http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LgnQ1m7N3ss
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Robin Carlsen" <maskedzebra@...> wrote: > Here, IMO, is how to maximize the chances of increasingly aligning oneself > with the movement and intention of reality. > > 1. Look for the truth separated from your own subjective desire for what that > truth should be, what you want that truth to be, what you insist that truth > *will* be. > > 2. Pretend to take a position which is against your own position as you > formulate your argument: How could I argue against what I am saying here with > sincerity and intelligence? Become a devil's advocate for your own point of > view--and do this *at every stage of the development of your argument*. > > 3. Consider that this conflict, dispute, disagreement *exists for the benefit > of your own evolution* as a person; that the last thing to read it as is the > means to fortify your standard and habitual point of view; but that instead > this debate is to throw you into the unknown, to subvert your point of view, > to undermine you and release some fresh understanding and experience into you > so that you walk away from this encounter altered in some way. Turn the > circumstance into one of personal growth and maturation as a person. Not, > then, as the means to reinforcing the rightness of your own point of view. > Winning as an object is inimical to this more creative way of proceeding. > > 4. Always try to see what really is going on inside your experience of > quarrelling with someone: what does my reaction to this person tell me about > myself? Why am I reacting the way I am? Do I have a choice about the reaction > I am having to this person? What other point of view could I possibly have > about this issue if I were someone other than myself? > > 5. Seek above all one experience and only one experience: the experience, > sensation, feeling of reality touching one, stimulating one, informing > one--to whatever extent this is possible--as one writes and argues. The > experience of feeling isolated from reality, defending the citadel of self > against everything that seems opposed to one: this is the very situation most > to avoid. Why? Because the extent to which we are committed to this > orientation is the extent to which reality can never gain entrance into our > consciousness, so as to allow us to be moulded and shaped by reality. A > glorious experience. > > 6. Look for, in argument, the highest experience you can get: concerns about > triumph, your own ego, reputation, status: these are just the potential > enemies of making contact with truth. Ultimately, in my opinion, the only > philosophy which survives--and I believe will survive right through the > experience of dying--is that philosophy whereby *one is willing to do > anything in order to know and represent what the truth is*--but not > conceptually, dogmatically; rather through experimental knowledge. *What > reality wants one to know and experience as the truth*. This is purely > experiential. But it is that extraordinary confluence of the objective and > the subjective. > > 7. Consider then there are always three points of view extant in any argument > between two parties: the point of view of one person; the point of view of > the other person; and the point of view of reality. Meaningful conversation > about topics where there is profound disagreement can only move forward if > both diverging parties conceive of the possibility of bringing their point of > view into alignment with that third point of view. I say that reality seeks > to make each human being aware of this approach, and it is there for those > willing to be humble and innocent enough to make contact with this living > energy and grace. > > Now the question comes at this point: Robin, did you represent the point of > view of reality in giving us this disquisition on how to conduct a debate > about some controversial issue--like Raunchy's honour, the use of C word as > it applies to three women on this forum, the TM credentials of Vaj, the > validity of the defence by Curtis of his friend Sal? Well, that is the > question: Is what I have written blatantly and ironically *Robin's own > personal point of view* about reality's point of view, or is it indeed a fair > and honest and more or less accurate representation of what reality would > like to be known about its own point of view? > > For those who respond to this post necessarily--*from my own point of > view*--put themselves into an experimental situation whereby it may become > possible to make a determination of the viability and plausibility of my post. >
