|
|
Post by Reefs on Mar 10, 2013 21:31:14 GMT -5
Now there's some fun giraffes. ;D Being objective is far more difficult than most suppose, as evidenced by the radically different ways that folks perceive Enigma here. After all, nobody's being asked to evaluate something that isn't happening right here. All that's necessary is that everybody read the same posts, and assuming everybody is being as objective as they can, then everybody should pretty much come to the same conclusions. An analogy would be a court trial. Everyone is hearing precisely the same evidence, and so ideally all twelve jury members should come to the same conclusion. Obviously, that's not happening here, and so mind tries to reconcile this discrepancy. Nearly everyone recognizes a certain amount of bias in themselves, though most believe they can set that off to the side in the interest of being objective, so mind still has to explain this huge discrepancy. It may do that by withdrawing it's faith in the ability of others to be objective, or sufficiently intelligent, and if this doesn't seem to explain it, it will assume purposeful deception, manipulation of facts, agendas and taking sides. Now mind is satisfied that it understands why others don't see the same thing happening. It's obviously all about alliances and clubs and agendas and twisting and manipulating and deception, and it searches for evidence to confirm this idea, to the exclusion of other evidence, thereby engaging in the same bias it claims others are engaged in. That's not the reason for the discrepancies in the perception of what's happening here. Everybody actually is trying to be objective and never goes off into agendas and deception. There's no prize to be won here for being right. Nobody is devoting hours a day to some conspiracy to trick others cuz that would just be dumb. The discrepancy remains because folks are not able to be nearly as objective as they imagine. That failure is what is being pointed to here. It's called illusion and it is ultimately the source of all human suffering and turns what could be heaven into the hell of fear, judgment and divisiveness. This is a very good example of empty talking. Keep on wasting your time like that. Someone remote controlled like you shouldn't talk big. |
|
|
|
Post by tzujanli on Mar 10, 2013 23:56:48 GMT -5
Greetings.. Greetings.. If only you could abide by your own advice.. Be well.. You can put comments like these in your PM, too. BTW, I'm still waiting for a definition of the word "attachment" from you. Or did I miss that somewhere? You missed it.. but, to be honest, since you embody the meaning of 'attachment', what need is the search? As for 'PMs', no thanks.. i prefer OPEN, honest, direct, and respectful discussions.. i've been the victim of PM sabotage, myself unwilling to break the agreement of 'private message', a banishable offense in that forum, the provocateur made claims defensible only by revealing the actual messages traded in privacy, so.. no, i prefer that my successes or failures be in the light of the forum's membership, that all may find what usefulness might benefit their understanding from discussions sincerely intended to reveal greater awareness of what 'is'.. It's a fairly straightforward proposition, cut the BS and lets dig deep into what it is to exist, with a willingness to find out rather than fertilize existing beliefs with more BS.. or, to reference you quest for meaning, let go of 'attachments', all of them, and look again.. look with fresh new vision, undistorted by beliefs, knowings, and attachments.. there seems to be little willingness for that discussion.. Be well.. |
|
|
|
Post by Reefs on Mar 11, 2013 0:37:35 GMT -5
You missed it.. but, to be honest, since you embody the meaning of 'attachment', what need is the search? Is that your idea of 'respectful'? I asked for a definition several times since about 2 weeks. You didn't come up with a definition. I had a look into your post dumpster. Is that the kind of 'honesty' you are talking about? Looks more like playing games. So, could you be please so kind and provide the link? So 'open' just means 'in the open'? I see. Yes, it sounds fair and straightforward. But your deflector shields seem to always be at maximum output. So let's cut the BS and provide the link to your definition. |
|
|
|
Post by tzujanli on Mar 11, 2013 1:17:03 GMT -5
Greetings.. You missed it.. but, to be honest, since you embody the meaning of 'attachment', what need is the search? Yes, it sounds fair and straightforward. But your deflector shields seem to always be at maximum output. So let's cut the BS and provide the link to your definition. Keep looking.. it's there.. (hint: it was there before you asked the question, and it takes an open mind to recognize the answer).. no, i won't answer this question twice, not for you.. earn it, you'll appreciate it if you do.. It's a fairly straightforward proposition, cut the BS and lets dig deep into what it is to exist, with a willingness to find out rather than fertilize existing beliefs with more BS.. or, to reference you quest for meaning, let go of 'attachments', all of them, and look again.. look with fresh new vision, undistorted by beliefs, knowings, and attachments.. there seems to be little willingness for that discussion.. Forget about "deflector shields" and other tactics.. it's time to paint or get off the ladder, or get pushed off the ladder.. but this mindfest of oneness and non-duality ineffable excuses as to why words can't explain it, that's for snake-oil salesmen.. let's start with the assumption that there's at least something better than that in the way of making a case for why anyone should consider the neo-advaidic Spiritual Sideshow anything other than attachment to the late night ramblings of wannabe gurus.. can we get on with it, or are you still too attached to the illusions that your mind-games mean something to anybody but you? I've proposed an open honest, direct, respectful discussion to Phil, many times.. he makes excuses for whatever reasons he needs to, but.. in the absence of actually making the effort here and now, the excuses are empty.. if people want to defend Phil, that's cool.. i've made my case, the offer stands unanswered.. those that think that's the way to prove how meaningful Phil's beliefs and tactics are, good on ya.. but, in the stillness of your awarenesses, you know those beliefs will not stand in fair light, hence the Spiritual theater of misrepresentation, mockery, provocation, illusion, and evasion.. Teasing-out a direct discussion from the oneness neo-advaitic believers is like dealing with spoiled children, each making excuses for the other.. Be well.. |
|
|
|
Post by Reefs on Mar 11, 2013 6:28:51 GMT -5
Keep looking.. it's there.. (hint: it was there before you asked the question, and it takes an open mind to recognize the answer).. no, i won't answer this question twice, not for you.. earn it, you'll appreciate it if you do.. So you continue to choose being disrespectful and not straightforward/direct plus you want to play games again. Fine. Then we can scratch "direct", "respectful" and "straightforward" off your list of accomplishments. This is what I've found: Lead others to clarity, and clarity will do the rest.. attachment is the antithesis of clarity, attachment even to clarity, but.. clarity is the most direct way past attachment to 'clarity'.. Well, I don't talk oneness and I also didn't ask about Phil. You seem a little confused or a little too hung up with your agenda. |
|
|
|
Post by tzujanli on Mar 11, 2013 8:42:55 GMT -5
Greetings.. Keep looking.. it's there.. (hint: it was there before you asked the question, and it takes an open mind to recognize the answer).. no, i won't answer this question twice, not for you.. earn it, you'll appreciate it if you do.. So you continue to choose being disrespectful and not straightforward/direct plus you want to play games again. Fine. Then we can scratch "direct", "respectful" and "straightforward" off your list of accomplishments. This is what I've found: Well, I don't talk oneness and I also didn't ask about Phil. You seem a little confused or a little too hung up with your agenda. Hi Reefs: Respectful?? that's rich, coming from 'you'.. i give what i get, you want respectful, give it.. LOL, no, you haven't found it.. remember "the hammer that can't hit itself"? but, keep looking, your 'attachment' to finding the answer will serve you well.. Be well.. |
|
|
|
Post by Reefs on Mar 11, 2013 8:48:51 GMT -5
Greetings.. So you continue to choose being disrespectful and not straightforward/direct plus you want to play games again. Fine. Then we can scratch "direct", "respectful" and "straightforward" off your list of accomplishments. This is what I've found: Well, I don't talk oneness and I also didn't ask about Phil. You seem a little confused or a little too hung up with your agenda. Hi Reefs: Respectful?? that's rich, coming from 'you'.. i give what i get, you want respectful, give it.. LOL, no, you haven't found it.. remember "the hammer that can't hit itself"? but, keep looking, your 'attachment' to finding the answer will serve you well.. Be well.. Interesting twisting. I'm not going into the post dumpster again. You haven't given a clear definition. And you know it. You can't give a link. You hide behind riddles. Good luck with your cop-out. We now can scratch 'honest' and 'open' off your list of accomplishments too. Thanks for making it that easy to finally clear things up. ;D |
|
|
|
Post by tzujanli on Mar 11, 2013 10:00:17 GMT -5
Greetings.. Greetings.. Hi Reefs: Respectful?? that's rich, coming from 'you'.. i give what i get, you want respectful, give it.. LOL, no, you haven't found it.. remember "the hammer that can't hit itself"? but, keep looking, your 'attachment' to finding the answer will serve you well.. Be well.. Interesting twisting. I'm not going into the post dumpster again. You haven't given a clear definition. And you know it. You can't give a link. You hide behind riddles. Good luck with your cop-out. We now can scratch 'honest' and 'open' off your list of accomplishments too. Thanks for making it that easy to finally clear things up. ;D LOL.. you're a caustic little thing, aren't you.. spend all the time you care to in the "dumpster", it's unlikely that you will recognize the answer, but.. i will give you treat if you find it.. You haven't earned "honest and open".. riddles are all i have for you, if you don't like it, move on.. otherwise, i'll keep pulling your chain until you 'get it', get it? how's that for honest and open? Be well.. |
|
|
|
Post by Reefs on Mar 11, 2013 10:13:53 GMT -5
Greetings.. Interesting twisting. I'm not going into the post dumpster again. You haven't given a clear definition. And you know it. You can't give a link. You hide behind riddles. Good luck with your cop-out. We now can scratch 'honest' and 'open' off your list of accomplishments too. Thanks for making it that easy to finally clear things up. ;D LOL.. you're a caustic little thing, aren't you.. spend all the time you care to in the "dumpster", it's unlikely that you will recognize the answer, but.. i will give you treat if you find it.. You haven't earned "honest and open".. riddles are all i have for you, if you don't like it, move on.. otherwise, i'll keep pulling your chain until you 'get it', get it? how's that for honest and open? Be well.. Well, there isn't one. We both know it. Pull however you like. I'm not reading your posts anyway most of the time. |
|
|
|
Post by tzujanli on Mar 11, 2013 10:23:05 GMT -5
Greetings.. LOL.. you're a caustic little thing, aren't you.. spend all the time you care to in the "dumpster", it's unlikely that you will recognize the answer, but.. i will give you treat if you find it.. You haven't earned "honest and open".. riddles are all i have for you, if you don't like it, move on.. otherwise, i'll keep pulling your chain until you 'get it', get it? how's that for honest and open? Be well.. Well, there isn't one. We both know it. Pull however you like. I'm not reading your posts anyway most of the time. Oh, there definitely IS one.. and, it's clear that you only read enough of anyone's post to find a way to provoke them.. c'mon, let's play.. back in the dumpster, fetch.. Be well.. |
|
|
|
Post by Reefs on Mar 12, 2013 0:26:27 GMT -5
Cool.
|
|
|
|
Post by Beingist on Mar 12, 2013 14:28:47 GMT -5
Well, there isn't one. We both know it. Pull however you like. I'm not reading your posts anyway most of the time. Oh, there definitely IS one.. and, it's clear that you only read enough of anyone's post to find a way to provoke them.. c'mon, let's play.. back in the dumpster, fetch.. Be well.. Throwing gas on the gas man, himself?  |
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Mar 12, 2013 20:47:09 GMT -5
Oh, there definitely IS one.. and, it's clear that you only read enough of anyone's post to find a way to provoke them.. c'mon, let's play.. back in the dumpster, fetch.. Be well.. Throwing gas on the gas man, himself? oh he's just having fun with the challenge to prove a negative, if I were Reefs I'd just file a short, simple and sweet motion to show cause pursuant to the STRCP |
|
|
|
Post by tzujanli on Mar 13, 2013 0:03:06 GMT -5
Greetings.. Throwing gas on the gas man, himself? oh he's just having fun with the challenge to prove a negative, if I were Reefs I'd just file a short, simple and sweet motion to show cause pursuant to the STRCP If people want to play, i can play.. i'm not particularly fond of playing, unless that's stipulated by agreement, so.. when people unilaterally assume it's time to play, i get to choose the rules.. Reefs is a caustic little ( ) that brings chaos and ill-will to the table, so he gets a game suited to his temperament.. When people demonstrate the capacity for sincere discussion, i am eager to oblige.. It's a fairly simple relationship.. Be well.. |
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Mar 13, 2013 3:23:39 GMT -5
Greetings.. oh he's just having fun with the challenge to prove a negative, if I were Reefs I'd just file a short, simple and sweet motion to show cause pursuant to the STRCP If people want to play, i can play.. i'm not particularly fond of playing, unless that's stipulated by agreement, so.. when people unilaterally assume it's time to play, i get to choose the rules.. Reefs is a caustic little ( ) that brings chaos and ill-will to the table, so he gets a game suited to his temperament.. When people demonstrate the capacity for sincere discussion, i am eager to oblige.. It's a fairly simple relationship.. Be well.. You state a wise warrior's creed for sure there Tzu'. Your arsenal is impressive, your tactical skills quite snappy, your mastery of the art of strategy quite advanced ... and I say that only partly by way of bustin' yer chops for a laugh. On the other hand, a lack of sincerity in a discussion is a vicious, recursive endless-loop that we can see projected and splashed all around us in what, applying certain standards of values, we might describe as massive social dysfunction. To be clear, I have of course just flashed a snapshot of a whole head of stampeding giraffes. What I seem to imagine in Reefs is someone who goes out on a limb to "test the perimeter" of another's defenses so to speak, essentially just to see if they're there or not, and I'm sure I'm not illuminating anything for you. His sense of humor will grow on you though ... like digger-the-dermatiphyte ... just ask Silver! There is the potential for you to reply in innocence here, and either state that "no I haven't stated a definition of attachment" or to re-state it or link to it. Everyone in Rome thought Hannibal was a nut-job when they heard the route he had taken ... |
|
