|
Post by laughter on Nov 11, 2018 4:30:45 GMT -5
The problem here is the context mix again. Trying to apply the what only works in the largest context to the SVP context. That's how you get weird conclusions and statements. So in a sense, the moon disappearing thingy is just another round of armchair philosophy again. I mean, we all know that Gopal does not believe that his house disintegrates when he leaves for work in the morning or that his wife goes poof as soon as he turns away and looks at the TV instead. No one lives like that. He's going to treat his house as if it is always there, and he is treating his wife as if she continues to exist (and even exists independently) even though he's not looking at her, in the same way that he has no choice but to treat her as if she is conscious. This has been my point from day 1 . No-one lives or believes in this armchair philosophy . No-one believes that their wife is not a real perceiver or things just arise in consciousness . I used to speak of environments often and still do to emphasise that the physical plane of existence has it's own governed rules in effect . That's why if what you are as an individual energy signature wants to experience physical life experience one must enter this physical reality in a specific way . One has to abide to the design of each species. I can't stress enough that this appearance stuff arising out of or in consciousness is such a crock . These expressions are dismissive, convey a contemptuous tone, and thereby are quite obviously, indirect ad-hominem directed at the believers and sources of the "crocks". Now, please don't get me wrong. I know that what I just wrote is a scold, but I don't mean to imply that I'm in any position to scold you. If there's any hint of moral judgement involved here, that's entirely on me, that's my problem, and it's obviously just ego: my ego. So what I'm trying to convey with this paragraph, is that I'm not trying to call you out on your behavior. I'm not complaining about it or requesting you change it. But, that said, what I want to express is this opinion: attitudes like the one assumed in what you wrote here often have a fear energy underneath them. Ideas that are dismissed with forceful contempt, especially when there's an underlying aggression toward the sources of those ideas, are usually addressed this way because they evoke some sort of a feeling of threat.
Now, here's an opinion about the substance of what you wrote that might seem as though is a mirror of that dynamic, but it's not: Nonduality points to the illusion that is the personal identification with form, and a sense of identity based on an "individual energy signature" that "wants to experience physical life experience" is precisely that personal illusion. Nonduality points to the fallacy of the notion of "planes of existence". There are no "planes of existence".
These ideas about personhood are not mainstream, and from within the culture I know, they're sort of taboo, which is why I didn't keep this of opinion to myself. The reason I'm not remaining silent is because this forum is, at times, a place where the frank ideas of Niz and Maharshi and some of the Zen sources about the illusion of personhood are openly discussed, but also, my perception is that the expression of them have often been a target for social ostracizing, going in cycles over the years I've participated here. So I'm interested in bringing that into the forefront. You're far from the first poster here to express these contemptuous tones, and far from the first to both do that and also receive the support of the moderation staff in doing it.
I find that, some funny WIBIGO, indeed.
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Nov 11, 2018 4:48:53 GMT -5
Ok, so now, even in the context of recognizing the significance of the distinction between realization and experience, and even in the context of recognizing the underlying commonality as to what is realized, the point about the uniqueness of perspective still applies, and, specifically, it applies to how it cuts both ways as to the "does this person have a reference?" model, and how people compare their own understandings with the facets of those expressed by others. It's kinda like, experiencing is realised regardless of what the experience is. Everyone has a reference for that, so that shouldn't be inarguable. Perhaps with the cc thingy might have that same inarguability for those who have that. unique perspectives but still corn-chips right? I've never sky-dived, so if I go off about what it's like, I'm obviously making a fool of myself, and if I'm in a dialog with a bunch of people who have jumped out of planes, that will get annoying to them. But that metaphor only goes so far, because the realization (or, depending on who you're dialoging with, realizations, plural) is both ineffable, and by necessity, involves descriptions of subjective states of body/mind. Because of the subjectivity involved, there's always going to be some measure of opinion in the determination of a common realization. It's really just human nature that people will group themselves together, and apart, based on those opinions. It's a breath of fresh air whenever anyone admits that there might be something left for them to realize, or admits that they're not currently some sort of perfected Buddha. In contrast, notice that most of the drama happens between people who disagree about the subjective descriptions of the commonality of realization. I'm not claiming to have refrained from that drama, but I'm definitely willing to admit I'm not a perfected Buddha, I never play the realization card first, and I'm always very willing to agree to disagree once it hits the table. I have to admit, that I am currently forming a whole new set of opinions about people based on those factors I've just listed, as they continue to play out.
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Nov 11, 2018 4:55:06 GMT -5
In my experience, it's best to take all political discourse with a grain of salt, and understand it through the lens of people seeking power, and how that goal is the precise antithesis of the foundation of any sort of honest discussion. I don't find the gender-benders to be disgusting, at all, but people seem to have a natural tendency to want to demand the primacy of their personal perspective, and I'm not down with either side doing that. I did 3 Gender Studies units at university and received high distinctions... which is darn good for a white person who identifies as male, is heterosexually oriented and vanilla... And from that experience I can say that the illusion of personal perspective is projected, but there is actually a very dogmatic constructionist ideology. I couldn't frame sex in reproductive paradigms (because that's 'binary'), and I had to invent new terminology such as 'biological imperative'... I couldn't say "males and females are defined by biological reproduction that actually exists in nature" even though that's obviously true, because the whole lecture hall would turn and look at me like, "wow, did 'they' actually just say that?". I had to say it like, "A biological imperative impels culture to organise sex into binary categories (thought sex exists on a specrtum)". Not only was Gender studies somewhat convoluted, the ideology spread through all the arts (liberal arts). I took 2 units of Aboriginal Studies and on my first class the tutor said 'lets go around the class and introduce ourselves and please say the gender pronoun you most identify with". I was like "Hi, I'm lolly, and I take Aboriginal Studies to complement my Social Work degree, and I identify as male, but you can refer to me as him, her, it, that or whatever you like"...
Yeah, just because the gender-benders don't disgust me, doesn't mean I'd ever even think about subjecting myself to the sort of reactive and apparently sometimes vengeful power-plays I hear are playing out in higher education these days. So, I'm guessing the courses in gender and aboriginal studies were required in order for you to get a degree you were pursuing? Strikes me as blatant, political filtering, and given the amount of public money that goes into higher education, it's rather outrageous.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 11, 2018 4:55:17 GMT -5
This has been my point from day 1 . No-one lives or believes in this armchair philosophy . No-one believes that their wife is not a real perceiver or things just arise in consciousness . I used to speak of environments often and still do to emphasise that the physical plane of existence has it's own governed rules in effect . That's why if what you are as an individual energy signature wants to experience physical life experience one must enter this physical reality in a specific way . One has to abide to the design of each species. I can't stress enough that this appearance stuff arising out of or in consciousness is such a crock . These expressions are dismissive, convey a contemptuous tone, and thereby are quite obviously, indirect ad-hominem directed at the believers and sources of the "crocks". Now, please don't get me wrong. I know that what I just wrote is a scold, but I don't mean to imply that I'm in any position to scold you. If there's any hint of moral judgement involved here, that's entirely on me, that's my problem, and it's obviously just ego: my ego. So what I'm trying to convey with this paragraph, is that I'm not trying to call you out on your behavior. I'm not complaining about it or requesting you change it. But, that said, what I want to express is this opinion: attitudes like the one assumed in what you wrote here often have a fear energy underneath them. Ideas that are dismissed with forceful contempt, especially when there's an underlying aggression toward the sources of those ideas, are usually addressed this way because they evoke some sort of a feeling of threat.
Now, here's an opinion about the substance of what you wrote that might seem as though is a mirror of that dynamic, but it's not: Nonduality points to the illusion that is the personal identification with form, and a sense of identity based on an "individual energy signature" that "wants to experience physical life experience" is precisely that personal illusion. Nonduality points to the fallacy of the notion of "planes of existence". There are no "planes of existence".
These ideas about personhood are not mainstream, and from within the culture I know, they're sort of taboo, which is why I didn't keep this of opinion to myself. The reason I'm not remaining silent is because this forum is, at times, a place where the frank ideas of Niz and Maharshi and some of the Zen sources about the illusion of personhood are openly discussed, but also, my perception is that the expression of them have often been a target for social ostracizing, going in cycles over the years I've participated here. So I'm interested in bringing that into the forefront. You're far from the first poster here to express these contemptuous tones, and far from the first to both do that and also receive the support of the moderation staff in doing it.
I find that, some funny WIBIGO, indeed. Is there a possibility that those days have ended? And what the forum is now collectively exploring is the Third Mountain position of re-integration and what the 'illusion of personhood' really looks like in every day life?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 11, 2018 5:00:06 GMT -5
It's kinda like, experiencing is realised regardless of what the experience is. Everyone has a reference for that, so that shouldn't be inarguable. Perhaps with the cc thingy might have that same inarguability for those who have that. unique perspectives but still corn-chips right? I've never sky-dived, so if I go off about what it's like, I'm obviously making a fool of myself, and if I'm in a dialog with a bunch of people who have jumped out of planes, that will get annoying to them. But that metaphor only goes so far, because the realization (or, depending on who you're dialoging with, realizations, plural) is both ineffable, and by necessity, involves descriptions of subjective states of body/mind. Because of the subjectivity involved, there's always going to be some measure of opinion in the determination of a common realization. It's really just human nature that people will group themselves together, and apart, based on those opinions. It's a breath of fresh air whenever anyone admits that there might be something left for them to realize, or admits that they're not currently some sort of perfected Buddha. In contrast, notice that most of the drama happens between people who disagree about the subjective descriptions of the commonality of realization. I'm not claiming to have refrained from that drama, but I'm definitely willing to admit I'm not a perfected Buddha, I never play the realization card first, and I'm always very willing to agree to disagree once it hits the table. I have to admit, that I am currently forming a whole new set of opinions about people based on those factors I've just listed, as they continue to play out. Any plans for another lifetime in which to complete said task?
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Nov 11, 2018 5:11:14 GMT -5
These expressions are dismissive, convey a contemptuous tone, and thereby are quite obviously, indirect ad-hominem directed at the believers and sources of the "crocks". Now, please don't get me wrong. I know that what I just wrote is a scold, but I don't mean to imply that I'm in any position to scold you. If there's any hint of moral judgement involved here, that's entirely on me, that's my problem, and it's obviously just ego: my ego. So what I'm trying to convey with this paragraph, is that I'm not trying to call you out on your behavior. I'm not complaining about it or requesting you change it. But, that said, what I want to express is this opinion: attitudes like the one assumed in what you wrote here often have a fear energy underneath them. Ideas that are dismissed with forceful contempt, especially when there's an underlying aggression toward the sources of those ideas, are usually addressed this way because they evoke some sort of a feeling of threat. Now, here's an opinion about the substance of what you wrote that might seem as though is a mirror of that dynamic, but it's not: Nonduality points to the illusion that is the personal identification with form, and a sense of identity based on an "individual energy signature" that "wants to experience physical life experience" is precisely that personal illusion. Nonduality points to the fallacy of the notion of "planes of existence". There are no "planes of existence". These ideas about personhood are not mainstream, and from within the culture I know, they're sort of taboo, which is why I didn't keep this of opinion to myself. The reason I'm not remaining silent is because this forum is, at times, a place where the frank ideas of Niz and Maharshi and some of the Zen sources about the illusion of personhood are openly discussed, but also, my perception is that the expression of them have often been a target for social ostracizing, going in cycles over the years I've participated here. So I'm interested in bringing that into the forefront. You're far from the first poster here to express these contemptuous tones, and far from the first to both do that and also receive the support of the moderation staff in doing it. I find that, some funny WIBIGO, indeed. Is there a possibility that those days have ended? And what the forum is now collectively exploring is the Third Mountain position of re-integration and what the 'illusion of personhood' really looks like in every day life? My perception is that there's always been a thread of that woven in with the discussion, regardless of where in the cycle of ostracizing we are, and I'm not suggesting that this cycle is inconsistent with what happens in day-to-day life, but I do find the fact of the cycle, rather piquant. The particular Zen metaphor you've referenced, is expressed in terms of outward directed perception, rather than the sense of identity ("personhood"). The guy who said it described "rivers" the same way as someone who never practiced Zen, but he quite obviously meant something very different by it, and while I don't think he ever held any genuine contempt toward someone maintaining an objective, material realist outlook, my guess is that he might have mirrored that if he thought it could possibly evoke some sort of realization.
If you want to read a very in-depth analysis of the metaphor expressed explicitly in term of objective and subjective perception, pick up (or re-read, as may be the case) Sekida's, "Zen Training".
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Nov 11, 2018 5:13:03 GMT -5
I've never sky-dived, so if I go off about what it's like, I'm obviously making a fool of myself, and if I'm in a dialog with a bunch of people who have jumped out of planes, that will get annoying to them. But that metaphor only goes so far, because the realization (or, depending on who you're dialoging with, realizations, plural) is both ineffable, and by necessity, involves descriptions of subjective states of body/mind. Because of the subjectivity involved, there's always going to be some measure of opinion in the determination of a common realization. It's really just human nature that people will group themselves together, and apart, based on those opinions. It's a breath of fresh air whenever anyone admits that there might be something left for them to realize, or admits that they're not currently some sort of perfected Buddha. In contrast, notice that most of the drama happens between people who disagree about the subjective descriptions of the commonality of realization. I'm not claiming to have refrained from that drama, but I'm definitely willing to admit I'm not a perfected Buddha, I never play the realization card first, and I'm always very willing to agree to disagree once it hits the table. I have to admit, that I am currently forming a whole new set of opinions about people based on those factors I've just listed, as they continue to play out. Any plans for another lifetime in which to complete said task? No need, and not because it will never happen, and not because it's some sort of foregone conclusion, but rather, the nature of perfection requires no plan, and any plan that might appear, is already perfect, just as it is.
|
|
|
Post by andrew on Nov 11, 2018 5:16:58 GMT -5
In my experience, it's best to take all political discourse with a grain of salt, and understand it through the lens of people seeking power, and how that goal is the precise antithesis of the foundation of any sort of honest discussion. I don't find the gender-benders to be disgusting, at all, but people seem to have a natural tendency to want to demand the primacy of their personal perspective, and I'm not down with either side doing that. I did 3 Gender Studies units at university and received high distinctions... which is darn good for a white person who identifies as male, is heterosexually oriented and vanilla... And from that experience I can say that the illusion of personal perspective is projected, but there is actually a very dogmatic constructionist ideology. I couldn't frame sex in reproductive paradigms (because that's 'binary'), and I had to invent new terminology such as 'biological imperative'... I couldn't say "males and females are defined by biological reproduction that actually exists in nature" even though that's obviously true, because the whole lecture hall would turn and look at me like, "wow, did 'they' actually just say that?". I had to say it like, "A biological imperative impels culture to organise sex into binary categories (thought sex exists on a specrtum)". Not only was Gender studies somewhat convoluted, the ideology spread through all the arts (liberal arts). I took 2 units of Aboriginal Studies and on my first class the tutor said 'lets go around the class and introduce ourselves and please say the gender pronoun you most identify with". I was like "Hi, I'm lolly, and I take Aboriginal Studies to complement my Social Work degree, and I identify as male, but you can refer to me as him, her, it, that or whatever you like"...
I'm definitely not Jordan Peterson's biggest fan, but what he says about what is going on in the universities is very interesting, though I assumed it applied more to Canada/USA than anywhere else....guess I'm wrong. I did gender studies at university, also got high marks, but this was 20 years ago. My gender studies tutor had a very big impact on me, we explored Foucault, Lacan, Wittgenstein, Heidegger....it changed the way I understood 'the world' totally. Based on your experience, I am now curious as to what the situation is like at my old college, and where my tutor stands on it. The bit I highlighted was actually quite a realization for me at the time. I recall looking at two different chairs, and thinking something like...'Huh. We don't have different names for those 'chairs', I know and experience them both as 'chairs'. And yet we do have different names for 'humans', and I know and experience 'humans' in two different ways. Why is that, and more importantly, what does that say about the totality of all that is experienced?'. It was my first big insight into 'subjectivity'.
|
|
|
Post by tenka on Nov 11, 2018 5:18:07 GMT -5
This has been my point from day 1 . No-one lives or believes in this armchair philosophy . No-one believes that their wife is not a real perceiver or things just arise in consciousness . I used to speak of environments often and still do to emphasise that the physical plane of existence has it's own governed rules in effect . That's why if what you are as an individual energy signature wants to experience physical life experience one must enter this physical reality in a specific way . One has to abide to the design of each species. I can't stress enough that this appearance stuff arising out of or in consciousness is such a crock . These expressions are dismissive, convey a contemptuous tone, and thereby are quite obviously, indirect ad-hominem directed at the believers and sources of the "crocks". Now, please don't get me wrong. I know that what I just wrote is a scold, but I don't mean to imply that I'm in any position to scold you. If there's any hint of moral judgement involved here, that's entirely on me, that's my problem, and it's obviously just ego: my ego. So what I'm trying to convey with this paragraph, is that I'm not trying to call you out on your behavior. I'm not complaining about it or requesting you change it. But, that said, what I want to express is this opinion: attitudes like the one assumed in what you wrote here often have a fear energy underneath them. Ideas that are dismissed with forceful contempt, especially when there's an underlying aggression toward the sources of those ideas, are usually addressed this way because they evoke some sort of a feeling of threat.
Now, here's an opinion about the substance of what you wrote that might seem as though is a mirror of that dynamic, but it's not: Nonduality points to the illusion that is the personal identification with form, and a sense of identity based on an "individual energy signature" that "wants to experience physical life experience" is precisely that personal illusion. Nonduality points to the fallacy of the notion of "planes of existence". There are no "planes of existence".
These ideas about personhood are not mainstream, and from within the culture I know, they're sort of taboo, which is why I didn't keep this of opinion to myself. The reason I'm not remaining silent is because this forum is, at times, a place where the frank ideas of Niz and Maharshi and some of the Zen sources about the illusion of personhood are openly discussed, but also, my perception is that the expression of them have often been a target for social ostracizing, going in cycles over the years I've participated here. So I'm interested in bringing that into the forefront. You're far from the first poster here to express these contemptuous tones, and far from the first to both do that and also receive the support of the moderation staff in doing it.
I find that, some funny WIBIGO, indeed. Your painting a picture of a mountain when there is only a molehill present . I have listened for a few years now peeps saying that appearances arise out of consciousness without any association to how that happens . It is a crock . It is nonsense . Much of what is portrayed here is not lived or believed . You are welcome to play along with folk who say things like this if you like, it's not my cup of tea to do so .
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Nov 11, 2018 5:28:30 GMT -5
Correct. G. used to argue that NS was impossible because it violated his definition of awareness. He couldn't imagine that there could be pure awareness without content (without something to be aware of). Yet, NS has been discussed and described by sages for thousands of years, and most long-time meditators have entered that non-dual state. Without a reference there's no basis for knowledge. Socrates said that he only is wise in so far as when he doesn't know, he supposes he doesn't know. The fool supposes he does know when in fact he doesn't. Didn't he go ever further than that though? Didn't he state something along the lines of "the only thing I know, is that I know nothing"? Or is that just internet legend?
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Nov 11, 2018 5:32:34 GMT -5
In my experience, it's best to take all political discourse with a grain of salt, and understand it through the lens of people seeking power, and how that goal is the precise antithesis of the foundation of any sort of honest discussion. I don't find the gender-benders to be disgusting, at all, but people seem to have a natural tendency to want to demand the primacy of their personal perspective, and I'm not down with either side doing that. It isn't gender benders that are disgusting. It's how the dynamic of identity politics vs. the right view has made 'social justice' counter productive term. Social workers are pretty much forced to invent a new lexicon so they can continue to be taken seriously and not be dismissed as 'snowflakes'. Aspirin treats inflammation, penicillin kills the source of the inflammation. The creation of "snowflake" is inflammation, as are the creators of it. The source of the inflammation is the dynamic between those creators and their opposite numbers on the other side of the political fence. Your inconvenience, is just collateral damage.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 11, 2018 5:38:55 GMT -5
Is there a possibility that those days have ended? And what the forum is now collectively exploring is the Third Mountain position of re-integration and what the 'illusion of personhood' really looks like in every day life? My perception is that there's always been a thread of that woven in with the discussion, regardless of where in the cycle of ostracizing we are, and I'm not suggesting that this cycle is inconsistent with what happens in day-to-day life, but I do find the fact of the cycle, rather piquant. The particular Zen metaphor you've referenced, is expressed in terms of outward directed perception, rather than the sense of identity ("personhood"). The guy who said it described "rivers" the same way as someone who never practiced Zen, but he quite obviously meant something very different by it, and while I don't think he ever held any genuine contempt toward someone maintaining an objective, material realist outlook, my guess is that he might have mirrored that if he thought it could possibly evoke some sort of realization.
If you want to read a very in-depth analysis of the metaphor expressed explicitly in term of objective and subjective perception, pick up (or re-read, as may be the case) Sekida's, "Zen Training".
The way I see it, is that everyone has adapted to the 'ostracizing' though, that's why I'm suggesting that it's ended and carries no value or leverage anymore. Had to look up piquant.. Yeah. The person or personhood is not a fixed ideal or a harnessable sense, it is more of an energetic membrane and a way to experience. And if true integration is the trajectory, then it's complete inclusion into the experience of This will be of a fluid and dependable nature. I'm not drawn to read Sekida's thoughts at this point.. though someone might be.
|
|
|
Post by lolly on Nov 11, 2018 5:39:16 GMT -5
It isn't gender benders that are disgusting. It's how the dynamic of identity politics vs. the right view has made 'social justice' counter productive term. Social workers are pretty much forced to invent a new lexicon so they can continue to be taken seriously and not be dismissed as 'snowflakes'. Aspirin treats inflammation, penicillin kills the source of the inflammation. The creation of "snowflake" is inflammation, as are the creators of it. The source of the inflammation is the dynamic between those creators and their opposite numbers on the other side of the political fence. Your inconvenience, is just collateral damage. Yes, and more than an inconvenience when it affects the clientele of social workers. It's the fallout from war.
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Nov 11, 2018 5:40:14 GMT -5
Assuming they'd agree with that, as far as I can tell, each of them has quite forcefully rejected any and all conclusions and characterizations you've made about what they might mean, if they would put it that way, by "appearing in me" or "appearing to me". My recollection from the dialogs is that both you and Reefs conclude that they're arguing for separation, and Reefs even goes so far as to conclude that they don't even realize they're doing it as they're doing it. They deny they're arguing for separation. My opinion is that any opinion based on a series of ever finer conceptual distinctions in a dialog like this, very simply, is, what it is. An opinion. I actually don't know what a point of perception in Consciousness has to do with a separate volitional person. My understanding, from what reading along I've done, is that: The not-knowing if there are other points of perception is relative to perspective, you've explained the perspective doesn't imply separation, this explanation hasn't been accepted, and there's consensus as to a philosophical argument that it has to. To be clear, I'm not a party to that consensus.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 11, 2018 5:40:31 GMT -5
These expressions are dismissive, convey a contemptuous tone, and thereby are quite obviously, indirect ad-hominem directed at the believers and sources of the "crocks". Now, please don't get me wrong. I know that what I just wrote is a scold, but I don't mean to imply that I'm in any position to scold you. If there's any hint of moral judgement involved here, that's entirely on me, that's my problem, and it's obviously just ego: my ego. So what I'm trying to convey with this paragraph, is that I'm not trying to call you out on your behavior. I'm not complaining about it or requesting you change it. But, that said, what I want to express is this opinion: attitudes like the one assumed in what you wrote here often have a fear energy underneath them. Ideas that are dismissed with forceful contempt, especially when there's an underlying aggression toward the sources of those ideas, are usually addressed this way because they evoke some sort of a feeling of threat.
Now, here's an opinion about the substance of what you wrote that might seem as though is a mirror of that dynamic, but it's not: Nonduality points to the illusion that is the personal identification with form, and a sense of identity based on an "individual energy signature" that "wants to experience physical life experience" is precisely that personal illusion. Nonduality points to the fallacy of the notion of "planes of existence". There are no "planes of existence".
These ideas about personhood are not mainstream, and from within the culture I know, they're sort of taboo, which is why I didn't keep this of opinion to myself. The reason I'm not remaining silent is because this forum is, at times, a place where the frank ideas of Niz and Maharshi and some of the Zen sources about the illusion of personhood are openly discussed, but also, my perception is that the expression of them have often been a target for social ostracizing, going in cycles over the years I've participated here. So I'm interested in bringing that into the forefront. You're far from the first poster here to express these contemptuous tones, and far from the first to both do that and also receive the support of the moderation staff in doing it.
I find that, some funny WIBIGO, indeed. Your painting a picture of a mountain when there is only a molehill present . I have listened for a few years now peeps saying that appearances arise out of consciousness without any association to how that happens . It is a crock . It is nonsense . Much of what is portrayed here is not lived or believed . You are welcome to play along with folk who say things like this if you like, it's not my cup of tea to do so . Ermm.. the how is directly related to what you think about.
|
|