--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "curtisdeltablues" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "sandiego108" <sandiego108@> > wrote: > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Angela Mailander > > <mailander111@> wrote: > > > > > > I didn't say it was of no value. I said I don't see > > > why the state is "higher." If I experience two > > > radically different states of consciousness at will, > > > then why would I call one higher than the other? They > > > are different. They each have their points. The fact > > > that there are different states and that I can > > > experience them tells me that there must be a deeper > > > reality than any of them. > > > > > I agree. I don't like the term higher states of consciousness. As > > plainly descriptive as it is of energy flow, it is almost always > > misinterpreted as a value judgment. > > It isn't being misinterpreted as a value judgment, it is being > correctly interpreted that way.
I disagree. that is an incorrect interpretation. But you do seem fixated by all of the injustice and unfairness inherent in spiritual pursuits, according to your perspective. go for it. Your clue in the future will be the > use of the ending "er". It is a being judged as higher when compared > to lower states. In this case your personal value judgment on your > own state of consciousness when compared to other people's. not in my mind Curtis. I use the phrase sparingly for common context, but as you point out, it is nearly always misintepreted. (bonus > point: what comparative value judgment does the ending "est" give?) > > > > > A more descriptive term would be progressive states of > consciousness, > because established non-dual awareness certainly > progresses from dual > awareness. > > > > Too tough to market, can we just go with "toppermost of the > poppermost?" That worked for the Beatles. > which is *higher* in the air, fog or clouds? Therefore are clouds *better* than fog, or just higher? same point I was making.
