--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "jim_flanegin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB <no_reply@> > 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? :-) >
Jim's point, or perhaps my extrapolations of it, helps delineate two differnt views on contradictions. There is what I percieve (perhaps incorrectly) the Turq, Tom T, Rick view that (my interpreation of their views): contradictions are ineveitable, they are everywhere, and one should simply, passively, accept them. Jim's view appears to be that one should not simple accept contradiction, but recognize it, work with it, "attack it" and "struggle" or playfully try to resolve it. In my post the other day I said Contradictions abound in "material" Soc .. - Such contradictions are oftne the genesis of breakthoughs in art, science, techology, business and humor. The thought that I did not complete, which Jim's post has inspired me to do, is to point out that the above breakthroughs in art, science, techology, business and humor (Arthur Koestlers' "Act of Creation is an excellent into to this concept, with many examples) are acheived by the people who are not passively resigned to accepting contradictions, but rather recognize it and struggle to resolve it. the resolution often comes through some new fusion of insight, that resolves the contradiction. This may also be parallel to spiritual "insight" and awakenings. Higher states may resolve the paradoxes of lower states. "Struggling" to resolve the paradox of one state may set the field for, ripen the fruit so to speak, for a "breakthrough, to a a higher state.
