Caravaggio:Thanks Moonbeam, I won't offer a 'cut and paste' response to post ten as it would become very long and indigestible.
M: Not a problem. I find my method allows me to easily isolate what my comments refer to, a feature that appeals to me because I hear constantly that my posts are incomprehensible. By this means I can at least reduce the scope for imagination of the person I'm responding to so they will know exactly where in some larger post my incomprehensibility applies.
C: I sense that you regard me as a rather close-minded, marginally narcissistic, prig who has hardened his heart to wonder, and the personal vulnerability which enters with that mindset. I apologise if that is the case. I have never regarded myself as part of any 'cognoscenti'. People who know me would think that laughable. I would fail the interview.
M: First off, this would be the kind of prejudice or assumption I have been referring to, the reality or accuracy of which is only a matter of my opinion. As I have implied that I believe we are all to some degree, or almost all to some degree holders of what I have called unconscious and perhaps unexamined assumptions then it would only follow for me that you may in fact see me as seeing you that way because you see your unconscious reality projected on me.
One of my assumptions, one I am consious of, is the belief that we are all the same which in this case can mean that what you project on me may still be a fact and true also.
Now since I also believe that we are in the great majority all infected with these dominating unexamined prejudices, it follows that how you suggest I see you is true. However, while one way to describe you would be as a hard hearted prig, a view that would rest on the pretext that there is fault and recriminations due, another was to view it would be as simple fact, true of all of us wedded to unconscious assumptions. I think I am trying to describe facts about our human condition we acquired painfully with the presence of that pain making us defensive about seeing them. Thus their unconscious nature.
My consious opinion of you is is all touchy and freely and I'm embarrassed to go into it. I admire you greatly and regret greatly that I can't step up to your level.
C: We have both experienced extremely powerful, life-changing events. I enjoyed our mutual honesty about all that, but it is clear that we took different routes away from the wreckage.
I suppose all I can say is that I respect your perspective, informed as it is by features of eastern philosophy, but at this point in my life I cannot yet share it at the empathic level. It is real for you (and something very much like it is informing Swampy too) and that is really all that matters. That our struggle to understand the world sustains us through the moment.
What happened to me was that the misery I experienced knowing that life has no meaning without God was an incorrect unconscious assumption revealed by a sudden shift in consciousness from thought to presence. One down. Who knows how many more to go.
But can we at least agree that Galileo was right? That his views were informed and those of his detractors, who forced him to recant, were 'prejudiced'?
My flippant little mind, when I first read that went, I'll agree to that if he agrees Galileo's detractors were the cognoscenti.
It is scientifically inspired intuition, after all, that has brought us the notion of the unconscious and unconscious motivation. I often fave the fantasy that I'm Galileo.
PS: Sorry about the AI thread. I had neither the skill nor the will to further argue your contentions and simply gave up, but naturally still knowing you were wrong. Love you.