01-30-2011, 12:00 AM
""What is unfortunate, in my opinion, in DJ’s words above, is when he tags on that last bit, “but a universe of eagles emanations.” You see we need more space to contemplate the no objects before (DJ not me) jumping to what I believe is a level of metaphysical interpretation, “eagles emanations”." Lex
There you go getting spooky again. lol. Eagle's Emanations are just a word he used to describe something he actually saw/experienced. You are discussing a reality and you want to make it "metaphysical." And therefore you think it needs to be interpreted. Bob
No Bob. I believe I have been consistent concerning this. It is unfortunate that DJ (or CC wrestling with what he thought DJ meant) uses the words eagle’s emanations. I do not want to get to a level of metaphysical interpretation, I am pointing out that is what DJ or CC are doing by personally interpreting the experience this way. That is why I used the word "unfortunate" to begin with.
The problem arises with man’s awareness; it is his awareness that becomes entangled and confused. At the crucial moment when it should be a simple case of the emanations acknowledging themselves, man’s awareness is compelled to interpret. The result is a vision of the Eagle and the Eagle’s emanations. But there is no eagle and no eagle’s emanations. What is out there is something that no living creature can grasp.” FFW
He experienced the emanations. What he is saying here is that instead of a world of objects there is a world of emanations. Bob
By saying this Bob you give the world of emanations more credence than the the world of objects. But as DJ says there are no emanations, and certainly not filaments of light which can be seen. So he is definitely NOT saying "that instead of a world of objects there is a world of emanations."
There you go getting spooky again. lol. Eagle's Emanations are just a word he used to describe something he actually saw/experienced. You are discussing a reality and you want to make it "metaphysical." And therefore you think it needs to be interpreted. Bob
No Bob. I believe I have been consistent concerning this. It is unfortunate that DJ (or CC wrestling with what he thought DJ meant) uses the words eagle’s emanations. I do not want to get to a level of metaphysical interpretation, I am pointing out that is what DJ or CC are doing by personally interpreting the experience this way. That is why I used the word "unfortunate" to begin with.
The problem arises with man’s awareness; it is his awareness that becomes entangled and confused. At the crucial moment when it should be a simple case of the emanations acknowledging themselves, man’s awareness is compelled to interpret. The result is a vision of the Eagle and the Eagle’s emanations. But there is no eagle and no eagle’s emanations. What is out there is something that no living creature can grasp.” FFW
He experienced the emanations. What he is saying here is that instead of a world of objects there is a world of emanations. Bob
By saying this Bob you give the world of emanations more credence than the the world of objects. But as DJ says there are no emanations, and certainly not filaments of light which can be seen. So he is definitely NOT saying "that instead of a world of objects there is a world of emanations."