|
Post by Beingist on Aug 10, 2013 11:16:03 GMT -5
"Fascinating"....yeah, that's what I thought too when Reefs sought me out the moment E was suddenly not nodding along with him. hehe...it wasn't lost on me that he knew precisely who to come to if he wanted to vent about E being stuck. It all seemed a little disingenuous at the time though...kind of like someone being really angry about all the tempting candies out there, seeking out a dentist to vent to. He knew he'd get consensus and have an open ear, kind of thing. It was as though something snapped and suddenly he could see E through my eyes. I noticed though, it didn't last long, 'cause soon enough, the two of them once again found common ground and Reefs even had the gall to argue points I made here, that he'd made himself in PM about E. But that's the thing. Just because they'd found common ground in terms of agreeing on ideas about non-dualism, did not mean that the validity of those things Reefs said about doubting E's clarity and such, suddenly went up in smoke....I mean, clearly, Reefs made some very concrete points based upon an accurate portrayal of E's words and behavior, but it seems that so long as E was nodding along, he could suddenly once again, dismiss those doubts and climb aboard the "E is my Guru" train. I sat on the PM's for a long time, and then through a non-personal perspective it became evident that what's more important in the context of this forum is to demonstrate the tricks mind can play, vs. upholding some personal idea about honoring trust, avoiding betrayal. Maybe Reefs let something go? Maybe he saw a personal attachment to something, and now, he perceives E in a different light? I dunno. I tend to give Reefs the benefit of the doubt most of the time. Don't ask me why. ETA: in regards the 'avoiding betrayal' thing, not to say that you were 'wrong' in posting the PM, but there may have been other options to make the same point. Oh yes, I can almost guarantee Reefs now sees E in a different light. The light shifted the moment E began to nod along with again. Just as the light shifted the moment E challenged Reefs LOA assertions. What I'm questioning is the timing of these shifts of seeing folks in a different light. In fact, it's an interesting topic for conversation, really. The fact that when we're upset of angry with someone, we are more able to see them as delusional. But when we're getting along, we're much more apt to see their profound clarity. Ask and ye shall receive ...
|
|
|
Post by Beingist on Aug 10, 2013 11:33:36 GMT -5
Speaking for myself, of course, there's the perceived anger (and thus the 'Bengst Bear' label affectionately coined by Reefs and/or E). I use the term 'perceived' here deliberately, as most of us here are responding to our perceptions.
Which brings up Figs' point in the OP, and I think it's a valid one--we respond to what we perceive. If we perceive a snake, then we respond as we would to a snake. If we perceive manipulation, we respond as we would to a manipulator. If we perceive someone as benevolent, we respond with benevolence.
The trick, I think, is to transcend our reliance on our own perception. Such is 'judging by appearances'.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 10, 2013 11:45:31 GMT -5
is this the reefs pm in question? if so, when was it written?
and a few random thoughts ... for one, I agree with Quinn that pm'ing figgy is a very bad idea, if there is any expectation of privacy or decorum. and the fact she "sat on it", with an obvious intent of revealing it at some appropriate time to further her agenda is, well, curious..
and so, apparently enigma likes forums, and posts frequently. ok, so what? maybe he enjoys doing so, or maybe he feels like his contributions can help various peeps along the way. and to say "he's bored" sounds like a giraffe to me, and lacking any kind of a keen insight.
but of course, this "revelation" makes for great gossip, and ammunition for the "not cool enough for school" clan
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Aug 10, 2013 12:34:43 GMT -5
Speaking for myself, of course, there's the perceived anger (and thus the 'Bengst Bear' label affectionately coined by Reefs and/or E). I use the term 'perceived' here deliberately, as most of us here are responding to our perceptions. Which brings up Figs' point in the OP, and I think it's a valid one--we respond to what we perceive. If we perceive a snake, then we respond as we would to a snake. If we perceive manipulation, we respond as we would to a manipulator. If we perceive someone as benevolent, we respond with benevolence. The trick, I think, is to transcend our reliance on our own perception. Such is 'judging by appearances'. What you say about how we characterize those that we correspond with is true of course and pretty much inevitable -- "coming empty" is just a game. That said, let's consider the very nature of conflict. Conflict is a word rife with negative connotation -- it evokes the specter of violence. I quoted Tolle to Reefs once on the idea that holding to a position with a need to be right is a form of violence. Now, is all opposition necessarily conflict? What distinguishes the two? Conversation absent opposing points of view is rather sparse, and there are as many points of view, if we're honest and dig deep enough, as there are people. B', I'd say that it's the very engagement with an opposing point of view that is the transcendence of reliance on our own perception -- even if that opposition eventually results in conflict. Absent the engagement, we're remaining silent, and are left to that perception in isolation. The arising of emotion, in general is always an opportunity ... where does it come from? While it's unreasonable and unrealistic to expect that we should erase all trace of memory of our past correspondence with someone on engagement, with every word that we type, we have this opportunity to type either with or without a consciousness of those emotions as they arise. If we remain conscious during correspondence, the probability that the opposition devolves into conflict, thereby resulting in a low-information exchange, becomes lower.
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Aug 10, 2013 12:38:12 GMT -5
And btw, I think the current gossip-driven scandal-drama or any past such scramas are potentially useful as templates but also just as likely to be used as a device to sow conflict.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 10, 2013 13:04:58 GMT -5
and a few random thoughts ... for one, I agree with Quinn that pm'ing figgy is a very bad idea, if there is any expectation of privacy or decorum. and the fact she "sat on it", with an obvious intent of revealing it at some appropriate time to further her agenda is, well, curious.. That's not at all what I meant by "I sat on it." There was no question of keeping PM's private or sharing them until Reefs breached that line himself by referring to private, personal things about myself that I shared in PM"s in his efforts to show me up to be not what I present myself to be. The things he shared, had zero relevance to this forum......involved my personal life. AT that point it just kind of seemed like 'why not'. The stuff I was sharing was directly related to assertions he was making on this forum....contradicted it. I don't think anyone as of yet has really made comment on 'why' E comes here so often. Myself, I"m posing the question in an attempt to discuss it. Apparently he's not interested. I'm quite sure he feels as though his contributions are helpful or could be helpful, but as I've said in another post, we'd likely all do well to have a look into what draws us here. I'm sure there are all sorts of reasons ranging from a seeking of something, to enjoyment, to general interest, to an attempt to alleviate emotional pain,...the list could likely go on and on..... E regularly takes pot shots at me now after I've disclosed a few times that I sometimes sip on a glass of wine after dinner....alluding in not so subtle ways that when he can't understand a post of mine, or does not agree that I might be drunk....or that I drink 'often.' Addiction can take many forms....alcohol is one form.....I don't think I'd be too out of line to suggest that forum usage could be another.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 10, 2013 13:09:23 GMT -5
Speaking for myself, of course, there's the perceived anger (and thus the 'Bengst Bear' label affectionately coined by Reefs and/or E). I use the term 'perceived' here deliberately, as most of us here are responding to our perceptions. Which brings up Figs' point in the OP, and I think it's a valid one--we respond to what we perceive. If we perceive a snake, then we respond as we would to a snake. If we perceive manipulation, we respond as we would to a manipulator. If we perceive someone as benevolent, we respond with benevolence. The trick, I think, is to transcend our reliance on our own perception. Such is 'judging by appearances'. Awesome post B. Re: the bolded; I'd add to that by saying that seeing the nature of perception itself mostly takes care of that. When the subjective nature of perception is seen, how could we ever get stuck in believing in or defending any of 'em?
|
|
|
Post by Beingist on Aug 10, 2013 13:21:27 GMT -5
Speaking for myself, of course, there's the perceived anger (and thus the 'Bengst Bear' label affectionately coined by Reefs and/or E). I use the term 'perceived' here deliberately, as most of us here are responding to our perceptions. Which brings up Figs' point in the OP, and I think it's a valid one--we respond to what we perceive. If we perceive a snake, then we respond as we would to a snake. If we perceive manipulation, we respond as we would to a manipulator. If we perceive someone as benevolent, we respond with benevolence. The trick, I think, is to transcend our reliance on our own perception. Such is 'judging by appearances'. What you say about how we characterize those that we correspond with is true of course and pretty much inevitable -- "coming empty" is just a game. Yeah, I can see this. Probably why I continue to hang around. It's kinda fun to watch, sometimes. Like 'Jeopardy!'. Good point, however given the definitions of both 'opposition' and 'conflict', I'd have to say that yes, all opposition is conflict. Not that there's anything inherently 'wrong' with conflict. This is the key. On one hand, you've got 'OHMYGOD, CONFLICT!!! ', and then there are discussions like this, in which case one or all parties are willing to see conflict for what it is, and not be bothered by it. I think Figs' attitude is emblematic of that, actually. Well, you seem to use the terms 'silent' and 'isolation' here, as if they're bad things (not unlike 'conflict', as above). As long as one is okay with their own opposition to a given position, there's no law that say that they have to voice it. All depends on the moment, no? Yeah, I'm beginning to view the use of the terms 'conscious' and 'unconscious' as just another example of dualistic beliefs and expressions regarding non-dualism. But, I hear what you're saying. I think the fundamental question here is whether we act on our emotions (which would indicate identification with them) or just let them be, and act from what we ARE, which, especially in a text-based forum, can give off the impression of acting on our emotions, even if we're not.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 10, 2013 13:24:36 GMT -5
and a few random thoughts ... for one, I agree with Quinn that pm'ing figgy is a very bad idea, if there is any expectation of privacy or decorum. and the fact she "sat on it", with an obvious intent of revealing it at some appropriate time to further her agenda is, well, curious.. That's not at all what I meant by "I sat on it." There was no question of keeping PM's private or sharing them until Reefs breached that line himself by referring to private, personal things about myself that I shared in PM"s in his efforts to show me up to be not what I present myself to be. The things he shared, had zero relevance to this forum......involved my personal life. AT that point it just kind of seemed like 'why not'. The stuff I was sharing was directly related to assertions he was making on this forum....contradicted it. I don't think anyone as of yet has really made comment on 'why' E comes here so often. Myself, I"m posing the question in an attempt to discuss it. Apparently he's not interested. I'm quite sure he feels as though his contributions are helpful or could be helpful, but as I've said in another post, we'd likely all do well to have a look into what draws us here. I'm sure there are all sorts of reasons ranging from a seeking of something, to enjoyment, to general interest, to an attempt to alleviate emotional pain,...the list could likely go on and on..... E regularly takes pot shots at me now after I've disclosed a few times that I sometimes sip on a glass of wine after dinner....alluding in not so subtle ways that when he can't understand a post of mine, or does not agree that I might be drunk....or that I drink 'often.' Addiction can take many forms....alcohol is one form.....I don't think I'd be too out of line to suggest that forum usage could be another. speaking as a casual observer only ... your being "a drunk" is obviously a joke, although such "jokes' are not merely for humor purposes, but also have the capacity to lead to other worthwhile things to look at same goes for the beer drinking and other assorted Bengst related "jokes" but of course ... this is just my speculation
|
|
|
Post by Beingist on Aug 10, 2013 13:25:18 GMT -5
Speaking for myself, of course, there's the perceived anger (and thus the 'Bengst Bear' label affectionately coined by Reefs and/or E). I use the term 'perceived' here deliberately, as most of us here are responding to our perceptions. Which brings up Figs' point in the OP, and I think it's a valid one--we respond to what we perceive. If we perceive a snake, then we respond as we would to a snake. If we perceive manipulation, we respond as we would to a manipulator. If we perceive someone as benevolent, we respond with benevolence. The trick, I think, is to transcend our reliance on our own perception. Such is 'judging by appearances'. Awesome post B. Re: the bolded; I'd add to that by saying that seeing the nature of perception itself mostly takes care of that. When the subjective nature of perception is seen, how could we ever get stuck in believing in or defending any of 'em? Hmm. Can't really say if I've seen the nature of perception itself. Not sure what that even means, actually. But, I'd have to agree that if that can be done, the transcendence part would likely take care of itself, and if you've been able to do that, g'donya, as they say down unda.
|
|
|
Post by silver on Aug 10, 2013 13:26:56 GMT -5
That's not at all what I meant by "I sat on it." There was no question of keeping PM's private or sharing them until Reefs breached that line himself by referring to private, personal things about myself that I shared in PM"s in his efforts to show me up to be not what I present myself to be. The things he shared, had zero relevance to this forum......involved my personal life. AT that point it just kind of seemed like 'why not'. The stuff I was sharing was directly related to assertions he was making on this forum....contradicted it. I don't think anyone as of yet has really made comment on 'why' E comes here so often. Myself, I"m posing the question in an attempt to discuss it. Apparently he's not interested. I'm quite sure he feels as though his contributions are helpful or could be helpful, but as I've said in another post, we'd likely all do well to have a look into what draws us here. I'm sure there are all sorts of reasons ranging from a seeking of something, to enjoyment, to general interest, to an attempt to alleviate emotional pain,...the list could likely go on and on..... E regularly takes pot shots at me now after I've disclosed a few times that I sometimes sip on a glass of wine after dinner....alluding in not so subtle ways that when he can't understand a post of mine, or does not agree that I might be drunk....or that I drink 'often.' Addiction can take many forms....alcohol is one form.....I don't think I'd be too out of line to suggest that forum usage could be another. speaking as a casual observer only ... your being "a drunk" is obviously a joke, although such "jokes' are not merely for humor purposes, but also have the capacity to lead to other worthwhile things to look at same goes for the beer drinking and other assorted Bengst related "jokes" but of course ... this is just my speculation Yeah...like typical political mudslinging.....couched in a 'friendly' / familiar jab sort of way - trying to discredit someone...
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 10, 2013 13:31:56 GMT -5
speaking as a casual observer only ... your being "a drunk" is obviously a joke, although such "jokes' are not merely for humor purposes, but also have the capacity to lead to other worthwhile things to look at same goes for the beer drinking and other assorted Bengst related "jokes" but of course ... this is just my speculation Yeah...like typical political mudslinging.....couched in a 'friendly' / familiar jab sort of way - trying to discredit someone... I think not but if a joke "gets your goat" .. so much the better. lol
|
|
|
Post by Beingist on Aug 10, 2013 13:33:02 GMT -5
speaking as a casual observer only ... your being "a drunk" is obviously a joke, although such "jokes' are not merely for humor purposes, but also have the capacity to lead to other worthwhile things to look at same goes for the beer drinking and other assorted Bengst related "jokes" but of course ... this is just my speculation Yanno, I can't help but find it incredibly curious that anyone would find my beer consumption even jokeworthy. I have A beer (two tops) about every six months, at best. In fact, a friend mentioned just last week how he had to get some beer he bought out of my refrigerator 'before it went bad'. He obviously knows I won't drink it before its expiration date. Seriously, I have a bigger self-concern with Kool-Aid, not beer (and by that, I mean real Kool-Aid, which is loaded with sugar, not the metaphoric Kool-Aid). **preparing self for the Kool-Aid jokes**
|
|
|
Post by silver on Aug 10, 2013 13:39:19 GMT -5
Yeah...like typical political mudslinging.....couched in a 'friendly' / familiar jab sort of way - trying to discredit someone... I think not but if a joke "gets your goat" .. so much the better. lol
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 10, 2013 13:55:43 GMT -5
That's not at all what I meant by "I sat on it." There was no question of keeping PM's private or sharing them until Reefs breached that line himself by referring to private, personal things about myself that I shared in PM"s in his efforts to show me up to be not what I present myself to be. The things he shared, had zero relevance to this forum......involved my personal life. AT that point it just kind of seemed like 'why not'. The stuff I was sharing was directly related to assertions he was making on this forum....contradicted it. I don't think anyone as of yet has really made comment on 'why' E comes here so often. Myself, I"m posing the question in an attempt to discuss it. Apparently he's not interested. I'm quite sure he feels as though his contributions are helpful or could be helpful, but as I've said in another post, we'd likely all do well to have a look into what draws us here. I'm sure there are all sorts of reasons ranging from a seeking of something, to enjoyment, to general interest, to an attempt to alleviate emotional pain,...the list could likely go on and on..... E regularly takes pot shots at me now after I've disclosed a few times that I sometimes sip on a glass of wine after dinner....alluding in not so subtle ways that when he can't understand a post of mine, or does not agree that I might be drunk....or that I drink 'often.' Addiction can take many forms....alcohol is one form.....I don't think I'd be too out of line to suggest that forum usage could be another. speaking as a casual observer only ... your being "a drunk" is obviously a joke, although such "jokes' are not merely for humor purposes, but also have the capacity to lead to other worthwhile things to look at same goes for the beer drinking and other assorted Bengst related "jokes" but of course ... this is just my speculation Yes, i see what you're saying. I did get the 'jokiness' of the whole thing too...I think it was more Reefs trying to point to my wine drinking to indicate that I perhaps had 'a problem.'..however, he may also have intended that more of a joke as well. Who knows really. Only the one making 'the joke,' I guess.
|
|