Psalehesost said:
First of all, something personally directed to RyanX, because if I read your post correctly, then there seemed to be some nervousness on your part: I want to thank you for a great contribution to this thread, for without it would not have been alerted to the lack of external considering in my original post. So, thanks for that! Without it, I would not have written my previous reply, which hopefully communicated some of my thinking a bit more clearly.
Psalehesost,
You're welcome. It it appeared as nervousness on my part, I apologize, sometimes I take awhile to churn over my thoughts before I reply. I also wanted to make sure I convey my thoughts to you properly so that you can get the most out of them. The way you describe your thinking reminds me a lot of thoughts I had a few years back, so I wanted to try to convey to you the understanding I've had during that time.
Your second post did do a better job of describing your thought process. I think I see more of where you are coming from. My concern was that you were taking something the C's stated out of context, but that doesn't seem like it was your main intention. Although, I still question why you would use that quote by the C's instead of just saying the thought originated within you? As Laura and others have said on here, there is a danger in reading the transcripts alone without fully understanding the context behind them. I know I have been guilty of this in the past.
That said, I think obyvatel has a point (no pun intended) about the words "Point" and "Purpose" being more of an argument over semantics. It might not be useful to get caught up in redefining these words since there are other words in the esoteric vocabulary that describe these concepts and are more generally known in this group.
I think what you're describing seems to be what Mouravieff described the discernment process between A and B (and possibly C) influences. In this case, the A influences seem to be what you describe as "Point" and the B influences as "Purpose" - or something close to that it seems? Maybe you could read through this
entry on Cassiopedia and see how it stacks up to what you were thinking?
This conversation reminds me a lot of what G described as a need for an Objective language.
[quote author=ISOTM]"One of the reasons for the divergence between the line of knowledge and the line of being in life, and the lack of understanding which is partly the cause and partly the effect of this divergence, is to be found in the language which people speak. This language is full of wrong concepts, wrong classifications, wrong associations. And the chief thing is that, owing to the essential characteristics of ordinary thinking, that is to say, to its vagueness and inaccuracy, every word can have thousands of different meanings according to the material the speaker has at his disposal and the complex of associations at work in him at the moment.
People do not clearly realize to what a degree their language is subjective, that is, what different things each of them says while using the same words. They are not aware that each one of them speaks in a language of his own, understanding other people's language either vaguely or not at all, and having no idea that each one of them speaks in a language unknown to him. People have a very firm conviction, or belief, that they speak the same language, that they understand one another. Actually this conviction has no foundation whatever. The language in which they speak is adapted to practical life only. People can communicate to one another information of a practical character, but as soon as they pass to a slightly more complex sphere they are immediately lost, and they cease to understand one another, although they are unconscious of it. People imagine that they often, if not always, understand one another, or that they can, at any rate, understand one another if they try or want to; they imagine that they understand the authors of the books they read and that other people understand them. This also is one of the illusions which people create for themselves and in the midst of which they live. As a matter of fact, no one understands anyone else. Two men can say the same thing with profound conviction but call it by different names, or argue endlessly together without suspecting that they are thinking exactly the same. Or, vice versa, two men can say the same words and imagine that they agree with, and understand, one another, whereas they are actually saying absolutely different things and do not understand one another in the least.[/quote]
I wanted to point out one more thing about the way you describe your thought process, because I think it may be important to look at this as well...
[quote author=P]If you are referring to the later part of the post concerning purpose, I'd be very interested in seeing some critical analysis of it. All I could describe there was the "outline" of the abstract thought I'd just gone through, which involved holding in mind pretty much all the concepts I wrote of at once, and during which an abstract "whole" was "felt". After I don't know how many minutes of single-pointed focus during which a gradual "shift" in the mind took place, I "saw" interrelations between the concepts, which is what I wanted to express, as opposed to reduction. An abstract whole with several concrete parts with links between them.[/quote]
What you describe as "[seeing] interrelations" when it came to your thoughts on "Purpose", might be something useful and it might not. It sounds very much like the process of subconscious selection described in Malcolm Gladwell's book "Blink - The Power of Thinking Without Thinking", where he describes situations when people make quick decisions without the necessary time of full reasoning. As he points out in this book, sometimes this process can be very accurate, but sometimes it is abysmally inaccurate. It seemed that accuracy has a lot to do with a person's familiarity with a subject or task and the emotional programs they have running at the time. If a person had some sort of emotional attachment or programming (typically subconscious) around a specific outcome in a decision, it could lead to horrible results in decision making. Similarly, the better a person was acquainted with a particular subject or task, the better they were at making accurate split second decisions. I'm not sure where you stand between these two extremes of "expert familiarity" and "emotional programs" dealing with this esoteric material, but it is something to keep in mind whenever you come to some quick, split second or "spontaneous" thought, OSIT. I would recommend this book if you haven't already read it.
I think it is good you are sharing this with the network instead of burying it in your mind, thinking you've found the Truth instead of putting those ideas to the test by bouncing them off of others. I know sometimes I've had thoughts like this and saved them away without critically analyzing them, or subjecting them to the thoughts of others, only to find some time later that I was horribly wrong or mistaken in some line of thinking. I don't think your thought process is that far off in this case, I just think there is already sufficient vocabulary of what you describe.
