Chris, Gosh, someone actually agrees with something I said here!
You are an 'enlightened being' after all! :-) Best, Edgar On Dec 12, 2012, at 12:33 PM, Chris Austin-Lane wrote: > > > > > On Wed, Dec 12, 2012 at 9:21 AM, R A Fonda <[email protected]> wrote: > > > On 12/12/2012 11:48 AM, Chris Austin-Lane wrote: >> >> Is this the system you think would be better than our tax based system? > > You seem to be under the misapprehension that because I foresee something I > must 'want' all aspects of it. > > > You wrote of some better system than democracy: > > > IS democracy really better than all the alternatives? I submit that it is > > not > > I took your email to mean that you preferred the foreseen anarchy system > following the collapse was a sample alternative. So if not anarchy, then > what system is better than democracy? >> I live in California > > So, if you can't already recognize a disaster-in-progress, there is no point > in my trying to edify you. > > It is always too soon to say if things are going well or badly. > > A comment on disasters in California - the earthquakes are less fuss than the > hurricanes I got on the east coast of the US - you just prep and then > hopefully it will turn out ok, but there's no advance warning. No "tropical > depression forming off of the blah blah islands." No unneeded evacuations. > > The fact that supposedly 'awakened beings' can't apprehend the inevitable > results of current trends and policy (indeed, argue for hair-of-the-dog > cures) falsifies their pretensions to enlightenment. > > Not sure if you are referring to me here, but I am not an awakened being > except in the ordinary sense, I have an aha moment that I was not paying > attention many times a day (some days only 3 times, some days more often). > Over and over, I return to the present. > > And I am not "enlightened" in any sense. Just watch me interacting with my > spouse or children, or listen to my thoughts during a meeting displaying > particularly obtuse statements. > > Even to the extent that I find non-dual experience to be a thing I think we > all have access to, it has nothing to do with "apprehending results" - it is > just here, just now. The simplest householder free to sweep their floor with > not a thought in their head knows it; each time you see your kids ice cream > falling from the cone and you catch it with no gap no thought just seeing and > moving, you know this ground. Not intellection - tho I side with Edgar in > that perceiving the contents of the mind is no different than perceiving the > contents of the eyes or the contents of the touch (where Bill! seems to draw > a line between those two). > > > > > Thanks, > > --Chris > [email protected] > +1-301-270-6524 > > > > RAF > > > > > > >
