06-08-2011, 12:01 AM
Lex #61:
This thread “Sorcerer’s Explanation Reviewed”, is the expression of my
wrestling with the design’s of intent and the impact it had upon Don
Juan’s life (not easy to get to).
This thread represents the liminality of this process.
There was such a lack of participation in this thread by the
“sorcerer’s” of this forum. Regardless of what some might think of me, I
urge you to put aside any personal feelings good or bad toward me and
engage the content of this thread and let us hear from you.What do you
think about the direction DJ appears to be advocating?
Jessica:
I responded to your invitation above, Lex. Perhaps I missed the emphasis in your first sentence though when you stated that it is "my wrestling" and you would really prefer to wrestle alone in a public setting.
My experience of responding to your threads goes something like this:
Lex: "Hey, let's talk about such and such...." The topic is evocative and so I respond.
Jessica: "For me that topic evokes...."
Lex: "You misunderstand what I'm saying. You don't know what you're talking about...." This thread is a good example: you say, "Jessicar you have neither understood me or DJ."
I understand DJ to a significant degree. You, I understand less. I do understand though that you introduce your topic and channel all responses within a narrow band of terminology in order to keep it within your understanding of the topic itself. This is, I believe, the Achille's heel of syntax. It's when a topic is discussed in unfamiliar terminology and therefore discounted.
In addition you misread my words:
Jessica: Staring at the Sorcerer’s
Explanation as a means of understanding it is a trap---and yet, it
isn’t----and that’s the mystery, the nagual. Jessicar
Lex: We, certainly not me, is NOT starting at the Sorcerer’s Explanation.
My response to your invitation was to look at the Sorcerer's Explanation from a larger context than STARING at it straight on. I underscored that my response was mine alone and that there would be a tendency to want to continue looking at it from only one vantage point (i.e. yours).
Lex, I'd like to dialogue if you're open to doing so on those topics you post. If you'd prefer to talk them out alone while here on the forum I respect that, too. Please make your preferences clear.
This thread “Sorcerer’s Explanation Reviewed”, is the expression of my
wrestling with the design’s of intent and the impact it had upon Don
Juan’s life (not easy to get to).
This thread represents the liminality of this process.
There was such a lack of participation in this thread by the
“sorcerer’s” of this forum. Regardless of what some might think of me, I
urge you to put aside any personal feelings good or bad toward me and
engage the content of this thread and let us hear from you.What do you
think about the direction DJ appears to be advocating?
Jessica:
I responded to your invitation above, Lex. Perhaps I missed the emphasis in your first sentence though when you stated that it is "my wrestling" and you would really prefer to wrestle alone in a public setting.
My experience of responding to your threads goes something like this:
Lex: "Hey, let's talk about such and such...." The topic is evocative and so I respond.
Jessica: "For me that topic evokes...."
Lex: "You misunderstand what I'm saying. You don't know what you're talking about...." This thread is a good example: you say, "Jessicar you have neither understood me or DJ."
I understand DJ to a significant degree. You, I understand less. I do understand though that you introduce your topic and channel all responses within a narrow band of terminology in order to keep it within your understanding of the topic itself. This is, I believe, the Achille's heel of syntax. It's when a topic is discussed in unfamiliar terminology and therefore discounted.
In addition you misread my words:
Jessica: Staring at the Sorcerer’s
Explanation as a means of understanding it is a trap---and yet, it
isn’t----and that’s the mystery, the nagual. Jessicar
Lex: We, certainly not me, is NOT starting at the Sorcerer’s Explanation.
My response to your invitation was to look at the Sorcerer's Explanation from a larger context than STARING at it straight on. I underscored that my response was mine alone and that there would be a tendency to want to continue looking at it from only one vantage point (i.e. yours).
Lex, I'd like to dialogue if you're open to doing so on those topics you post. If you'd prefer to talk them out alone while here on the forum I respect that, too. Please make your preferences clear.