|
|
Post by Reefs on Feb 25, 2013 0:21:33 GMT -5
Interesting that you say that. When does "taking a position" become "being attached to a position"? What are the indicators? The question you ask is a fair one, but Ive already answered it at least once recently. Im going out right now, but if the movement is there later, I'll write another paragraph in answer. Sounds like a massive cop out. Releasing attachment is such a central part of your philosophy. You should be able answering that right away. But it seems you're not clear about it yourself. |
|
|
|
Post by andrew on Feb 25, 2013 3:16:51 GMT -5
The question you ask is a fair one, but Ive already answered it at least once recently. Im going out right now, but if the movement is there later, I'll write another paragraph in answer. Sounds like a massive cop out. Releasing attachment is such a central part of your philosophy. You should be able answering that right away. But it seems you're not clear about it yourself. I think your tendency is to ask me questions just so as to find problems in the answers, and I am happy to keep you entertained in that way sometimes, but this is something I have answered recently, and it doesn't seem worth it. If you want something to do, you could do explore the way you have given absolute primacy to a mental position. |
|
|
|
Post by Reefs on Feb 25, 2013 3:37:55 GMT -5
Sounds like a massive cop out. Releasing attachment is such a central part of your philosophy. You should be able answering that right away. But it seems you're not clear about it yourself. I think your tendency is to ask me questions just so as to find problems in the answers, and I am happy to keep you entertained in that way sometimes, but this is something I have answered recently, and it doesn't seem worth it. If you want something to do, you could do explore the way you have given absolute primacy to a mental position. Now it looks even more like a massive cop out. Can you tell me the difference between taking a mental position and attachment or not? |
|
|
|
Post by andrew on Feb 25, 2013 3:41:11 GMT -5
I think your tendency is to ask me questions just so as to find problems in the answers, and I am happy to keep you entertained in that way sometimes, but this is something I have answered recently, and it doesn't seem worth it. If you want something to do, you could do explore the way you have given absolute primacy to a mental position. Now it looks even more like a massive cop out. Can you tell me the difference between taking a mental position and attachment or not? I can do, yes. In fact, I already did do. |
|
|
|
Post by Reefs on Feb 25, 2013 3:45:37 GMT -5
Now it looks even more like a massive cop out. Can you tell me the difference between taking a mental position and attachment or not? I can do, yes. In fact, I already did do. Any intention to end this massive cop out? Link maybe? |
|
|
|
Post by andrew on Feb 25, 2013 4:02:54 GMT -5
I can do, yes. In fact, I already did do. Any intention to end this massive cop out? Link maybe? Im not traipsing back through all my messages. Tell me why you want an answer, and then maybe I will think about it. |
|
|
|
Post by Reefs on Feb 25, 2013 4:24:41 GMT -5
Any intention to end this massive cop out? Link maybe? Im not traipsing back through all my messages. Tell me why you want an answer, and then maybe I will think about it. Well, I have bad news for you Andrew. You lied. I took a look into your last 1,000 posts which goes back to Jan 21, 2013 and although you talk a lot about positions and attachment, you never told us the difference between 'taking a position' and 'attachment to a position'. Please prove me wrong! Why I want to know that? Because it's a central part of your philosophy. You also tend to call everyone who doesn't agree with your philosophy 'attached to a position', but when others point at your own attachment, it's just 'taking a position'. So, I'd say it's crucial to know how to tell the two apart. But you obviously haven't thought about it. You just seem to use it as some kind of trick to not get caught in your own contradictions and to stigmatize others who point out your own attachments. So, would you "maybe" be so kind and illuminate us about this crucial part of your philosophy? When does taking a position become 'attachment to a position'? What are the indicators? Or do you want to continue your cop out?  |
|
|
|
Post by andrew on Feb 25, 2013 4:30:36 GMT -5
Im not traipsing back through all my messages. Tell me why you want an answer, and then maybe I will think about it. Well, I have bad news for you Andrew. You lied. I took a look into your last 1,000 posts which goes back to Jan 21, 2013 and although you talk a lot about positions and attachment, you never told us the difference between 'taking a position' and 'attachment to a position'. Please prove me wrong! Why I want to know that? Because it's a central part of your philosophy. You also tend to call everyone who doesn't agree with your philosophy 'attached to a position', but when others point at your own attachment, it's just 'taking a position'. So, I'd say it's a crucial to know how to tell the two apart. But you obviously haven't thought about it. You just seem to use it as some kind of trick to not get caught in your own contradictions and to stigmatize others who point out your own attachments. So, would you "maybe" be so kind and illuminate us about this crucial part of your philosophy? When does taking a position become attachment? What are the indicators? Or do you want to continue your cop out? Reefsy, I know I have answered the question, ''what are the indicators'' (or something very similar to that). You asked the question, I replied to you, you replied back, and I remember Beingist also responded to the answer. I am still not clear as to why YOU want to know right now. Please be clear as to what your interest is. |
|
|
|
Post by Reefs on Feb 25, 2013 4:38:32 GMT -5
Well, I have bad news for you Andrew. You lied. I took a look into your last 1,000 posts which goes back to Jan 21, 2013 and although you talk a lot about positions and attachment, you never told us the difference between 'taking a position' and 'attachment to a position'. Please prove me wrong! Why I want to know that? Because it's a central part of your philosophy. You also tend to call everyone who doesn't agree with your philosophy 'attached to a position', but when others point at your own attachment, it's just 'taking a position'. So, I'd say it's a crucial to know how to tell the two apart. But you obviously haven't thought about it. You just seem to use it as some kind of trick to not get caught in your own contradictions and to stigmatize others who point out your own attachments. So, would you "maybe" be so kind and illuminate us about this crucial part of your philosophy? When does taking a position become attachment? What are the indicators? Or do you want to continue your cop out? Reefsy, I know I have answered the question, ''what are the indicators'' (or something very similar to that). You asked the question, I replied to you, you replied back, and I remember Beingist also responded to the answer. I am still not clear as to why YOU want to know right now. Please be clear as to what your interest is. So, you don't have a clue. I just find it ironic that you and Figgy rant about Enigma putting himself into a position beyond reproach, but you two are doing exactly that with your 'merely taking positions' self-deception! I hope you notice the rigidness of your current position of avoiding to answer. What a massive cop out! |
|
|
|
Post by arisha on Feb 25, 2013 4:43:43 GMT -5
Read their posts more carefully, and you will find the answers.
If you don't, it is your own massive cop out, complete and final.
|
|
|
|
Post by andrew on Feb 25, 2013 4:46:51 GMT -5
Reefsy, I know I have answered the question, ''what are the indicators'' (or something very similar to that). You asked the question, I replied to you, you replied back, and I remember Beingist also responded to the answer. I am still not clear as to why YOU want to know right now. Please be clear as to what your interest is. So, you don't have a clue. I just find it ironic that you and Figgy rant about Enigma putting himself into a position beyond reproach, but you two are doing exactly that with your 'merely taking positions' self-deception! I hope you notice the rigidness of your current position of avoiding to answer. What a massive cop out! I'm not avoiding your question, I just see no good reason to answer it (again) yet. I see you putting yourself in a position beyond reproach, though when I asked you directly last week about your position, you massively copped out. My position is not beyond reproach because it leaves room for possibility and doubt. Yours does not because you have attached to a mental position. Leaving no space for doubt/possibility is one indicator. |
|
|
|
Post by Reefs on Feb 25, 2013 4:54:47 GMT -5
So, you don't have a clue. I just find it ironic that you and Figgy rant about Enigma putting himself into a position beyond reproach, but you two are doing exactly that with your 'merely taking positions' self-deception! I hope you notice the rigidness of your current position of avoiding to answer. What a massive cop out! I'm not avoiding your question, I just see no good reason to answer it (again) yet. I see you putting yourself in a position beyond reproach, though when I asked you directly last week about your position, you massively copped out. My position is not beyond reproach because it leaves room for possibility and doubt. Yours does not because you have attached to a mental position. Leaving no space for doubt/possibility is one indicator. What is the difference between merely 'taking a position' and 'being attached to a position'? So far you didn't answer that. And now you try to divert attention. That's avoiding. You are struggling very hard again to save face. So, the massive cop out continues. |
|
|
|
Post by andrew on Feb 25, 2013 4:59:47 GMT -5
I'm not avoiding your question, I just see no good reason to answer it (again) yet. I see you putting yourself in a position beyond reproach, though when I asked you directly last week about your position, you massively copped out. My position is not beyond reproach because it leaves room for possibility and doubt. Yours does not because you have attached to a mental position. Leaving no space for doubt/possibility is one indicator. What is the difference between merely 'taking a position' and 'being attached to a position'? So far you didn't answer that. And now you try to divert attention. That's avoiding. You are struggling very hard again to save face. So, the massive cop out continues. I can answer that in one line. The difference is whether a belief is being attached to as true (or false), or not. What you have demonstrated in the last page is another indicator to me that you have attached to a mental position, and your use of the words 'cop out' has reminded me of how you massively copped out last week. |
|
|
|
Post by Reefs on Feb 25, 2013 5:03:02 GMT -5
What is the difference between merely 'taking a position' and 'being attached to a position'? So far you didn't answer that. And now you try to divert attention. That's avoiding. You are struggling very hard again to save face. So, the massive cop out continues. I can answer that in one line. The difference is whether a belief is being attached to as true (or false), or not. What you have demonstrated in the last page is another indicator to me that you have attached to a mental position, and your use of the words 'cop out' has reminded me of how you massively copped out last week. I'd say if you explain the word 'attached' you shouldn't use the word 'attached' in the explanation. Try again. |
|
|
|
Post by andrew on Feb 25, 2013 5:25:57 GMT -5
I can answer that in one line. The difference is whether a belief is being attached to as true (or false), or not. What you have demonstrated in the last page is another indicator to me that you have attached to a mental position, and your use of the words 'cop out' has reminded me of how you massively copped out last week. I'd say if you explain the word 'attached' you shouldn't use the word 'attached' in the explanation. Try again. Okay, the difference is whether an idea is being given absolute primacy, validity, or weight over another idea (given that at an absolute level, all ideas are equal). And this is associated with whether or not there is a need to separate ourselves out from something (and this could be separating ourselves out from separation itself). And this is associated with whether or not there is a need to defend a self-image. |
|
