|
Post by enigma on Feb 14, 2013 23:14:39 GMT -5
Choosing an emotional response is doable (and usually advisable). Choosing what to feel is not really doable, and amounts to suppression, and is not advisable. Give me an example of a chosen emotional response. The employee is called into the employer's office and told by the boss he's a worthless piece of sh!t. The employee needs the job, so in spite of his anger, he responds "I'll do better from now on." The feeling is anger, and wasn't chosen. The emotional response was to acquiesce, which was chosen. (Of course, he then proceeded to go home and kick the dog, but that's beside the point)
|
|
|
Post by topology on Feb 14, 2013 23:16:01 GMT -5
Let's suppose person A and person B are having a forum based exchange. They seem to be understanding each other and have an established common ground for the conversation. Person C is watching the exchange but thinks they are seeing something in the conversation beyond what is actually in the common ground between A and B, meaning they are adding something that is not actually there. Person C decides to jump into the conversation based on this extra thing which they think they see and they think exists in the common ground. Both person A and person B respond saying that they do not see what person C is seeing. Person A then tells person C that they are imagining it, i.e. seeing a giraffe, and that they have a pre-existing desire/propensity to think they see what was added. Is person A speculating by telling C that they are (1) imagining it or (2) telling person C that they have a propensity to seeing the giraffe that was not really there? What if C has an established pattern of seeing the same giraffe over and over again? Is it still speculating? Still not a full response to this post, as i am currently just interested in one specific thing.
And in the style of Dustin Hoffman's Capt.Hook from the movie Hook. when he said, "i hate, i hate, i hate...Peter Pan." I HATE, I HATE, I HATE...THE ST SEARCH FUNCTION.
The easiest way I've found of doing it (if you know the person's name) is: 1) Click on their name to pull up their profile 2) type in 1000 where it asks how many of the most recent posts you want to pull up. 3) click the button to pull up the most recent posts. 4) ctrl-f to do a word search on the page for relevant words. Anyways.... i was looking for a specific post of yours where i am sure i saw you say something like, "That's M-G's giraffe." But could i find it..oh noes...not even after several tries using different parameters. Anyways...the thing i am most interested in is the location of these giraffes that i see wandering about the place. So, this is the closest example i could find... [/font]
So, assuming andrew did finally create this giraffe...as in if it was constructed you might have said to andrew, "Nice giraffe you got there."
So my question is topology...where actually is this giraffe? Given that i have read enough posts to understand that a 'giraffe' is the term used to describe the things people see that aren't there. [/quote] Well Let's start with a giraffe you and I are more familiar with. When I accused you of making a presupposition with your question to Enigma about peacenicks and what not. I thought I saw something, Silver confronted me and said it wasn't there. She had me look again and then I too saw it wasn't there, and that I was misperceiving. So the giraffe was a thought in my mind about what I thought I saw. But it turned out to be a mirage. Andrew think's he sees a pattern between Enigma and myself with respect to Silver. Enigma and I both have wives/significant-others and he wants to propose that we are both projecting our relationships with our wives/SOs onto Silver. I looked at what A was putting forward and I didn't see it. He was cherry picking evidence and situations to try to argue for the legitimacy of the claim. I had no aversion to considering the possibility. There were alternative explanations for what he thought he was seeing. The giraffe lives in the mind of the beholder. The board has been through the "Is perceiving that someone else is seeing a giraffe its own giraffe" discussion a few times. The answer is yes. The whole point of discussing giraffes and pointing them out is to discuss what people see, why they see it, and to look again to see if its really there. When I pounced on you saying "AHA! A Giraffe!", I was looking for something to twist your arm with because you had been posting "speculation" after me several times and I was annoyed. So I was prone to having a mistaken perception, looking for something. And in my eagerness to see one, I took a tree for a giraffe. There's usually some subconscious something or rather that is making one prone to seeing giraffes.
|
|
|
Post by tzujanli on Feb 14, 2013 23:39:47 GMT -5
Greetings.. Greetings.. LOL.. yeah.. "i'm rubber you're glue", really? when will you find the capacity for direct communication, without the games? Content.. Be well.. Right, my ideas don't agree with yours. It has nothing to do with open, honest, direct, sincere communication. You enjoy conversations where there is some semblance of agreement with you and you deride all others. There are no exceptions.You are attached to the belief that you 'know' everything about everything.. there are always exceptions to everything, change is the universal constant.. Look, you can continue to avoid and evade direct open and honest discussions, you've been doing it for years, but.. do not presume that you 'know' my motivations, not that it matters or that it will influence what you post, it's just information that will be helpful if you are so deluded as to believe what you post.. I enjoy direct, open, and honest discussions, and.. you have spent so much time avoiding and evading this type of openness that you appear to believe it is 'normal'.. i'm really interested in finding out why you believe non-duality is valid in comparison with my own experiences which indicate non-duality, as you describe it, is not valid.. Aye, our ideas differ, and.. when you are requested to engage in open, honest, and direct discussions to explore those differences you evade and avoid, just like the quote.. i am repeatedly requesting, you are repeatedly making-up excuses.. it's just that simple. Be well..
|
|
|
Post by arisha on Feb 15, 2013 0:43:24 GMT -5
Greetings.. LOL.. yeah.. "i'm rubber you're glue", really? when will you find the capacity for direct communication, without the games? Content.. Be well.. Right, my ideas don't agree with yours. It has nothing to do with open, honest, direct, sincere communication. You enjoy conversations where there is some semblance of agreement with you and you deride all others. There are no exceptions. Even when one's ideas don't agree with somebody's ideas the communication can be open, honest, direct and sincere. It is mostly like that with plenty of people. But not with you, Enigma. The reason why it's impossible to have an open, direct and sincere communication with you is in the following: you yup-yup conversations where there is agreement with you and you deride all others. There are no exceptions.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 15, 2013 1:50:22 GMT -5
Still busy scanning through posts Just wanted to pop into the end of the thread to say this...
figless and arisha, you each stated you liked a post of mine awhile back...tnx ~smiles~
Topology, i just quickly read your post #1096. I appreciate your openness and indepth and clear expression. Will respond when i get there...sometime before the end of the year is a time frame i can confidently guarantee.
~glides back to page 53~
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 15, 2013 2:57:49 GMT -5
~glides back~
Heey, speaking of love.
Just finished watching Happythankyoupleasemore M-G deeply appreciates romantic movies, movies about love.
This one, is nothing like any love movie i have ever seen. To me, it's not a drama, not a romantic comedy...it's...i can't describe it. ...it focuses on the.... nope. It's a profound spiritual movie about love within the different types of relationships people can have. I am stuggling to describe it because....it's so expansive. The actors, all of them, nailed their characters so well, each scene full to the brim accurately depiciti their interactions with love. Genre, plot line, etc...never seen anything like it. It's not a feel good movie, it's a feel movie. It's now in my all time favs list.
~glides back to page 57~
|
|
|
Post by andrew on Feb 15, 2013 3:20:27 GMT -5
The impersonal ONLY appears in a model. Without a model, there is no impersonal or personal. To speak of impersonal is to engage in a model. So it is characterized and defined by something. You could say that it is characterized and defined by the (paradoxical?) fact that no model can cover impersonal, and I understand what you mean by that, but a) this is still a model and b) if this is true, it is still inclusive of the personal. You wildest distinctions won't touch impersonal. Yep. That's what I just said. This is still a model.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 15, 2013 4:51:59 GMT -5
Yep, i said i will not do this..currently, it's a 'one of' effort.Sincerity doesn't mean not pointing out illusions. Yes, I know you see yourself as doing the same thing, but that's because you lack sincerity. hehe...there you have it Quinn.
Basically E, you defend everything you do here, even if it very much resembles the same petty bickering and sniping you call out others for, as being 'pointing out illusions.'
In doing so, You place yourself in a position that is beyond reproach.
In my books, that's the epitome of a lack of 'sincerity.' This is what i theorise, and has anyone else thought of this or something similar? What if enigma has placed himself in a position that renders him totally blind to the things me and others have been expressing we see he either is doing or may be doing.
I've been reading a lot of posts regarding this issue and something stands out to me time and time again, as you have expressed in this post figless, and that is a % of enigma's responses consistantly contain two things. - a general to detailed list of the flaws of the other. - an explanation of why he doesn't have any of the things others say he has or may have.
And i find that rather odd.
I initially rephrased it as enigma is saying, 'My sight is perfectly clear thus my conclusions are the truth of the matter, and it is you who has sight issues so logically your conclusions are incorrect.'
And what struck me about that phrase is the sight part,. Which led to my theory that perhaps enigma is totally blind and cannot see the things others see he is doing. And it's not as it seems, that enigma is defending a position, denying things, unwilling to admit he is doing things people say he is, avoiding responsibility for his part in the interaction drama. That he is not doing any of these things because he literally cannot see these things of himself that others see in order that he could deny, defend and/or avoid them.
That he looks out from his position and sees a bunch of people claiming many things about him he knows he's not doing. And he knows he's not doing these things because he can't see them. He even describes the process here...Andrew, the moment you stop being interested in finding something wrong, you won't find anything. And my money is on his theoretical blindness is related to his relationship to the nonduality belief system.
That somehow believing you don't exist means you can still behave like any other human, that you look and behave just like any other person in the street, but as soon as a finger is pointed at him, he instantly disappears into non existance land. And that looks like some form of detachment from reality process to me.
That the laws of reality that everyone else are ok with, do not apply to enigma. He can point a finger at another and state his conclusion is fact...
The fact that Silver is blackmailing is a separate issue from whatever is said to her with whatever style. But when another points a finger at him, he responds with stuff like...The whole thing is solidly grounded on speculation and assumption. The bottom line is, my theory is enigma behaves as we have described it, but to him he actually is not behaving that way because he can only see he isn't.
Andrew, the moment you stop being interested in finding something wrong, you won't find anything. The process is, 'if you don't look thus can't see it, it doesn't exist'..and that looks like basic denial to me.
ATTENTION" THIS IS A THEORY
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 15, 2013 11:29:39 GMT -5
It surely gives us a clue. I agree, not necessarily a fully accurate means of deciphering clarity.....and to be honest, not sure why we'd actually ever need to be absolutely certain about how clear or unclear another is, but that said, sometimes the question arises. But, If it is true that; "Anger is largely a result of mis-perceived situations" Then it's really not such a stretch to equate someone who is regularly demonstrating actions normally considered congruent with feeling angry, to at the very least, be experiencing a lapse in clarity during those times. it could certainly be applied to self. If I'm constantly feeling angry, I can bet there's something that I would do well to look at. How is it you can be so sure that one who professes to be clear and demonstrates the absence of anger is necessarily 'playing a game of self deception' and 'molding the perfect self image'? Could this be because you still continue to regularly experience anger, and yet consider yourself to be conscious? Imo, this amounts to you talkn' out of both sides of your mouth; on one hand, you acknowledge that anger arises due to a lack of clarity, but on the other, don't want to acknowledge that someone who sees clearly (is conscious) will likely be relatively free of anger. Who said there is 'an ideal'? You're doing it again. Assuming that when I say, "clarity results in less anger" it is the same as saying: The Goal should be to eradicate anger. I am not. The goal is to see as clearly as possible and the result of that, Is less anger. And yes, that extrapolates into an ability to observe someone who very much appears through his way of being to be rarely angry, or fearful or sorrowful to deduce, he is likely conscious. I think you do 'the seeker' an injustice when make such sweeping presuppositions. The observation of Living, walking, talking examples who demonstrate how 'way of being' shifts when clarity reigns, cannot be underestimated. We start out wanting to have a different kind of experience and end up loving and embracing the experience we are having. It's gotta start somewhere and that 'starting point' imo, should not be negated or ridiculed. The impetus that begins the search is something to be embraced not derided. I can't imagine anyone in your offline life has much of any patience for these word games. Funny eh? What you see as 'word games' I see as a forum conversation with someone who has a different viewpoint. No game.....just an attempt to share, compare and discuss...and ultimately, to understand. I find your position a rather curious one and try as I might to engage you about it, you usually just shut me down with a comment similar to the one above. I have no idea why you've brought my 'offline life' into it...other than to try to insult?. At the root of my interest in conversing with you Chris, is really an attempt to understand where you come from and why. You seem to contradict yourself and I'm simply trying to see if you actually are or if it's just my perception. It's genuine curiosity at the root of my interest in conversing with you, not some twisted need to prove you wrong.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 15, 2013 11:45:19 GMT -5
Yep, i said i will not do this..currently, it's a 'one of' effort.hehe...there you have it Quinn.
Basically E, you defend everything you do here, even if it very much resembles the same petty bickering and sniping you call out others for, as being 'pointing out illusions.'
In doing so, You place yourself in a position that is beyond reproach.
In my books, that's the epitome of a lack of 'sincerity.' This is what i theorise, and has anyone else thought of this or something similar? What if enigma has placed himself in a position that renders him totally blind to the things me and others have been expressing we see he either is doing or may be doing.
I've been reading a lot of posts regarding this issue and something stands out to me time and time again, as you have expressed in this post figless, and that is a % of enigma's responses consistantly contain two things. - a general to detailed list of the flaws of the other. - an explanation of why he doesn't have any of the things others say he has or may have.
And i find that rather odd.
I initially rephrased it as enigma is saying, 'My sight is perfectly clear thus my conclusions are the truth of the matter, and it is you who has sight issues so logically your conclusions are incorrect.'
And what struck me about that phrase is the sight part,. Which led to my theory that perhaps enigma is totally blind and cannot see the things others see he is doing. And it's not as it seems, that enigma is defending a position, denying things, unwilling to admit he is doing things people say he is, avoiding responsibility for his part in the interaction drama. That he is not doing any of these things because he literally cannot see these things of himself that others see in order that he could deny, defend and/or avoid them.
That he looks out from his position and sees a bunch of people claiming many things about him he knows he's not doing. And he knows he's not doing these things because he can't see them. He even describes the process here...And my money is on his theoretical blindness is related to his relationship to the nonduality belief system.
That somehow believing you don't exist means you can still behave like any other human, that you look and behave just like any other person in the street, but as soon as a finger is pointed at him, he instantly disappears into non existance land. And that looks like some form of detachment from reality process to me.
That the laws of reality that everyone else are ok with, do not apply to enigma. He can point a finger at another and state his conclusion is fact... But when another points a finger at him, he responds with stuff like...The bottom line is, my theory is enigma behaves as we have described it, but to him he actually is not behaving that way because he can only see he isn't.
Andrew, the moment you stop being interested in finding something wrong, you won't find anything. The process is, 'if you don't look thus can't see it, it doesn't exist'..and that looks like basic denial to me.
ATTENTION" THIS IS A THEORY Methinks you're onto somethin' here MG. There are so many instances where I've been rather shocked at E's responses (hehe...and then I"m shocked once again, that I'm actually shocked again) and I think that is because I generally sense and regard his nature to be sincere and integral. It often seems so obvious that he is denying something that's there, But then it's hard for me to marry that with what I sense about his inherent interest in actually being honest, above-board and integral. Therefore, yes, I also suspect that he truly is 'blind' to what others here are seeing in him, and thus, he is not intentionally lying or manipulating or denying. There quite literally is no actual awareness of any of it. And again, I agree that this "blindness" to all that emanates from his 'person' is well supported (even created) by his staunch non-dual alignment.
|
|
|
Post by Reefs on Feb 15, 2013 12:18:10 GMT -5
Methinks you're onto somethin' here MG.
There are so many instances where I've been rather shocked at E's Figgy/Figless' responses (hehe...and then I"m shocked once again, that I'm actually shocked again) and I think that is because I generally sense and regard his her nature to be sincere and integral. It often seems so obvious that he she is denying something that's there, But then it's hard for me to marry that with what I sense about his her inherent interest in actually being honest, above-board and integral.
Therefore, yes, I also suspect that he she truly is 'blind' to what others here are seeing in him her, and thus, he she is not intentionally lying or manipulating or denying. There quite literally is no actual awareness of any of it.
And again, I agree that this "blindness" to all that emanates from his her 'person' is well supported (even created) by his her staunch non-dual alignment full-circle non-attached ease, peace, love and joy walkie talkie. Hafta always be open to ALL possibilities, right? Don't wanna get stuck in one single interpretation for months or years, eh?
|
|
|
Post by enigma on Feb 15, 2013 12:38:45 GMT -5
Still not a full response to this post, as i am currently just interested in one specific thing.
And in the style of Dustin Hoffman's Capt.Hook from the movie Hook. when he said, "i hate, i hate, i hate...Peter Pan." I HATE, I HATE, I HATE...THE ST SEARCH FUNCTION.
The easiest way I've found of doing it (if you know the person's name) is: 1) Click on their name to pull up their profile 2) type in 1000 where it asks how many of the most recent posts you want to pull up. 3) click the button to pull up the most recent posts. 4) ctrl-f to do a word search on the page for relevant words. [/size] So, assuming andrew did finally create this giraffe...as in if it was constructed you might have said to andrew, "Nice giraffe you got there."
So my question is topology...where actually is this giraffe? Given that i have read enough posts to understand that a 'giraffe' is the term used to describe the things people see that aren't there. Well Let's start with a giraffe you and I are more familiar with. When I accused you of making a presupposition with your question to Enigma about peacenicks and what not. I thought I saw something, Silver confronted me and said it wasn't there. She had me look again and then I too saw it wasn't there, and that I was misperceiving. So the giraffe was a thought in my mind about what I thought I saw. But it turned out to be a mirage. Andrew think's he sees a pattern between Enigma and myself with respect to Silver. Enigma and I both have wives/significant-others and he wants to propose that we are both projecting our relationships with our wives/SOs onto Silver. I looked at what A was putting forward and I didn't see it. He was cherry picking evidence and situations to try to argue for the legitimacy of the claim. I had no aversion to considering the possibility. There were alternative explanations for what he thought he was seeing. The giraffe lives in the mind of the beholder. The board has been through the "Is perceiving that someone else is seeing a giraffe its own giraffe" discussion a few times. The answer is yes. The whole point of discussing giraffes and pointing them out is to discuss what people see, why they see it, and to look again to see if its really there. When I pounced on you saying "AHA! A Giraffe!", I was looking for something to twist your arm with because you had been posting "speculation" after me several times and I was annoyed. So I was prone to having a mistaken perception, looking for something. And in my eagerness to see one, I took a tree for a giraffe. There's usually some subconscious something or rather that is making one prone to seeing giraffes. [/quote][/quote] I can see how using your own giraffe as an example of how giraffes work is potentially quite powerful. Well done.
|
|
|
Post by Reefs on Feb 15, 2013 12:42:52 GMT -5
I can't imagine anyone in your offline life has much of any patience for these word games. Funny eh? What you see as 'word games' I see as a forum conversation with someone who has a different viewpoint. No game.....just an attempt to share, compare and discuss...and ultimately, to understand. I find your position a rather curious one and try as I might to engage you about it, you usually just shut me down with a comment similar to the one above. I have no idea why you've brought my 'offline life' into it...other than to try to insult?. At the root of my interest in conversing with you Chris, is really an attempt to understand where you come from and why. You seem to contradict yourself and I'm simply trying to see if you actually are or if it's just my perception. It's genuine curiosity at the root of my interest in conversing with you, not some twisted need to prove you wrong. Are you open to the possibility at all that maybe just your ideas about Chris are contradictory? Or even that your idea of your doing could contradict what you are actually doing?
|
|
|
Post by enigma on Feb 15, 2013 12:48:30 GMT -5
Greetings.. Right, my ideas don't agree with yours. It has nothing to do with open, honest, direct, sincere communication. You enjoy conversations where there is some semblance of agreement with you and you deride all others. There are no exceptions.You are attached to the belief that you 'know' everything about everything.. there are always exceptions to everything, change is the universal constant.. Look, you can continue to avoid and evade direct open and honest discussions, you've been doing it for years, but.. do not presume that you 'know' my motivations, not that it matters or that it will influence what you post, it's just information that will be helpful if you are so deluded as to believe what you post.. I enjoy direct, open, and honest discussions, and.. you have spent so much time avoiding and evading this type of openness that you appear to believe it is 'normal'.. i'm really interested in finding out why you believe non-duality is valid in comparison with my own experiences which indicate non-duality, as you describe it, is not valid.. Aye, our ideas differ, and.. when you are requested to engage in open, honest, and direct discussions to explore those differences you evade and avoid, just like the quote.. i am repeatedly requesting, you are repeatedly making-up excuses.. it's just that simple. Be well.. Sorry, I guess I missed all the requesting. Do you consider this post I'm responding to a request also? Open, honest and direct is what all of my posts are. If the post you're responding to is not open, honest and direct, I don't know what is. The problem seems to be you want something else.
|
|
|
Post by enigma on Feb 15, 2013 12:52:09 GMT -5
Right, my ideas don't agree with yours. It has nothing to do with open, honest, direct, sincere communication. You enjoy conversations where there is some semblance of agreement with you and you deride all others. There are no exceptions. Even when one's ideas don't agree with somebody's ideas the communication can be open, honest, direct and sincere. It is mostly like that with plenty of people. But not with you, Enigma. The reason why it's impossible to have an open, direct and sincere communication with you is in the following: you yup-yup conversations where there is agreement with you and you deride all others. There are no exceptions. The post you responded to is open, honest, direct and sincere. So are you saying what I need to do is disagree with those posts I agree with and agree with those I don't? Then it will open, honest, direct and sincere?
|
|