Thanks for the reply. More later. But I do classify such experiences in the realm of poetry and art. its like is a simile -- like that -- not a metaphor (is that). But I am open to the possibility that it is metaphor. (sorry if I hosed the use of these words, simile an metaphor)
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "curtisdeltablues" <curtisdeltabl...@...> wrote: > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, tartbrain <no_reply@> wrote: > > > Continuing on this woo woo ray tangent (I am generally quite rational and > > skeptical), in these universal love states i can sense the personality of > > trees and plants. Quite distinct entities. And my love for them seems felt > > -- and they seem responsive. (to be more specific, its like a lake of > > universal love, undirected, that is then directed at them. There is a focus > > on them. An adorational devotion kind of focus. But its not at all like the > > charismatic beaming discussed in my comments tot the Turquoise post.) Like > > they would protect me in their "enchanted forest". (I know, lock me up, we > > can't have people walking the streets thinking they can talk to trees). > > I believe these mental states do have a value (even if it is just for > entertainment) but that value is not in the content of the beliefs that are > spontaneously generated such as, trees are reflecting my love. Taking their > content seriously is the mistake the ancients made. > > We don't have to take the content of these states of awareness literally and > seriously (trees actually do love us) to enjoy the state of union through > love or your being or whatever else you want to call it. In fact trying to > draw literal conclusions diminishes the potential value for our creativity > and artistic expression from having these experiences. > > If you talk to a tree you are a poet, if it talks back you are a nutter in > society! But being able to drift into the states of mind where you can have > conversations with trees is a wonderful tool for creativity that gets > squashed when someone claims that this experience is evidence for the highly > developed sentient nature of trees. > > We can and should visit the holy tree in the Avatar movie but we shouldn't > forget that it is a movie and once the 3-D glasses come off, what we have > gained is not definite ontological information about how the world really is. > We have gained a shift of perspective that we can then use to spark actual > tests on the world if we are scientists or expressions of art if we are an > artist. > > I am an advocate of people having more of this type of experiences through > many different means including psychedelics and meditation but hope we can > not make the mistake our religiously minded and bound ancestors did > concerning what they mean. We need to approach that with the starting point > that we do no already know what they mean. But to assume that they serve as > a self-evident source of knowledge about the world is the lamest choice of > all. It discards a whole body of knowledge and perspective that has served > us well in building human knowledge to this point. Artistically and > creatively inspired altered states of mind have a place. But they aren't > remotely close to being the source of man's deepest knowledge yet. > Historically they have led us astray as much as they have inspired us. > > > > > > > > > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Hugo" <fintlewoodlewix@> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "authfriend" <jstein@> wrote: > > > > > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "curtisdeltablues" > > > > <curtisdeltablues@> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > Do you share this belief about yourself,is that why you > > > > > are so quick to defend him? > > > > > > > > BREAKING NEWS: You don't have to share a person's beliefs > > > > to defend them from unfair attack. > > > > > > But using them as an excuse to launch and attack of your own > > > is OK. > > > > > > > > > > > > > That said, I don't know whether one's state of mind can > > > > affect "the world" (depending on what you mean by "world"), > > > > and *neither do you*. > > > > > > Given that we know what causes earthquakes and there is no > > > evidence that the mind can affect the physical world I > > > can't see what there is to gain from continually speculating > > > that ancient beliefs invented to explain unpleasant occurences > > > have any sort of place outside of selling "spiritual" nonsense. > > > Something Chopra does rather well out of. > > > > > > > > > > But like Chopra, I don't believe one person's meditation > > > > can bring about an earthquake. > > > > > > How about 5000 people? > > > > > > > Thinking about this just having dwelled on and posted (comments on a > > Turquoise post) )my interpretation of what I term interaction with a > > high-shakti person -- I offer up the possiblility -- in my experience - > > that such a person can make you tangibly feel their presence -- and that > > "thing" can get transfered to others / me. The experience makes quite > > credible (to me, one person, not exactly science) the "lion lay down with > > the lamb" thing. That some people can radiate a universal love shakti thing > > that does rub off on the environment and people and animals are affected by > > it. > > > > (when I started mediation I had a dog who would lie down outside my door > > and calmly wait for me to finish my med. Maybe it was simply a natural dog > > affection thing. But my dog didn't sit outside my door at other times. > > Again, not science, but an anecdotal dot.) > > > > Even if this experience is only cognized by humans and animals (and my > > experience hardly proves that such occurs) -- my sense is that it could > > affect inanimate physical things too. > > > > Continuing on this woo woo ray tangent (I am generally quite rational and > > skeptical), in these universal love states i can sense the personality of > > trees and plants. Quite distinct entities. And my love for them seems felt > > -- and they seem responsive. (to be more specific, its like a lake of > > universal love, undirected, that is then directed at them. There is a focus > > on them. An adorational devotion kind of focus. But its not at all like the > > charismatic beaming discussed in my comments tot the Turquoise post.) Like > > they would protect me in their "enchanted forest". (I know, lock me up, we > > can't have people walking the streets thinking they can talk to trees). > > >
