Post by tzujanli on Mar 8, 2013 16:41:56 GMT -5
Greetings..
Excellent.. when people "look and see for themselves", and try to have discussions about what they've seen, or about how they feel about what they've seen, why is it not sufficient to have discussions rather than insisting that what 'you' have seen and what 'you' have concluded is superior to all others'.. then, using that as justification, why do you provoke others? i'm not brandishing sharpened steel, here.. i'm interested in an answer that doesn't appeal to your beliefs for justification..
Be well..
We have discussions here all the time about what is seen or experienced by various members, and most of those discussions are somewhat civil. However, everybody thinks that what they see is superior to what others see, including you, so this whole idea that someone can see all perspectives as equal is just a nice theory. You think that what you say becomes true when it is experienced, so it seems there isn't really the possibility that what you see is not true.
Others get provoked when I talk about what I see. If you want a discussion where we talk about what we see, and you're provoked by that but you don't want to be provoked, that's for you to work out. I don't feel as though I have to justify your sense of being provoked by my perspective.
That is a misrepresentation of my understandings, even the signature line at the bottom of each post i make states my understanding clearly, it begins: "Nothing i say is true because i say it".. as you often do, though, you reference a 'separate part' of the signature line to create an illusion that suits your agenda..
"What you see", and what 'what you think about' what you see, is where we have problems.. the following quote is 'what you think' about what you see..
You choose to intentionally provoke/"piss peeps off", then try to make it 'their' responsibility.. and, when you feel offended/provoked it's still 'their' responsibility.. it's always the other person's fault in your beliefs, further illustrating your awareness of the actual volitional separate persons.. non of this would be an issue if you were just looking, seeing, and having open, honest, and respectful discussions..
Be well..
Greetings....
Excellent.. when people "look and see for themselves", and try to have discussions about what they've seen, or about how they feel about what they've seen, why is it not sufficient to have discussions rather than insisting that what 'you' have seen and what 'you' have concluded is superior to all others'.. then, using that as justification, why do you provoke others? i'm not brandishing sharpened steel, here.. i'm interested in an answer that doesn't appeal to your beliefs for justification..
Be well..
We have discussions here all the time about what is seen or experienced by various members, and most of those discussions are somewhat civil. However, everybody thinks that what they see is superior to what others see, including you, so this whole idea that someone can see all perspectives as equal is just a nice theory. You think that what you say becomes true when it is experienced, so it seems there isn't really the possibility that what you see is not true.
Others get provoked when I talk about what I see. If you want a discussion where we talk about what we see, and you're provoked by that but you don't want to be provoked, that's for you to work out. I don't feel as though I have to justify your sense of being provoked by my perspective.
That is a misrepresentation of my understandings, even the signature line at the bottom of each post i make states my understanding clearly, it begins: "Nothing i say is true because i say it".. as you often do, though, you reference a 'separate part' of the signature line to create an illusion that suits your agenda..
"What you see", and what 'what you think about' what you see, is where we have problems.. the following quote is 'what you think' about what you see..
I'm not looking for understanding as to why peeps get pissed off. I understand the dynamics involved. I understand the part I play in it. I understand what I would need to do to make them like me as much as they like ZD. I've always understood these things. When it's assumed that there is a goal to avoid pissing peeps off, or even to be effective in some predictable way, then there can be some confusion as to why I don't do something differently.
Also, I wouldn't say that I'm here to ease suffering. I offered some logic to those who demanded logic. I don't really have a reason for being here.
Read more: spiritualteachers.proboards.com/index.cgi?board=misc&action=display&thread=2669&page=6#ixzz2MzCsNMzn
Also, I wouldn't say that I'm here to ease suffering. I offered some logic to those who demanded logic. I don't really have a reason for being here.
Read more: spiritualteachers.proboards.com/index.cgi?board=misc&action=display&thread=2669&page=6#ixzz2MzCsNMzn
You choose to intentionally provoke/"piss peeps off", then try to make it 'their' responsibility.. and, when you feel offended/provoked it's still 'their' responsibility.. it's always the other person's fault in your beliefs, further illustrating your awareness of the actual volitional separate persons.. non of this would be an issue if you were just looking, seeing, and having open, honest, and respectful discussions..
Be well..