Cleric's Responses to Mystical Metaphysics (or How to Make a Logical Argument)

[Ben Iscatus]

First, I highly doubt you had any meaningful discussions with Ben when he was lazily accusing you of being someone else and coordinating to promote some hidden agenda. if you can show me that meaningful thread on the old forum I am open to being corrected.

I have no recollection of this! Yes, Dana, please remind me and demonstrate to Ashvin how I have always been lazy and conspiratorial!

[AshvinP]

First, I highly doubt you had any meaningful discussions with Ben when he was lazily accusing you of being someone else and coordinating to promote some hidden agenda. if you can show me that meaningful thread on the old forum I am open to being corrected.

I have no recollection of this! Yes, Dana, please remind me and demonstrate to Ashvin how I have always been lazy and conspiratorial!

To re-collect, re-member, and re-mind requires thinking, and you made pretty clear on Anna Brown thread how opposed to thinking you are, so call me not surprised!

[Soul_of_Shu]

First, I highly doubt you had any meaningful discussions with Ben when he was lazily accusing you of being someone else and coordinating to promote some hidden agenda. if you can show me that meaningful thread on the old forum I am open to being corrected.

I have no recollection of this! Yes, Dana, please remind me and demonstrate to Ashvin how I have always been lazy and conspiratorial!

I only recall that, while Ben has never been inclined toward wordiness, we have had more than a few thoughtful, meaningful, respectful exchanges dating back to when I joined the MS forum several years ago. Again, why there is this disconnect between others here, is an enigma to me.

[Ben Iscatus]

I'm astonished by all this bile! I've obviously upset you. I'm sorry for that. Meanwhile, I eagerly await Dana's contribution to my character assassination...

[AshvinP]

First, I highly doubt you had any meaningful discussions with Ben when he was lazily accusing you of being someone else and coordinating to promote some hidden agenda. if you can show me that meaningful thread on the old forum I am open to being corrected.

I have no recollection of this! Yes, Dana, please remind me and demonstrate to Ashvin how I have always been lazy and conspiratorial!

I only recall that, while Ben has never been inclined toward wordiness, we have had more than a few thoughtful, meaningful, respectful exchanges dating back to when I joined the MS forum several years ago. Again, why there is this disconnect between others here, is an enigma to me.

Could it have anything to do with the fact that we keep presenting arguments here for a philosophy of Thinking which is diametrically opposed to what he considers important? Maybe also related to his sentiment, "Thus 'thinking' cannot be a spiritual activity"? Were you making these same arguments for the noumenal essence of Thinking several years ago on the MS forum? The patterns are pretty clear - when Thinking as core spiritual activity comes into play, people get very upset. True, I don't let those prejudices slide under the radar when they are commented on, but my reaction is not the real cause of any of this.

These things don't need to remain so enigmatized, my friend

[Ben Iscatus]

I have remembered something! I said Dana Lomas was really Adam Sloan. That's an anagram. Does humour count as thinking? Is it a spiritual activity? I think I need Steiner's take on this.

[Lou Gold]

Eugene, I also know this feeling of not being to "fully subscribe" if I feel that I'm being asked to do so. However, this feeling generally is not there for me when contemplating a great Scripture (Buddhist, Christian, Taoist, whatever). There's a resonnant radiance to it -- a Great Mysteriousness -- that draws me toward just holding it with appreciation. However, as I'm drawn toward intellectual grasping and analysis I seem to start losing the magic.

Right. The challenge of an open approach is to take each available perspective seriously and actually look at the reality through its "lens" and experience it this way, and not just consider it intellectually. That is the only way to discover the insights and experience Reality from that particular perspective. But at the same time not get locked into it and loose the wider perspective that includes the insights and experiences of other perspectives. But by doing it this way you will inevitably see the shortcomings of every particular perspective, while also seeing and valuing its unique insights.

I like the view that was reported to me as spoken by a Lakota Sioux Holy Man:

"You know, all of our religions are like spokes on a wheel. They all lead into the Sacred Center where the Creator is, and if you are on one of those spokes and move to the outside, then it is all about strict rules and regulations, and who is holy and who is not, and you have to hold on tight to your spoke or you will be spun off, but if you move into the center, then it is all about love and compassion, and when you get into the center, you can step around all of those other spokes without ever losing your connection to your own spoke."

[Soul_of_Shu]

Could it have anything to do with the fact that we keep presenting arguments here for a philosophy of Thinking which is diametrically opposed to what he considers important? Maybe also related to his sentiment, "Thus 'thinking' cannot be a spiritual activity"? Were you making these same arguments for the noumenal essence of Thinking several years ago on the MS forum? The patterns are pretty clear - when Thinking as core spiritual activity comes into play, people get very upset. True, I don't let those prejudices slide under the radar when they are commented on, but my reaction is not the real cause of any of this.

These things don't need to remain so enigmatized, my friend

Like I said, it seems destined to play itself out, so ya'll will do what you're gonna do, according to whatever predispositions are at work. I fully concede that my father's all-too-facile condemnation of my 'laziness' still gets my back up. But I'm not buying that it's just one-way culpability or that your 'you-can't-handle-the-truth!' cross-ex demeanour isn't factoring into the 'how-dare-you?!' tit-for-tat. No-one is exempt from some self-reflection into their own foibles here.

[AshvinP]

Could it have anything to do with the fact that we keep presenting arguments here for a philosophy of Thinking which is diametrically opposed to what he considers important? Maybe also related to his sentiment, "Thus 'thinking' cannot be a spiritual activity"? Were you making these same arguments for the noumenal essence of Thinking several years ago on the MS forum? The patterns are pretty clear - when Thinking as core spiritual activity comes into play, people get very upset. True, I don't let those prejudices slide under the radar when they are commented on, but my reaction is not the real cause of any of this.

These things don't need to remain so enigmatized, my friend

Like I said, it seems destined to play itself out, so ya'll will do what you're gonna do, according to whatever predispositions are at work. I fully concede that my father's all-too-facile condemnation of my 'laziness' still gets my back up. But I'm not buying that it's just one-way culpability or that your 'you-can't-handle-the-truth!' cross-ex demeanour isn't factoring into the 'how-dare-you?!' tit-for-tat. No-one is exempt from some self-reflection into their own foibles here.

Well, I am pretty sure that I am the only person who has attempted on this thread to draw attention to my own egoic flaws so as to move past this "its-all-personal" tit-for-tat and relate everything back to the underlying discussion of transpersonal dynamics at work in the modern age. I have to say, Dana, you like to keep it very personal for some reason. Maybe the "poor-old-moderator-trying-to-keep-the-peace" persona has become a bit too comfortable with itself?

[Lou Gold]

First He Looked Confused

I could not lie anymore so I started to call my dog “God.”
First he looked
confused,

then he started smiling, then he even
danced.

I kept at it: now he doesn’t even
bite.

I am wondering if this
might work on
people?

Tukaram (1608–1645) was a prominent Varkari Saint and spiritual poet in the Bhakti tradition. His poetry was very popular with ordinary people, expressing the possibility of direct communion with God.