Livergood's esoterism

i've never met anyone that insisted so firmly that he knew more about what i am than i do, despite being told repeatedly and in no uncertain terms that he didn't have the slightest clue.

enjoy the next 60 pages of waffle and irrelevance.

b'shalom

bananabrain

 

It isn't so unusual and now you've even insulted the Jewish wife. They always know more about what their husbands are then they do. What is so surprisng about this?

 

well, you've just made my point for me. when mrs bb tells me she knows more about me than i do, she's speaking from a position of knowledge - from actually living with me and observing with me over a long period of time.

*you*, on the other hand, are not.

this tactic of yours, therefore, is pure unadulterated weaselbeans. i would therefore advise you to refrain from further displaying your ignorance; normally, when one doesn't know what one is talking about, it is better not to advertise it, rather than to insist, in the face of all the evidence, that one is actually making sense.

b'shalom

bananabrain

 

No wonder you cannot understand Christianity. Doing so requires being appreciative of humor as opposed to comedy. This is unfortunately normal for continually fighting windmills.

 

i'm not the one claiming to understand christianity. and, frankly, there don't seem to be a lot of people here who think *you* understand it. you're the one who is making statements about judaism that you can't back up and when your ignorance is revealed, you start straw-manning? give it up, mate. you're just making yourself look ridiculous. as for humour - 62 pages on that birth certificate? you couldn't make it up.

b'shalom

bananabrain

 

You said there is no secular Judasim so I provide a link to secular Judaism.

Christianity is usually rejected. The World rejects it. The cry "give us Barrabas" is just another example. It is the way of the world or as Plato would say, the "cave."

Obama's Birth certificate thread is just another example how we worship an image rather then defend something of worth like the constitution. For the minority that can see it for what it is , it is revealing and shows how gullible we are and how easily we can sacrifice the truly meaningful as Judas did for thirty pieces of silver. It is both unfortunate and natural for the human condition.

 

am i not saying this in clear enough english? i did not say "there is no secular judaism". i said that secular judaism is not what you say it is. i said it here:

you firstly failed to address this objection - and then referred to my objection as a "rant". it wasn't. it was a rebuttal of your definitions. you didn't provide an argument, but instead talked about what you'd "prefer". it's not about what you'd prefer. it's about what the definition actually means - and it doesn't mean what you say, myself being a case in point, so you all you are currently doing is being both misleading and confusing.

as for "rejecting" christianity - if you are here to convince anyone to "accept" it, then you are in violation of the CoC.

b'shalom

bananabrain

 

bb

Regardless of how you want to phrase it, as we are as it pertains to the human condition, a person either values the sacred calling over secular expression or the secular over the sacred. If one values the secular over the sacred then their philosophy is considered secular. This is just common sense.

It has nothing to do with what I prefer. Granted, I do believe that evolved man would express the natural balance between the sacred and secular but we are the wretched man so people gravitate towards one or the other but unable to reconcile them other then through "appearance" and the hidden hypocrisy natural for "appearance."

Thomas' role is to convince people to accept the Catholic Church. I don't ask anyone to accept anything. I happen to know through personal experience that the depth of Christianity is not something that is accepted so it is foolish to ask for acceptance. It can be needed by some and I prefer being associated with those that share this need.

One doesn't "accept" food; they eat it. The same exists with esoteric Christianity. It is not to be accepted but rather eaten psycholically/spiritually for the purpose of "awakening" beginning with the inner experience of metanoia. This is why the World must reject it since the world demands acceptance.

 

you are still ignoring the basic fact that nobody agrees with your DEFINITIONS - what you mean by "secular" is not what anyone else means. therefore it is nonsense to draw conclusions on, for example whether X is an apple or an orange, when there is no shared definition. you seem fundamentally resistant to the idea of building common linguistic ground with anyone else, obsessed with shoehorning some pretty elastic and pivotal words into an ideological straitjacket - and then accusing everyone else of doing precisely that! transference much?

in short, the one "preferring" things here is *you*. and, to reiterate yet again, i do not value the "secular" over the "sacred" by either your definition nor, more importantly, by any shared definition. you seem unable to grasp this despite my continually putting it in clear and, i hope, unambiguous english. your argument, despite your sophistry and lack of precision appears to be more or less the following:

Nick A: I am right. Simone, Needleman and Plato say so.
everyone else: so?
Nick A: But I am! I'm right! Here's a BIG QUOTE.
everyone else: the things in your quote don't support your argument.
Nick A: Yes, of course they do! My quote had Big Words in it!!
everyone else: yes, we read them. those big words don't mean what you think they do.
Nick A: They must do! We're all in the Cave, singing in the choir. The Beast is laughing and offering drinks round. Thank heavens Simone noticed.
everyone else: and so?
Nick A: So I must be right!! You're all deluded choir singers to the Beast!!!!
everyone else: so none of us here know what we're talking about, is that what you're saying?
Nick A: Yes, can't you see??? It's all BS!!!! BS!!!!!
everyone else: what a load of weaselbeans.
Nick A: You all think I'm mad!! Mad, I tell you!!!! The World hates me!!!! But I'll show you!!!!! Muwahahahahaa!!!!
everyone else: *wanders off, rolling eyes*
Nick A: Stop!!! Come back!!! Here's another thread!!! It's got a similar title!!! In it, I'll quote from Simone, Needleman and Plato!!! Won't that be fun????

.......tumbleweed.....

much later, on page 5693843987 of the thread....

Nick A: See???!!???? We're all in the Cave with the Beast!?!?!!!? Simone was right after all!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Anyone?? Anyone???

thomas has never tried to make me accept the catholic church, nor would i, but i have learned a great deal by asking him sensible questions and listening to the answers. you too could learn a great deal if you were interested to do so. but, apparently, you're just here to lecture everybody. it is terribly tedious, because you clearly have a higher boredom threshold than i think anyone i've ever met.

and you still haven't addressed my rebuttal.

b'shalom

bananabrain

 

bb

You are not attracted to esoteric Christianity so why bother with it? Unlike the secular traditions it doesn't seek to recruit but rather pushes people away so as not to prostitute its meaning through curiosity seekers. It isn't a matter of proof or blind belief but rather how to become open or as Metropolitan Anthony said: "vulnerable."

The only reason now that it is becoming more known is because of the imbalance between technology and inner morality. Without a better balance we quite possibly face self destruction. So esoteric Christianity is one means for introducing what all the traditions initiating with a conscious source refer to in one way or another as "awakening" which in the secular traditions has become justified fantasy.

The point is that the Christ influence is a level of reality that Man can evolve to within which we exist in potential. We can either sense that we are not ourselves or argue about whose self is better. Esoteric Christianity as with all the perennial traditions isn't concerned with right and wrong but rather becoming aware of the human condition functioning in Plato's cave and what can be done to be free of its self created restrictions both for ones own benefit and the benefit of the World.

I appreciate secular as does Worldnet Dictionary:

In the NT it is the world of Caesar in contrast to God's world. You may disagree along with others but I'll stick with the dictionary and the Bible.

You want to believe you have a realistic balance between the sacred and the secular. Esoteric Christianity asserts that this is our potential but as we are, it only exists in our imagination. Socrates expresses it well:

The psychology of esoteric Christianity is designed to balance our inner life so as to allow us to be open and vulnerable to the experience of metanoia and the potential with help from above for re-birth metanoia offers.

We can have no common linguistic grounds since you are interpreting the verticality of what I'm expressing in your normal associative thought which is a horizontal perspective meaning all the variable are on the same level.

So continue with your crude attempts at ridicule but know that it simply has nothing to do with the price of tea in china much less Christianity.

 

i'm not. i'm responding to your mendacious misuse of the english language, specifically your interpretations of the terms "secular" and "transcendent" and your constant straw-manning, to say nothing of the rearranging-deckchairs-on-the-titanic argument structure using various configurations of pre-formatted cod-philosophical modules like beasts, caves, simone weil quotes and i think we're all aware of the rest.

a. judaism isn't a "secular" tradition, either by your definition or anyone else's.
b. judaism, even if it *was* secular, also doesn't seek to recruit but rather pushes people away.

so this is, on all counts, nothing more than your usual bait-and-switch argument, amounting to nothing more than a pile of weaselbeans.

most philosophical systems have been aware of a tension there for some time. the morality doesn't even have to be "inner" - medical ethics, for example, covers it perfectly adequately. so this, again, is another superfluous truism.

this assumes that traditions which disagree with you are either demanding proof (no bad thing) or blind belief, which pretty much covers two opposite poles of the spectrum. this also assumes that being "open" or "vulnerable" is "the" answer to overcoming the imbalance you noted above. yet it appears to be self-evident that this assertion is false, viz. medical ethics for a start, let alone other belief systems.

so your point can be expressed as: traditions which, according to your definition of the word "secular", don't understand how to become "open/vulnerable". yet your own positions scarcely appear to be "open" or "vulnerable" according to your own definitions. now, seeing as your definition of "secular" is pretty much by definition neither "open" nor "vulnerable", your argument once again collapses in on itself: "secular" points of view are not "open" to "awakening". with that, i would agree, but a) i already knew that before you told me, because it is tautological and b) i and my tradition are not "secular" according to your (disputed by everyone) definition. this, unfortunately for you (and for me, considering i've just spent 10 whole minutes of my life which i'm never getting back, deconstructing it) makes your whole argument completely redundant.

here you go again. i already addressed this and pointed out yet again that:

a. this definition doesn't mean what you take it to mean
b. this definition doesn't apply to groups you apparently think it applies to, nor does it apply to me.

you may very well "stick with them", but you are failing to understand either, at least the OT. the NT is not part of my canon.

er.... if it's potential, it must be more than imagination in some cases. if we recognise that there is a path to tread, which i do, then surely we are already in some sense on the path. *where* we are is then a matter for personal judgement, but i will not be lectured by you as to whether i understand the concept or not. more to the point, i will not be lectured by you about my tradition as if you understood it, because you manifestly don't. you're just interested in shoehorning it into your procrustean little boxes so you can straw-man with it, so until you learn something from socrates at least and admit that you don't understand anything about judaism, any pronouncement you have to make on the subject will lack both value and validity.

[/quote]The psychology of esoteric Christianity is designed to balance our inner life so as to allow us to be open and vulnerable to the experience of metanoia and the potential with help from above for re-birth metanoia offers.[/quote]
ever read "mesillat yesharim", the "path of the just"? the mussar movement, grounded in the kabbalah, understands this perfectly adequately. it just doesn't feel the need to indulge in grandstanding displays of wayne's-worldish grovelling.

hur hur hur hur hur. we can have no common linguistic grounds because you think you're talking intelligible english rather than pompous esoteric psychobabble. this sentence makes no sense. you don't know anything about my thought processes, or my variables, or my perspective and until you realise the necessity of not masquerading as competent in areas where you clearly lack knowledge, this will continue to be the case.

as for my "crude attempts at ridicule", i think they're rather better than your crude attempts at coherence.

b'shalom

bananabrain

 

Fascinating. I think we've come to the root of our problem with our friend Nick here. I think. But that depends on how you define 'root' and 'problem'. I may or may not be interpreting vertically....or verticality..or hell, what does that word mean again?

 

BB

I see you are in good form today. I wrote that I agree with the dictionary definition and you responded that it means other than what it says as concerning groups and individuals including you. Your choice.

I didn't say that Judaism is a secular tradition but rather that it has become largely secular Judaism in the same way that Christianity has become secularized into Christendom and both being expressions of the "Great Beast" rather than a connection to higher consciousness. I don't see what this possibly has to do with bait and switch.

Being aware of a problem and coping with it are two different things. One of the chief characteristics of the human condition is hypocrisy. That being the case, ethics including medical ethics easily become their opposite. Even though we can give the most beautiful awe inspiring speeches, we also do the opposite. Secularism doesn't admit the human condition so consequently cannot cope with it.

It isn't a matter of me. Regardless if I drop dead tomorrow the idea is the same. The human condition is as was said by those like Jesus, Paul, Plato, and Simone, or it is not. I've experienced it in myself so believe it to be true. It doesn't require blind belief to verify these things but only the need and the courage to experience it and admit it in oneself.

Yes, leaving me out of it for now, the secular traditions have no need to become open and prefer fantasy instead. The secular or societal world has no conception as to how much it is governed by imagination and the horrors that result. It is our way. Simone Weil describes it in her usual laconic fashion:

When people are content in imagination and without a sufficient need to not depend on it, there is no need to become vulnerable. Esoteric Christianity as an awakening influence to conscious awareness seeks also to minimize the damage done by this facet of the human condition.

We know that there are no straight lines in nature. Universal laws are so designed to keep the life forces turning in circles and spirals: dust to dust. Secularism is mechanical life. We go with the flow. By going with the flow, everything including progress along what we call our paths also turns in circles.

All the sacred traditions deal with this in one way or another. As they become secularized, their exoteric face becomes impotent and just part of the involutionary flow into Creation.

As I said Judaism contains a deep esoteric side. However coming to understand it is something else. To do so requires first admitting the human condition otherwise whatever is built is done so on a faulty foundation such as the Tower of Babble.

Jacob Needleman is Jewish and understands the Path of the Just as well as esoteric Christianity far better than me. What certain people understand goes beyond what society having become part of the "Great Beast" is capable of.

External morality only exists because we've lost the capacity to experience inner morality. The ability has been covered over by a myriad of fears and defense mechanisms to protect the chaos and contradictions of our inner life. Esoteric Christianity is also a means for becoming once again in touch with inner morality. At that point we understand it. Before that it is just words normal for external morality that lead to expressions of normal hypocrisy. A person having awakened to inner morality would be able to do what Simone suggests here. We cannot since we are restricted to cave life and the influence of external morality which leads to hypocrisy.

Having become secularized, we've lost this ability to awaken inner morality so life is as it is.

There is a minority not content with going with the flow and risk the growls of the "Great Beast" to become able to exprerience human meaning and purpose. For such a small minority, a great deal depends on them for our collective survival IMO.

If people like Simone and Jacob Needleman can live by his definition of hope, who am I to abandon the cause if I sense profound truth in it just because the Beast growls both within me and in the World:

 

no. i responded that it means other than what *YOU* say. what it says i have no problem with. how you choose to understand it is the issue. nice straw-man there.

and, yet again, you make a baseless assertion with nothing more than your opinion to back it up - certainly not the english language and certainly not anything you know about judaism. so that's another straw-man.

you are against "secularism". fair enough. you attack it. fair enough. but since judaism isn't "secular" according to either the dictionary's definition, or even your definition, you cannot use the failings of "secularism" to make general assertions about judaism. so you're "baiting" with secularism and then "switching" to use judaism, but it's not a valid example and, in this part of the forum, you don't get to make assertions like that without backing them up. either put up or shut up - until then, yes, it's straw-man #3.

ooh, look, another generalisation without any evidence. why not an example, nick, have you got some kind of straw-man fetish? that's four now.

but as we haven't got any agreed examples of secularism you're unable to make your point effectively - straw-man #5.

and in all these cases, you're committing a major fallacy; even though this might be one explanation for the human condition, it does not therefore follow that it is the only explanation in all cases.

your opinion of your own experience is not sufficient evidence for anyone to draw a general principle from it.

but you haven't yet given any tangible examples of "secular" traditions.

even if that is true (and it sounds suspiciously precise - where are the data?) it does not therefore follow that you - or simone - can tell me which quarter we are dealing in right now. however, i would certainly agree that imagination and fiction makes up about three quarters of your posts.

how about the edges of crystals? molecular lattices?

you still haven't provided a tangible example of this within judaism - straw-man #6.

if you do not understand it yourself, how are you in a position to tell me about what understanding it requires? BZZZ! assumption!

finally, an example. ok, let's have a post from needleman to evidence this statement, please.

ooh, not a straw man, but begging the question instead.

straw-man #7.

so, for you, only people that agree with you are able to experience human meaning and purpose? weaselbeans.

b'shalom

bananabrain

 

OK so you're right and I'm wrong. Gothcha.

Your main objection is with what secularism means. I'm not against secularism but rather the effect of the Beast perverting its societal potential. So what do I mean by secular?

My previous quote by Dr. Henry Finch comparing Judaism to Christianity says roughly the same thing. Secularism occurs in the passing time and its expression is a result of the quality of societal collective "being." So it isn't a matter of quoting examples of secularism but rather being open to secularism as it is without rose colored glasses.

I'm attracted to Christianity since it pertains to the vertical quality of the moment itself. Dondi didn't allow himself to experience it before turning off but Simone describes it with great depth for those open to the experience. She wrote:

This contemplation is not after the fact or analysis but a result of "presence" Defilement is witnessed as it occurs. We experience our inner lies and BS. It is a vertical relationship where the higher observes the lower. This also is Man's potential relationship to eternity.

The cross and Christianity itself develops this capacity and allows for us being capable of consciously carrying our cross and the potential for re-birth and our conscious connection to eternity.

Where secular life is represented by the horizontal bar of the cross, the quality of the moment is represented by the vertical bar. The higher the secular bar intersects the vertical bar, the greater a man's "being." The same holds true in relation to societal being.

No. Before opening to human meaning and purpose one has to become a bit more human. It has nothing to do with me. Consider how Buddha describes the human condition:

I'm just saying that a painted body full of wounds is incapable of experiencing human meaning and purpose much less its potential. It is a politically incorrect observation but I still believe Buddha was right. Esoteric Christianity is one perennial means for dealing with the human condition.

 

no. yet again, my main objection is against your use of the word "secularism" to define what you are against, as it is misleading, vague and reductionist.

well, if that's the case, then you should say so more precisely, rather than setting up secularism itself as a straw-man. i would be less inclined to drive a cart and horses through your argument.

i get it already! you're against worldliness when it, essentially, blinds us to matters of spiritual growth and appreciation of the human condition.

ok, this is what is confusing you, i think, whoever this quote is from is choosing to understand the word *secular* in a particular way as, essentially, a foil for "spiritual". this is, at bottom, a profoundly christian, buddhist and hindu point of view as other belief systems such as judaism and islam, to say nothing of the neopagan systems, do not indulge in this kind of dualism. judaism has a concept of separation (kedushah) which is synonomous with the concept of holiness, whereby we separate the "kodesh" (holy/separate) from the "hol" - profane. there is a concept of "sacred time" (the sabbath) which is somehow spiral as opposed to the "profane", linear time of the working week. however, this does not translate into a flesh/spirit, form/essence, law/love dualistic worldview. we are about integrating these things; even the hol can become infused with kodesh through our actions and intention; it is when they become completely separated that the "beast" perverts "societal potential", from our PoV, when we allow the power of the qelipot to envelop our societal systems. what you have unfortunately then done, however, is conflated this not unreasonable understanding (with which, however, i am in specific disagreement) of the word "secular" firstly with the term "secularism", which has very specific connotations, as well as then misapplying it as a generalised term of criticism to the various things you have set up as straw-men against which to display the shining example of simone's esoteric spirituality. and that is why you keep rubbing people here up the wrong way, not because they are somehow "in thrall to the beast", but because your thinking is rather woolly and vague.

i already showed that that quote displays that he clearly doesn't know what he's talking about in no uncertain terms, i really wouldn't bring that one up again, because it's the same tactic - pick the thing of which we disapprove, the separation of spiritual considerations from secular life and then associate it with an extremely broad label, in other words judaism.

but there you go with the conflating again, plus you also end up assuming that you have somehow shown this "as it is", which you haven't.

if you understood anything about where i was coming from you would not make such a general statement. all spiritual traditions with a genuinely sophisticated worldview understand the nature of such "vertical" qualities, i don't know why you are so keen to assume that christianity (as you define it) is unique in this respect, because i can tell you that it really isn't, according to any of the evidence you've presented.

if he turned off, it was turning off what you said, because of your language. for all you know he could be experiencing it far better than you, but in your rush to condescend to everyone you appear to be missing that.

i could dispute that statement on so many levels i would hardly know where to begin. you cannot possibly throw such a vaguely-worded aphorism out there and actually consider it to be in any way clarificatory. it contains four nouns, none of which we have a shared operational definition for. therefore it conveys none of the signification that you appear to ascribe to it. and, from my point of view, it sounds like typical french philosopher-speak bollocks.

here a familiarity with "the path of the just" would be instructive for you - and simone.

as do numerous other spiritual systems, so-called esoteric christianity is not unique in this respect.

to each his own symbolism. personally, my model operates in five dimensions, not just two.

so, really, in that case, you shouldn't contemplate the cross, but the letter upper-case T.

i've considered it. it is only one half of the picture. there's an old mishnaic dictum which says "everyone should have two pockets, in one they should carry a piece of paper saying 'for my sake the world was created' and in the other, a piece saying 'i am dust and ashes'."

yet, by your own lights, simone possessed such a "painted body" and was nonetheless capable of experiencing these things - as, presumably, you can say of yourself, you are experiencing human meaning and purpose at this moment, much as i am. the same could be said of any number of people. i'd advise you to read some of the stories of the kotzker rebbe, who was of a very similar opinion to the buddha's expressed here. nonetheless, he did not counsel complete asceticism, which is the necessary concomitant of the buddha's position. neither, as far as i know, did plato. socrates certainly didn't. and it doesn't sound like you are, although simone sounds like she did. judaism is not an ascetic religion, although it has, at times, ascetic tendencies, is aware of ascetic practices and utilises their techniques, such as fasting, contemplation, self-abrogation, stillness and so on.

BZZ! just when i thought you might get through a post without straw-manning... it is in no way "politically incorrect". you are not a brave iconoclast, nick, you're simply trying to understand matters that have long been understood by others.

yes. one. but not, by any means, the only one. judaism has others. so does islam. so does buddhism. so does hinduism. so does, for example, the catholic church. so, nu?

b'shalom

bananabrain

 

bb

This is the value of inner empiricism. We have the ability to verify the truth of ourselves through the experience of ourselves. We cannot truly know what the "Beast" is in ourselves without the direct experience of it. Without the experience our understanding becomes created by "connotations."

You say that you are about integrating these things but who or better "what" does the integrating? That is the essential issue and was the essence of Jesus' dispute with the Pharisees.

I don't distinguish between flesh and spirit since it is misleading This apparent difference is only densities of matter. This is why I prefer the inner conflict in human being to be between our conscious potential and the dominance of physical, emotional and intellectual mechanical patterns that comprise our personality.

You accept that the holy and profane have already been reconciled and I agree. I also believe that this reconciliation has been created by all the distortions when taken together create the Beast. The whole idea of Christianity is to invite the separation again and this time to allow for a greater level of reconciliation provided through the energy of the Spirit which cannot arise from the earth as does the reconciling properties of the Beast.

I read that you are reading Ken Wilber. His ideas of holons are just a modern expression of what I've always known in esoteric Christianity and what allows for the vertical relationship between purity and defilement. I just prefer the living tradition that gives life to philosophy which is why we need a cosmological structure to allow for the experience. It is what allows me for example to appreciate the need for the day of rest in what you call sacred time.

My thinking will always appear wooly and vague to anyone that is governed by connotations, Unless terms like secular and Beast are understood in relation to higher wholes, a vertical relationship, they will always create animosity.

It isn't a matter of me showing anything. I can just ask you to look. Anyone willing to admit the atrocities that go on in the world would have to admit that they would be impossible for conscious beings. If this is what it is then it is foolish to think that secular solutions can lead to anything different then what we see. Without consciousness, we are governed by mechanical results governed by the collective whims of the Beast.

There is nothing to condescend about. The human condition is either as was suggested or it isn't. People can argue over it or seek to verify it one way or the other through inner empiricism. How is saying the obvious condescending?

Perhaps as you read on Wilber and this idea he calls holons, it may begin to make more sense. But for now it is impossible to contemplate a vertical idea from a horizontal perspective. It cannot be done. At some point the linear has to give way for the experience of the vertical.

What makes it unique IMO is the recognition of the need for the energy of the Spirit since without it we are attached to the earth. It isn't that it replaces any other legitimate tradition but rather adds an essential ingredient as they all do in their unique ways.

Well in the time honored tradition of mine is bigger than yours, I will say that I have to deal with six dimensions.

I will leave that to the New Age people who believe they are God.

Does it also say that you cannot make a silk purse out of a sows ear through the ancient process of BSing?

That is precisely the point. Simone had the need and courage to be vulnerable to and stay present to the experience of the human condition both in the world and in herself. This quality of sincerity and inner need of a growing soul invited the help of the Spirit to reconcile this inner Armageddon between conscious action and habitual reaction. It made her experiences possible.

 

i'm afraid i only just got to this reply, have been busy. sorry to reopen the thread, thomas.

that is an assertion again - and in direct contradiction of your other contention that we are, essentially, in denial; so our inner empiricism, by your own line of argument, cannot be trusted; unless of course you're arguing that it's actually shared experience that is congruent with inner empiricism that can't be trusted. in fact, either way it doesn't make sense. you are still arguing for a definition of "secular" that suits your inner empiricism but does not reflect the shared experience of numerous other people.

but connotations are indicators of *shared* empirical experience. if your inner empiricism is running up against connotations, in that case, i see no particular reason (apart from the argumentum ad auctoritae simone weil) why the connotations should be wrong and your somewhat odd definitions should be correct.

weaselbeans. now you're just resorting back to your old position of me being bamboozled by the beast and you being in touch via simone with some kind of super-ability to overcome this. in other words, your integration is "good" and mine is "bad" because yours is "christian" and mine isn't. and that, my friend, is simply unsupported by anything but your opinion. it's a shame, i thought we were finally getting somewhere but your ego's need for one-upmanship has caused you to snap back into the comfort zone.

that's exactly what you've just done, characterising me as the flesh and you as the spirit - it's the oldest kind of supercessionist theological chestnut.

but you have nothing whatsoever to back up this belief. it's just your belief - and i can't see what you possibly expect anyone else to find convincing about arguing "well, it's true for me, so it must be true for everyone".

that's the same thing - your "drive" is "holiness", mine is "worldliness" - this is just a semantic restatement of yet the same one-upmanship argument.

aaah, you're soooo hard done by. you're sooooo misunderstood. poor you. it must be that you're functioning on a higher level than us, not that you're actually indulging in woolly thinking and vague argument.

i've looked. i'm not convinced. the burden of proving your argument is for you to provide.

ok. well, based on the evidence you've provided, it seems that it isn't. and that is based on *my* inner empiricism, so you can't argue, nyah nyah nyah.

because it's condescending to believe that your being right is obvious. the fact that this isn't obvious to you yourself is evidence of your inability to get past your prejudices.

ok, well, say i have had a vertical experience, validated by my inner empiricism if you prefer - who are you to gainsay that?

namely?

i believe it does, with your argument as an example.

b'shalom

bananabrain