AshvinP wrote: ↑Wed Jun 02, 2021 8:13 pm
Here we go again... we can't even get past the first sentence of your original response without coming across your denial of validity. The fact that you prefer to obfuscate and call it by anything aside from
what it actually is does not change its substance,. and neither does the fact that you claim not to "believe" in substance.
Here we go again. I told you not to read with the lense of bivalent logic, but you can't help that, can you? The programming is still too tight.
Even if you metacognitively and rationally admit that European spirituality is not limited to bivalent logic, that admission is self-deception as long as the blood of your heart flows in it, and bivalent logic is what you embody and actualize.
What I mean by it is laid out in four-part essay called
Metamorphoses of the Spirit. Perhaps you were on sabbatical when I posted them, so I can't blame you for not reading them. But, now that you know, and the deep meaning of that concept is absolutely critical to Cleric and my position on this topic, maybe you will consider reading them so you have a better understanding of what is meant by "metamorphic progression".
Metamorphoses of the Spirit: Breaking Bad Habits -
viewtopic.php?f=5&t=312
Metamorphoses of the Spirit: Incarnating the Christ -
viewtopic.php?f=5&t=314
Metamorphoses of the Spirit: Transfiguring our Thinking (Part I) -
viewtopic.php?f=5&t=325
Metamorphoses of the Spirit: Transfiguring our Thinking (Part II) -
viewtopic.php?f=5&t=332
If you think that I protest against a
definition, layed out in no matter in how many essays, you are in a sense correct and entitled to protest against my protest. But it does not matter at all what the definition is, as no definition can be actual and real process.
We start from
expression, which flows and spills and stains from the pulsations of Heart, and let us not mistake heart as an stranger to and judgement against Evil either. How else could a heart actualize metamorphing spirit? Expression is open to interpretation, in which also definitions can have their time and place.
The English root of 'better' and 'best' is not 'good', it is 'bet'. A bet can go good and bad, it's supposed to do both. The Greek word 'category' comes from the verb 'to publicly accuse'. You made and played your bet with your question "would I", and then when you lost you weaseled by denying and accusing the "I" without separation with your categorizing bivalent logic, which oozes from your black heart.
In your first reading you might think that calling your heart black is an accusation, a category. On second though, reading this, you could reconsider that dark blackness is that which actually feels, has the power to crush and fall into itself in the pressure of becoming self-illuminating light. Integration which fragments into escaping light and bombards surfaces with particles of past.
Universe in a speck of light. Closing the eyes, peeling the skin, riding the wave, can you still externalize the the the theodicy, even if it was and is stuttetered "in the past" and now you are better, forgiven, and time is anew? How can you heal a crazy god, if you don't become that god, if you were not that god?!