Guest guest Posted January 6, 2005 Report Share Posted January 6, 2005 Nisargadatta , " kipalmazy " <kipalmazy> wrote: > > After all, if you totally divorced yourself from > consensus meanings, you'd be insane. > > And for good reason -- divorcing yourself from > consensus meanings is as futile as > fully aligning yourself with consensus meanings. > > Either direction involves an unsupportable bias. > > > * * * * > > Hi Dan and all, > > > In deed! I have been discussing a similar issue with Lewis for a > week ago with reference to Lacan´s notion of the Real, Imaginary and > the Symbolic. The Real, Imaginary and Symbolic weave the " subject´ s > reality " at all times. These categories are always intertwined and > are never processed by the subject in their pure or isolated form. > Only a " psychotic outbreak " can undo the knoting of the triad > according to most Lacanians. This " psychotic outbreak " experienced > under controlled circumstances doesn´t have to lead to insanity. > LSD, Peyote, mushrooms even alcohol or cannabis can also produce a > temporary " symptomatic " psychosis. What remains is an experience in > the best case. An experience that the subject will try to put in > words. Spiritual literature is full of descriptions of such and > similar experiences. > > > It is, in effect, an unsupportable bias or hypocrisy to depict such > a state as something more than a mere experience because, the > subject depicting it as a " desirable or preferable status " is using > a dialectic to demonstrate it. Using a dialectic, the subject is > again acting in the realm of " subjective reality " which is the realm > of the Real, Symbolic and Imaginary. Neither Advaita nor Buddhism > depict insanity a desirable state nor, as you wrote, a state fully > aligning oneself with consensus meanings. > > > I like Toombaru´s dialectic as well I like yours, Dan. He is using a > dialectic which in many cases reminds me of Sandeep´s dialectic. He > is ergo pointing to something, like everyone else, from a > circumscribed position and that is " Toombaru´s reality " . He, > moreover, is using out of " his " position a razor sharp logical > argumentation. But, as often in spiritual circles, I can´t deny the > impression that there is a lot of " fair la coquette " , which in > Eric´s case results in " fair la croquette " . " faire " :-) but i like the " fair " spelling which alludes to " une coquette blonde " ... your accademic varnish is clever (though uncompelling for all the Weltanschauung and the values you demand your interlocutor shares with you - we are not in one of your " circles " dear - and the fuzzy remote Lacanian reference with categories that match nothing we ever discussed here - would you not like to express yourself in the language of the community you frequent? -) .... but the emotions you convey are always brutal and betraying the basest concerns of adversary bashing ... which i never read in Pete or Dan or Lewis's writings, not to that systematic, thorough extent (tell me about " projection " or mirroring now, you psychoanalytical frozen clown or the North). all said in good part and no offense meant dear " whoever " , among FrenchSpeaking dudes like the old diplomates, you know Eric has not a thread of malevolence in his texture. ;-) > > > > > > Kip Almazy Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted January 6, 2005 Report Share Posted January 6, 2005 " faire " :-) but i like the " fair " spelling which alludes to " une coquette blonde " ... your accademic varnish is clever (though uncompelling for all the Weltanschauung and the values you demand your interlocutor shares with you - we are not in one of your " circles " dear - and the fuzzy remote Lacanian reference with categories that match nothing we ever discussed here - would you not like to express yourself in the language of the community you frequent? -) ... but the emotions you convey are always brutal and betraying the basest concerns of adversary bashing ... which i never read in Pete or Dan or Lewis's writings, not to that systematic, thorough extent (tell me about " projection " or mirroring now, you psychoanalytical frozen clown or the North). all said in good part and no offense meant dear " whoever " , among FrenchSpeaking dudes like the old diplomates, you know Eric has not a thread of malevolence in his texture. ;-) ROFL! I see you haven´t lost not an inch of your reactivity. What actually, Eric, makes you take yourself so tremendously serious? You are posting in french lists, too? Terrific! How many posts do you send each day? (Not to forget the lists you own) What are you trying to promulgate? I see no dialectic? Actually, nothing of value. Sure, it can always be said, you can delete my posts if you don´t like them but, in your case it would almost mean to sit the whole day deleting messages and I am posting in two or three groups. Get you a dialectic, if you want to become a Cyber-Guru! Even Jesus had one.....not to mention Derrida. It is not done by involving members of spiritual boards in stupid and childish machinations and disussions which lead to nowhere. You have to deliver something, a concept, a dialectic. Haven´t you noticed that wherever you post you get always involved in senseless debates about god knows what strange conspiracies or machinations. Always trampling the same old trails. Always in conflict with moderators, which you perceive as a kind of " castrating " authority. I am not a shrink, Eric, but you deliver an almost classical picture. We all choose our neurosis, including myself, but there is something of value, a benefit in recognizing which neurosis one inhabitates. I would recommend you professional help and, there is no malevolence in this or other posts I´ve sent, to you or, whomsoever. I actually never have perceived any kind of malevolence since I´m posting on this board coming from the other members, including your posts. Where do you see malevolence? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted January 6, 2005 Report Share Posted January 6, 2005 Nisargadatta , " kipalmazy " <kipalmazy> wrote: > > " faire " :-) but i like the " fair " spelling which alludes to " une > coquette blonde " ... your accademic varnish is clever (though > uncompelling for all the Weltanschauung and the values you demand > your interlocutor shares with you - we are not in one of > your " circles " dear - and the fuzzy remote Lacanian reference with > categories that match nothing we ever discussed here - would you not > like to express yourself in the language of the community you > frequent? -) ... but the emotions you convey are always brutal and > betraying the basest concerns of adversary bashing ... which i never > read in Pete or Dan or Lewis's writings, not to that systematic, > thorough extent (tell me about " projection " or mirroring now, you > psychoanalytical frozen clown or the North). > all said in good part and no offense meant dear " whoever " , among > FrenchSpeaking dudes like the old diplomates, you know Eric has not > a thread of malevolence in his texture. ;-) > > > > > ROFL! I see you haven´t lost not an inch of your reactivity. What > actually, Eric, makes you take yourself so tremendously serious? You > are posting in french lists, too? Terrific! How many posts do you > send each day? (Not to forget the lists you own) What are you trying > to promulgate? I see no dialectic? Actually, nothing of value. > > > Sure, it can always be said, you can delete my posts if you don´t > like them but, in your case it would almost mean to sit the whole > day deleting messages and I am posting in two or three groups. > > > Get you a dialectic, if you want to become a Cyber-Guru! Even Jesus > had one.....not to mention Derrida. It is not done by involving > members of spiritual boards in stupid and childish machinations and > disussions which lead to nowhere. You have to deliver something, a > concept, a dialectic. > > > Haven´t you noticed that wherever you post you get always involved > in senseless debates about god knows what strange conspiracies or > machinations. Always trampling the same old trails. Always in > conflict with moderators, which you perceive as a kind > of " castrating " authority. I am not a shrink, Eric, but you deliver > an almost classical picture. We all choose our neurosis, including > myself, but there is something of value, a benefit in recognizing > which neurosis one inhabitates. I would recommend you professional > help and, there is no malevolence in this or other posts I´ve sent, > to you or, whomsoever. I actually never have perceived any kind of > malevolence since I´m posting on this board coming from the other > members, including your posts. > > > Where do you see malevolence? pfew! thanks for the attention! next time try to stick a little more to the issues i tackle. (you're not so indifferent after all, almost human) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You are posting as a guest. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.