|
Post by laughter on Dec 13, 2012 16:16:10 GMT -5
Reefs, do you know what Eckhart Tolle’s one-word characterization of “the need to be right” is? If I were to best express my imagination of the manifestation that is our absurd conversation, I would express it as “surrendering to the reality of the fight”. It’s perhaps reminiscent of the classic yadda-yadda question you hear from someone apparently newly impacted by some apparent teaching on these forums…. “well should I just accept everything I mean, does that include the guy at the bar who’s tryin’ to kick me in the nuts ‘cause I leaned over his shoulder to order a drink? This stuff is bullsh!t!” You can imagine that I’m that newbie if you want. Whatever floats your boat. If you prefer, you can imagine it as “LOA” in action. When you stop imagining for just a second perhaps you’ll realize that it’s just THIS apparently figuratively kicking the apparent you in your apparent nuts. You see, I seem to imagine, from reading what I’ve read of your posts, that you are indeed infected with the need to be right. This is my pet giraffe that I’ve named “Reefs”. Sadly, I don’t expect you to disabuse me of this particular delusion anytime soon. Now I would imagine that when someone posts here that they have the intention of having it read and of attempting to convey something. This short comment of yours speaks volumes about your mindset and your understanding of non-duality. When I review your comments to my posts over the last few weeks now, the picture is very clear: you are more interested in creating a comfortable place inside your confusion than seeking clarity. And I can also understand that someone who hasn't had a true realization yet has only books and quotes and his fantasy as guidance and common consensus with others who also only have books and quotes and fairy tales as guidance. Ideally an understanding based on a true realization. But that is extremely rare. I usually don’t have that kind of high expectations on a forum. So what I usually mean by that is an intellectual grasp of the concept and an intellectual grasp of the boundaries of that concept plus an intellectual grasp of the boundaries of an intellectual approach in general. And I haven’t seen any of that with you so far (see below). These are only a few examples of you expressing an opinion on my level of confusion or clarity or understanding or realization. The funny thing here is that you would seem to imagine for one second that I have any interest whatsoever in such an opinion. Ladies and gentlemen, it's time now for our "video metaphor" segment: To spell this out, the clown here is a metaphor for you expressing an opinion that the person you are expressing it to has no interest in. Much much more to come here. As I mentioned, I intend to give your words full hearing, and as our conversation progresses I’ll use this thread as the repository for all of the distractions and digressions that I’m sure to follow in your responses. In your first flame, you wrote this: So I’m not interested in talking to you at this point in time. Really Reefs? Wow, sure doesn’t seem like that now. As a matter of fact, it seems that the more violent I get with you, the more violent you get back. I should expect nothing less of a fan of ‘ole Esther.
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Dec 13, 2012 20:34:44 GMT -5
What can you possibly cite for my having "decided" that "this truthin' concept" is "phoney"? I mean, I've seen you mention "truthin'" in passing but never really had any interest in what you meant by it, so I'm not sure what you think it signifies. Feel free to present it and then I'll decide if it's phony and then you won't have to speculate. Well you didn’t directly say that the truthin’ concept is phony. No. Wow! Bravo Reefs! I imagine here that you've actually started to pierce my core delusion, stated above, about your infection with the need to be right! ... I mean you do see here that you've admitted the delusion of your original statement, right? But you usually have your sarcastic objections when I present other concepts that are based on the truthin’ concept, e.g. compassion is nonsense etc. So even if you didn’t directly call it phony, you kinda did so indirectly by scoffing at the other concepts which are based on this truthin’ one. I think you know what I mean. "I think you know what I mean"? ... this is just way too easy. Really Reefs. You could at least try. You won't be able to find this phantom "sarcastic objection" to what you've characterized as as your "calling compassion nonsense". Here, I'll even give you a head start with a link to the head of the applicable exchange of posts. The referenced "sarcastic objection" is not there. It is a phantom. A giraffe. A delusion. Something that you imagined. What behavior, specifically, did I call out as inappropriate? Mocking. Lack of compassion. So many giraffes, so little time. You will not find a single quote by me to you about mocking. As a matter of fact, you just might find the word used once or twice in my 800+ wordhurl here but you won't find me reproaching anyone for it. Again, it is a phantom. A giraffe. A delusion. Something that you imagined. As far as "lack of compassion" is concerned, that link above tells the tale of an invitation to consider an impersonal invitation with you ascribing the the impersonal to me personally. I never once used either the word "inappropriate" or "behavior" here on this forum until this conversation started. Accusing people of "inappropriate behavior" is your gig not mine: Specifically this time, what I would call inappropriate, your sarcastic hit and run comment which had no foundation whatsoever. What seems to have happened here is that you've confused my login, laughter, with one of the several other that you keep mentioning in our conversation ... sorry but I have to defer as that particular delusion deserves it's own treatment. A long one. Now as far as my "inappropriate behavior" is concerned, I imagine you to be referring to this, the provocation that brought you out here into the parking lot to begin with: someone who had a true realization talks absolute certainties. Name one. *silently lifts index finger* (*** standing there smiling in silent and temporary satisfaction at the guy running from the parking lot ***) Now here again, the whole question about the arbitrary nature of the boundary of a conversation is one that will require quite a few words of its own, so for now ... You are here on a non-duality forum and you keep referring to causes and choices and your keep spinning stories. Let me translate for you so that you might fit in a bit better around here: The simplest, lowest-maintenance story is that an assertion manifested, a challenge to the assertion arose, and then the imagined event was subsequently personalized.
|
|
|
Post by Reefs on Dec 13, 2012 21:21:16 GMT -5
You see, I seem to imagine, from reading what I’ve read of your posts, that you are indeed infected with the need to be right. This is my pet giraffe that I’ve named “Reefs”. Sadly, I don’t expect you to disabuse me of this particular delusion anytime soon. Well, within this text format where one can backtrack everything that has been said until all eternity, for peeps who 1) really read what has been written 2) mostly remember what has been written, when, where and by whom It’s just a natural byproduct to be more ‘right’ than peeps who 1) never really read what has been written 2) never really remember what has been written, when, where or by whom Simple mechanics of logic. It’s different with face-to-face conversations. If not recorded, it’s hard to backtrack, especially when conversing with drama queens, because in the end, it’s usually the one who uses emotions most effectively who is ‘right’ in a face-to-face argument - and that’s usually the drama queen. I’ve noticed lots of folks here are not aware of that difference and treat these forum conversations as face-to-face conversations. So they don’t notice that taking the drama route here is actually working against them every single time – unlike in offline life where throwing a fit might be very effective. But yeah, I can understand that you come to that conclusion. The one that points out the delusions is usually seem as morally questionable because he won't play along as expected. I haven't seen any violence from you so far. And I don't understand the connection to "'ole Esther". Is she violent? Was she beating her hubby or something???
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Dec 13, 2012 21:34:43 GMT -5
ahh ... ok, thank you for clarifying a contextual definition of "drama" ... that's what I mean, btw, when I say "ownership of a word". These words, tricky things. They trigger such disparate meanings in minds. And I don't understand the connection to "'ole Esther". Is she violent? Was she beating her hubby or something??? ok, the embers on that sense of humor of yours have definitely sparked up some kindling. Now you speak a language I understand! Danger Reefs Robinson!, you are perilously close to exhibiting .... "compassion". For the sake of clarity, for the most part, when I express gratitude or apologize it is usually sincere. Today though, the word machine has been in overdrive, so I can certainly understand (no pun intended) why you might have overlooked this, a sincere question to you, not some sort of dig: Reefs, do you know what Eckhart Tolle’s one-word characterization of “the need to be right” is?
|
|
|
Post by Reefs on Dec 13, 2012 21:48:49 GMT -5
I never once used either the word "inappropriate" or "behavior" here on this forum until this conversation started. Thanks for that Reefs .... that was funny .... I mean ... it made me feel on some level as if I was laughing at a video of Uday Hussein drop kicking a 3 week old Irish Setter ... but still .... (laughing so hard now that I'm beginning to fear for my health) So, yeah, you don't say it explicitly. That could wake up a mod. You hide it, between riddles and comparisons and wrap it up as a funny comment. And to be on the safe side, you usually add a few smileys (you forgot that here though). Given the fact that Uday Hussein was the eldest son of Saddam Hussein who is known as a evil dictator, I'd say your comment was right up Andrew's Hitler Alley, probably even worse. When I read it now, I think I should have reported it. Needless to say that it wasn't even in response to something I said to you.
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Dec 13, 2012 22:26:15 GMT -5
I never once used either the word "inappropriate" or "behavior" here on this forum until this conversation started. Thanks for that Reefs .... that was funny .... I mean ... it made me feel on some level as if I was laughing at a video of Uday Hussein drop kicking a 3 week old Irish Setter ... but still .... (laughing so hard now that I'm beginning to fear for my health) So, yeah, you don't say it explicitly. Well, again Reefs, thank you. That could wake up a mod. You hide it, between riddles and comparisons and wrap it up as a funny comment. And to be on the safe side, you usually add a few smileys (you forgot that here though). Did it hurt your feelings? Sincerely, if it did, you have my apology. No joke to that man, really. I'll even fill you in on all of my imagination and give a name to every giraffe in my zoo when I wrote that if you want. This is also a sincere offer. (edit: although it was definitely a statement that was exaggerated for comedic effect, that was not an expression of disapproval, btw Given the fact that Uday Hussein was the eldest son of Saddam Hussein who is known as a evil dictator, I'd say your comment was right up Andrew's Hitler Alley, probably even worse. When I read it now, I think I should have reported it. Needless to say that it wasn't even in response to something I said to you. You know what I said up front about not caring about your opinion? ... that was impersonal, so it applies to Peter and Bob and everyone else here as well. Nothing I say is ever absolute, and when that doesn't hold, when I see the seeking of approval arising from within, it's an opportunity ... you see, this is not a statement of rebellion. The rules are the rules and if I've broken them then that's an opportunity for observation also. Albert Low, in "The Iron Cow of Zen" wrote something that caught my ear. He was talking about submission to authority and reviewed the spectrum of this, stating that the man who would submit himself to noone suffers from his own, a different pathology from the man who submits himself too readily. So I've got no beef with being reported. I simply cannot imagine someone writing something that would cause me to report them.
|
|
|
Post by Reefs on Dec 13, 2012 22:37:44 GMT -5
I should expect nothing less of a fan of ‘ole Esther. Interesting that you called me a 'fan' of 'ole Esther'. I think that's where the phony connection is. Here is what you said about Esther: Esther Hicks either has a non-mental knowledge of "all is Bhudda" ... "Christ is in everyone" -- in which case she's deliberately deceiving her audience as to channeling a man with the same name as the (likely mythical) first Israeli patriarch --- OR she doesn't and then it would seem to me that she's a fraud. In either case she's a predator (a judgement! yes! I know!) and some shame on her part would be a useful pointer that would benefit all people.
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Dec 13, 2012 22:42:37 GMT -5
Yes, in that thread what was an honest assessment of the LOA degenerated into a negative reaction to the A-H materials.
I still think that what I wrote there was quite inciteful (<- deliberate misspelling) and would be happy to debate it with you.
This negative reaction was, and still is, an opportunity for me. No doubt.
So are you going to answer my opening question? Look, no shame in not knowing the answer. What you said about books isn't something that I necessarily either agree or disagree with so I honestly and sincerely have no judgment if you haven't read or aren't very up on Tolle. Here, I'll put it to you again:
Do you know what Eckhart Tolle’s one-word characterization of “the need to be right” is?
|
|
|
Post by Reefs on Dec 13, 2012 22:55:16 GMT -5
I think I've said it beore, I'm not into Tolle. Never read his books. Just saw a few videos. Not my style. But I guess he is pointing to ego. That's what I heard him talk a lot in the videos I've watched. I'm not into ego-bashing.
|
|
|
Post by Reefs on Dec 13, 2012 23:00:41 GMT -5
So, yeah, you don't say it explicitly. Well, again Reefs, thank you. Did it hurt your feelings? Sincerely, if it did, you have my apology. No joke to that man, really. I'll even fill you in on all of my imagination and give a name to every giraffe in my zoo when I wrote that if you want. This is also a sincere offer. (edit: although it was definitely a statement that was exaggerated for comedic effect, that was not an expression of disapproval, btw Given the fact that Uday Hussein was the eldest son of Saddam Hussein who is known as a evil dictator, I'd say your comment was right up Andrew's Hitler Alley, probably even worse. When I read it now, I think I should have reported it. Needless to say that it wasn't even in response to something I said to you. You know what I said up front about not caring about your opinion? ... that was impersonal, so it applies to Peter and Bob and everyone else here as well. Nothing I say is ever absolute, and when that doesn't hold, when I see the seeking of approval arising from within, it's an opportunity ... you see, this is not a statement of rebellion. The rules are the rules and if I've broken them then that's an opportunity for observation also. Albert Low, in "The Iron Cow of Zen" wrote something that caught my ear. He was talking about submission to authority and reviewed the spectrum of this, stating that the man who would submit himself to noone suffers from his own, a different pathology from the man who submits himself too readily. So I've got no beef with being reported. I simply cannot imagine someone writing something that would cause me to report them. I don't really buy your explanation of not intending to show disapproval and such. Having the latest discussions about passive aggressiveness and hidden hostility in mind, I'd say that Hussein post is such a perfect example.
|
|
|
Post by Reefs on Dec 13, 2012 23:27:48 GMT -5
Yes, in that thread what was an honest assessment of the LOA degenerated into a negative reaction to the A-H materials. I still think that what I wrote there was quite inciteful ( <- deliberate misspelling) and would be happy to debate it with you. This negative reaction was, and still is, an opportunity for me. No doubt. I don't have an issue with that. If Esther would claim to live what she is teaching/channeling then I would agree that there is something off and she probably is a fraud. But she didn't. Even if she would do that, I wouldn't care because my eye is on the message only. And as long as the message is still clear what Esther does or does not is rather irrelevant. So I have nothing to debate here except that when people take Esther as Abraham they might take the paper Shakespeare is written on as Shakespeare himself. The paper is just the medium thru which the ideas of Shakespeare are made accessible to the general public who can't just tune into Shakespeare's mind with their own mind and so can't see what Shakespeare saw. Esther is just the medium thru which the ideas of Abraham are made accessible to the general public who can't just tune into Abraham's mind with their own mind and so can't see what Abraham sees.
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Dec 14, 2012 0:23:12 GMT -5
I think I've said it beore, I'm not into Tolle. Never read his books. Just saw a few videos. Not my style. But I guess he is pointing to ego. That's what I heard him talk a lot in the videos I've watched. I'm not into ego-bashing. Tolle says that needing to be right is a form of violence. With that in mind, would you still say that I've done you no violence today?
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Dec 14, 2012 0:25:25 GMT -5
Well, again Reefs, thank you. Did it hurt your feelings? Sincerely, if it did, you have my apology. No joke to that man, really. I'll even fill you in on all of my imagination and give a name to every giraffe in my zoo when I wrote that if you want. This is also a sincere offer. (edit: although it was definitely a statement that was exaggerated for comedic effect, that was not an expression of disapproval, btw You know what I said up front about not caring about your opinion? ... that was impersonal, so it applies to Peter and Bob and everyone else here as well. Nothing I say is ever absolute, and when that doesn't hold, when I see the seeking of approval arising from within, it's an opportunity ... you see, this is not a statement of rebellion. The rules are the rules and if I've broken them then that's an opportunity for observation also. Albert Low, in "The Iron Cow of Zen" wrote something that caught my ear. He was talking about submission to authority and reviewed the spectrum of this, stating that the man who would submit himself to noone suffers from his own, a different pathology from the man who submits himself too readily. So I've got no beef with being reported. I simply cannot imagine someone writing something that would cause me to report them. I don't really buy your explanation of not intending to show disapproval and such. Having the latest discussions about passive aggressiveness and hidden hostility in mind, I'd say that Hussein post is such a perfect example. Wasn't a party to those discussions. I take that as declining my invitation to open up about what I was thinking there. If you imagine passive aggression there and want to leave it at that then that's where you want to leave it.
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Dec 14, 2012 0:28:09 GMT -5
Yes, in that thread what was an honest assessment of the LOA degenerated into a negative reaction to the A-H materials. I still think that what I wrote there was quite inciteful ( <- deliberate misspelling) and would be happy to debate it with you. This negative reaction was, and still is, an opportunity for me. No doubt. I don't have an issue with that. If Esther would claim to live what she is teaching/channeling then I would agree that there is something off and she probably is a fraud. But she didn't. Even if she would do that, I wouldn't care because my eye is on the message only. And as long as the message is still clear what Esther does or does not is rather irrelevant. So I have nothing to debate here except that when people take Esther as Abraham they might take the paper Shakespeare is written on as Shakespeare himself. The paper is just the medium thru which the ideas of Shakespeare are made accessible to the general public who can't just tune into Shakespeare's mind with their own mind and so can't see what Shakespeare saw. Esther is just the medium thru which the ideas of Abraham are made accessible to the general public who can't just tune into Abraham's mind with their own mind and so can't see what Abraham sees. The position I took in the thread is that there is nothing, no thought no word, no deed that isn't channeled, and so there is nothing inherently special about Esther. From your reply it would seem that you heard that and had no reaction.
|
|
|
Post by Reefs on Dec 14, 2012 0:39:25 GMT -5
Wasn't a party to those discussions. I take that as declining my invitation to open up about what I was thinking there. If you imagine passive aggression there and want to leave it at that then that's where you want to leave it. Yes. It's a clear example of passive aggression. And I will leave it at that.
|
|