This is going in an interesting direction
.
I know sport is not the crux of where your argument lies, but I still feel like commenting on it, hope you do not mind
.
rosy wrote:there are junior athletes who worship the bodies of those who have striven to attain the limits of physical power.
Those who only see the body (as opposed to personality traits such as discipline, or mental endurance, strength of purpose etc.) miss the point to a great extent.
.
rosy wrote:there are very few misguided unhealthy people insane enough to believe they themselves are superior athletes, or who stand on top of the podium surrounded by personal militia while they tease athletes,
Actually, the new generation of athletes tends to surpass the previous one. This is the trend (look at world records). Ofc this is so because once something has been achieved it is easier to repeat (same principle works in sorcery). That aside ofc, it is foolish to think one is better just cause they are closer to one's ego
.
The teasing... there I concur. There are a lot of ignorant people who tease certain arts. But they would not tease the sorcerers/shamans if these were able to perform in the manner that athletes do. If the athletes' performances were not quantifiable, people would be similarly deluded when comparing themselves to athletes.
"the knowledge body is held half by pathworkers and half by self serving egotists." what knowledge body is held by egoists? If you mean 'body of knowledge as in "the complete set of concepts, terms and activities that make up a professional domain"... then well... the knowledge body of athletes is also held by many self-serving egoists (dare I say even more than in sorcery). You could say the same for the great athletic body - it is held/owned/inhabited by many self-serving egoists
.
Do you assume that because you read or were taught a certain terminology somewhere that everyone else has the same? I can tell you quite surely that if I started using the terminology I was taught and that I acquired during my shamanic training that you would not understand my meaning. I could teach you some of this terminology, but some of it can only be understood and acquired through similar experiences or me going over many experiences (kinda like what CC was doing in his books) and still it might be not understood all that clearly (not to mention I'd have to create the translations, maybe even make up some words as no language has a 1:1 ratio to another). Should I look down on you as a half-baked person interested in sorcery/shamanism because you do not share my terminology and my experiences? I think that would have been quite deluded of me.
But it is not exaclty true what I wrote here. In my experience a person who has gone through a similar path/knowledge/experience/state can identify this in another. How this is posible in certain specific cases for example is thanks to eer spirit seals what kind of experience/knowledge/state the person has experienced/reached. Language can change and does change with experiences but it does not have to change in the same way... not everyone who sees a certain unknown animal calls it the same name.
Actually, in my experience, there is a type of person who thrives on the system of terminology that they sort through and use with extreme fanatical precision. They even wield this vocabulary as a kind of weapon against others - this can be seen all the way to Christianity.
Another thing that needs mentioning that a person who actually is of learning and experience in certain fields creates their own personal terms that surplant the 'official' ones. I have heard CC's terminology upgraded in certain instances. We keep evolving - a book does not. We could say the terminology in CC is perfect for CC, but we are not CC and certain thinks might need to shift to fit us and our learning better - terms shift with that.
The thing is I do not even know what terminology of MEST is so I cannot say if I do not use it consciously/knowingly or unconsciously/unknowingly. I assume the latter. But just because someone is not using the terminology you know does not make then inferior or egoists or whatever
.
rosy wrote:In order to discern knowledge of pathworkers so as to clear the podium
we need to be able to triagulate the physical changes a person has made over time and see them as an energetic (pathwork)
I do not quite understand the term triangulate (in English) and am unsure why you want to check on the physical changes of sorcerers (though the body is very important ofc). What does 'to clear the podium' mean?
.
rosy wrote:it is necissary to use the terminology of nagualism because the terms themselves are judge Jury and executioner of all who utter them.
and so those who shouldnt be claiming to be of of knowledge(athletisiscm) can be curtailed before they embarass the sport further.
I guess the judge, jury and executioner is some metaphor, but unsure of your exact meaning. The terms are helpful because they help the shift to a slightly different AP. But what if we are not after the same AP as you are? We each have our own paths. And still, I have met knowledgeable people and those know that it makes no sense to sprout terms at people... instead they express things in commonly understood language. This is actually how one can spot idiots from people who actually care about their audience. The knowledgeable people lead the others to change and grow their vocabulary as a consequence of sharing with them. If you want people to warm up / adopt your vocabulary I suggest you do the same
.
I have met people who used fancy vocabulary and it really is no judge jury and executioner in the complete sense. We got people here regularly who have shed their human form and reached 3rd attention and were on a first name basis with the eagle and who talked all sorts of fancy CC talk but really... what actually gets them to show their true colors is their behavior. This is as basic as Ruis' 4 agreements. But there are other things that too are blatant. If anything I'd say if a person comes by sprouting all the terminology then chances are they are not as far as they think.
---
Your last post does not link to the discussion of terminology. I agree that a shaman can show the truth of the purpose of warriorship. But nowhere is it set in stone as to what terminology they have to use in order to be able to do this... cause that would be ridiculous
.
P.S. You did not answer my questions:
I wrote wrote:rosy, what do you consider as terms of MEST? Which are the terms you would like to see used here? And what exactly is MEST even
?
