Re: [FairfieldLife] RE: Deification and the Uncreated Engergies of God

2014-02-26 Thread Richard J. Williams

On 2/25/2014 3:21 PM, emptyb...@yahoo.com wrote:

This article misrepresents the smarta sampradaya.


We should probably get into the details of this Advaita Vedanta system 
and sort it all out, since this is the tradition TMers are supposed to 
be interested in. Swami Brahmananda Saraswati the Shankaracharya of 
Jyotir Math followed the Smarta tradition. Smartas worship the Supreme 
in one of six forms - that's where the TMer bija mantras come from.


So, let's review what we know:

The Sanskrit word Smarta is derived from smriti - what is 
remembered by human teachers. The Smarta Sampradaya follows the Advaita 
Vedanta philosophy, the tradition of the Adi Shankaracharya. The 
Sringeri Sharada monastery founded by Adi Shankara Acharya in Karnataka 
is headquarters of the sect. According to Smartism, the supreme reality, 
Brahman, transcends all of the various forms of personal deity and God 
is both Saguna and Nirguna Brahman.


Re: [FairfieldLife] RE: Deification and the Uncreated Engergies of God

2014-02-25 Thread Richard J. Williams

On 2/24/2014 5:50 PM, emptyb...@yahoo.com wrote:
Our members driving this very thread are the sheer eh-pee-tomee-s of 
deification.


You've lost them, so now we will have to go back and start this thread 
over again. Lett's review what we know:


Absolute monists see one unity with all personal forms of God as 
different aspects of one Supreme Being, like a single beam of light 
separated into colors by a prism. Thus Smartas consider all personal 
forms of God as equal including Devi, Vishnu, Siva, Ganesh and Skanda 
but generally limit the recognized forms to be six.


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hindu_views_on_monotheism


Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Deification and the Uncreated Engergies of God

2014-02-24 Thread Richard J. Williams

On 2/24/2014 8:31 AM, anartax...@yahoo.com wrote:
So the statement above that I quoted the wrong quote is a direct 
unvarnished lie, unless you admit to having made a mistake.


So, let's set the record straight: which is the correct quote?


Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Deification and the Uncreated Engergies of God

2014-02-24 Thread anartaxius
Richard, I think we got our signals crossed. I was thinking of the quote Judy 
originally made about not discussing anything with me, and Judy was probably 
thinking of the quote she subsequently made when she responded to me (where she 
tried to worm around not being able to respond to me without lying by 
'commenting' on what I wrote), so the 'best' interpretation is we both 
misconstrued the specific item each thought the other was referring to. I 
rather like her not being able to respond to me directly because then she has 
to act just like Barry does when he mentions her, she takes on Barry's method 
of tangential interaction, modeling her adversary in form and style, for as she 
considers him the most nefarious of liars, voilá, Nothing could be more ironic 
(in the sense that this is a state of affairs that is the reverse of what was 
desired). Judy has become the very image of her nemesis, except perhaps she has 
no heart at all, whereas Barry shows definite signs of normal humanness when 
not confronting Judy. Judy's snarkiness, as you put it, seems to be a well 
defined character trait she has that Barry does not have. That does not mean 
Barry is Mr. Nice with a halo by comparison, he can grind people's heads to 
powder with the best of them (that is a reference to Krishna in the BG by the 
way). 

 I recall you posting a number of items with Classical orchestras. Here is one 
of my favorite pieces:
 http://youtu.be/qPl2LUq-vpw http://youtu.be/qPl2LUq-vpw

---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, punditster@... wrote:

 On 2/24/2014 8:31 AM, anartaxius@... mailto:anartaxius@... wrote:

 So the statement above that I quoted the wrong quote is a direct unvarnished 
lie, unless you admit to having made a mistake. 
 So, let's set the record straight: which is the correct quote?
 



Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Deification and the Uncreated Engergies of God

2014-02-24 Thread awoelflebater

 

---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, anartaxius@... wrote:

 Richard, I think we got our signals crossed. I was thinking of the quote Judy 
originally made about not discussing anything with me, and Judy was probably 
thinking of the quote she subsequently made when she responded to me (where she 
tried to worm around not being able to respond to me without lying by 
'commenting' on what I wrote), so the 'best' interpretation is we both 
misconstrued the specific item each thought the other was referring to. I 
rather like her not being able to respond to me directly because then she has 
to act just like Barry does when he mentions her, she takes on Barry's method 
of tangential interaction, modeling her adversary in form and style, for as she 
considers him the most nefarious of liars, voilá, Nothing could be more ironic 
(in the sense that this is a state of affairs that is the reverse of what was 
desired). Judy has become the very image of her nemesis, except perhaps she has 
no heart at all, whereas Barry shows definite signs of normal humanness when 
not confronting Judy. Judy's snarkiness, as you put it, seems to be a well 
defined character trait she has that Barry does not have. That does not mean 
Barry is Mr. Nice with a halo by comparison, he can grind people's heads to 
powder with the best of them (that is a reference to Krishna in the BG by the 
way).
 

 Barry is an emotional, intellectual and socially inept slob.
 

 I recall you posting a number of items with Classical orchestras. Here is one 
of my favorite pieces:
 http://youtu.be/qPl2LUq-vpw http://youtu.be/qPl2LUq-vpw

 ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, punditster@... wrote:

 On 2/24/2014 8:31 AM, anartaxius@... mailto:anartaxius@... wrote:

 So the statement above that I quoted the wrong quote is a direct unvarnished 
lie, unless you admit to having made a mistake. 
 So, let's set the record straight: which is the correct quote?
 





Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Deification and the Uncreated Engergies of God

2014-02-24 Thread TurquoiseBee
Let's see whether batshit crazy Judy can admit that the *only* thing wrong with 
Xeno's statement is the message number.  :-)

In other words, she's jumping through all these hoops just to avoid admitting 
that she is stalking a person who she swore she would never discuss anything 
with again until he retracted the *true* things he said about her.  

What a devious, lying cunt. And crazy to boot. And to make it worse, she thinks 
no one notices...





 From: authfri...@yahoo.com authfri...@yahoo.com
To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com 
Sent: Monday, February 24, 2014 6:52 PM
Subject: [FairfieldLife] Re: Deification and the Uncreated Engergies of God
 


  
Let's see if Xeno can admit to his whopping error (or direct unvarnished lie) 
instead of trying to blame it on me.

He wrote:

 'In post #358357, 22 September 2013 you said:

Why don't you fuck off? I'm not going to discuss anything with you until you've 
documented your accusations, or withdrawn them.' 


The actual post in question:

https://groups.yahoo.com/neo/groups/FairfieldLife/conversations/messages/358537






A particular discussion of which I am part = one of Xeno's repeated attempts 
to force me to respond to him so he can accuse me of lying when I said what 
he quotes (an utterly absurd canard he picked up from Barry).


His twisted, malevolent dishonesty is quite amazing in a person who has 
publicly asserted his freedom from such entanglements--when he is actually 
helpless even to unpress his own buttons.


He pretends to need a reference for my I could have sworn... post when in 
fact he knows precisely which very recent post I'm talking about.


And he got the number of the post he quotes wrong (deliberately?). Here's the 
right one:


https://groups.yahoo.com/neo/groups/FairfieldLife/conversations/messages/358537


This is precisely the post I mentioned (#358357) for in post #374410 I wrote:


' In post #358357, 22 September 2013 you said:


Why don't you fuck off? I'm not going to discuss anything with you until 
you've documented your accusations, or withdrawn them.'


So the statement above that I quoted the wrong quote is a direct unvarnished 
lie, unless you admit to having made a mistake.



Note that his belligerent fury is at my response to his own knowingly false 
accusations about my purported pattern of deviousness and lack of 
integrity--which he himself admitted he could not document.


The above in red is an example of your deviousness, for the most part it is 
the observation of your pattern of behaviour, and you tend to be more subtle 
than the blatant example above.


In a subsequent post, I addressed his misrepresentation of what he quotes me 
as saying:


I was not referring to this one below (though there was a one-sided discussion 
about it at the time) but commenting on a post is a sly (sly = devious here) 
way of entering the discussion without directly saying that is what you are 
doing. Having said what you said, of course I have been baiting you to see if 
you would slip up more directly and actually directly respond to me rather 
than tangentially. If that makes me a bad person, so be it. But someone who 
proclaims honesty so vociferously really should be tested for veracity 
continually.


I said I wouldn't discuss anything with you unless you withdraw your 
accusations (you can't document them because they're patently not true). I 
didn't say I wouldn't comment if I found it appropriate to do so (e.g., if you 
make any more false or insulting statements about me, I may respond to them). 
But your accusations, as long as they're on the table, have effectively 
foreclosed on the possibility of our having a friendly discussion of 
philosophy or science or music or any other neutral topic.


You could have sworn (reference please) but I do not think that is it. In post 
#358357, 22 September 2013 you said:


Why don't you fuck off? I'm not going to discuss anything with you until 
you've documented your accusations, or withdrawn them.


Because those accusations have not been withdrawn, nor documented you, cannot 
enter into a discussion with me without having lied. You seem to skirt the 
edges of this pronouncement rather closely, by talking about me in the third 
person, by attempting to 'comment' to appear as if you are not involving 
yourself in a particular discussion of which I am part. The lengths to which 
you go to 'prove' you are the paragon of truth and honesty are beyond 
credulity. Advertising simply cannot cover up the basic fact of the matter.


I could have sworn I made it clear I wasn't at all interested in commenting on 
what Xeno had to say unless he deliberately misrepresented me or something I 
said. If anyone else happens to be curious about the answers to the questions 
he asks, let me know.




Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Deification and the Uncreated Engergies of God

2014-02-24 Thread authfriend
Actually, Barry, it's Xeno who has been stalking me. I made it very clear 
what I would and would not do where Xeno was concerned (quoted below) unless he 
either retracted his false accusations or documented them (which he couldn't do 
because they were, duh, false). Xeno and Barry have both misrepresented what I 
said, no surprise there. They have no case, so the only thing they can do is 
lie. 

 Let's see whether batshit crazy Judy can admit that the *only* thing wrong 
with Xeno's statement is the message number.  :-) 
In other words, she's jumping through all these hoops just to avoid admitting 
that she is stalking a person who she swore she would never discuss anything 
with again until he retracted the *true* things he said about her.  

What a devious, lying cunt. And crazy to boot. And to make it worse, she thinks 
no one notices...
 

 Let's see if Xeno can admit to his whopping error (or direct unvarnished 
lie) instead of trying to blame it on me. 

 He wrote:
 

  'In post #358357, 22 September 2013 you said:

 Why don't you fuck off? I'm not going to discuss anything with you until 
you've documented your accusations, or withdrawn them.' 

 

 The actual post in question:
 

 https://groups.yahoo.com/neo/groups/FairfieldLife/conversations/messages/ 
https://groups.yahoo.com/neo/groups/FairfieldLife/conversations/messages/358537358537
 https://groups.yahoo.com/neo/groups/FairfieldLife/conversations/messages/358537

 

 
 
 A particular discussion of which I am part = one of Xeno's repeated attempts 
to force me to respond to him so he can accuse me of lying when I said what 
he quotes (an utterly absurd canard he picked up from Barry). 

 His twisted, malevolent dishonesty is quite amazing in a person who has 
publicly asserted his freedom from such entanglements--when he is actually 
helpless even to unpress his own buttons.
 

 He pretends to need a reference for my I could have sworn... post when in 
fact he knows precisely which very recent post I'm talking about.
 

 And he got the number of the post he quotes wrong (deliberately?). Here's the 
right one:
 

 
https://groups.yahoo.com/neo/groups/FairfieldLife/conversations/messages/358537 
https://groups.yahoo.com/neo/groups/FairfieldLife/conversations/messages/358537
 

 This is precisely the post I mentioned (#358357) for in post #374410 I wrote:
 

 ' In post #358357, 22 September 2013 you said:
 

 Why don't you fuck off? I'm not going to discuss anything with you until 
you've documented your accusations, or withdrawn them.'
 

 So the statement above that I quoted the wrong quote is a direct unvarnished 
lie, unless you admit to having made a mistake.
 
 
Note that his belligerent fury is at my response to his own knowingly false 
accusations about my purported pattern of deviousness and lack of 
integrity--which he himself admitted he could not document.
 

 The above in red is an example of your deviousness, for the most part it is 
the observation of your pattern of behaviour, and you tend to be more subtle 
than the blatant example above.
 

 In a subsequent post, I addressed his misrepresentation of what he quotes me 
as saying:
 

 I was not referring to this one below (though there was a one-sided discussion 
about it at the time) but commenting on a post is a sly (sly = devious here) 
way of entering the discussion without directly saying that is what you are 
doing. Having said what you said, of course I have been baiting you to see if 
you would slip up more directly and actually directly respond to me rather than 
tangentially. If that makes me a bad person, so be it. But someone who 
proclaims honesty so vociferously really should be tested for veracity 
continually.
 

 I said I wouldn't discuss anything with you unless you withdraw your 
accusations (you can't document them because they're patently not true). I 
didn't say I wouldn't comment if I found it appropriate to do so (e.g., if you 
make any more false or insulting statements about me, I may respond to them). 
But your accusations, as long as they're on the table, have effectively 
foreclosed on the possibility of our having a friendly discussion of 
philosophy or science or music or any other neutral topic.
 

 You could have sworn (reference please) but I do not think that is it. In post 
#358357, 22 September 2013 you said:
 

 Why don't you fuck off? I'm not going to discuss anything with you until 
you've documented your accusations, or withdrawn them.
 

 Because those accusations have not been withdrawn, nor documented you, cannot 
enter into a discussion with me without having lied. You seem to skirt the 
edges of this pronouncement rather closely, by talking about me in the third 
person, by attempting to 'comment' to appear as if you are not involving 
yourself in a particular discussion of which I am part. The lengths to which 
you go to 'prove' you are the paragon of truth and honesty are beyond 
credulity. Advertising simply cannot cover up the 

Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Deification and the Uncreated Engergies of God

2014-02-24 Thread Richard J. Williams
On 2/24/2014 10:40 AM, anartax...@yahoo.com wrote:
 I was thinking of the quote Judy originally made about not discussing 
 anything with me, and Judy was probably thinking of the quote she 
 subsequently made when she responded to me (where she tried to worm 
 around not being able to respond to me without lying by 'commenting' 
 on what I wrote), so the 'best' interpretation is we both misconstrued 
 the specific item each thought the other was referring to.
 
Maybe we should just move this whole discussion over to WhatsApp since 
NOBODY in less than 24 hours is going to EVER again read this discussion 
about theism and  Deification and the Uncreated Engergies of God. 
NEVER. Somebody prove me wrong.


Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Deification and the Uncreated Engergies of God

2014-02-23 Thread TurquoiseBee
From: anartax...@yahoo.com anartax...@yahoo.com

To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com 
Sent: Sunday, February 23, 2014 5:56 PM
Subject: [FairfieldLife] Re: Deification and the Uncreated Engergies of God
 


  
I do not give much of a damn about classical theism. It has a certain interest 
for me in relation to understanding others. I think that certain aspects of 
classical theism prevalent in my environment when I was a child were part of 
the reason theism slipped away from me; certain things did not compute even at 
an early age, so I had to strike out in other directions to find information 
and understanding. The rejection or acceptance of a view does not necessarily 
require detailed knowledge of a subject. For example, it is not necessary to 
read and understand in detail the life of Bruce Wayne, his world and 
acquaintances and the psychology of Batman in order to reject Batman as person 
that is real in the world; it is not even necessary to understand the real 
world writers that keep Batman a presence in the world. Batman has a virtual 
existence, a secondary kind of existence. 

In the world of our own consciousness, thoughts are our virtual existence, but 
there is no way to delineate exactly or to even understand how this kind of 
experience that seems to result from meditation, etc., works the way it does to 
reveal thought as a secondary reality. 

Those trapped in the ideologies of thought can argue endlessly about their 
virtual worlds if it is important to them. They do come up with amazing 
arguments sometimes. A person who argues about a subject that is not dear to 
them for meaning in life is simply engaging in trivial combat. On the Internet 
they are called trolls. In 'real life' such argumentation can be valuable in 
honing debating skills, or for a career (say, politics) where you can argue a 
point as a support for your job. However such argumentation does undermine the 
experience of truth, if the experience of 'truth' is not established in 
awareness. The real question I would ask of Judy is 'what is the value of 
classical theism to her?' Does she have a genuine interest in classical theism? 
Is that interest intellectual, or spiritually motivated? Does it help her job? 
If classical theism is not what she thinks is true, what is its relationship 
with what she does think is true? What is she
 trying to find out, if anything? If she is not trying to find out anything 
that has meaning for her experience, then we can probably find a classification 
for her presence here. Some have been suggested, which she has not dispelled as 
yet. I keep waiting to see if something breaks in a genuine positive direction. 
(Sorry Barry, if I seem delusionally hopeful.)

While I may admire your hopefulness, I cannot encourage it. 

She argues because something in her deep, dark past has convinced her that 
she's only really ALIVE when she's arguing. And, in her mind, winning. 

Try to imagine the poverty of that. 




W

Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Deification and the Uncreated Engergies of God

2014-02-23 Thread TurquoiseBee
A cunt, and a coward, too. Talk about karma.  :-)





 From: authfri...@yahoo.com authfri...@yahoo.com
To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com 
Sent: Sunday, February 23, 2014 6:31 PM
Subject: [FairfieldLife] Re: Deification and the Uncreated Engergies of God
 


  
I could have sworn I made it clear I wasn't at all interested in commenting on 
what Xeno had to say unless he deliberately misrepresented me or something I 
said. If anyone else happens to be curious about the answers to the questions 
he asks, let me know.

I do not give much of a damn about classical theism. It has a certain interest 
for me in relation to understanding others. I think that certain aspects of 
classical theism prevalent in my environment when I was a child were part of 
the reason theism slipped away from me; certain things did not compute even at 
an early age, so I had to strike out in other directions to find information 
and understanding. The rejection or acceptance of a view does not necessarily 
require detailed knowledge of a subject. For example, it is not necessary to 
read and understand in detail the life of Bruce Wayne, his world and 
acquaintances and the psychology of Batman in order to reject Batman as person 
that is real in the world; it is not even necessary to understand the real 
world writers that keep Batman a presence in the world. Batman has a virtual 
existence, a secondary kind of existence. 


In the world of our own consciousness, thoughts are our virtual existence, but 
there is no way to delineate exactly or to even understand how this kind of 
experience that seems to result from meditation, etc., works the way it does to 
reveal thought as a secondary reality. 

Those trapped in the ideologies of thought can argue endlessly about their 
virtual worlds if it is important to them. They do come up with amazing 
arguments sometimes. A person who argues about a subject that is not dear to 
them for meaning in life is simply engaging in trivial combat. On the Internet 
they are called trolls. In 'real life' such argumentation can be valuable in 
honing debating skills, or for a career (say, politics) where you can argue a 
point as a support for your job. However such argumentation does undermine the 
experience of truth, if the experience of 'truth' is not established in 
awareness. The real question I would ask of Judy is 'what is the value of 
classical theism to her?' Does she have a genuine interest in classical theism? 
Is that interest intellectual, or spiritually motivated? Does it help her job? 
If classical theism is not what she thinks is true, what is its relationship 
with what she does think is true? What is she
 trying to find out, if anything? If she is not trying to find out anything 
that has meaning for her experience, then we can probably find a classification 
for her presence here. Some have been suggested, which she has not dispelled as 
yet. I keep waiting to see if something breaks in a genuine positive direction. 
(Sorry Barry, if I seem delusionally hopeful.)



Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Deification and the Uncreated Engergies of God

2014-02-23 Thread authfriend
Oopsie, you didn't read my last sentence. (And with all due respect, you 
are in no position to call anybody else either a cunt or a coward, let alone 
both.) 

 A cunt, and a coward, too. Talk about karma.  :-) 

 

 From: authfriend@... authfriend@...
 To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com 
 Sent: Sunday, February 23, 2014 6:31 PM
 Subject: [FairfieldLife] Re: Deification and the Uncreated Engergies of God
 
 
   I could have sworn I made it clear I wasn't at all interested in commenting 
on what Xeno had to say unless he deliberately misrepresented me or something I 
said. If anyone else happens to be curious about the answers to the questions 
he asks, let me know.
 

 I do not give much of a damn about classical theism. It has a certain interest 
for me in relation to understanding others. I think that certain aspects of 
classical theism prevalent in my environment when I was a child were part of 
the reason theism slipped away from me; certain things did not compute even at 
an early age, so I had to strike out in other directions to find information 
and understanding. The rejection or acceptance of a view does not necessarily 
require detailed knowledge of a subject. For example, it is not necessary to 
read and understand in detail the life of Bruce Wayne, his world and 
acquaintances and the psychology of Batman in order to reject Batman as person 
that is real in the world; it is not even necessary to understand the real 
world writers that keep Batman a presence in the world. Batman has a virtual 
existence, a secondary kind of existence.  

 In the world of our own consciousness, thoughts are our virtual existence, but 
there is no way to delineate exactly or to even understand how this kind of 
experience that seems to result from meditation, etc., works the way it does to 
reveal thought as a secondary reality.  

 Those trapped in the ideologies of thought can argue endlessly about their 
virtual worlds if it is important to them. They do come up with amazing 
arguments sometimes. A person who argues about a subject that is not dear to 
them for meaning in life is simply engaging in trivial combat. On the Internet 
they are called trolls. In 'real life' such argumentation can be valuable in 
honing debating skills, or for a career (say, politics) where you can argue a 
point as a support for your job. However such argumentation does undermine the 
experience of truth, if the experience of 'truth' is not established in 
awareness. The real question I would ask of Judy is 'what is the value of 
classical theism to her?' Does she have a genuine interest in classical theism? 
Is that interest intellectual, or spiritually motivated? Does it help her job? 
If classical theism is not what she thinks is true, what is its relationship 
with what she does think is true? What is she trying to find out, if anything? 
If she is not trying to find out anything that has meaning for her experience, 
then we can probably find a classification for her presence here. Some have 
been suggested, which she has not dispelled as yet. I keep waiting to see if 
something breaks in a genuine positive direction. (Sorry Barry, if I seem 
delusionally hopeful.) 





















 


 















Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Deification and the Uncreated Engergies of God

2014-02-23 Thread authfriend
Try to imagine the obsessive narcissism of Barry fantasizing that he knows 
anything about my psychology.
 

 She argues because something in her deep, dark past has convinced her that 
she's only really ALIVE when she's arguing. And, in her mind, winning. 

Try to imagine the poverty of that. 


 
















 W


 











Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Deification and the Uncreated Engergies of God

2014-02-23 Thread awoelflebater

 

---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, turquoiseb@... wrote:

 A cunt, and a coward, too. Talk about karma.  :-)
 

 Bawwy, so classy, so erudite, so sophisticated. You really do take the cake 
when it comes to exhibiting yourself as an example of the lowest common 
denominator. What a guy, can anyone imagine spending time with someone like 
this? How about trying this on for size: ignorant, sad, loser. 
 

 

 From: authfriend@... authfriend@...
 To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com 
 Sent: Sunday, February 23, 2014 6:31 PM
 Subject: [FairfieldLife] Re: Deification and the Uncreated Engergies of God
 
 
   I could have sworn I made it clear I wasn't at all interested in commenting 
on what Xeno had to say unless he deliberately misrepresented me or something I 
said. If anyone else happens to be curious about the answers to the questions 
he asks, let me know.
 

 I do not give much of a damn about classical theism. It has a certain interest 
for me in relation to understanding others. I think that certain aspects of 
classical theism prevalent in my environment when I was a child were part of 
the reason theism slipped away from me; certain things did not compute even at 
an early age, so I had to strike out in other directions to find information 
and understanding. The rejection or acceptance of a view does not necessarily 
require detailed knowledge of a subject. For example, it is not necessary to 
read and understand in detail the life of Bruce Wayne, his world and 
acquaintances and the psychology of Batman in order to reject Batman as person 
that is real in the world; it is not even necessary to understand the real 
world writers that keep Batman a presence in the world. Batman has a virtual 
existence, a secondary kind of existence.  

 In the world of our own consciousness, thoughts are our virtual existence, but 
there is no way to delineate exactly or to even understand how this kind of 
experience that seems to result from meditation, etc., works the way it does to 
reveal thought as a secondary reality.  

 Those trapped in the ideologies of thought can argue endlessly about their 
virtual worlds if it is important to them. They do come up with amazing 
arguments sometimes. A person who argues about a subject that is not dear to 
them for meaning in life is simply engaging in trivial combat. On the Internet 
they are called trolls. In 'real life' such argumentation can be valuable in 
honing debating skills, or for a career (say, politics) where you can argue a 
point as a support for your job. However such argumentation does undermine the 
experience of truth, if the experience of 'truth' is not established in 
awareness. The real question I would ask of Judy is 'what is the value of 
classical theism to her?' Does she have a genuine interest in classical theism? 
Is that interest intellectual, or spiritually motivated? Does it help her job? 
If classical theism is not what she thinks is true, what is its relationship 
with what she does think is true? What is she trying to find out, if anything? 
If she is not trying to find out anything that has meaning for her experience, 
then we can probably find a classification for her presence here. Some have 
been suggested, which she has not dispelled as yet. I keep waiting to see if 
something breaks in a genuine positive direction. (Sorry Barry, if I seem 
delusionally hopeful.) 





















 


 













Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Deification and the Uncreated Engergies of God

2014-02-23 Thread Richard J. Williams

On 2/23/2014 11:45 AM, TurquoiseBee wrote:

A cunt, and a coward, too. Talk about karma.  :-)


Somebody got their button pushed. Go figure.


Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Deification and the Uncreated Engergies of God

2014-02-23 Thread doctordumbass
Speaking from personal experience, B is showing symptoms of past emotional 
abuse - chronic rejecting, criticizing, terrorizing, or isolating, or any 
combo, by a parent or caregiver, leads to the ways he expresses himself.
I am not trying to out him, but having been through an exhaustive process of 
discovering my own history, and consequences, of such emotional abuse, it is 
easy to recognize the signs in others - specifically, being emotionally 
abusive, as a way of relating socially, and personally. Being under such an 
onslaught, at such a young age, is unbearable, and we all develop unhealthy 
coping mechanisms, as a result, until the light of awareness dawns, through 
whatever means.
B probably doesn't like his negative behavior, any more than anyone else does, 
who is exposed to it. I sure didn't like mine, which was similar, though not as 
pervasive. Anyway, I sympathize, and empathize, with B, and hope he works it 
out. No one likes to be the asshole all the time. Peace.
 
---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, awoelflebater@... wrote:

 
 

 ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, turquoiseb@... wrote:

 A cunt, and a coward, too. Talk about karma.  :-)
 

 Bawwy, so classy, so erudite, so sophisticated. You really do take the cake 
when it comes to exhibiting yourself as an example of the lowest common 
denominator. What a guy, can anyone imagine spending time with someone like 
this? How about trying this on for size: ignorant, sad, loser. 
 

 

 From: authfriend@... authfriend@...
 To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com 
 Sent: Sunday, February 23, 2014 6:31 PM
 Subject: [FairfieldLife] Re: Deification and the Uncreated Engergies of God
 
 
   I could have sworn I made it clear I wasn't at all interested in commenting 
on what Xeno had to say unless he deliberately misrepresented me or something I 
said. If anyone else happens to be curious about the answers to the questions 
he asks, let me know.
 

 I do not give much of a damn about classical theism. It has a certain interest 
for me in relation to understanding others. I think that certain aspects of 
classical theism prevalent in my environment when I was a child were part of 
the reason theism slipped away from me; certain things did not compute even at 
an early age, so I had to strike out in other directions to find information 
and understanding. The rejection or acceptance of a view does not necessarily 
require detailed knowledge of a subject. For example, it is not necessary to 
read and understand in detail the life of Bruce Wayne, his world and 
acquaintances and the psychology of Batman in order to reject Batman as person 
that is real in the world; it is not even necessary to understand the real 
world writers that keep Batman a presence in the world. Batman has a virtual 
existence, a secondary kind of existence.  

 In the world of our own consciousness, thoughts are our virtual existence, but 
there is no way to delineate exactly or to even understand how this kind of 
experience that seems to result from meditation, etc., works the way it does to 
reveal thought as a secondary reality.  

 Those trapped in the ideologies of thought can argue endlessly about their 
virtual worlds if it is important to them. They do come up with amazing 
arguments sometimes. A person who argues about a subject that is not dear to 
them for meaning in life is simply engaging in trivial combat. On the Internet 
they are called trolls. In 'real life' such argumentation can be valuable in 
honing debating skills, or for a career (say, politics) where you can argue a 
point as a support for your job. However such argumentation does undermine the 
experience of truth, if the experience of 'truth' is not established in 
awareness. The real question I would ask of Judy is 'what is the value of 
classical theism to her?' Does she have a genuine interest in classical theism? 
Is that interest intellectual, or spiritually motivated? Does it help her job? 
If classical theism is not what she thinks is true, what is its relationship 
with what she does think is true? What is she trying to find out, if anything? 
If she is not trying to find out anything that has meaning for her experience, 
then we can probably find a classification for her presence here. Some have 
been suggested, which she has not dispelled as yet. I keep waiting to see if 
something breaks in a genuine positive direction. (Sorry Barry, if I seem 
delusionally hopeful.)