|
Post by laughter on Nov 4, 2013 14:46:00 GMT -5
Greetings.. Yeeahhh, that's pretty amusing that you'd think I'd waste time on that
Oh, you took that as a speculation? I offered it as reassurance. At this point I don't need any additional clarification from you along these lines. Thanks anyway. That the word is central to the sites name is something that I take as incidental. I'll discuss it a bit more openly with folks who don't have a chip on their shoulder. I can understand why you might want to project some interest in the word onto me but given the state of our conversation, between you and I, I have nothing to say about it. The last time I remember using it was to deny Silver's categorization of a belief on my part involving the term. So, like enigma, you choose to find way to avoid open honest direct unconditional discussion? If I've avoided something here it wasn't open and honest as the tone in your unsolicited reply was obviously quite combative. You don't come empty to these discussions, I mean, you have got to be kidding me here ... I offered to show you exactly where you were dragging in stuff that wasn't part of the conversation in our last exchange: Oh, and do you maintain that you've come to the discussion empty? I can link you to at least two different replies of yours to me where what you replied to had nothing to do with what I'd written to you.... and you just blustered out your disregard of that. You are the least empty correspondent I've ever corresponded with. "Coming empty" doesn't oblige one to endlessly repeat the same conversation, and you've made yourself quite clear on how you state your identity. Please pay attention to what's going on here: I have nothing to say about that until you interject it into a conversation and start projecting it onto some image of me that you're constructing. You are entitled to your sense of identity. It's not my business until you make it so. you have a preconceived image of 'Tzu', and self-image you regard highly.. you and other oneness believers seem to believe the issue is about the messengers, it is not.. messengers come and go, the imbalance is between those that are attached to their mental imagery/imaginations, the oneness advocates, and those that are present, unattached, those who let go of what was to be present for what is.. the issue that the oneness messengers refuse to engage directly in, is the issue that could be resolved with cooperative open honest unconditional exploration of what 'is', that is the issue.. While you struggle with creating illusions about 'Tzu', i remain open to direct and unconditionally honest discussions.. Be well.. Do you have any sense of how preachy that sounds? Do you realize what it implies if you don't but others do? Also, count the number of stories that you're telling in that paragraph.
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Nov 5, 2013 2:25:57 GMT -5
... tree? ... I just figured she was some gal from the British Isles who hasn't had the sense of still mind clarity slapped into her by Tzu' yet ... Read more: spiritualteachers.proboards.com/thread/3152/meta-awareness?page=41#ixzz2jkaFpFtVThis is the most recent example. But more so, it was the reason or excuse I gave for your inability to carry on an intelligent conversation without playing word games. You seem scared to share your own views. People will question them and try to knock them down, that's I share, so that I don't become so solid in my perspectives. Yet, you seem only to be able to attempt to knock the person, and make no indent on the view. Share your own view, and then perhaps you may be worth listening to. As a staff member, your conduct on this thread is shameful to the site. ok, what you quoted was a joke. Did you feel that that joke put you in a negative light? Where in our conversation can you quote me taking a particular conceptual stance and arguing it? ... about the closest I can figure is here where I was disclaiming having put forth an argument ... As far as the idea of my being afraid, you might be mistaking a lack of interest for timidity. You can always start a poll to ask what the others think about my being a shrinking violet. Now as far as the allegation of word games go, you'll have to be more specific. You seem to want to talk about certain concepts that I don't have interest in and as I've pointed out to you, you've tried to put words in my mouth to carry on that discussion. You can expect -- yeah you can count on -- me to point out what is actually being said, and what is actually going on in our conversation. The words that we type here leave a record of what was actually said, and pointing that out is not: it does seem to be the done thing to take oine viewpoint and argue for or against ... it is simply noticing, attending to, and responding in line what the words on the page are.
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Nov 5, 2013 3:30:58 GMT -5
unmoderated version
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Nov 5, 2013 3:49:53 GMT -5
ooook ... well, Steve re-marked this thread no-attack. To my eye there are several ongoing conversations here that don't belong in a no-attack thread, so I'll remind everyone that there's nothing personal or shameful about having content moved -- it's not a judgement on the poster, just a mechanism to vary the potential user experience over the forum. Will be an interesting experiment, to see how the tenor of the conversation improves, when one suddenly has to think of a more thoughtful response than a personal poke. Pokes are remarkably easy, but real conversations seem to happen here when the 'too easy' poke is not available. heh heh .. well, what you call "he said, she said" and what E' calls "what in the blazes is going on" is useful to explore, if nothing else, how conscious the person your conversing is of what they are reading and writing. For the most part, in my experience, this involves a projection in that folks can seem to simply ignore what's been written to them and respond to what they want to talk about, and that often involves simply makin' sh!t up about the person they're conversing with, and about what that person has written. From what I've read of your take on this, you view it as primarily an exercise in psychology, but as someone who was an atheist for most of my life what I find is that some folks seem to make some very bedrock assumptions about beliefs that everyone has that just aren't there, and it's these "he said, she said" conversations that these come out in. There just doesn't seem to be any way to have these conversations without it sounding like bickering, so they obviously have no place in no-attack threads.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 5, 2013 11:53:39 GMT -5
I have a degree in literature, for which I had to close read text. Therefore, I'm aware of the nature of inference and deduction. When I enter into a conversation, I am conscious of what I am reading literally, and what I am reading deeper into.
When we read deeper into something, the reflection shines a light on perception and where we stand in that moment. To listen to oneself is a spiritual practise that brings substantial change and understanding of living life.
So the belief that playing 'he said she said' helps you to see 'how conscious the person you're conversing is of what they read and write' is a deluded outlook. All you see is whether a person IS reading literally or whether they are inferring.
It is a hindrance to people who live with genuine spiritual practise.
Laughter, I hope you will find some wisdom in what I've said here. And what I said on another thread... that your behaviour at the moment will close the site down eventually.
|
|
|
Post by enigma on Nov 5, 2013 18:32:34 GMT -5
Okey dokey I would say before peeps can accept a new Tzu, Tzu may have to renew himself. Okay I'll volunteer to be the new Tzu. <stilling mind> ... <releasing last remaining attachments> .... <seeing through last remaining beliefs> ... plop! .... Hey Y'all, You all a real hoot to talk to. So much drama and back and forth. It's been a nice way to get out some tension from a hard day of surveying. Whew! But 'lest you know, I'm just spicing up the place a bit...doing my share you know. I don't really think y'all are Borg recruiters -- hahaha -- or gang humpers -- !! wink wink. Just foolin' wit y'all. Oh on this whole duality / nonduality thing. I have no clue, really. Just going with the flow and havin' a little fun. Take it EZ! I like the gnu-Tzu.
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Nov 5, 2013 22:21:33 GMT -5
Greetings.. I was hoping people might accept Autumnleaf as a new person . I apologize on E's behalf.. he is ever at war with anything that agrees, even slightly, with the message i present.. you are welcome to interact as you choose, as the person you 'are'.. though the site supports a 'oneness/non-duality' system of beliefs, which has as its agenda to convince people they are neither persons nor possessed of the volition/freewill to choose otherwise.. Be well.. Well, I respectfully disagree on your characterizations about the system of beliefs and the agenda. If there was such an effort to convince someone ... of anything ... there's nothing forcing anyone to read any of that or to stay in a conversation they don't want to be in.
|
|
|
Post by tzujanli on Nov 9, 2013 19:14:17 GMT -5
Greetings.. Greetings.. There are occurrences where choices are made by the experiencer's own volition.. and there are occurrences where there are no choices available.. both conditions actually happen. To claim either as the 'only' actuality, requires belief/faith that the other actuality doesn't exist though it is self-evident.. Anyone can choose to stop breathing, but the methods for actualizing that choice are radical.. to actually believe that there is no volition requires the volition to deny what is self-evident.. to insist that 'no volition' is the case, requires the volition to pursue a result not supported by any evidence that doesn't require belief in ideas or imaginings.. and, the discussion itself is a choice to shift awareness from what is actually happening, to thoughts about the happening.. Be well.. The belief in volition results in a process of conscious choosing that conforms to that belief. The believer then points to the conscious choosing as self evident verification of his belief in his own volition. If you believe you are king of the world and print stationary with a letterhead stating that you are king of the world, that letterhead is not self evident proof that you are king of the world. It's just an expression of your beliefs. You believe that 'oneness is truth' and 'separation is false', but you preach that belief to those separate from you, those with 'separate' understandings.. your 'oneness is truth' statement is just an expression of your beliefs.. Be well..
|
|
|
Post by lolly on Nov 9, 2013 19:50:59 GMT -5
Personally, I don't experience conflict between LOAing everything or being formed by the environment. I'm just familiar with the LOA concept and the concept of conditioning. Moreso, it's the opinion of other people that we create our lives or we are completely subjects of circumstance due our non-existence. I understand that the advocates of such positions do not know if those positions are true or not, but they seem resolute in their stances none-the-less. In my own experience, I can draw conclusions base in insights, but these are always invalidated in other circumstances. The basis of the observation is the noticing of what is, as that pertains to me personally. The experience is shared in the spirit of compassion, but not told and taught and pointed etc. I mean a pointer is basically saying 'Look how xen enlightened I am'... as though I actually give a darn. Every day, There are obstacles and opportunities, and all people have strengths and weaknesses... and I don't understand my existence at all... I never know what to expect... and sometime life is about full efforts and othertimes it's like take it as it comes. The main thing is, don't make little boxes out of drawn conclusions. I think life is about responding appropriately. How do you know when to dismiss what others say as opinion and trying to look xen enlightened? Or is that position always taken? When it's delivered as 'a message' or as the Truth or as pointing to the Truth, I can see they're on a bit of mission. When people share their experience and/or points of view, it's a totally different feeling, and that's how I know. Second question: Obviously, it's not always, Preacher man LOL.
|
|
|
Post by tzujanli on Nov 10, 2013 10:37:12 GMT -5
Greetings.. Greetings.. The belief in volition results in a process of conscious choosing that conforms to that belief. The believer then points to the conscious choosing as self evident verification of his belief in his own volition. If you believe you are king of the world and print stationary with a letterhead stating that you are king of the world, that letterhead is not self evident proof that you are king of the world. It's just an expression of your beliefs. You believe that 'oneness is truth' and 'separation is false', but you preach that belief to those separate from you, those with 'separate' understandings.. your 'oneness is truth' statement is just an expression of your beliefs.. Be well.. This post was 'relocated from the 'General' section as it was deemed an 'attack' by Laughter.. I suggest that a place-holder be placed in the original post's position directing those interested in the actual evolution of the thread to it's relocated position.. Be well..
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Nov 10, 2013 11:28:17 GMT -5
Greetings.. Greetings.. You believe that 'oneness is truth' and 'separation is false', but you preach that belief to those separate from you, those with 'separate' understandings.. your 'oneness is truth' statement is just an expression of your beliefs.. Be well.. This post was 'relocated from the 'General' section as it was deemed an 'attack' by Laughter.. I suggest that a place-holder be placed in the original post's position directing those interested in the actual evolution of the thread to it's relocated position.. Be well.. Thanks for your suggestion Bob. My thought on this idea is that it would defeat the purpose of the no-attack concept, in that the idea is to allow for a given-and-take free from the distraction of conversation that is based in personal disparagement. Please feel free to start a poll over here in the unmoderated section on the idea, or if you'd rather, I can start it for you. As to the instant case, it was a judgment call as to whether to view E's analogy involving "king of the world" as a provocation that warranted getting moved out because but-for it, the attack might have not occurred. I will admit to a certain fondness for E' that could certainly be biasing the decision, but I took what E' said to be general and only directed at you personally in an oblique fashion -- and the "you preach" disparagement was not directly in reply to "king of the world", but seemed to me more of a retaliation. Sorry, but there's no way to take the moderator out of the moderation.
|
|
|
Post by tzujanli on Nov 10, 2013 11:42:21 GMT -5
Greetings.. Greetings.. This post was 'relocated from the 'General' section as it was deemed an 'attack' by Laughter.. I suggest that a place-holder be placed in the original post's position directing those interested in the actual evolution of the thread to it's relocated position.. Be well.. Thanks for your suggestion Bob. My thought on this idea is that it would defeat the purpose of the no-attack concept, in that the idea is to allow for a given-and-take free from the distraction of conversation that is based in personal disparagement. Please feel free to start a poll over here in the unmoderated section on the idea, or if you'd rather, I can start it for you. As to the instant case, it was a judgment call as to whether to view E's analogy involving "king of the world" as a provocation that warranted getting moved out because but-for it, the attack might have not occurred. I will admit to a certain fondness for E' that could certainly be biasing the decision, but I took what E' said to be general and only directed at you personally in an oblique fashion -- and the "you preach" disparagement was not directly in reply to "king of the world", but seemed to me more of a retaliation. Sorry, but there's no way to take the moderator out of the moderation. I am proposing that you insert a placeholder notifying the thread's participants that a post has been moved, the reason, and the relocated position, for those that are interested in the actual evolution of the thread rather than it's sanitized version.. in that way, those offended by 'attacks' can avoid the posts you've deemed offensive and others can continue the actual progression of the thread.. Your moderation is beginning to look like manipulation.. you seem to be patrolling and looking for problems where none actually exist.. 'moderation' has more than one meaning. If there was no complaint, why do you feel compelled to intervene with an arbitrary action? Be well..
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Nov 10, 2013 12:01:32 GMT -5
Greetings.. Thanks for your suggestion Bob. My thought on this idea is that it would defeat the purpose of the no-attack concept, in that the idea is to allow for a given-and-take free from the distraction of conversation that is based in personal disparagement. Please feel free to start a poll over here in the unmoderated section on the idea, or if you'd rather, I can start it for you. As to the instant case, it was a judgment call as to whether to view E's analogy involving "king of the world" as a provocation that warranted getting moved out because but-for it, the attack might have not occurred. I will admit to a certain fondness for E' that could certainly be biasing the decision, but I took what E' said to be general and only directed at you personally in an oblique fashion -- and the "you preach" disparagement was not directly in reply to "king of the world", but seemed to me more of a retaliation. Sorry, but there's no way to take the moderator out of the moderation. I am proposing that you insert a placeholder notifying the thread's participants that a post has been moved, the reason, and the relocated position, for those that are interested in the actual evolution of the thread rather than it's sanitized version.. in that way, those offended by 'attacks' can avoid the posts you've deemed offensive and others can continue the actual progression of the thread.. Yes, I understood you to mean that you'd like a post along the lines of: "content moved here based on no-attack moderation", with the here link to reference the post that was moved. As I said in reply already, my opinion is that this would litter the no-attack threads in such a way as to defeat the purpose of the concept. Your are more than welcome to start a poll on the question here in the unmoderated section, or, if you'd prefer, I'll do that for you, all you have to do is tell me you would like to see that poll started. Your moderation is beginning to look like manipulation.. you seem to be patrolling and looking for problems where none actually exist.. 'moderation' has more than one meaning. If there was no complaint, why do you feel compelled to intervene with an arbitrary action? Be well.. Any action taken in moderation is, in a sense, a manipulation. I don't see a way to implement the no-attack concept absent the act of patrolling. It seems to me that what you're describing in terms of a passive role of waiting for complaints would be more aptly described as a policy of "attacks are ok unless someone complains". As far as the arbitrary nature of the intervention is concerned, I'll not disagree with you: all authority is ultimately, similar to context, arbitrary.
|
|
|
Post by enigma on Nov 10, 2013 19:15:13 GMT -5
Greetings.. The belief in volition results in a process of conscious choosing that conforms to that belief. The believer then points to the conscious choosing as self evident verification of his belief in his own volition. If you believe you are king of the world and print stationary with a letterhead stating that you are king of the world, that letterhead is not self evident proof that you are king of the world. It's just an expression of your beliefs. You believe that 'oneness is truth' and 'separation is false', but you preach that belief to those separate from you, those with 'separate' understandings.. your 'oneness is truth' statement is just an expression of your beliefs.. Be well.. Different understandings isn't a confirmation of the actuality of separation except to one who is attached to the belief in separation.
|
|
|
Post by enigma on Nov 10, 2013 19:21:56 GMT -5
How do you know when to dismiss what others say as opinion and trying to look xen enlightened? Or is that position always taken? When it's delivered as 'a message' or as the Truth or as pointing to the Truth, I can see they're on a bit of mission. When people share their experience and/or points of view, it's a totally different feeling, and that's how I know. Second question: Obviously, it's not always, Preacher man LOL. Listen hon....experiences and opinions have no direct relationship to what's actually true. If you ever realized anything you would know the difference. If you ever do, it will be fine if you point to it and call it the truth. It would not be appropriate to call it your experience or your opinion, because it would be your realization.
|
|