|
|
Post by enigma on Feb 10, 2013 22:11:16 GMT -5
He's always pointing at the wholeness we always have been. Understanding our relationship with so called 'objects' arising in awareness is relatively easy within the framework of wholeness. Wholeness/oneness is always the case. There are no separate objects 'out there', and no 'out there'. Constipation, or occasional irregularity? ........What? |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 11, 2013 12:29:11 GMT -5
He's always pointing at the wholeness we always have been. Understanding our relationship with so called 'objects' arising in awareness is relatively easy within the framework of wholeness. Wholeness/oneness is always the case. There are no separate objects 'out there', and no 'out there'. Constipation, or occasional irregularity? ........What? It's like you have a gigantic tree branch stuck up your butt. All wrapped up in your x's and o's, and the perfection with which they are placed. Presence isn't like that at all. |
|
|
|
Post by Peter on Feb 12, 2013 5:28:19 GMT -5
It's like you have a gigantic tree branch stuck up your butt. All wrapped up in your x's and o's, and the perfection with which they are placed. Presence isn't like that at all. "You have a gigantic tree branch stuck up your butt" Ok, so I guess you're not quoting Deepak Chopra this time. You're out of line Heterodox. Am I clear? Or has Engima particularly provoked you at this time? Please let me know if there any mitigating circumstances that I might have missed. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 12, 2013 6:14:54 GMT -5
It's like you have a gigantic tree branch stuck up your butt. All wrapped up in your x's and o's, and the perfection with which they are placed. Presence isn't like that at all. "You have a gigantic tree branch stuck up your butt" Ok, so I guess you're not quoting Deepak Chopra this time. You're out of line Heterodox. Am I clear? Or has Engima particularly provoked you at this time? Please let me know if there any mitigating circumstances that I might have missed. You took my observation out of context, Peter. I said "It's like." Which from my perspective is similar to, "It's as though." I then went on to describe his method, which has nothing to do with Presence. If I'm quoting Deepak, it's because I feel he's one of the best non dual teachers on the planet. He doesn't describe the world as being illusory, either. I felt, and still do, that enigma and silence were both way out of line with their exchange regarding, arisha. There wasn't a 'peep' out of you about the post. Also, how does his (and a few others) labeling of arisha as hateful escape your 'value judgement?' I'm using your criteria posting that, and I'm still wondering why they didn't get a warning. (Oh dear....I just noticed arisha got another warning). I'm also not clear about reefs belligerent style of posting, and how it escapes the criteria you're applying, here. These inconsistencies of yours are creating a double-standard on the board. So, to answer your question- No, you are not clear. |
|
|
|
Post by Peter on Feb 12, 2013 7:39:37 GMT -5
You took my observation out of context, Peter. I said "It's like." Which from my perspective is similar to, "It's as though." I then went on to describe his method, which has nothing to do with Presence. I find your comments to be base and unacceptable. Putting "It's like" or "One might think" or "It reminds me of" in front of an insult doesn't make it any less insulting. I felt, and still do, that enigma and silence were both way out of line with their exchange regarding, arisha. There wasn't a 'peep' out of you about the post. Also, how does his (and a few others) labeling of arisha as hateful escape your 'value judgement?' I'm using your criteria posting that, and I'm still wondering why they didn't get a warning. (Oh dear....I just noticed arisha got another warning). I'm also not clear about reefs belligerent style of posting, and how it escapes the criteria you're applying, here.
If you have a problem with another member's posts then feel free to report them. You did nothing at the time to bring your concerns to my attention so I have to conclude that this is mere rhetoric on your part brought on because you're taking flak and you're pointing the finger elsewhere. Show me a post of Engima's where he's as rude and scatalogical as you've been. I wasn't happy about Enigma using the "hateful" label with Arisha, but since Arisha had just given him both barrels I let that particular one pass as a no-score draw. Jeez, she's calling them Reptiles?! Enigma gets his share of criticism, it's not like I'm on "his side". In fact, before today he was the most recent person to "receive feedback" for how he was speaking to Figless. As for Reefs, no I don't like his posting style either but he manages to stay just inside the line by not actually calling anyone names the way you do. If you think he crosses that line at any point, feel free to flag that up. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 12, 2013 8:08:24 GMT -5
You took my observation out of context, Peter. I said "It's like." Which from my perspective is similar to, "It's as though." I then went on to describe his method, which has nothing to do with Presence. I find your comments to be base and unacceptable. Putting "It's like" or "One might think" or "It reminds me of" in front of an insult doesn't make it any less insulting. I felt, and still do, that enigma and silence were both way out of line with their exchange regarding, arisha. There wasn't a 'peep' out of you about the post. Also, how does his (and a few others) labeling of arisha as hateful escape your 'value judgement?' I'm using your criteria posting that, and I'm still wondering why they didn't get a warning. (Oh dear....I just noticed arisha got another warning). I'm also not clear about reefs belligerent style of posting, and how it escapes the criteria you're applying, here.
If you have a problem with another member's posts then feel free to report them. You did nothing at the time to bring your concerns to my attention so I have to conclude that this is mere rhetoric on your part brought on because you're taking flak and you're pointing the finger elsewhere. Show me a post of Engima's where he's as rude and scatalogical as you've been. I wasn't happy about Enigma using the "hateful" label with Arisha, but since Arisha had just given him both barrels I let that particular one pass as a no-score draw. Jeez, she's calling them Reptiles?! Enigma gets his share of criticism, it's not like I'm on "his side". In fact, before today he was the most recent person to "receive feedback" for how he was speaking to Figless. As for Reefs, no I don't like his posting style either but he manages to stay just inside the line by not actually calling anyone names the way you do. If you think he crosses that line at any point, feel free to flag that up. I used the descriptor 'jackass' once, and I pointed at a pattern of posting when I used it. In fact, it was preceded by "what a...", not "you're a....", after giving a short description of the pattern within the posts. Is it possible that arisha used the word 'reptile' as a result of reefs and enigma applying the label "snake" to figgy? I'm not big on reporting posts. I'm an adult, unlike enigma who resorts to the practice- and then goes 'forward' describing posters as snakes, or deluded, haters, insane, or whatever label happens to curry favor with his need in his many gifted 'moments of grace.' You're not being honest in this conversation. You're looking the other way at the same behaviors employed by a few long time posters, and indicting me. That's my definition of base. |
|
|
|
Post by Peter on Feb 12, 2013 8:35:15 GMT -5
I used the descriptor 'jackass' once, and I pointed at a pattern of posting when I used it. In fact, it was preceded by "what a...", not "you're a....", after giving a short description of the pattern within the posts. This is exactly the point I'm making. I see no difference in the level of insult between "What a..." and "You're a...". I don't need you to agree with that, or even acknowledge what I'm saying. I just don't want to hear that you're surprised to find yourself banned. If you don't think I'm being clear, do tell me what part of this I need to expand on. Is it possible that arisha used the word 'reptile' as a result of reefs and enigma applying the label "snake" to figgy? It's possible. Either way, both Enigma and Arisha got a warning. Seems like fair and balanced moderation to me ;D If Reefs has called Figgy a snake then I missed that. Beingist was the guilty party last time it came up. He took a banning for that one, you'll recall. I'm not big on reporting posts. Do as you wish of course. However I do not have time to read every post here (I think I maybe catch about 30% of them?) so unless someone tells me there's a problem then it's entirely possible that I'll miss it. Or I catch it late and it's already descended into such a bun-fight that there's no innocent party left, and I can't ban everyone. |
|
|
|
Post by silence on Feb 12, 2013 10:01:05 GMT -5
I felt, and still do, that enigma and silence were both way out of line with their exchange regarding, arisha. There wasn't a 'peep' out of you about the post. Also, how does his (and a few others) labeling of arisha as hateful escape your 'value judgement?' I'm using your criteria posting that, and I'm still wondering why they didn't get a warning. (Oh dear....I just noticed arisha got another warning). I'm also not clear about reefs belligerent style of posting, and how it escapes the criteria you're applying, here. These inconsistencies of yours are creating a double-standard on the board. So, to answer your question- No, you are not clear. Your concern about arisha ends when arisha becomes no longer useful as an object you can use to further your agenda of discrediting. Which is to say, there is no actual concern. Only superficial partnering of egos to further a common goal. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 12, 2013 10:17:47 GMT -5
Your concern about arisha ends when arisha becomes no longer useful as an object you can use to further your agenda of discrediting. Which is to say, there is no actual concern. Only superficial partnering of egos to further a common goal. Right.  |
|
|
|
Post by enigma on Feb 12, 2013 12:47:15 GMT -5
I find your comments to be base and unacceptable. Putting "It's like" or "One might think" or "It reminds me of" in front of an insult doesn't make it any less insulting. If you have a problem with another member's posts then feel free to report them. You did nothing at the time to bring your concerns to my attention so I have to conclude that this is mere rhetoric on your part brought on because you're taking flak and you're pointing the finger elsewhere. Show me a post of Engima's where he's as rude and scatalogical as you've been. I wasn't happy about Enigma using the "hateful" label with Arisha, but since Arisha had just given him both barrels I let that particular one pass as a no-score draw. Jeez, she's calling them Reptiles?! Enigma gets his share of criticism, it's not like I'm on "his side". In fact, before today he was the most recent person to "receive feedback" for how he was speaking to Figless. As for Reefs, no I don't like his posting style either but he manages to stay just inside the line by not actually calling anyone names the way you do. If you think he crosses that line at any point, feel free to flag that up. I used the descriptor 'jackass' once, and I pointed at a pattern of posting when I used it. In fact, it was preceded by "what a...", not "you're a....", after giving a short description of the pattern within the posts. Is it possible that arisha used the word 'reptile' as a result of reefs and enigma applying the label "snake" to figgy? I'm not big on reporting posts. I'm an adult, unlike enigma who resorts to the practice- and then goes 'forward' describing posters as snakes, or deluded, haters, insane, or whatever label happens to curry favor with his need in his many gifted 'moments of grace.' You're not being honest in this conversation. You're looking the other way at the same behaviors employed by a few long time posters, and indicting me. That's my definition of base. As I see it, adjectives used to describe what seems to be going on, like hatefulness and insanity, have the socially redeeming value that they can be explored and discussed. While I understand what the difficulty is with them, they are not intended as insults. Terms like jackass and 'huge tree up your butt' are not invitations to discussion or descriptors of what you observe from a detached perspective. They're rhetorical insults only. I realize nearly all of your comments are rhetorical insults, but it's only obvious when you use such useless terms that close discussion. I agree that my use of the term 'snake' falls in a similar category, and I'll take my lumps for that, although it's become something of a joke and was meant humorously. |
|
|
|
Post by tzujanli on Feb 12, 2013 13:19:49 GMT -5
Greetings.. I used the descriptor 'jackass' once, and I pointed at a pattern of posting when I used it. In fact, it was preceded by "what a...", not "you're a....", after giving a short description of the pattern within the posts. Is it possible that arisha used the word 'reptile' as a result of reefs and enigma applying the label "snake" to figgy? I'm not big on reporting posts. I'm an adult, unlike enigma who resorts to the practice- and then goes 'forward' describing posters as snakes, or deluded, haters, insane, or whatever label happens to curry favor with his need in his many gifted 'moments of grace.' You're not being honest in this conversation. You're looking the other way at the same behaviors employed by a few long time posters, and indicting me. That's my definition of base. As I see it, adjectives used to describe what seems to be going on, like hatefulness and insanity, have the socially redeeming value that they can be explored and discussed. While I understand what the difficulty is with them, they are not intended as insults. Terms like jackass and 'huge tree up your butt' are not invitations to discussion or descriptors of what you observe from a detached perspective. They're rhetorical insults only. I realize nearly all of your comments are rhetorical insults, but it's only obvious when you use such useless terms that close discussion. I agree that my use of the term 'snake' falls in a similar category, and I'll take my lumps for that, although it's become something of a joke and was meant humorously. If you are willing to see clearly, any term can be explored for its 'perceived' value, as intended or as received, but the collateral damage often defeats the perceived intent.. the issue i see, is that you, Enigma, will only discuss on your terms and using your assumptions as 'true'.. i see no interest in equality or desire to look at your own beliefs, i see only an interest in advancing your personal agenda, and justifying your own methods of abusive communication.. this seems to be the fundamental source of conflict where you are concerned.. Be well.. |
|
|
|
Post by Beingist on Feb 12, 2013 13:22:59 GMT -5
Greetings.. As I see it, adjectives used to describe what seems to be going on, like hatefulness and insanity, have the socially redeeming value that they can be explored and discussed. While I understand what the difficulty is with them, they are not intended as insults. Terms like jackass and 'huge tree up your butt' are not invitations to discussion or descriptors of what you observe from a detached perspective. They're rhetorical insults only. I realize nearly all of your comments are rhetorical insults, but it's only obvious when you use such useless terms that close discussion. I agree that my use of the term 'snake' falls in a similar category, and I'll take my lumps for that, although it's become something of a joke and was meant humorously. If you are willing to see clearly, any term can be explored for its 'perceived' value, as intended or as received, but the collateral damage often defeats the perceived intent.. the issue i see, is that you, Enigma, will only discuss on your terms and using your assumptions as 'true'.. i see no interest in equality or desire to look at your own beliefs, i see only an interest in advancing your personal agenda, and justifying your own methods of abusive communication.. this seems to be the fundamental source of conflict where you are concerned.. Be well.. Seems more like you're the one with the agenda, which is, apparently, to take down enigma (and confront perhaps, a few others, along the way). |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 12, 2013 13:29:53 GMT -5
As I see it, adjectives used to describe what seems to be going on, like hatefulness and insanity, have the socially redeeming value that they can be explored and discussed. While I understand what the difficulty is with them, they are not intended as insults. Terms like jackass and 'huge tree up your butt' are not invitations to discussion or descriptors of what you observe from a detached perspective. They're rhetorical insults only. I realize nearly all of your comments are rhetorical insults, but it's only obvious when you use such useless terms that close discussion. I agree that my use of the term 'snake' falls in a similar category, and I'll take my lumps for that, although it's become something of a joke and was meant humorously. I disagree that you're aware of the difficulty within them. You made that clear on the Realizing Happiness thread with your unwillingness to budge. This appears to be nothing more than yet another in a long line of dodgy, less than straightforward posts about cause and effect- and my intuition tells me that you're justifying the fact that you more than likely reported the post being addressed by, Peter, who only has time to read thirty percent or less of the posts on the board. It never ceases to amaze me how you've gone about the business of shaping the flow on the board based on what your enlightened ego deems necessary, and when it blows up in your face, you report posts. or go about the business of trashing another who disagrees with you in the name of "grace". As St. Bonaventure once wrote; An example from the monkey: The higher it climbs, the more you see of its behind. Call it a rhetorical insult if you wish; I see it more as- your truth. |
|
|
|
Post by tzujanli on Feb 12, 2013 13:33:09 GMT -5
Greetings.. Greetings.. If you are willing to see clearly, any term can be explored for its 'perceived' value, as intended or as received, but the collateral damage often defeats the perceived intent.. the issue i see, is that you, Enigma, will only discuss on your terms and using your assumptions as 'true'.. i see no interest in equality or desire to look at your own beliefs, i see only an interest in advancing your personal agenda, and justifying your own methods of abusive communication.. this seems to be the fundamental source of conflict where you are concerned.. Be well.. Seems more like you're the one with the agenda, which is, apparently, to take down enigma (and confront perhaps, a few others, along the way). I'm hoping to find open and honest discussion, without the drama, mockery, and judgment that some people believe is appropriate.. i'm hoping to find people willing to share what they see/experience when they 'see clearly', 'new eyes'.. but, when people interject their intellectual agendas, like non-duality or no 'persons', the intentions to see clearly get distracted and distorted.. so, there is 'my' agenda, clarity, at any cost.. Be well.. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 12, 2013 13:34:38 GMT -5
It's possible. Either way, both Enigma and Arisha got a warning. Seems like fair and balanced moderation to me ;D peter I saw the warnings for arisha and I, but I have looked high and low on the board and not found enigma's. I'll look again when I have time. |
|
