>According to illumination everything is systemic, even illumination.
Given your definition of systemic, at least as I understand your description of it, I'll accept that for now.
>If objectivety is an illusion then you cant objectively be said
>to be illuminated.
In fact, you can't objectively say anything.
>It is impossible to have an objective view of
>subjectivety.
Perhaps some positivists would disagree, but ok.
>The result; _any_ world view is a valid as illumination,
>since they are all systemic.
Not neceserily. It depends entirely on your criteria for validity. You _seem_ to be talking about validity as an objective judgement, but such is not possible, so how is it relevent?
>Illumination can in no way be said to be closer to the truth than, say
an >Uroxi's belief that all lunars are chaotic.
Here you seem to be talking about 'objective truth'. Why should an illuminate give two hoots what an uroxi thinks? Who cares? All that matters is the personal experience of being, that is all that is valid.
>The result; Illumination is no better than any other beliefs. And
>as a special, higher, better,- point of view it doesn't exist (in
itself).
Illuminates don't care about 'any other beliefs' because they are not personal experiences for them. You are saying that illuminates should judge illumination relative to other people's experiences of the world, in an objective fashion. Why?
Simon Hibbs
Powered by hypermail