--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "authfriend" <authfriend@...> wrote: > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Xenophaneros Anartaxius" <anartaxius@> > wrote: >> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "authfriend" <authfriend@> wrote: >>> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Xenophaneros Anartaxius" >>> <anartaxius@> wrote: >>> <snip> >>>> Of course the other thing Robin could be doing, in the wake >>>> of the disaster of being a world teacher, is regressing to >>>> another path that he now feels more comfortable with, >>> >>> "Regressing"--nice choice of words, Xeno. >>> >>>> a path through Catholicism or an analogue thereof, wherein >>>> he is discovering his relationship with the wholeness of >>>> life via the concept of God and this god's attendant >>>> attributes, such as Jesus etc. This is the way Christian >>>> saints have evolved spiritually. >>> >>> It would be really helpful in understanding Robin's >>> take on spirituality if you would read his posts rather >>> than just making it up. If you don't want to bother to >>> read his posts, best not to try to describe his "path" >>> lest you get it wrong *again*, as you have here. >> >> I would be helpful Judy, when you criticise, to provide the >> *correct* interpretation. > > Sorry, but I'm not going to do your homework for you. > >> When you say someone is wrong and >> leave it at that, it serves no purpose, > > A person of intellectual integrity, on being told they > had it wrong, would go look up *at the very least* some > of the posts that had been addressed to them. > >> because it is then >> unclear that you know the proper understanding either, > > Nice try, no cigar. > > in >> which case the criticism has no value. Examples are welcome. > > How about examples of Robin having confirmed that what > I've said about what he's told us is accurate? There have > been a number of those. > >> After I wrote that, and before I read this, I was reading >> something that Robin wrote to Emily, and it was not what I >> had encountered before, but it was different enough that >> it made me wonder how consistent he is in what he is >> espousing or whether a shift in his experience is going on, > > If you'd been reading his posts, *even those to you*, with > any attention, with any genuine effort at understanding, > you'd know he's very consistent. > >> or based on my past experience with him, whether he is just >> reeling her in. > > "Reeling her in." Another nice one. > > See, one of the reasons I'm not inclined to help you out > here is that you're obviously determined to be as offensive > to Robin as you can manage--even if you have to be offensive > to other people at the same time. > > (Unless you're also pissed off at Emily, of course, in > which case you got two birds with one stone.) > > So what's the deal, Xeno? Aren't you supposed to be a > line-in-air guy? > > <snip> >> Your view of the world is not the only view of the world that >> the world has. > > I've been talking about *Robin's* view of the world.
When Robin is speaking or writing, that is Robin's view of the world. When I am speaking or writing, it is my view of the world that comes through. When Barry is speaking or writing, Barry's view of the world is what is presented. When you are speaking or writing, it is your view of the world that is presented. If you are talking about Robin's view of the world, then it is *your view* of what you consider *Robin's view* of the world that is presented, not Robin's view of the world. Only Robin has Robin's view of the world. Only Robin has Robin's experience, only I have my experience, only Barry has Barry's experience, and only you have your experience. That individuated aspect of experience is connected to each of us alone, that is, the individual human body. I suppose that has something to do with personal ontology. I can only presume what Robin knows as a direct experience, by analogy with my own. I can formulate theories that try to match my description of my experience with what I think Robin's is; obviously this procedure may result in a very bad match depending on the individual characteristics of the bodies involved. Our thoughts and those meta constructions of thought called hypotheses and theories are analogues of our experience, but they are not the experience itself, they are often very crude representations, especially if what we experience is sublime. What we trade here on FFL is not reality, but our individuated descriptions of reality. We are manipulating our symbols for reality. Those symbols have their own sort of reality, but it is not the reality we are attempting to describe. When we mistake the symbols for the experience, we trade reality for a lie. If anybody has a spiritual experience, and they want to talk about it, they have to participate in a lie. When you are attempting to communicate a spiritual idea or priniple, the hope is always that the person on the receiving end of that communication is going to see through the lie and experience the truth behind the representation, but that person is not going to experience your truth, that person will experience his/her truth, which we *assume*, because we all seem alike in so many ways except for our thoughts, might be similar or the same as our own. I do not know yet, if this is something like Robin's talking about personal ontology. So far he has not expressed it in a way that has resulted in universal agreement here as to its value or its connexion with each of our world views. Expression of ideas resonate differently with different people and one mode of expression does not seem to work across the board. You have to try out different things, to see if it works or not, to see if you can connect with another's view of reality.
