...But if you're simply asking me if I am aware of the reverberation of multiple layers of resonant meaning in my responses, then Yes, I am; I pun with frequency and am a great fan of overtones ...
:-) --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "RoryGoff" <rorygoff@...> wrote: > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, maskedzebra <no_reply@> wrote: > > > > RESPONSE: Rory, I merely meant to say that the objective existence of those > > thoughts (their intrinsic metaphysical innocence as materially capable of > > influencing me) is something other than just your experience in sending > > them my way. > > > > As in the person you are is something more and other than what you can know > > through your own subjectivity. As in: who are you under the aspect of > > eternity? Who are you as God sees you?the person who created you. > > > > Your thoughts, as I experienced them anyway, tend to make me sense that > > they possess something that you cannot entirely trackthey, as it were, > > transcend you, as you know yourself. As you experience even the sending of > > these thoughts. > > > > Am i making any sense here, Rory? > > > > This observation of mine, whether it be true or not, is something quite > > apart from our respective (and differing) religious beliefs. I think the > > reality of a person is something that their internal subjective experience > > cannot entirely catch up with, or become coincident with. > > > > In my experience your subjectivity (regardless of your spiritual > > understanding, experience, and beliefs) exists as an element (created by > > God) that has a certain effect on people. It is my determination that the > > effect that you produce upon meor the effect of your thoughts upon meis > > something a little beyond your control. And in the case of yourself, what I > > get coming towards me seems only truly knowable to myself. Not necessarily > > completely known to you. This is what was behind my comment. > > > * * Ah, I believe I see what you're getting at, Robin; many thanks for > clarifying. Yes, in one sense, I-as-creature cannot truly fathom or > comprehend That One from whom and in whom I arise; I am at most a tiny wave > atop That One's infinite depths. On the other hand, I am also Us, also ever > and always That One's infinite depths, the utter ecstatic and dreamless peace > of my own death, as it were.... > > As to having any control over others' perceptions, how they might perceive me > or anything else -- I have no real control, and so I exert none. It's really > none of my business. As far as I can see, we all of us deep-down essentially > choose to help create our own reality, our own angel-angle for That One and > our own interpretation of what IS, and we ascribe to "others" of us what > parts we all will play for each other in our various versions of IS. > > Many of us appear to choose not to take any conscious responsibility for our > creation, and decide (consciously or not) to position our conscious-I a > little further into manifestation as a "mere" creature, and that's perfectly > OK with me too. It's really all a matter of degree, and it's really none of > my business, nothing I have or would wish any real control over. (Though all > things being equal, I do tend to nudge Us back to Us when an "I" tires of all > the dramatic weight of I-me-mine.) > > It's an interesting hypothesis -- that the reality of a person is something > that their internal subjective experience cannot entirely catch up with, or > become coincident with -- but it's a hypothesis which I would have no way of > proving or disproving, it seems to me. The bottom line is always our > subjective experience. Even when we experience That-which-is-greater, or > receive corrective feedback from others, it's all still through our own > subjective experience. > > On the other hand, I am of course able to agree with you that I-as-creature > in no way appear to be fully aware in this moment of every permutation of > every creature's subjective experience! Only am I aware of Us as we all exist > in me at this moment... :-) >
