--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > I think I covered all of this in my earlier reply > to larry.potter's posting. To claim that your beliefs > equate with truth, you pretty much have to be claiming > that your state of consciousness equates with truth. > To state that such-and-such belief is one of your > "convictions," you have to assume that you will *remain* > in the state of consciousness from which that belief > appears to be true forever. To assert that this convic- > tion is "true" for others, you have to declare that > attaining that SOC/POC (or *regressing* to that SOC/POV) > would be "better" for them than the SOC/POV they have > currently. You may be comfortable doing that. I am not. > End of story. > > Those who are uncomfortable with contradictions are > uncomfortable with life. > It appears you have misunderstood meI am not making the point that if I believe something, others should believe it, or attempt to believe it too. Not at all.
Rather, I am making the point that if I believe something (not necessarily "forever"), and if someone contradicts my belief, I can reconcile it with my own belief, as opposed to folding up and declaring, "Well said". That was the nature of my question to you, and it still remains unanswered. It seems from your answer to Rory that you have no answer for his statement that there is no difference between self and Self, which you plainly don't see the same way. Rather than resolving the contradiction, you stated, "Well said". It was this capitulation to which my remarks were addressed. Should I then conclude that it is you who are uncomfortable with contradictions, and choose to dismiss them as "just another SOC", vs. resolving them? And further, that anything else you disagree with or see another way is handled the same way, by simply capitulating without resolution? :-)
