|
Post by laughter on Jul 9, 2013 11:52:11 GMT -5
Now, cut that out! (** shrugging **) "mmmph mpmph mphmph mmmmmphhh!!"
|
|
|
Post by topology on Jul 9, 2013 12:52:13 GMT -5
As top said, you criticized him for putting up pics ... now I will agree that you are a bit more judicious in the LGP thread. That thread is some great content Carol ... and that's where the lack of self-awareness comes in: that thread is incredibly playful ... so do you see how engaging topology ... of all people ... with the characterization of immature is a bit of a self-contradiction? Still, it's the context. The LGP thread is entertainment - just as words can be used to taunt, bait, poke, so can pictures and I'm quite certain that Top has used them in this instance to do just that. Totally different (apples / oranges). I invite you to revisit the first page of this thread to see where the taunting and baiting begins. Q has decided I am a Troll, he started calling me that when I asked him if he considered himself a student of ZD's since he he talks about students of ZD and has tried to practice ATA in order to achieve enlightenment. It was an honest question. I didn't know ZD had students. I also asked about the basis of his claims that ATA was no more successful than random, but he did not address that point and avoided it when Laughter asked about it as well. Go back to the post in this thread where Q made the claim that he could and would ignore trolls, but he hasn't yet. He's put himself in a catch-22. His ego won't let himself be the first to back down from the trap he set up for himself. If he wants to prove he can ignore me like he's claimed, then he has to actually do that, which means not getting the last taunting word in. But we can see that Q can't help himself. He can't actually ignore me because he has to have the last word. All he has to do to get me to stop is follow through with his claimed response to Trolls. I will not respond with a story-board picture if he can actualy do what he claims the proper response to trolls is, which is ignore me, which means not responding to my post of an image. He set this up for himself.
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Jul 9, 2013 13:04:29 GMT -5
Still, it's the context. The LGP thread is entertainment - just as words can be used to taunt, bait, poke, so can pictures and I'm quite certain that Top has used them in this instance to do just that. Totally different (apples / oranges). I invite you to revisit the first page of this thread to see where the taunting and baiting begins. Q has decided I am a Troll, he started calling me that when I asked him if he considered himself a student of ZD's since he he talks about students of ZD and has tried to practice ATA in order to achieve enlightenment. It was an honest question. I didn't know ZD had students. I also asked about the basis of his claims that ATA was no more successful than random, but he did not address that point and avoided it when Laughter asked about it as well. Go back to the post in this thread where Q made the claim that he could and would ignore trolls, but he hasn't yet. He's put himself in a catch-22. His ego won't let himself be the first to back down from the trap he set up for himself. If he wants to prove he can ignore me like he's claimed, then he has to actually do that, which means not getting the last taunting word in. But we can see that Q can't help himself. He can't actually ignore me because he has to have the last word. All he has to do to get me to stop is follow through with his claimed response to Trolls. I will not respond with a story-board picture if he can actualy do what he claims the proper response to trolls is, which is ignore me, which means not responding to my post of an image. He set this up for himself. I'm pretty sure that I got the point of the story board too ...
|
|
|
Post by silver on Jul 9, 2013 13:07:07 GMT -5
Still, it's the context. The LGP thread is entertainment - just as words can be used to taunt, bait, poke, so can pictures and I'm quite certain that Top has used them in this instance to do just that. Totally different (apples / oranges). I invite you to revisit the first page of this thread to see where the taunting and baiting begins. Q has decided I am a Troll, he started calling me that when I asked him if he considered himself a student of ZD's since he he talks about students of ZD and has tried to practice ATA in order to achieve enlightenment. It was an honest question. I didn't know ZD had students. I also asked about the basis of his claims that ATA was no more successful than random, but he did not address that point and avoided it when Laughter asked about it as well. Go back to the post in this thread where Q made the claim that he could and would ignore trolls, but he hasn't yet. He's put himself in a catch-22. His ego won't let himself be the first to back down from the trap he set up for himself. If he wants to prove he can ignore me like he's claimed, then he has to actually do that, which means not getting the last taunting word in. But we can see that Q can't help himself. He can't actually ignore me because he has to have the last word. All he has to do to get me to stop is follow through with his claimed response to Trolls. I will not respond with a story-board picture if he can actualy do what he claims the proper response to trolls is, which is ignore me, which means not responding to my post of an image. He set this up for himself. Okay, Top, I'll listen to your story. So, why do you think he did that? Is there some past history you two have I'm unaware of?
|
|
|
Post by topology on Jul 9, 2013 13:23:49 GMT -5
I invite you to revisit the first page of this thread to see where the taunting and baiting begins. Q has decided I am a Troll, he started calling me that when I asked him if he considered himself a student of ZD's since he he talks about students of ZD and has tried to practice ATA in order to achieve enlightenment. It was an honest question. I didn't know ZD had students. I also asked about the basis of his claims that ATA was no more successful than random, but he did not address that point and avoided it when Laughter asked about it as well. Go back to the post in this thread where Q made the claim that he could and would ignore trolls, but he hasn't yet. He's put himself in a catch-22. His ego won't let himself be the first to back down from the trap he set up for himself. If he wants to prove he can ignore me like he's claimed, then he has to actually do that, which means not getting the last taunting word in. But we can see that Q can't help himself. He can't actually ignore me because he has to have the last word. All he has to do to get me to stop is follow through with his claimed response to Trolls. I will not respond with a story-board picture if he can actualy do what he claims the proper response to trolls is, which is ignore me, which means not responding to my post of an image. He set this up for himself. Okay, Top, I'll listen to your story. So, why do you think he did that? Is there some past history you two have I'm unaware of? Why do I think he did what? I don't know what you're aware of and what you're unaware of.
|
|
|
Post by silver on Jul 9, 2013 13:29:15 GMT -5
Okay, Top, I'll listen to your story. So, why do you think he did that? Is there some past history you two have I'm unaware of? Why do I think he did what? I don't know what you're aware of and what you're unaware of. Oh sorry, I was just talking like the normal people I know... I meant why did he respond negatively (call you a troll etc.)? Yeah, I know - what I'm unaware of could fill a warehouse! I meant some previous friction between you.
|
|
|
Post by topology on Jul 9, 2013 13:34:06 GMT -5
I invite you to revisit the first page of this thread to see where the taunting and baiting begins. Q has decided I am a Troll, he started calling me that when I asked him if he considered himself a student of ZD's since he he talks about students of ZD and has tried to practice ATA in order to achieve enlightenment. It was an honest question. I didn't know ZD had students. I also asked about the basis of his claims that ATA was no more successful than random, but he did not address that point and avoided it when Laughter asked about it as well. Go back to the post in this thread where Q made the claim that he could and would ignore trolls, but he hasn't yet. He's put himself in a catch-22. His ego won't let himself be the first to back down from the trap he set up for himself. If he wants to prove he can ignore me like he's claimed, then he has to actually do that, which means not getting the last taunting word in. But we can see that Q can't help himself. He can't actually ignore me because he has to have the last word. All he has to do to get me to stop is follow through with his claimed response to Trolls. I will not respond with a story-board picture if he can actualy do what he claims the proper response to trolls is, which is ignore me, which means not responding to my post of an image. He set this up for himself. I'm pretty sure that I got the point of the story board too ... If anything its a Rorschach Test. <rhetorical> Do you see trolling? Do you see playfulness? Do you see inferior picture selection? Do you see the story evolving in the pictures? Do you jump in? Do you see enmity between Top and Q? Do you see Top offering an olive branch to Q? What do you see? </rhetorical>
|
|
|
Post by topology on Jul 9, 2013 13:38:00 GMT -5
Why do I think he did what? I don't know what you're aware of and what you're unaware of. Oh sorry, I was just talking like the normal people I know... I meant why did he respond negatively (call you a troll etc.)? Yeah, I know - what I'm unaware of could fill a warehouse! I meant some previous friction between you. You know me, Sil. I ask personally probing questions. Q doesn't like personally probing questions. I pointed out that no matter how much of a wall he puts up, he can't help but betray what is behind the wall. You even liked that post. Calling me a Troll is his way of trying to get me to stop since I didn't respond to his request for it to stop.
|
|
|
Post by ???????? ???????????? on Jul 9, 2013 14:52:10 GMT -5
I'm not saying that all attention is necessarily "self-referential". I'm saying that sense of self and sense of existence are only operative once attention is on. And further I'm saying that the state prior to the attentive state is simpler and more natural, and requires much less effort. In ATA we constantly struggle to stay attentive, while to reach the non-attentive state no effort at all is required. Well if I indulge in the hypothetical it occurs to me that self-reference can be unconscious. That prior-to state can include this unconscious self-reference or not and it's reasonable to infer that the resulting state of "attention" would differ based on this. There's no use fighting you over the definition of the word "attention" beyond pointing out your unconventional usage ... in my studied analysis and humble opinion, you're not referring to the "attend" in ATA with your use of the word "attention". This is not about hypothetical but rather about actual experience. I'm referring exactly to attention as it appears in ATA when we struggle to regain and hold attention again and again. What you mean by self-reference is of no importance here. I'm talking about a feeling, the sense of self or sense of existence, I don't know if its referential or not, or if there is a theoretical sense in which we can say that a trace of sense of self exists in the unconsious or not. The point is simply that we struggle to be attentive, sense of self can be felt only when we are attentive. Absent attention there is no way we can say that we feel like a self in any way similar to how we feel like it while we are attentive. And the non-attentive state requires no struggle at all.
|
|
|
Post by ???????? ???????????? on Jul 9, 2013 14:59:46 GMT -5
Troll, please contribute or leave. Thank you. Peter, I will scale back my posting of images in responses on this thread to 1 a day from here on out, today's quota is more than filled. See you tomorrow Troll-Sayer. Troll, nobody cares about your mindless drivel. We intelligent people will simply ignore your nonsense and point out to you again and again that you are a troll, a creature so miserable that it requires other people's attention to get through the day. If you wish to remain on this forum then you have to change your ways and start contributing, otherwise please leave this forum. Thank you.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 9, 2013 15:15:42 GMT -5
Well if I indulge in the hypothetical it occurs to me that self-reference can be unconscious. That prior-to state can include this unconscious self-reference or not and it's reasonable to infer that the resulting state of "attention" would differ based on this. There's no use fighting you over the definition of the word "attention" beyond pointing out your unconventional usage ... in my studied analysis and humble opinion, you're not referring to the "attend" in ATA with your use of the word "attention". This is not about hypothetical but rather about actual experience. I'm referring exactly to attention as it appears in ATA when we struggle to regain and hold attention again and again. What you mean by self-reference is of no importance here. I'm talking about a feeling, the sense of self or sense of existence, I don't know if its referential or not, or if there is a theoretical sense in which we can say that a trace of sense of self exists in the unconsious or not. The point is simply that we struggle to be attentive, sense of self can be felt only when we are attentive. Absent attention there is no way we can say that we feel like a self in any way similar to how we feel like it while we are attentive. And the non-attentive state requires no struggle at all. I don't get struggle with ATA. It happens or not. And the 'or not' part is irrelevant. I did used to think of it as a struggle though. But I think that was just a process of trying to figure out how to be more intentional about it. The feeling 'sh!t why can't I do this right?' or somesuch doesn't have to happen. The instruction in mindfulness practice is quite explicitly to gently return. Methinks when people go on about being in the tiger's mouth or having their hair on fire is a description not a prescription. It can't be forced. Those folks evidently found themselves doing whatever it was 24/7 at some time. But this isn't necessarily the instruction for everyone in every situation. Maybe it's just an indicator of something that happened before a big event of some sort. But it is not causal. And can not be imitated.
|
|
|
Post by ???????? ???????????? on Jul 9, 2013 15:16:19 GMT -5
Oh sorry, I was just talking like the normal people I know... I meant why did he respond negatively (call you a troll etc.)? Yeah, I know - what I'm unaware of could fill a warehouse! I meant some previous friction between you. Something is seriously wrong with the guy. He has some weird fascination with me that is really creepy. There were a lot of incidents that make me be very cautious when communicating with him. The latest one is documented on the last pages of the "sidestepping the gap" thread.
|
|
|
Post by silver on Jul 9, 2013 15:23:35 GMT -5
Oh sorry, I was just talking like the normal people I know... I meant why did he respond negatively (call you a troll etc.)? Yeah, I know - what I'm unaware of could fill a warehouse! I meant some previous friction between you. Something is seriously wrong with the guy. He has some weird fascination with me that is really creepy. There were a lot of incidents that make me be very cautious when communicating with him. The latest one is documented on the last pages of the "sidestepping the gap" thread. Things can appear 'wrong' with people sometimes, but it's not always the case. Take yourself, for example. You've been an extreme example of something - I don't know what you want to call it - but you have a decided tendency to draw attention to yourself in ways that are outside the box - not wanting to put negatories on either one of you. I've been called quirky soon upon arrival here, it's always something. I especially didn't like the fact that the pictures were outsized and seemed to be about either sex, family, and made no sense to me, when I first saw them, and I'm still a bit unclear as to their meaning, if any.
|
|
|
Post by ???????? ???????????? on Jul 9, 2013 15:26:49 GMT -5
This is not about hypothetical but rather about actual experience. I'm referring exactly to attention as it appears in ATA when we struggle to regain and hold attention again and again. What you mean by self-reference is of no importance here. I'm talking about a feeling, the sense of self or sense of existence, I don't know if its referential or not, or if there is a theoretical sense in which we can say that a trace of sense of self exists in the unconsious or not. The point is simply that we struggle to be attentive, sense of self can be felt only when we are attentive. Absent attention there is no way we can say that we feel like a self in any way similar to how we feel like it while we are attentive. And the non-attentive state requires no struggle at all. I don't get struggle with ATA. It happens or not. And the 'or not' part is irrelevant. I did used to think of it as a struggle though. But I think that was just a process of trying to figure out how to be more intentional about it. The feeling 'sh!t why can't I do this right?' or somesuch doesn't have to happen. The instruction in mindfulness practice is quite explicitly to gently return. Methinks when people go on about being in the tiger's mouth or having their hair on fire is a description not a prescription. It can't be forced. Those folks evidently found themselves doing whatever it was 24/7 at some time. But this isn't necessarily the instruction for everyone in every situation. Maybe it's just an indicator of something that happened before a big event of some sort. But it is not causal. And can not be imitated. What I mean is that attention comes and goes. And with attention comes and goes the sense of self/existence. So how can the sense of self/existence be primary if it is so fragile? What is totally effortless is the state prior to attention, and therein there is no sense of self/existence. In other words, the insights gained through ATA remain incomplete if we don't also reflect on its opposite, namely on the state of non-attention. We can't debate away everyday forgetfullness, it is at least as constitutive of us human beings as the attentive state.
|
|
|
Post by andrew on Jul 9, 2013 15:29:18 GMT -5
Well if I indulge in the hypothetical it occurs to me that self-reference can be unconscious. That prior-to state can include this unconscious self-reference or not and it's reasonable to infer that the resulting state of "attention" would differ based on this. There's no use fighting you over the definition of the word "attention" beyond pointing out your unconventional usage ... in my studied analysis and humble opinion, you're not referring to the "attend" in ATA with your use of the word "attention". This is not about hypothetical but rather about actual experience. I'm referring exactly to attention as it appears in ATA when we struggle to regain and hold attention again and again. What you mean by self-reference is of no importance here. I'm talking about a feeling, the sense of self or sense of existence, I don't know if its referential or not, or if there is a theoretical sense in which we can say that a trace of sense of self exists in the unconsious or not. The point is simply that we struggle to be attentive, sense of self can be felt only when we are attentive. Absent attention there is no way we can say that we feel like a self in any way similar to how we feel like it while we are attentive. And the non-attentive state requires no struggle at all. Maybe I'm just so damn lazy that the prospect of efforting to find a sense of existence/self is beyond what I am willing to do. Hehe. Or maybe I just burned the movement to struggle out. I think many people like feeling that sense of self/existence even if it does mean efforting through life.
|
|