey, look at this new thing that just popped up inside my head! I have no idea if its any good, or has much truth value, but I do know that its truly art simply because IT is a thought that I had -- so it must be fantasticaly worthy. Just because one has a thought says nothing about how insightful, truthful or valid it is. I may be in the minority, but I confess -- everything that pops into my head is not necessarily golden. The mind has thoughts -- monkey mind at times. The intellect, experience, judgement help sift out low value thoughts from high value ones. If a poster is content to just throw what ever thought comes onto the forum without consideration, that's their perogotive. If they are not inclined to, even then, evaluate it further, discuss it, provide some background as to claims made (if claims are indeed made) then its a double whammy of non-consideration. The idea was not worthy of any evaluation prior to posting, and not worthy of any evaluation after posting. Whew! What smells in here? The non-separation of ideas from self is an interesting concept. If one posts an idea -- hopefully somewhat considered prior to posting -- and not just mind vomit -- the idea is not the poster. Well that's my view. Others, it would seem, may not distinguish the two. So a question about an idea is viewed as a personal challenge. My view is that the two are quite distinct. However, i can see the reluctance to address reactions, feedback, questions etc about an idea or claim made -- if one sees the idea as themselves. The ownership is so deep, they see no distinction between self and thought. (btw, This post is not a response directed at the original post, simply some (considered) ideas that the post has stimulated. I will be happy to discuss the content of my post with anyone and entertain different perspectives. If its a weak thought that I have had, better to figure it out now, than to cling to it for years.) --- In fairfieldl...@oogroups.com, TurquoiseB no_re...@... wrote: Theorem: Anyone can say anything about you that they want; that is out of your control. What is *not* out of your control is how to react, or whether to at all. It is my con- tention that those who react defensively or angrily to protect their self image have the most self to protect, and the least Self. Take Marek as yer classic example of how a person who is *not* heavily invested in his self acts. Several people on this forum have laid into him mercilessly; one threatened him in real life. But as far as I know he has *never* tried to defend himself. In my book, that indicates a lack *of* self, in its neg- ative connotation. And it indicates a presence of Self, in its positive connotation. Take Curtis, who rarely gets involved in defending himself, and when he does, usually manages to do so with humor. Now take a couple of other frequent posters who shall go unnamed because there is no need -- everyone here thought of them the moment I said those who react defensively or angrily. Then mentally count up the number of posts they spend each week defending themselves. Now extrapolate from that to the amount of self they believe that they have to defend. In case no one has noticed, I've been trying not to defend myself. I've had many occasions to, but I don't. I may in fact do my best to portray those who spend the most time demon- izing me as being as ridiculous as I perceive them to be, in the hope that if enough people laugh at them, someday they might learn to laugh at themselves. And I may occasionally give them a taste of their own medicine. But I don't waste time trying to nitpick each derogatory name they call me or defend myself by disputing their claims. What would be the point? Those on this forum who already dislike me still will, no matter what I say. If I were to waste time defending myself, all that would happen is that I'd be
[FairfieldLife] My Theory, Which Is Mine (was Re: Emotional Masturbation)
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, grate.swan no_re...@... wrote: I'll just say what I say and allow those I say it about to react the way that *they* see fit. I feel no obligation to back up any of my opin- ions (because that is, in fact, what they are), I am perhaps hopelessly naive, but I had assumed that posts are primarily about sharing and working out ideas -- and passing on and discussing news. A forum is not a blog. Blogs are more for monologues. Forums are generally for discussions. If one is throwing out ideas and has no inclination to enagage in dialog about them, then that, to me, says boatloads about what degree of depth a post has. That is, is it a momentary, mouth bypassing brain gut response -- or is it a well considered thought, reflecting some depth, and pre-challenging of the ideas by the poster. By the latter I mean -- has the poster critiqued his own ideas, looked at them from other perspectives -- worked them out a bit before posting. That doesn't have to be a lengthy process for a post. But to just throw things out there as Hey, look at this new thing that just popped up inside my head! I have no idea if its any good, or has much truth value, but I do know that its truly art simply because IT is a thought that I had -- so it must be fantasticaly worthy. Just because one has a thought says nothing about how insightful, truthful or valid it is. I may be in the minority, but I confess -- everything that pops into my head is not necessarily golden. The mind has thoughts -- monkey mind at times. The intellect, experience, judgement help sift out low value thoughts from high value ones. If a poster is content to just throw what ever thought comes onto the forum without consideration, that's their perogotive. If they are not inclined to, even then, evaluate it further, discuss it, provide some background as to claims made (if claims are indeed made) then its a double whammy of non-consideration. The idea was not worthy of any evaluation prior to posting, and not worthy of any evaluation after posting. Whew! What smells in here? The non-separation of ideas from self is an interesting concept. If one posts an idea -- hopefully somewhat considered prior to posting -- and not just mind vomit -- the idea is not the poster. Well that's my view. Others, it would seem, may not distinguish the two. So a question about an idea is viewed as a personal challenge. My view is that the two are quite distinct. However, i can see the reluctance to address reactions, feedback, questions etc about an idea or claim made -- if one sees the idea as themselves. The ownership is so deep, they see no distinction between self and thought. (btw, This post is not a response directed at the original post, simply some (considered) ideas that the post has stimulated. I will be happy to discuss the content of my post with anyone and entertain different perspectives. If its a weak thought that I have had, better to figure it out now, than to cling to it for years.) Btw, the above ideas are not MINE, I don't claim exclusive ownership of them. They reflect ideas that were out there -- I have simply tried to give the ideas some care and nourishment -- and then let them fly (or crash) where they might. And the ideas, not being MINE, are not ME. If you disagree with the ideas, you are not attacking me. In fact, if the ideas are flawed, and you don't challenge them, I would consider that an attack or at least an unfriendly gesture -- like seeing someone with snot on their shirt and not telling them. But also, since I am not claiming ownership or privleege for having momentarily nurtured the ideas, I probably won't try to defend them to the death. If anyone is interested in discussion of the ideas, and the ideas may very well not be worthy of discussion, I will try to point out both sound and unsound critiques of them -- from my perspective -- to help, again, nourish the ideas and then let them fly to where ever they may seek home. --- In fairfieldl...@..., TurquoiseB no_reply@ wrote: Theorem: Anyone can say anything about you that they want; that is out of your control. What is *not* out of your control is how to react, or whether to at all. It is my con- tention that those who react defensively or angrily to protect their self image have the most self to protect, and the least Self. Take Marek as yer classic example of how a person who is *not* heavily invested in his self acts. Several people on this forum have laid into him mercilessly; one threatened him in real life. But as far as I know he has *never* tried to defend himself. In my book, that indicates a lack *of* self, in its neg- ative connotation. And it indicates a presence of Self, in its positive connotation. Take Curtis, who rarely gets involved in defending himself, and when he
[FairfieldLife] My Theory, Which Is Mine (was Re: Emotional Masturbation)
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, grate.swan no_re...@... wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, grate.swan no_reply@ wrote: I'll just say what I say and allow those I say it about to react the way that *they* see fit. I feel no obligation to back up any of my opin- ions (because that is, in fact, what they are), GrateSwan, Thanks for a thoughtful post. I've enjoyed some really wonderful conversations on FFLife. My two favorite debaters are Judy and Curtis. They are both willing to go the distance to intelligently make their case and for the most part they do so respectfully. I don't have the deeply analytical skills that they do but I enjoy jumping into an interesting conversation. Putting myself on the skillet in support of TM gives me a chance to recount experiences I've had with the TMO and tell stories I wouldn't have written about otherwise. The best of Barry's posts are creative and entertaining but the one's that creep me out are like drive by shootings. It adds nothing to the conversation and only inspires me to respond in kind. The bully in the schoolyard who lobs the rock enjoys how powerful it makes him feel suffers no consequences for any head he happens to split open unless he gets a knock from someone unwilling to take a stand against him. No one likes a bully. I am perhaps hopelessly naive, but I had assumed that posts are primarily about sharing and working out ideas -- and passing on and discussing news. A forum is not a blog. Blogs are more for monologues. Forums are generally for discussions. If one is throwing out ideas and has no inclination to enagage in dialog about them, then that, to me, says boatloads about what degree of depth a post has. That is, is it a momentary, mouth bypassing brain gut response -- or is it a well considered thought, reflecting some depth, and pre-challenging of the ideas by the poster. By the latter I mean -- has the poster critiqued his own ideas, looked at them from other perspectives -- worked them out a bit before posting. That doesn't have to be a lengthy process for a post. But to just throw things out there as Hey, look at this new thing that just popped up inside my head! I have no idea if its any good, or has much truth value, but I do know that its truly art simply because IT is a thought that I had -- so it must be fantasticaly worthy. Just because one has a thought says nothing about how insightful, truthful or valid it is. I may be in the minority, but I confess -- everything that pops into my head is not necessarily golden. The mind has thoughts -- monkey mind at times. The intellect, experience, judgement help sift out low value thoughts from high value ones. If a poster is content to just throw what ever thought comes onto the forum without consideration, that's their perogotive. If they are not inclined to, even then, evaluate it further, discuss it, provide some background as to claims made (if claims are indeed made) then its a double whammy of non-consideration. The idea was not worthy of any evaluation prior to posting, and not worthy of any evaluation after posting. Whew! What smells in here? The non-separation of ideas from self is an interesting concept. If one posts an idea -- hopefully somewhat considered prior to posting -- and not just mind vomit -- the idea is not the poster. Well that's my view. Others, it would seem, may not distinguish the two. So a question about an idea is viewed as a personal challenge. My view is that the two are quite distinct. However, i can see the reluctance to address reactions, feedback, questions etc about an idea or claim made -- if one sees the idea as themselves. The ownership is so deep, they see no distinction between self and thought. (btw, This post is not a response directed at the original post, simply some (considered) ideas that the post has stimulated. I will be happy to discuss the content of my post with anyone and entertain different perspectives. If its a weak thought that I have had, better to figure it out now, than to cling to it for years.) Btw, the above ideas are not MINE, I don't claim exclusive ownership of them. They reflect ideas that were out there -- I have simply tried to give the ideas some care and nourishment -- and then let them fly (or crash) where they might. And the ideas, not being MINE, are not ME. If you disagree with the ideas, you are not attacking me. In fact, if the ideas are flawed, and you don't challenge them, I would consider that an attack or at least an unfriendly gesture -- like seeing someone with snot on their shirt and not telling them. But also, since I am not claiming ownership or privleege for having momentarily nurtured the ideas, I probably won't try to defend them to the death. If anyone is interested in discussion of the
