To: K-list
Recieved: 2002/03/07 11:45
Subject: Re: [K-list] All this talk
From: lillianferracone
On 2002/03/07 11:45, lillianferracone posted thus to the K-list:
Hi, Your post is fantastic and right to the point. Hasn't anyone heard of
healthy narcissism? Narcissists have very strong egos,if they are truly
developed human beings they are able to transcend their egos. In other words
they have ego resilience, they are able to admit to their errors or mistakes
and also understand that they aren't the sole arbiters of knowledge. I also
agree with you regarding words. Language is indeed important and I have
written an essay on the "The Meaning of Words" and their relative importance
in assessing the truth of what one hears and reads. Thank you for your
post. Sincerely, Lillian
----- Original Message -----
From: "Joseph Miller" <joemillerATnospamhotmail.com>
To: <K-list >
Sent: Thursday, March 07, 2002 5:27 PM
Subject: [K-list] All this talk
> Dear OnlyCyclesATnospamaol.com,
>
> (Sorry never saw a name or signature)
>
> I've been reading over your posts. I've come to some new conclusions. I
> feel the need for clarifications, a few corrections, and some important
> points.
>
> It appears we are not speaking the same language. I'm limited I admit.
> English is my limit. (Well I can converse extemporaneously in Pig Latin
> utbay atthay ependsday onway Englishway, osay Iway on'tay ountcay itway.
As
> a child I bored easily and wanted to stay out of trouble in school so I
did
> things to occupy myself and I have a good memory. What can I say? ;-)
>
> It appears you aren't using Standard English, pretty much my limit as I
> said, so I didn't and don't understand some of what you are saying. This
> accounts for some of our differences. For example: Sacrifice.
>
> My dictionary has a list of meanings for sacrifice, some specialized such
as
> gift to a deity, but right at the top of the list is
> "the forfeiture of something highly valued for the sake of one considered
to
> have a greater value or claim"
> which pretty much describes what a woman does who puts her child before
> everything in her life. I know very good professional women with good and
> promising careers who have been on the fast track but introspection or
some
> event caused a reassessment of their priorities. They valued their
careers
> but they valued their children more (as they should and so should fathers)
> and stepped off the fast track, sacrificing raises, promotions, and all
that
> went with them to spend more time with the children. To a simple English
> speaker that is perfectly aligned with the dictionary's definition.
>
> There are other examples but this example should serve to show why I don't
> understand the logic that includes things like:
> "a mothers love isn't a sacrifice, a mother loving her child is a gift.
Love
> is so beautiful!! Beautiful!! Beautiful!"
>
> No one has come out against love on this list to my knowledge, certainly
not
> me. But love without sacrifice is not love. If you aren't willing to
give
> up something for someone else you don't love him or her. (Part of the
> reason for the "forsaking all others" part of the marriage ceremony,
saying,
> "I'm giving up catting around for this person" among other things.)
>
> But part of the problem doesn't reflect the dictionary question. The part
> about "Just remember-I- didn't call you a lower entity" followed a remark
> from you that said a quote from me was "actually a saying many lower
> entities tell people." To say you "didn't call you..." is to deny
> implication conveys a message. Again a language problem of a kind. To me
> anyone who thinks implication has no meaning is a moron. Glad you won't be
> taking offense at that.
>
> That was a bit rude.
>
> It was to get your attention. I apologize for any insult.
>
> Part of the above also wasn't a direct as I usually am because I wanted to
> lay out the logic behind it, something I usually assume (often
> unfortunately) that is clear to everyone. It was a bit rough. I need
your
> attention for the rest of this note; it is the important part.
>
> Fact is I'm no longer trying to discuss these things with you. From your
> notes I've come to believe you honestly believe you have no ego and
weren't
> trying to be a jerk about anything. I believe your insults to me (such as
> the Candyland one) don't exist in your mind because since you have no ego
> you have no responsibility for your words or actions or that you are in
some
> way above the standards of regular people. I say this without anger, with
> concern for a fellow human being and with no insult intended, you need
help,
> if you aren't truly delusional it is still a problem that needs
> professsional help.
>
> You need help, but you won't get it from me pointing out things you say
that
> don't make sense, words that don't mean to you what they mean everywhere
> else, to everyone else. You need professional help.
>
> Take a moment to reflect. Nothing in history, no religion, no therapy,
has
> ever postulated having no ego. Being free of the ego yes (as in not
> controlled by it), but not having one, never. It isn't possible because
> that is an essential part of being human without it there is only madness.
> It is like the dictionary and sacrifice, the word ego has a meaning. That
> thing that governs the mind and keeps the person "together" (though often
> poorly or badly together) as a person is the ego. Without it the person
> ceases to be, a body may be there but it can no longer interact and
function
> in any acceptable form with others of its kind, it has no base (be it
> spiritual or materialistic) to stand on.
>
> Responsible teachers in India have always turned away students with
certain
> kinds of mental problems. They have advised people without a strong and
> developed sense of self, an ego, against meditating. The reason is they
are
> trying to transcend the ego and samskaras. If the ego is weak, poorly
> developed, malformed, damaged in any of several ways and those people
> undertake meditation and the spiritual journey it can lead to serious
> psychosis, a complete breakdown, sometimes without the possibility of
> recovery.
>
> I don't know where your ideas on this topic come from but as I said they
are
> at odds with thousands of years of study and wisdom. With my admitted ego,
> which I am proud to say I believe to be strong and functioning nicely, I
> don't have the ego to dispute the widsom of ALL the masters who have gone
> before me, spiritual, medical, and psychological.
>
> For your own benefit think about what I've said.
>
> Namaste,
>
> Joe
> _____________
> MSN Photos is the easiest way to share and print your photos:
>
>
http://www.kundalini-gateway.org
http://www.domin8rex.com/serpent/spirit/kindex.htm
DISCLAIMER!
Home | Archive Index | Search the archives | Subscribe
K. List FAQ | Kundalini FAQs | Signs and Symptoms | Awakening Experiences | K. list Polls | Member Essays | Meditations | List Topics | Art Gallery | Cybrary | Sitemap | Email the moderators.
symbol.