Brendon, you have provided me with too much information to go through line by line without writing a novel :) So instead I will address what I think is the more important aspects of my disagreement. I appreciate, by the way, that you welcome such skepticism and do not react negatively. I thank you for that. To begin, I submit a portion of your latest response:
"...you get caught up in the words and you loose the wisdom that i am trying to tap into. you search your mind for areas that these words have been referenced in your experience, but that hinders your growth because you are unwilling to accept my redefinitions because i do not have the credentials"I do get caught up in the words. I know that there is supposedly a higher wisdom, but the words are all that I have to rely on so yes, I dogmatically insist that they be, at least, internally consistent. Yes there is a spirit to the words but when the words do nothing to help convey this spirit, you might as well rely on using your pineal gland telepathy.
I would be willing to accept your redefinitions, on the one condition that you explicitly provide them. You do not redefine words. You simply use them in previously incorrect ways without taking due time to explain that there has been a change. Many philosophers change definitions or invent new words, but when they do they typically (with the exception of Husserl and Heidegger) provide the new definitions prior to using them.
My main problem is not with your philosophy, not with the conclusions you reach. Though yes, I am very skeptical. My problem is with your method of explanation and articulation. You consistently use language in new ways, as expressed above, and you perpetually rely on words and phrases that are saturated with vagueness and ambiguity. Yes, clear, precise words are confining, but there is a virtue in that: it makes them understandable.
