Jump to content
Monica Soto

Welcome Guest!

Welcome to UK Pagan; The Valley

Like most online communities we require you to register for an account before we give you access to read and post.

Only a small number of our forum areas can be read without registering for an account.

Help to keep this website running - Become a Patron.

Help to keep UK Pagan online...
Become a Patron!
Sign in to follow this  
Hazel

Meditation And Journeying

Recommended Posts

Hazel

Hello everyone,

 

As you will be able to tell from my introduction I am very new to the pagan path and can sometimes feel a little overwhelmed at the amount of information there is learn and understand. So I really do value any input people feel they can share.

 

I have a question relating to the subject of meditation and journeying. I am trying to understand what the difference is between the two.

 

From my understanding meditation is often based in Eastern traditions which focus on the emptying of the mind so that realisation may be obtained. Whilst journeying is based in more Western traditions which are sourced in the richness of story telling.

 

However I am not sure how correct my line of thinking is.

 

It would be great to hear what others think about this subject.

 

Also, would the two methods offer the same benefits or not?

 

I ask this last point because in my own experience people have taught me that journeying is meditation and yet I am not so sure.

 

Thank you

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Ad from Google

Pomona

Good topic :lol:

 

I personally see meditation and journeying as being done for different reasons. When I meditate I do so to clear my mind and allow ideas, information etc to come in as it will - or not, as the case may be. When I journey, it's for a specific purpose, to achieve or find out something. Basically, for me, meditation is more passive and journeying is more active.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Moonsmith

I'm interested in the answers to this one. I'm finding confusion between the concepts of "meditation" and "path-working".

 

I've attended many guided meditations as a Christian. I've attempted transcendental meditation and found it difficult. As a Pagan I've enjoyed both my own path-working and workings guided by others.

 

However:

 

to me they are all different things.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Hedgewitch
I'm interested in the answers to this one.  I'm finding confusion between the concepts of "meditation" and "path-working".

 

I've attended many guided meditations as a Christian.  I've attempted transcendental meditation and found it difficult.  As a Pagan I've enjoyed both my own path-working and workings guided by others.

 

However:

 

to me they are all different things.

382558[/snapback]

 

I was very confused when I first read about meditation/vizulization. Meditation, to me, is for relaxing and clearing the mind. Vizulisation is to allow your mind to seek the answer to a question. It is very similar to meditation but to visulize, you are actually 'seeing' a story, your mind it playing out scenes. It may not make any sence at first but there is an answer in there, you just have to interprate it.

 

I think I've got that right anyway.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Birka

Meditation and journeying are different things but require the development of skills that overlap into each domain.

 

Meditation is the simplest thing in the world and yet the hardest. To have the mental discipline to clear ones mind of all thoughts, of the mental noise that our minds are filled with on a day to day basis. Some forms of meditation involve breath, mindfulness (basically performing an action but paying absolute attention to that action and not paying attention to anything else) and visualisation.

 

Pathworking is a form or meditation in that you take a kind of 'inner journey' using visualisation techniques. Pathworking is different from journeying in that it involves 'mind' rather than 'skin self'. Pathworkings and meditations are excellent for developing the discipline to take it further and start journeying.

 

Journeying is when the practitioner splits off a part of him or herself (the kind of 'skin' self) and sends that off on a journey either in animal or human form. There are many ways to initiate a journey. People have used drum beats, entheogens (plants that have hallucinogenic effects), swaying, dance, focusing on a candle flame/fixed object/silence, chanting/singing and many other techniques to enter into a trance so that the journey may begin.

 

Btw Badger Bob has an AWESOME link to a post he wrote about meditation. It's very very well written, Bob did a great job :)

Edited by Birka

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Hazel

Thank you all for your replies.

 

I think I am starting to get a clearer picture of the differences between the two practices. I too am of the mind that they are different things done for different reasons.

 

Birka, I have never heard the term ‘skin self’ so that’s something for me to find out about. Although your description of it sounds like what I have been taught to call the astral body. Am I correct with that?

 

I will also have to look up Badger Bobs post on meditation :o_wave:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Lantern_Light

I think journeying is another term for astral projection and yes involves separating the consciousness from the physical body and travelling else where. The skills learned to hold clear uninterrupted thought through meditation can be valuable for doing this later.

 

There's a wiki article about it here

 

BBs LL

Edited by Lantern_Light

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Birka

Birka, I have never heard the term ‘skin self’ so that’s something for me to find out about. Although your description of it sounds like what I have been taught to call the astral body. Am I correct with that?

 

I will also have to look up Badger Bobs post on meditation  :)

383022[/snapback]

 

Yes, it's kind of like the astral body but not quite because the ideas about what a soul is are different in Heathenry.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest deerheart

I agree on most things said. I´m crap with meditation, try it every once in a while and really try to clear my mind, but I find it very hard.

 

Journeying on the other hand has come quite easy to me! Perhaps because I have a purpose to work with. I do not agree that it is like astral travels. Not in my case anyhow. I go inwards, to worlds different from ours, more in the shamanic tradition.

 

Deerheart

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Lantern_Light
I agree on most things said. I´m crap with meditation, try it every once in a while and really try to clear my mind, but I find it very hard.

 

Journeying on the other hand has come quite easy to me! Perhaps because I have a purpose to work with. I do not agree that it is like astral travels. Not in my case anyhow. I go inwards, to worlds different from ours, more in the shamanic tradition.

 

Deerheart

383190[/snapback]

 

You know what now i've read this and thought about it Deerheart, i think you're right, journeying is inwards to the soul (shamanic) and astral projection is travelling outwards with consciousness. I hadn't tried defining them before but that has more truth to it for me.

BBs LL x

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest muddymick

"Meditation and journeying are different things but require the development of skills that overlap into each domain"

 

Hi B,

I think you are being a touch simplistic in your approach.

 

"Meditation is the simplest thing in the world and yet the hardest. To have the mental discipline to clear ones mind of all thoughts, of the mental noise that our minds are filled with on a day to day basis. Some forms of meditation involve breath, mindfulness (basically performing an action but paying absolute attention to that action and not paying attention to anything else) and visualisation"

 

Hi B,

Although I concur with much that is here, it is a common misconception that meditation is the stopping of internal dialogue (although this often occurs in non-dual absorption)

As for meditation involving breath, mindfulness or visualisation, this is not the actual action of meditation merely parts of its tool box.

Neither vedantic nor sutric scripture suggest that they are anything other than the means of focal attention directed at very particular parts of consciousness or arising and cessation of phenomena.

 

"Pathworking is a form or meditation in that you take a kind of 'inner journey' using visualisation techniques. Pathworking is different from journeying in that it involves 'mind' rather than 'skin self'. Pathworkings and meditations are excellent for developing the discipline to take it further and start journeying"

 

Hi,

Pathworking is very rarely meditation in its true sense.

What do you mean by mind rather than skin self?

Do you consider the mind body to be distinguishable or in some way separate?

 

"Journeying is when the practitioner splits off a part of him or herself (the kind of 'skin' self) and sends that off on a journey either in animal or human form"

 

Hi,

Would this be fantasy?

or are you suggesting some form of 'walking between the worlds' as say a brujo would?

could you suggest the mechanic involved?

 

"There are many ways to initiate a journey. People have used drum beats, entheogens (plants that have hallucinogenic effects), swaying, dance, focusing on a candle flame/fixed object/silence, chanting/singing and many other techniques to enter into a trance so that the journey may begin"

 

Hi,

I will concur that there are as many myriad and and different ways to alter consciousness as there are possibilities in the universe.

However how would you suggest that individuals separate the fantasy from reality or as some would put it how do they differentiate between actual journeys and delusional paradigms?

 

regards

MM

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Xalle

Muddymick.. if you wish to quote multiple posts you can do so by selecting the "multi" button on each post you wish to respond to and then hit reply. :rolleyes:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest muddymick
Muddymick.. if you wish to quote multiple posts you can do so by selecting the "multi" button on each post you wish to respond to and then hit reply.  :rolleyes:

391803[/snapback]

 

Ok TY

 

Regards

MM

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Animystic
Although I concur with much that is here, it is a common misconception that meditation is the stopping of internal dialogue (although this often occurs in non-dual absorption)

As for meditation involving breath, mindfulness or visualisation, this is not the actual action of meditation merely parts of its tool box.

Neither vedantic nor sutric scripture suggest that they are anything other than the means of focal attention directed at very particular parts of consciousness or arising and cessation of phenomena.

391800[/snapback]

Hi.... I think you are in danger of making the mistake that everyone uses the term meditation in the same way as you and with reference to the same tradition. It's one of those topics I rarely get into, because to actually get anywhere, you have to spend time defining and agreeing upon your terms of reference. Given that the word meditate stems from the Latin root meditatum, to ponder, it could be argued that the Christians have greatest claim to its definition. In the 12th century, Guido II used the term meditatio to describe a process of thinking on the texts of specific prayers. Most Christians would use the term in a similar way. Other traditions might use it to encompass any structured form of mental activity designed to effect some sort of change in consciousness.

 

These days the term is in common usage to mean something very similar to the Christian tradition of Contemplation. But it is not a vedic word, and to restrict its use to vedic or similar practices is likely to lead to some misunderstanding when communicating with those who do not reference those traditions. It is one of those words used as technical jargon differently in different traditions unfortunately.

Edited by Animystic

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest muddymick

"These days the term is in common usage to mean something very similar to the Christian tradition of Contemplation. But it is not a vedic word, and to restrict its use to vedic or similar practices is likely to lead to some misunderstanding when communicating with those who do not reference those traditions. It is one of those words used as technical jargon differently in different traditions unfortunate"

 

Hi,

It was the terms of reference used e.g breathing, mindfulness, visualisation etc.

Although I will concur with the etymology the points posited stand. mainly that it is not the stopping of internal dialogue in christian contemplation, sufic tradition nor any other tradition and that this part of the process resulting in 'great silence' or absence of self hood and therefore internal dialogue is a non-product of non-dual absorption.

I have not said it is a vedic word however I used this a cross reference including sutras as they are the vastest and most precise when relating to states of consciousness.

The process and practise of meditation by the mystic traditions has common elements, process and results across all traditions (see M. Eliade) from M.Eckhart's absence of god to Avalokitas emptiness of compound phenomena etc etc

One can see these commonalities irrespective of 'technical jargon' as one has two on such eclectic threads.

The use and misuse of terms/jargon is rampant on this thread as it is on most however if you would suggest terms of reference in a particular tradition or lineage I will obviously concur with your choice.

 

regards

MM

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Animystic
The use and misuse of terms/jargon is rampant on this thread as it is on most however if you would suggest terms of reference in a particular tradition or lineage I will obviously concur with your choice.

 

regards

MM

391853[/snapback]

Nada :blink: You clearly understand the points I was making before I made them*, and I concur with everything you've said above, and understand now why you used the terms of reference you did. My preferred terms of reference tend to be meta to any tradition, I'm just aware that most language used to debate matters pertaining to, for want of a better word, spiritual development issues is ill-defined and that much disagreement arises from an assumption that the people involved in discussion are using them in the same way.

 

*edited to add: I don't mean that to sound as arrogant as it does... but I'm wallpapering the front room and can't think of a better way of putting it :lol:

Edited by Animystic

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Birka
Hi B,

I think you are being a touch simplistic in your approach.

 

Because I'm giving a simplistic reply...this is 'Starter's Orders' after all :blink:

 

Hi B,

Although I concur with much that is here, it is a common misconception that meditation is the stopping of internal dialogue (although this often occurs in non-dual absorption)

As for meditation involving breath, mindfulness or visualisation, this is not the actual action of meditation merely parts of its tool box.

Neither vedantic nor sutric scripture suggest that they are anything other than the means of focal attention directed at very particular parts of consciousness or arising and cessation of phenomena.

 

Well naturally it a. depends on the type of meditation being practiced (but as I was giving a simplistic reply, I wasn't going to go into that) and b. depends on what tradition you work in as to how you see the whole thing in the first place.

 

Hi,

Pathworking is very rarely meditation in its true sense.

What do you mean by mind rather than skin self?

Do you consider the mind body to be distinguishable or in some way separate?

 

I disagree re: pathworking. You would consider the zen practice of mindfulness to be a form of meditation, yes? What if you are creating the things you're being mindful of in your mind? That's essentially what you're doing in pathworking.

 

The skin-self goes back to my beliefs on how the body-mind is made up. I don't believe in the 'soul' per se. The skin-self is something attested to in Anglo Saxon and Norse texts, known as the 'Scinn' and 'Hamr' respectively. I don't see any separation in all these things. I'm a non-dualist.

 

Hi,

Would this be fantasy?

or are you suggesting some form of 'walking between the worlds' as say a brujo would?

could you suggest the mechanic involved?

 

*takes deep breath*

 

Nope. Not fantasy as far as I'm concerned, although you are welcome to your opinions on the matter. My version of 'walking between the worlds' is very different to how you and any brujos/brujas might define it (although I would wonder where the brujos/brujas you're referring to come from as it's just as wide a term as its English language counterpart).

 

 

Hi,

I will concur that there are as many myriad and and different ways to alter consciousness as there are possibilities in the universe.

However how would you suggest that individuals separate the fantasy from reality or as some would put it how do they differentiate between actual journeys and delusional paradigms?

 

That is indeed the problem however in my experience, when individuals become accustomed to this kind of work, they tend to know their own 'tells' for when their brain is kind of filling in the gaps as opposed to being anything they're actually doing. From the tone of your previous questions, I'm fully expecting you to counter this with something along the lines of 'How does an individual know if their judgement of that is real or if it's mental illness?'.

Edited by Birka

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest muddymick
"Well naturally it a. depends on the type of meditation being practiced (but as I was giving a simplistic reply, I wasn't going to go into that and b. depends on what tradition you work in as to how you see the whole thing in the first place"

 

Hi,

sorry if the simplistic remark smarted (it was not intended to cause umbrage)

Could you tell of a tradition or in fact a type of meditation where the focal attention becomes the object of meditation? as opposed to a tool to enable meditative states?

 

"I disagree re: path working. You would consider the zen practice of mindfulness to be a form of meditation, yes? What if you are creating the things you're being mindful of in your mind? That's essentially what you're doing in pathworking.

The skin-self goes back to my beliefs on how the body-mind is made up. I don't believe in the 'soul' per se. The skin-self is something attested to in Anglo Saxon and Norse texts, known as the 'Scinn' and 'Hamr' respectively. I don't see any separation in all these things. I'm a non-dualist"

 

Hi,

this is a little confused and I think you may have misunderstood my points.

Of course you are creating the the things you are being mindful of! tell me an instance when it could be otherwise?

I have a little difficulty reconciling your testament to being non-dual and yet proposing dualistic paradigms.

 

"Nope. Not fantasy as far as I'm concerned, although you are welcome to your opinions on the matter. My version of 'walking between the worlds' is very different to how you and any brujos/brujas might define it (although I would wonder where the brujos/brujas you're referring to come from as it's just as wide a term as its English language counterpart)"

 

Hi,

I was keeping he parameters wide to not become to technical.

Could you elucidate please as you have in no way suggested the respective mechanics involved?

 

"That is indeed the problem however in my experience, when individuals become accustomed to this kind of work, they tend to know their own 'tells' for when their brain is kind of filling in the gaps as opposed to being anything they're actually doing. From the tone of your previous questions, I'm fully expecting you to counter this with something along the lines of 'How does an individual know if their judgement of that is real or if it's mental illness?"

 

Hi,

I suppose it might be easier if I put it another way; what mechanisms (whether from tradition/lineage or implicit in ones practice ensures that one is not subject to flights of fancy or delusion?

I am not sure what you mean by my tone (if I have been discourteous I apologise unreservedly) but I think you raise a good point in terms of mental illness (forgive me I am a psychologist by career) as I have encountered innumerable individuals who are damaged by their faiths/delusions.

Of course I am not suggesting all.

 

With Regards

MM

 

Edited to make quotes easier to pick out.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Moonsmith
Hello everyone,

 

As you will be able to tell from my introduction I am very new to the pagan path and can sometimes feel a little overwhelmed at the amount of information there is learn and understand. So I really do value any input people feel they can share.

 

I have a question relating to the subject of meditation and journeying. I am trying to understand what the difference is between the two.

 

From my understanding meditation is often based in Eastern traditions which focus on the emptying of the mind so that realisation may be obtained. Whilst journeying is based in more Western traditions which are sourced in the richness of story telling.

 

However I am not sure how correct my line of thinking is. 

 

It would be great to hear what others think about this subject.

 

Also, would the two methods offer the same benefits or not?

 

I ask this last point because in my own experience people have taught me that journeying is meditation and yet I am not so sure.

 

Thank you

382256[/snapback]

 

 

Oh deary deary me Hazel - You are getting so much information and so little learning! I don't think we are now answering your question are we?

 

What I noted from your original post above was However I am not sure how correct my line of thinking is.

 

Start by not caring how correct your thinking is and do what you want to do for your own purposes and what has the outcomes that you are seeking.

 

I wouldn't advise recognising anything that comes to your mind as other than yourself [for a very long time]. For myself I am a story teller and so I construct my pathworkings like a story. The delight is to find something in there that I didn't consciously put there. To construct a house in my mind, to turn around and find a door that I hadn't written into the story. Whenever this happens I learn something when I approach that "new" item.

 

In my youth [late 60's] "transcendental" meditation was fashionable. That DID involve emptying the mind and practicing that until something unconscious happened. This was for some reason seen as more valid that using imagination. Ho hum fashions come and go.

 

Do whatever you like. Never chastise yourself or put yourself down for "not doing it right" There is no "right". We are ALL as right as we are wrong. Above everything ENJOY!

Edited by Moonsmith
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest muddymick

Hazel,

I apologise for pulling his thread off on a tangent.

If you don't mind me suggesting.....I would recommend a lot of concentration work (probably best to start off with the sensation of the breath as it enters the nose and as it leaves, constantly bringing the mind back to this seemingly very simple observation) Keep the back straight allow the chin to move forward a little and place the tongue at the back of ones top front teeth.

Ignore the other stuff that comes up from your mind and body just keep bringing it to observation and breath.

This engenders (if stuck with) very precise focal attention an essential for meditation and real magical workings.

 

Regards

MM

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Fortuna

One of my Great Aunts was a bruja apparently, fat lot of good it did her. Would love to ask her for her take on this........ but shes dead!

 

Thought Moonsmith's approach to this was very sound. Just have a go and enjoy it without getting hung up on whether or not it is precisely how someone else tells you to do it. There are many ways to skin a cat after all.

 

Mike

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest muddymick

"There is no "right". We are ALL as right as we are wrong"

 

I found this very strange.

When we apply such relativism it is problematic. If two posited positions are in direct opposition how can they both be right?

If they are mutually exclusive how can they both be correct.

I understand relativism is applied often with good intentions (to be more inclusive) however it is a rather double edged sword and can do much harm.

 

 

Regards

MM

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Fortuna
"There is no "right". We are ALL as right as we are wrong"

 

I found this very strange.

When we apply such relativism it is problematic. If two posited positions are in direct opposition how can they both be right?

If they are mutually exclusive how can they both be correct.

I understand relativism is applied often with good intentions (to be more inclusive) however it is a rather double edged sword and can do much harm.

391932[/snapback]

 

I'm just giving my own view here....... not answering for Moonsmith. We are discussing a practise here aren't we......... not the boiling point of water or set laws of physics. When it comes to practical things then what is "right" is that which works for the individual is it not. I make jewellery and the techniques which are right for me to achieve a desired result might not be right for another person who does something different to achieve the same result.

 

You talk about relativism possibly causing harm......... in what way? Is it not more harmful to try to use the techniques layed down my another to achieve something when you can use your own instinct and initiative to work out a way of doing something which is more effective for you?

 

Mike

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest muddymick
"There is no "right". We are ALL as right as we are wrong"

 

I found this very strange.

When we apply such relativism it is problematic. If two posited positions are in direct opposition how can they both be right?

If they are mutually exclusive how can they both be correct.

I understand relativism is applied often with good intentions (to be more inclusive) however it is a rather double edged sword and can do much harm.

391932[/snapback]

 

I'm just giving my own view here....... not answering for Moonsmith. We are discussing a practise here aren't we......... not the boiling point of water or set laws of physics. When it comes to practical things then what is "right" is that which works for the individual is it not. I make jewellery and the techniques which are right for me to achieve a desired result might not be right for another person who does something different to achieve the same result.

 

You talk about relativism possibly causing harm......... in what way? Is it not more harmful to try to use the techniques layed down my another to achieve something when you can use your own instinct and initiative to work out a way of doing something which is more effective for you?

 

Mike

391934[/snapback]

 

Hi Mike,

Of course what works for the individual is correct however after thousands of years of human endeavour in the realms of consciousness and the nature of reality one can be pretty certain that all effective traditions hold to certain .....lets say recipes. if one wants to disregard these tried and tested processes fine, however it would seem a tad churlish and even egotistical to suggest one can use ones own initiative and instinct. To find what it took great saints, sages, seers and mystics many life times within established traditions to find.

More effective for you.......how would one know if one has not tried the other methods or is this just relativism again?

Where all results are equal and all methods are deemed as effective irrespective of their efficacy?

You have answered the question relativism is dangerous because it gives one a license to disregard veracity and engenders a egotistical approach to consciousness.

 

Regards

MM

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Birka
Hi,

sorry if the simplistic remark smarted (it was not intended to cause umbrage)

Could you tell of a tradition or in fact a type of meditation where the focal attention becomes the object of meditation? as opposed to a tool to enable meditative states?

 

Are you having a laugh?

 

Hi,

this is a little confused and I think you may have misunderstood my points.

Of course you are creating the the things you are being mindful of! tell me an instance when it could be otherwise?

I have a little difficulty reconciling your testament to being non-dual and yet proposing dualistic paradigms.

 

No, this isn't confused. You're coming from a different worldview to the one that I have and you seem to know very little of mine so naturally this will be confusing for you. As for non-dualism, what I proposed is non-dualist. The 'scinn' or 'hamr' as I see it is a detachable part but not after death. It's not something that floats away and will only degrade as the physical remains of the person does. That it can be 'detached' temporarily is neither here nor there.

 

"

Hi,

I was keeping he parameters wide to not become to technical.

Could you elucidate please as you have in no way suggested the respective mechanics involved?

 

However when I keep the parameters wide so as not to become too technical in my initial post, my approach is referred to as simplistic.

 

Why would I tell you the mechanics of how I do things so that you might pick them apart because it's different to how you think things should be done?

 

I suppose it might be easier if I put it another way; what mechanisms (whether from tradition/lineage or implicit in ones practice ensures that one is not subject to flights of fancy or delusion?

I am not sure what you mean by my tone (if I have been discourteous I apologise unreservedly) but I think you raise a good point in terms of mental illness (forgive me I am a psychologist by career) as I have encountered innumerable individuals who are damaged by their faiths/delusions.

Of course I am not suggesting all.

 

I think a much better question would be does mental illness necessarily exclude a person from encountering truths or having experiences? Also if a person is so afraid of not having a real experience, they're not going to relax enough to get into any kind of a mental state to have a real experience.

 

 

I found this very strange

When we apply such relativism it is problematic. If two posited positions are in direct opposition how can they both be right?

If they are mutually exclusive how can they both be correct.

I understand relativism is applied often with good intentions (to be more inclusive) however it is a rather double edged sword and can do much harm.

 

 

This to me is rather suggestive of your intentions here. I don't doubt that you have a lot to teach, in fact I look forward to reading about your path and what insights you have gained, however barely any of us here on the site are on the same path, we all have different worldviews, different ways of encountering the world and we are all of us, the products of our varied life experiences. A certain degree of relativism has to be adopted or we'd never get a conversation off the ground for arguing who's doing it 'right' and shouting people down who are expressing opposing views as being 'deluded'. While you may see relativism as being harmful, others may see your way as being more harmful. Indeed, we have more examples of 'one true way-ism' being more harmful during the course of history.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Fortuna
it would seem a tad churlish and even egotistical to suggest one can use ones own initiative and instinct.

391940[/snapback]

Ooops....... I fear I have been a tad churlish....... even egotistical! My apologies. I'm sure you are right of course ............ The true way to do things..... would that be the way you do them by any chance? :D

 

Mike

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Birka

You have answered the question relativism is dangerous because it gives one a license to disregard veracity and engenders a egotistical approach to consciousness.

 

 

As opposed to thinking your own way is the only 'right' one?

 

No, that's not egotistical at all...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest muddymick
it would seem a tad churlish and even egotistical to suggest one can use ones own initiative and instinct.

391940[/snapback]

Ooops....... I fear I have been a tad churlish....... even egotistical! My apologies. I'm sure you are right of course ............ The true way to do things..... would that be the way you do them by any chance? :D

 

Mike

391943[/snapback]

 

hi Mike,

I think it does us both a disservice to take one comment out of context.

I was not suggesting that this either applies to you or any other particular individual I was merely positing a logical argument against relativism in the arena of consciousness.

I am in no way suggesting that the true/right way is mine as A) I have not posited ownership to a way, nor do I suggest a 'way' :D There are many many approaches other than those you posited.

 

With regards

MM

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest muddymick

You have answered the question relativism is dangerous because it gives one a license to disregard veracity and engenders a egotistical approach to consciousness.

 

 

As opposed to thinking your own way is the only 'right' one?

 

No, that's not egotistical at all...

391945[/snapback]

 

Hi Birka,

I would be interested in the methodology that allowed you to arrive at the assumption that is what I posited or in fact implied.

In fact following the argument logically you will find the obverse is true!

 

With Regards

MM

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Birka

You have answered the question relativism is dangerous because it gives one a license to disregard veracity and engenders a egotistical approach to consciousness.

 

 

As opposed to thinking your own way is the only 'right' one?

 

No, that's not egotistical at all...

391945[/snapback]

 

Hi Birka,

I would be interested in the methodology that allowed you to arrive at the assumption that is what I posited or in fact implied.

In fact following the argument logically you will find the obverse is true!

 

With Regards

MM

391948[/snapback]

 

Sorry, I must be having a stupid day or something...I would be ever so grateful if you could elucidate the processes by which you came to the conclusion that your statements could logically mean that you are not espousing a 'one true way'.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  

×
×
  • Create New...