Final Reply to BB

[Nick_A]

BB

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.

You misunderstand. We are in denial since we have come to live through emotionally justified habitual reactions. This creates the psychological condition the great traditions refer to in one way or another as a "sleep" we can awaken from.

We can trust what we consciously experience in our inner life. The problem is in becoming able to consciously experience since we mistakenly believe we already do. It would be foolish to concern ourselves with conscious self knowledge if it weren't possible. What anyone else has experienced is not the issue. Only what we consciously experience can have objective value for us.

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.

Regardless of Simone, a person can come to consciously experience how much they are governed by connotations. Then they can decide if they want to continue this way or become open to conscious inner freedom.

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.

There is no secular good or evil in esoteric Christianity. It simply is what it is and the lawful result of what we "ARE" both individually and collectively. Esoteric Christianity validates the human condition for the purpose of re-birth. It isn't against anything but just advocates conscious evolution. Christianity has an exoteric form that advocates a life of social responsibility. There is nothing wrong with this. It is a good thing. However esoteric Christianity appreciates human hypocrisy and Man's evolutionary potential.

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.

This is just silly because we are both flesh and spirit.

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".

Society has no reason to back it up and struggles against its awareness. The only argument is if a person feels as though human meaning and purpose is defined by societal needs. If a person feels like Simone that a human being has the potential to be more then a cog in the wheel of society, then they become open to the means that lead to the conscious direction of the "Pearl of Great Price."

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.

There is no "poor me" about it. I am part of a fine tradition that answers the questions I've felt vital from a very early age and has helped me to understand objective human meaning and purpose. There is nothing to be bitchy about.

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

There is nothing to prove. If you are happy, why concern yourself with self knowledge that creates questions if you have no need for the potential results from these new questions?

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.

It isn't about me being right. We cannot experience what is obvious if we live in imagination. For anyone that agrees that we live primarily in imagination, then by definition, we miss the obvious. A person has to decide if they are willing to risk the pleasantries of imagination for opening to the harsh experiences of life itself. If not, it is better to just continue as is

"A test of what is real is that it is hard and rough. Joys are found in it, not pleasure. What is pleasant belongs to dreams." Simone Weil

She is one of the rare few needing and willing to become open to this transition. Esoteric Christianity is about the potential for this transition or "awakening" with the help of the Holy Spirit.

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

Then you would write from that perspective rather than argue duality. I haven't read it.

namely?

The first three dimensions are length, width, and depth, that define our conception of space. Existence isn't in space but rather in time and begins at the fourth dimension of space. The first dimension of time, a "moment" begins and repeats at the fourth dimension of space. The second dimension of time manifesting in five dimensional space, is "eternity" and includes repeating moments in time. The third dimension of time manifests in six dimensional space and includes all potential eternities. Science is begging to contemplate this third dimension of space/time as something similar called multi universes.

 

[bananabrain]

We are in denial since we have come to live through emotionally justified habitual reactions.

i am NOT in denial. you are entitled to your opinion, but you don't know me and you make it abundantly clear you don't understand me, or what i write. all you do is just repeat the same assertions over and over again without showing any insight. it is very dull.

Regardless of Simone, a person can come to consciously experience how much they are governed by connotations. Then they can decide if they want to continue this way or become open to conscious inner freedom.

now you're claiming that connotations are something they're not. this is idiotic.

There is no secular good or evil in esoteric Christianity. It simply is what it is and the lawful result of what we "ARE" both individually and collectively.

"it simply is" a load of old bollocks if it's anything like what you keep banging on about. frankly, i've met esoteric christians with a lot more education, a lot more humility and a lot more insight than you exhibit. they don't see the need to be the centre of attention and constantly complaining that nobody agrees with them.

This is just silly because we are both flesh and spirit.

well, that's what you said. i can only respond to what you write, though i wonder what the point is.

I am part of a fine tradition that answers the questions I've felt vital from a very early age and has helped me to understand objective human meaning and purpose.

well, it's not helping anyone else here to do anything apart from find you irritating. yes, i know, society hates to hear the truth, yada yada....snore....

There is nothing to prove. If you are happy, why concern yourself with self knowledge that creates questions if you have no need for the potential results from these new questions?

i've never met anyone quite so smug about their ability to pre-emptively declare victory in a contest where they are the only entrant.

Then you would write from that perspective rather than argue duality. I haven't read it.

ok, then. i have just had a vertical experience. in it, i connected to a Higher Power who had the following insight:

"NICK A IS TALKING BOLLOCKS. AGAIN. YOU'RE WASTING YOUR TIME TALKING TO THE GUY, HE ISN'T INTERESTED IN DIALOGUE. NOW BEGONE LEST I SMITE THEE."

Existence isn't in space but rather in time and begins at the fourth dimension of space. The first dimension of time, a "moment" begins and repeats at the fourth dimension of space. The second dimension of time manifesting in five dimensional space, is "eternity" and includes repeating moments in time. The third dimension of time manifests in six dimensional space and includes all potential eternities. Science is begging to contemplate this third dimension of space/time as something similar called multi universes.

now that is actually interesting. of course, from my perspective, the further breakdown of the fourth dimension puts it into G!DSpace, as it were, rather than verifiable human space. see, why can't you talk like that a bit more? just try it. talk without mentioning your conversational props, without reference to the cave, the beast, simone, needleman. you'll be a lot more interesting.

b'shalom

bananabrain






b'shalom

bananabrain

 

[Nick_A]

i am NOT in denial. you are entitled to your opinion, but you don't know me and you make it abundantly clear you don't understand me, or what i write. all you do is just repeat the same assertions over and over again without showing any insight. it is very dull.


now you're claiming that connotations are something they're not. this is idiotic.


"it simply is" a load of old bollocks if it's anything like what you keep banging on about. frankly, i've met esoteric christians with a lot more education, a lot more humility and a lot more insight than you exhibit. they don't see the need to be the centre of attention and constantly complaining that nobody agrees with them.


well, that's what you said. i can only respond to what you write, though i wonder what the point is.


well, it's not helping anyone else here to do anything apart from find you irritating. yes, i know, society hates to hear the truth, yada yada....snore....


i've never met anyone quite so smug about their ability to pre-emptively declare victory in a contest where they are the only entrant.


ok, then. i have just had a vertical experience. in it, i connected to a Higher Power who had the following insight:

"NICK A IS TALKING BOLLOCKS. AGAIN. YOU'RE WASTING YOUR TIME TALKING TO THE GUY, HE ISN'T INTERESTED IN DIALOGUE. NOW BEGONE LEST I SMITE THEE."


now that is actually interesting. of course, from my perspective, the further breakdown of the fourth dimension puts it into G!DSpace, as it were, rather than verifiable human space. see, why can't you talk like that a bit more? just try it. talk without mentioning your conversational props, without reference to the cave, the beast, simone, needleman. you'll be a lot more interesting.

b'shalom

bananabrain






b'shalom

bananabrain

bb

It is you that doesn't understand denial or the meaning of connotations

now you're claiming that connotations are something they're not. this is idiotic.

Connotation is a subjective cultural and/or emotional coloration in addition to the explicit or denotative meaning of any specific word or phrase in a language, i.e. emotional association with a word.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Connotation

A word has both a literal and an emotional meaning to someone. That is why people don't understand each other even though they use the same words. Prejudice is rarely based upon literal meaning but rather on emotional connotation. You deny this in yourself which is why you don't see your own prejudice.

"it simply is" a load of old bollocks if it's anything like what you keep banging on about. frankly, i've met esoteric christians with a lot more education, a lot more humility and a lot more insight than you exhibit. they don't see the need to be the centre of attention and constantly complaining that nobody agrees with them.

How you equate getting beyond good and evil with being the centre of attention is beyond me. I irritate you because I stress the importance of the realistic view of the human condition as the essential foundation for religious understanding and spiritual growth.

People in modern times would rather ignore it in favor of platitudes concerning how we all are sons of god or something similar confusing the reality of the moment with human potential.

It was illustrated in all the righteous indignation concerning passing the buck in matters of sex, sex energy, and the purpose of the body. People don't know how to communicate anything real so prefer passing the buck to the police and dead kids rather then trying to intentionally come to grips with the human condition. It exists in Judaism but you would prefer righteous indignation to the sincere attempt to understand it:

The Human Condition in Judaism

The Human Condition in Judaism​

A. The Impulse for Good and the Impulse for Evil

• yetzer hatov - the impulse for good arrives when a boy is thirteen (the age of reason​
• yetzer hara - the impulse for evil​

present from birth​

​

libido-the impulse for vibrancy and life driving a human being

It is a creative force but is very destructive if improperly channeled

Can result in competitiveness, anger, lust and jealousy

Without it humans have no energy​

At least it is a beginning and worthwhile considering. I just don't believe evil is present at birth but rather what is considered evil is learned at an early age from enculturation. There is no "intent" for evil being expressed.[

But no. We don't have the openness to contemplate the totality of the human condition so the quality of sex education is determined by ones ability to properly place a condom on a cucumber. If you think pointing out these sad realities without some misguided appeal to virtue represents a desire to be a centre of attention, you overestimate the value of cucumbers as a substitute.

well, it's not helping anyone else here to do anything apart from find you irritating. yes, i know, society hates to hear the truth, yada yada....snore....

"Whenever you find that you are on the side of the majority, it is time to reform." - Mark Twain

Perhaps he is right.

i've never met anyone quite so smug about their ability to pre-emptively declare victory in a contest where they are the only entrant.

This is a difference between us. You feel as though you are in a fight so victory is important to you. My concern is for the human condition and what is lost through your kind of fighting. I prefer to acknowledge the human condition and what our potential is to awaken to it. There is no victory in this but just the striving to become real.

now that is actually interesting. of course, from my perspective, the further breakdown of the fourth dimension puts it into G!DSpace, as it were, rather than verifiable human space. see, why can't you talk like that a bit more? just try it. talk without mentioning your conversational props, without reference to the cave, the beast, simone, needleman. you'll be a lot more interesting.

It would also be beneficial to experience the vertical inner meanings of the Star of David but why bother when it is more fun to argue and condemn.

What is the Mystical Significance of the Star of David? - Kabbalah & The Mystical

 

[bananabrain]

i'm bored of this. and i'm bored of you. you don't listen. you don't understand, you just carry on with this glutinous, ill-digested claptrap. i'm done here.

b'shalom

bananabrain