|
Post by Beingist on Aug 11, 2013 23:34:11 GMT -5
Metaphorically speaking, if you're missing the mark in the psychological suicide game, you either haven't loaded the pistol, you haven't pulled the trigger, or you haven't found the self you're attempting to kill. But yeah, maybe the context shuffle game is more fun/meaningful, so that's where the interest lies. But that ain't making the self any more real, so the meaning and/or expression of truth or clarity gets wonky in tight spots. Zackly. Instead of cutting the root, we hang pretty ornaments on the dead branches, and it becomes a game of being okay with the not-okayness. So, are you suggesting that we not be okay with the not-okayness? This is what your sentiment implies, if you think it's a 'game'. Statements like this indicate rather strongly your rigidity, your dogma (i.e., what is 'right' and what is 'wrong').
|
|
|
Post by silver on Aug 11, 2013 23:43:34 GMT -5
No problem. Based on your ongoing discussions here, you're not actually interested. I shouldn't have said anything in the first place; pretty busy these days! .....That was a pretty sh*tty reply to a genuine request for clarification. That's clear for anyone to see.
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Aug 12, 2013 0:14:19 GMT -5
Yes it does seem that way, doesn't it? Your obvious attachment to not being wrong about this one is really amusing figs ... partly (but only partly) because ... it's so d@mned petty. (Obvious attachment eh? and here, I though we were just having us a bit of fun. ...well, I am. : As I've personally used that word myself for some time now, not noting the negative connotation, it wasn't til I actually did a bit of research that I saw, it generally seems to be used to denote an abundance of something not wanted. For a simple 'petty point' you've certainly put a whole lot of effort into trying to make it. My point was/is that fact: It's petty...and dare i even say, irrelevant as 'rife' is such a close match to 'alot of' or 'mostly.' So.....why focus upon my use of the word 'rife' then if there's really no significant difference? If there's plenty of raw material, surely you could have found another instance where I used a word to describe something E said here, that was a significant divergence from his actual verbatim statement...? The "Rife" argument is weak...very weak. From the get go, I was not trying to pass those words off as anything but a paraphrase. That's not what I was saying at all. I was not using the word myself to denote negativity, but rather as a synonym to 'alot.' But yes, after looking around a bit, I see that it's usually used to denote things unwanted. What I was trying to point out though, is that even with the words 'alot of insane people' rather than 'rife with' the statement would likely not be mistaken to be describing something most would regard as a 'wanted' thing. And I told you that I myself have always used it interchangeably...positive or negative abundance, and thus, did not even realize that it's mostly used to describe 'unwanted' abundance. In this case, it doesn't matter whether one says the world is rife with insane peeps, or full of insane peeps, it would be pretty tough to sell that statement as something someone was gleeful over. 'insanity and unconsciousness' are considered by most in spiritual circles to be something 'not wanted or desired' but rather, the whole reason for seeking in the first place. Your quibble is akin to pointing out that the term "smelly sh*t" is not the exactly the same as 'stinky sh*t.' I still think this whole argument is bizarre. And yes, the most bizarre thing is that you are focusing on the word 'rife' to prove that I twist peoples meanings. HOly...what a stretch!! "Rife" does not imply wrong in that sense any more than 'unhealthy' does. One could say that Life is 'rife' with challeng, without meaning that it's wrong to be challenged or that challenges are to be snuffed out. So now 'rife with' denotes an abundance of something 'immoral' or something that 'should not be inherent in 'this'? You've gone & buggered with the word 'rife'...taking liberties with it's meaning far beyond what they actually are. Again, the dictionary definition doesn't even allude to the fct that it's generally used to describe 'unwanted' or 'less desirable' things. I don't see that 'healthy' vs. 'unhealthy' really applies. yup. that's precisely what I've done. Still waiting. For a simple 'petty point' you've certainly put a whole lot of effort into trying to make it. My point was/is that fact: It's petty...and dare i even say, irrelevant as 'rife' is such a close match to 'alot of' or 'mostly.' Well, nice try, but I'm the one who declared the perception that the rife sub-debate was petty first, not you. For all anyone knows you're just following suit, and petty isn't really your perception at all, just something you're maintaining at this point for the sake of self-image. For a simple 'petty point' you've certainly put a whole lot of effort into trying to make it. My point was/is that fact: It's petty...and dare i even say, irrelevant as 'rife' is such a close match to 'alot of' or 'mostly.' Oh, are we at that point in the forumula-script where we each declare that what we are doing is effortless while the other is obviously trying too hard? C'mon figs, don't ya' think that between the two of us we can come up with something a bit more original than that? Let me clue ya' ... good performance art, just like any other art, takes honesty. ... and if you're honest with yourself, your text walls have been just as long as mine. So.....why focus upon my use of the word 'rife' then if there's really no significant difference? If there's plenty of raw material, surely you could have found another instance where I used a word to describe something E said here, that was a significant divergence from his actual verbatim statement...? The "Rife" argument is weak...very weak Why? Well the answer to that is obvious: it's not my focus, it's yours ... you're defending your use of this word. Let me take this opportunity to be completely candid here -- for me this is all fun and games and the fun here is the laughs that I get based on the cognitive dissonance between stuff like this: Seeing the nature of perception is really just seeing that perceptions are subjective and very dependent upon any beliefs/attachments in play. While I may argue for my perceptions here, at the same time, I'm well aware that they are in fact MY perceptions and thus, may not be representative or what is 'actually' the case. Seeing perceptions for what they are results in an absence of attachment to proving that what we're seeing, is the absolute truth. ie; we don't get emotionally bent outta shape just because there's a lack of consensus regarding what we see and what another sees. ... and your tenacious debating. My subjective experience of this debate is truly conveyed thusly: Yes, and as a skilled debater, you've narrowed the discussion down to my weakest point ... that's fine because I don't care what you argue about as long as I keep you arguing! The argument itself brings into relief the difference between the talk of free-floating-non-attachment and the walk that it is. If this is how you want to spend your time, why should I deny you? It's not like I didn't offer you some stiffer challenges ... here are just a few examples of points and arguments that you completely ignored or tried unsuccessfully to divert attention from because they were either less advantageous for you or points of obvious failure on your part: -- The fact that this whole conversation is something from nothing, and that you are a willing participant: Well figs, you know full well that I've got no attachment to the LOA but I'll walk on over to your house to note that at this point we've co-created several text walls already here based pretty much solely on your use of the words "urge" and "insanity" ... if that ain't "something from nothing", then I sure as hell don't know what is! -- The big picture for why much of what you spew at E' goes unresponded to, and despite your characterization of refusal the fact that he does indeed still reply to you. -- At least one unsuccessful attempt on your part to put words in my mouth based on pure fancy and imagination. -- Your unconscious use of the word "urge" in a way to cast E' in a negative light by speculating that he has a "need" or other emotional impetus to participate here, a speculation that you initially denied and had to be read back to you in your own words. I haven't pushed any of them though, because, despite the narrowed subject of the word rife, you've not only twisted yourself in knots over it, but you've failed to really dispatch it ... if you had, you'd have walked away by now. First you put the words in E's mouth ("rife with mostly nonsense and insanity" -- later you focused in only on "rife" for the sake of diversion)and then said it was "based on his own words" and actually repeated it and finally only on the third iteration did you actually admit that he never actually said it exactly that way. Then when the other facets of the debate started going badly for you you started to narrow the focus down onto the single word "rife". You first claimed that the use wasn't negative, then gave a contrived example of of a positive usage, then admitted that the connotation is generally negative and when taunted on failing to find a non-contrived positive usage you actually went out and did research on the internet and came back with some odd and obscure reference to a "googlefight" (what the fu.ck is a googlefight anyway?) over the issue. Twice now you've also admitted to being unconscious of the negative connotations of the word when you used it. After all that you have the audacity and the gall to characterize "my" interest in the word rife as bizarre to the extent of referring to a sexual act that although completely natural and pleasurable is, because of ignorance and prejudice, still illegal in certain jurisdictions in the U.S. BRAVO! And btw ... do you have something against anal sex? You're not homophobic now, are you? I'll widen the scope to the other stuff you wrote when and if you ever get done flailing away in your defense of all of this. For now, the narrow suffices quite nicely ... thanks! While I'm sure you'll poo-poo the evidence of your miserable debate performance offered here as just me trying too hard, the fact is figs, that you can't wish away the history you leave on the forum. The LOA faeries aren't going to come to your rescue ... you'll just have to go back and delete it all yourself.
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Aug 12, 2013 0:27:17 GMT -5
"I'd prefer not to deal with this issue at all, it's like shearing a pig, too much squeaking, too little wool" - Vladimir Putin T. Waits: Lost In The HarbourOver here the ladies all want sweet perfume But there's never a rose And over there the roses are frightened to bloom So they never can grow And over here they need wool For weaving their baby's new clothes But nobody has any wool And the sheep are all lost in the harbour Lost in the harbour And over here they want diamonds to wear But there aren't any here And over there everyone's hiding their tears But they're crying inside And the wall won't come down Till they're no longer afraid of themselves And if you don't believe me ask yourselves And then I can come down to the harbour Down to the harbour And then I will fill the ocean back up with my tears I still have a couple more years And then I can come back to the harbour Down to the harbour (*** SIGH ***) ... ahhhh to be young again! Ain't nothin' like a TW album at 5am ... 'specially when you were smart enough to stock up on beer and smokes before they stopped sellin' 'em for the night ...
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Aug 12, 2013 0:33:02 GMT -5
.....That was a pretty sh*tty reply to a genuine request for clarification. That's clear for anyone to see. long as ya got's a magic one of these that is!
|
|
|
Post by enigma on Aug 12, 2013 0:46:58 GMT -5
Zackly. Instead of cutting the root, we hang pretty ornaments on the dead branches, and it becomes a game of being okay with the not-okayness. Seems to be where the logic goes around here quite often. Mind would rather rule in hell than serve in heaven.
|
|
|
Post by enigma on Aug 12, 2013 0:54:28 GMT -5
To me, here's the elephant in the room with us: We're all aware to some extent that there is a perceptual filter. We might notice that this filtering process manifests as various 'pulls', kinda like little strings that are all attached to what we conceive of as the self. IOW, every distortion in the perception is a direct result of a bias formed by a belief in the self, and these distortions are meant to protect the self in some way, however subtle. As long as this belief in the self remains, you are right that there is no way to know whether or not there is a bias, but when this belief is no more, it's clear there is no locus for those strings anymore. First of all, I've always felt that was a misnomer; "Belief" in self....what does that mean exactly? AS I see it, It's not so much that a 'self' is ever believed in per se, but rather that there is attachment to a story....and that story is identified with wholly, as what defines 'me.' I guess we could say that one can believe that they are their story, but does that really equal a 'belief' in self? I dunno... I've always seen the self or 'the person' more as the sum of parts than an actual 'thing' unto it's own.....probably why I've never resonated wholly with the, 'there is no person' business. Just because there is no longer any attachment to a particular identity or story, does that necessarily mean that perception is absolutely crystal clear...sans filter, sans all 'bias'? I dunno. That theory hinges upon a belief that bias has no other basis than conditioning. It seems that perception requires individuation (two, vs. one) and thus, inherent in my perception and your perception, is uniqueness. That 'uniqueness' is a filter or lens or bias. Do you ever entertain the possibility that it really is all subjective.... That there is no 'absolute' reality of which to see only one 'true' actual way? If you're the only one, and every one and every thing YOU perceive is a reflection, then the whole idea of 'seeing clearly' or 'without filter' kind of goes out the window. ...just some ideas to throw into the mix here. What parts do you see the self a sum of?
|
|
|
Post by enigma on Aug 12, 2013 0:58:38 GMT -5
Zackly. Instead of cutting the root, we hang pretty ornaments on the dead branches, and it becomes a game of being okay with the not-okayness. It's not about 'being okay with not-okayness.' There is simply no longer any sense of something being 'not-okay.' There's no pretending or imagining involved. There's simply been a falling away of the sense of importance surrounding seeing what is true. I think from the vantage point of one whose spirituality, presently is all about seeing what in blazes is going on, the idea of releasing that drive to see what is true, would seem like turning back around into full-out delusion. And, it's not that at all I'm talking about...It's a transcendence of that focus upon seeing what is true...a falling away of that drive or draw towards needing to know with certainty that I am seeing, sans bias, sans filter. 'My spirituality' is not about seeing what in blazes is going on. Yours is.
|
|
|
Post by enigma on Aug 12, 2013 1:06:29 GMT -5
I never intended to create a practice for becoming conscious or coming empty or correcting misperception or realization or anything else. I also have not said that mind is all there is. True. But, this is what makes what you do say (and also what you do here) often contradictory. You have indeed never said that 'mind is all there is', yet you still swim in it, especially in conversations with Andrew; you have indeed never prescribed any practice, per se, but yet you continue to go on about 'noticing' and 'realizing' and 'correcting perception'; you have indeed never said that 'good' and 'evil' exist, but you have said that people do 'good' and 'evil' things. This is all, of course, mind 'happening', or the 'movement' of mind, as you have put it, and as an observation on my part, no less subject to the same errors of perception as anything else. But, then, so are the observations you have made about people being or going 'unconscious'. If you can see the 'nature of perception' (the current topic), with the perceptual clarity that you say it takes to do so, would you still make such observations? I don't "swim in mind". Mind is a translator. Were you expecting to hear my latest no-mind ideas?
|
|
|
Post by silver on Aug 12, 2013 1:15:45 GMT -5
That's clear for anyone to see. long as ya got's a magic one of these that is! Ahh, no magical anything needed in this.
|
|
|
Post by enigma on Aug 12, 2013 2:03:24 GMT -5
Zackly. Instead of cutting the root, we hang pretty ornaments on the dead branches, and it becomes a game of being okay with the not-okayness. So, are you suggesting that we not be okay with the not-okayness? This is what your sentiment implies, if you think it's a 'game'. Statements like this indicate rather strongly your rigidity, your dogma (i.e., what is 'right' and what is 'wrong'). I suggest not playing games.
|
|
|
Post by Beingist on Aug 12, 2013 7:28:25 GMT -5
So, are you suggesting that we not be okay with the not-okayness? This is what your sentiment implies, if you think it's a 'game'. Statements like this indicate rather strongly your rigidity, your dogma (i.e., what is 'right' and what is 'wrong'). I suggest not playing games. And again, does this not assume one has control?
|
|
|
Post by Beingist on Aug 12, 2013 8:17:05 GMT -5
True. But, this is what makes what you do say (and also what you do here) often contradictory. You have indeed never said that 'mind is all there is', yet you still swim in it, especially in conversations with Andrew; you have indeed never prescribed any practice, per se, but yet you continue to go on about 'noticing' and 'realizing' and 'correcting perception'; you have indeed never said that 'good' and 'evil' exist, but you have said that people do 'good' and 'evil' things. This is all, of course, mind 'happening', or the 'movement' of mind, as you have put it, and as an observation on my part, no less subject to the same errors of perception as anything else. But, then, so are the observations you have made about people being or going 'unconscious'. If you can see the 'nature of perception' (the current topic), with the perceptual clarity that you say it takes to do so, would you still make such observations? I don't "swim in mind". Mind is a translator. Were you expecting to hear my latest no-mind ideas? A translator of what, exactly? If mind is but a translator, then where do ideas come from?
|
|
|
Post by someNOTHING! on Aug 12, 2013 8:34:38 GMT -5
No problem. Based on your ongoing discussions here, you're not actually interested. I shouldn't have said anything in the first place; pretty busy these days! .....That was a pretty sh*tty reply to a genuine request for clarification. OK, fair enough. I apologize for the miscue. So, my full explanation is that (last night) it had been a long long long day that started with a 4:30am rise and shine, a last-minute meeting with a ministry of education official, 2 airplanes and the layover, screaming baby on one plane (the long leg), and lots of planning for changes in the coming week. Then, I sat down to read a few posts here on the cyber-sanitarium. My brain was tired, and having skipped through the past 50-odd posts you'd written, I just decided to cut it short rather than attempt to carry on in some ongoing discussion that includes massive re-writes and explanations of terminology to fit the ever-changing context of a particular desired state of mind one might be aiming for (which I should have realized in the first place). You clearly think that you see clearly and are unattached to those thoughts, that you are countering some sort of dogma, and that you bring a sense of justice to the board. So, based on that interpretation of your posts and the more immediate reply, I simply felt that you were not interested in where I might go in any explanation of my post. I was blunt, but no need to take it so personally.
|
|
|
Post by someNOTHING! on Aug 12, 2013 8:37:21 GMT -5
Seems to be where the logic goes around here quite often. Mind would rather rule in hell than serve in heaven. So true. Nicely said.
|
|