Sorry David and all

[Jeremy Weiland]

david:

hold up - i thought your previous email came to my
inbox, not to my asc2k folder. i didn't realize it
was posted to the list, so my bad. never mind.

oh crap - i just realized my previous response went
out to the whole list. sorry everybody! well, what
can i say? my bad. :-)

actually i do see something that could use a response.

> similarly, it is ok for each of us to maintain
> boundaries in our own lives, and stand up for our
> right to our own feelings without having to
> give "proof" for why we feel that way.

of course. i just don't consider that a philosophical
approach, that's all.

> it is your choice to feel that you must "prove" why
> you feel that way.

and my understanding was that the thread concerned the
topic of philosophy, or certain (provable) knowledge.
i don't disregard feelings, i just don't see them as
valid "arguments" per se.

> feelings can be honored without needing explanation.


i made a point of honoring gerardus's feelings (and
even pointing out that i share them) while
simultaneously demonstrating their limitations. i
hope his feelings weren't hurt by that! but if it's
not my place to criticize people for their feelings,
by the same token it's not my place to make them feel
good about their feelings either.

> this is a powerful lesson for the awakening entity.

i know. by now my problem with "touchy feely
spirituality" must be all too clear :-)

i do feel that meaningful conversation is often
lacking in the new age/metaphysics movement- that
people simply talk about love and stuff without
bothering to ask themselves what it means. they have
experiences that are valid but cannot communicate them
efficiently. i'm not saying we should be in the sole
business of definitions and semantics but it doesn't
hurt to add a philosophical side to a list that
already has a scientific and spiritual one, does it?

but, once again, sorry that a private email went
public, everybody! i knew it had to happen sooner or
later... <lol>

jeremy

__________________________________
do you yahoo!?
the new yahoo! search - faster. easier. bingo.
http://search.yahoo.com

[thedruid2012]

============
jeremy wrote
oh crap - i just realized my previous response went out to the whole
list. sorry everybody! well, what can i say? my bad. :-)
============

not at all jeremy, your honesty shone through ... nothing 'bad' with
the post, in fact it was a pleasant surprise - keep it up :-)

15 years ago in a seminar i confronted my 'stuff' and let it go
(eventually), when reading one of davids articles recently, it
brought back such a beautiful feeling - the one about releasing and
not readily wiping the tears away from your face ... cant remember
the exact words from ra, i would gladly go through that experience
again and again.

blessings,

mike.

[Jeremy Weiland]

> not at all jeremy, your honesty shone through ...
> nothing 'bad' with the post, in fact it was a
> pleasant surprise - keep it up :-)

it was a surprise that i was honest?

:-)

i know what you meant. :-p thank you. believe me,
you'll have plenty more opportunities in the future to
witness the "error of my ways" :-)

jeremy "where would we be without the smiley sign"
weiland


__________________________________
do you yahoo!?
the new yahoo! search - faster. easier. bingo.
http://search.yahoo.com

[David Wilcock]

from: "jeremy weiland"

> david:
>
> hold up - i thought your previous email came to my
> inbox, not to my asc2k folder. i didn't realize it
> was posted to the list, so my bad. never mind.
>
> oh crap - i just realized my previous response went
> out to the whole list. sorry everybody! well, what
> can i say? my bad. :-)

dw: guess what... you're nekkid.

> actually i do see something that could use a response.
>
> > similarly, it is ok for each of us to maintain
> > boundaries in our own lives, and stand up for our
> > right to our own feelings without having to
> > give "proof" for why we feel that way.
>
> of course. i just don't consider that a philosophical
> approach, that's all.

dw: i wasn't even referring to your discussion with gerardus, which
admittedly isn't something that i found interesting. i had lots of
wittgenstein, hume and other existentialists in college philosophy and feel
that monty python has done an adequate job of lampooning such thought with
skits such as the "philosopher's soccer tournament," where everyone stands
around thinking and posturing after the whistle is blown, and the key moment
is when one of the greeks shouts "eureka!" and kicks the ball.

> > it is your choice to feel that you must "prove" why
> > you feel that way.
>
> and my understanding was that the thread concerned the
> topic of philosophy, or certain (provable) knowledge.
> i don't disregard feelings, i just don't see them as
> valid "arguments" per se.

dw: no problem. do be aware that what i am teaching can save many people in
the midst of desperately unbalanced relational situations with abusive
partners.

> > feelings can be honored without needing explanation.
>
>
> i made a point of honoring gerardus's feelings (and
> even pointing out that i share them) while
> simultaneously demonstrating their limitations. i
> hope his feelings weren't hurt by that! but if it's
> not my place to criticize people for their feelings,
> by the same token it's not my place to make them feel
> good about their feelings either.

dw: right. catalyst, to be useful, is often challenging.

> > this is a powerful lesson for the awakening entity.
>
> i know. by now my problem with "touchy feely
> spirituality" must be all too clear :-)

dw: it can get a person up to the point where they have a dark night of the
soul, but then it is relatively useless.

> i do feel that meaningful conversation is often
> lacking in the new age/metaphysics movement- that
> people simply talk about love and stuff without
> bothering to ask themselves what it means. they have
> experiences that are valid but cannot communicate them
> efficiently. i'm not saying we should be in the sole
> business of definitions and semantics but it doesn't
> hurt to add a philosophical side to a list that
> already has a scientific and spiritual one, does it?

dw: not at all. such issues are within our discussion room guidelines and
some of the more science-minded readers are lurking and reading and
benefitting from it. this does get into the heart of the science of
consciousness.

> but, once again, sorry that a private email went
> public, everybody! i knew it had to happen sooner or
> later... <lol>

dw: i suppose it could have been worse - we could have been bragging about
our phat music studios...

peace be with you -

- david

> jeremy

[Paul Kandrah]

> ============
> jeremy wrote
> oh crap - i just realized my previous response went out to the
> whole list. sorry everybody! well, what can i say? my bad. :-)
> ============
>
> not at all jeremy, your honesty shone through ... nothing 'bad'
> with the post, in fact it was a pleasant surprise - keep it up :-)

just a note for jeremy:
everything is exact... even when your mind is confused it can be
useful, no? (perhaps you were tricked by your mind for some
reason?) the possibilities are endless. enjoy the ride...

paul
(thankful for what i learned/remembered while watching you find, :~)

[Jeremy Weiland]

> just a note for jeremy:
> everything is exact... even when your mind is
> confused it can be useful, no? (perhaps you were
> tricked by your mind for some reason?) the
> possibilities are endless. enjoy the ride...

god, i hate it when other people are right...

thank you. :-)

jeremy

__________________________________
do you yahoo!?
the new yahoo! search - faster. easier. bingo.
http://search.yahoo.com