|
Senses
Nov 16, 2013 7:01:32 GMT -5
Post by tzujanli on Nov 16, 2013 7:01:32 GMT -5
Greetings.. Greetings.. So you say, Bill.. engage in open honest and unconditionally sincere discussion about reality rather than personality, or.. shrink away from your 'defense'.. Be well.. No, I won't shrink away from it E' made a prediction as to how you'd react to my confronting you with your own words, and you bore his prediction out, almost to the letter. Do you need links and quotes? ... I don't do giraffes ... LOL.. yeah, and i predicted you couldn't 'let it go', so what? i've confronted you and E with so many glaring inconsistencies in your beliefs, and all that is returned is attempted character assassination, no substantive open honest unconditionally sincere discussions.. so, there's an offer on the table, 'reality'.. what will you do.. Be well..
|
|
|
Senses
Nov 16, 2013 8:16:10 GMT -5
Post by acewall on Nov 16, 2013 8:16:10 GMT -5
Greetings.. No, I won't shrink away from it E' made a prediction as to how you'd react to my confronting you with your own words, and you bore his prediction out, almost to the letter. Do you need links and quotes? ... I don't do giraffes ... LOL.. yeah, and i predicted you couldn't 'let it go', so what? i've confronted you and E with so many glaring inconsistencies in your beliefs, and all that is returned is attempted character assassination, no substantive open honest unconditionally sincere discussions.. so, there's an offer on the table, 'reality'.. what will you do.. Be well.. just cause you once 'let-go' doesnt mean that others havn't let-go less than you, or that some are at peace in the realm of perpetual let-go. Let-go your need to have others do 'let-go' to see it they can swim as good as you did, once. The whole idea of needing another to bow-down to your needs, needs to be re-invented. What's in it for You Mr B. Well? Do you think Others want what you've got? Hardly like it,from over this side of the globe. Review your Tapes.
|
|
|
Senses
Nov 16, 2013 11:52:21 GMT -5
Post by silence on Nov 16, 2013 11:52:21 GMT -5
I am neither belligerent nor hostile.. yes, what you see as condescending is the return volley of ridicule revulsion and intolerance the fraternity serves with its agenda.. Even if that was true, it doesn't make returning hostility any less hostile. Especially when you're basically spending all your time trying to throw hostility back at people.
|
|
|
Senses
Nov 16, 2013 16:10:56 GMT -5
Post by tzujanli on Nov 16, 2013 16:10:56 GMT -5
Greetings.. I am neither belligerent nor hostile.. yes, what you see as condescending is the return volley of ridicule revulsion and intolerance the fraternity serves with its agenda.. Even if that was true, it doesn't make returning hostility any less hostile. Especially when you're basically spending all your time trying to throw hostility back at people. I see that you're not adverse to a bit of hostility, either.. the simple observation is that the perps in the ST hostility market were at it long before i arrived, i'm just making it clear that their illusion that their brand of hostility is somehow spiritual, is both an illusion and unrelated to spirituality.. Be well..
|
|
|
Senses
Nov 16, 2013 16:19:16 GMT -5
Post by tzujanli on Nov 16, 2013 16:19:16 GMT -5
Greetings.. Greetings.. LOL.. yeah, and i predicted you couldn't 'let it go', so what? i've confronted you and E with so many glaring inconsistencies in your beliefs, and all that is returned is attempted character assassination, no substantive open honest unconditionally sincere discussions.. so, there's an offer on the table, 'reality'.. what will you do.. Be well.. just cause you once 'let-go' doesnt mean that others havn't let-go less than you, or that some are at peace in the realm of perpetual let-go. Let-go your need to have others do 'let-go' to see it they can swim as good as you did, once. The whole idea of needing another to bow-down to your needs, needs to be re-invented. What's in it for You Mr B. Well? Do you think Others want what you've got? Hardly like it,from over this side of the globe. Review your Tapes. What is YOUR interest in the relationship i have with other members? why not bring something substantive and original to the discussion, 'Tzu slayers' are a dime a dozen here at ST.. or, is that how it is on the other side of the globe, you just jump on with the others? c'mon kids where's your clarity, where's your capacity to let go and see past your beliefs?.. Be well..
|
|
|
Senses
Nov 16, 2013 17:47:41 GMT -5
Post by laughter on Nov 16, 2013 17:47:41 GMT -5
Greetings.. Reality is a word. An idea. Let's start with 'reality', from which we can examine other matters considered to be of a spiritual nature.. from Wikipedia: Sure, fine, we can use this as a basis to discuss the idea if you'd like. In my opinion, a few things bear noting at this point: 1) The dictionary definition is a consensus. 2) This definition, as they all do, expresses an encapsulation of a single idea in terms of several others. 3) Specifically there is a delegation, or a projection, if you will, of the word "reality", onto the terms "actually", "exist", "appear" and "imagined" -- this is the multiplicity of ideas that constitute the elements of the idea represented by "reality". I accept the first sentence of Wiki's definition, in italics, as most closely approximating my own understanding.. the following sentences include conditions that allow a level of ambiguity and imagined speculation that sets people apart from each other in conflicts of ideologies.. Well I don't agree with the notion of the necessity of conflict out of hand, but I see no reason to enter into conflict over it, as if you would rather concentrate on the first sentence and reject the others I've got no interest in trying to get you to talk about or consider what you've expressed no or a negative interest in. it allows for anyone or any group to make unverifiable claims as a basis for their actions 'in reality', but.. the desire to imagine Pink Unicorns then assign magical powers to them, and claim they are the 'Gurus of Truth', can be justified by that portion of Wiki's quoted definition not italicized, but.. it fails the simple test of actuality/reality.. With a completely straight face and no intention of being snide, I say to you in all gentle sincerity that I simply see no connection between reality, Pink Unicorns, magical powers and 'Gurus of Truth', other than, of course, as you've said, that nothing in the list has any grounding in reality. In this you give a decent set of examples of what is not actual, and a good contextual use of the elemental component in the dictionary definition of "imagine", but by referencing "actuality/reality" you've seemed to devolve that part of the dictionary definition that you're willing to accept into "reality is what is actual". I'd opine that this neglects both the reference to "exist" in the definition and the explicitly referenced relationship between reality and imagination. It seems to me that if there is interest in exploring the definition beyond the statement of it, that a discussion about this relationship between what falls within reality (inside the "state of things as they actually exist"), or "what is real", if you will, and what falls outside of it would be a logical next step. It further seems to me that the nature of this relationship hinges on the methods and tools available to us to distinguish between what is real and what isn't. My interest in the phenomenon i described above which i sometimes refer to as the 'Spiritual Circus' and the 'Pink Unicorn' syndrome, is that it sets people apart from and in opposition with each other, while claiming inclusion and oneness, as long as there is agreement with one 'imagined belief' or another.. people seem blind to the contradiction of their imagined beliefs.. Be well.. Well here again, apart from what I would hope would be the obvious point that Pink Unicorns and Spiritual Circuses aren't "the state of things as they actually exist", I see no bearing of them on any conceptual investigation centered on the nature of this word, this idea: reality. While I could see such an investigation eventually turning toward the idea of "belief", I'd opine that our discussion hasn't established the ground for that turning yet, and it seems to me that this conflict over the claims of inclusion and oneness that you're referencing is even further removed from the current state of the sub-conversation.
|
|
|
Senses
Nov 16, 2013 17:54:32 GMT -5
Post by laughter on Nov 16, 2013 17:54:32 GMT -5
Greetings.. No, I won't shrink away from it E' made a prediction as to how you'd react to my confronting you with your own words, and you bore his prediction out, almost to the letter. Do you need links and quotes? ... I don't do giraffes ... LOL.. yeah, and i predicted you couldn't 'let it go', ... oh ... this is classic General Tzu' -- wrap a snide comment inside some arrogant bluster in order to mask a complete and utter failure to attend to the words on the page: I mentioned to you at more than one point that every conversation has a beginning a middle and an end. We're definitely getting near the end here. At this point my goal is to have something to point back toward at those times when I want to illustrate why the conversation came to a dead-end. Toward that end. Please. Keep typing. Exactly what did you think I was referring to by "the conversation"? If you tally up the number of times you've interjected into my conversations vs. vice-versa, especially in the last 3 or so months, then this bit you keep coming back to about lack of self-control is an obvious projection on your part. (** muttley snicker **) ... oh ... gonna play it like you didn't mistake what was goin' on until I pointed it out to you? Yeah, playin' dumb, that suits you quite well. i've confronted you and E with so many glaring inconsistencies in your beliefs, name one and all that is returned is attempted character assassination, no substantive open honest unconditionally sincere discussions.. You are a legend in your own mind standing on a imaginary battlefield and fending off the dark army of phantom bad-guys single-handedly. It's quite pathetic actually. so, there's an offer on the table, 'reality'.. what will you do.. Be well.. As if I wasn't the one who had the presence and peace of mind to divide your childish drivel from one last hurrah at "open honest discussion" I'm likely to offer you ... like I said, this is for prosperity, and you're already talkin' about Unicorns only two posts in.
|
|
|
Senses
Nov 16, 2013 18:01:20 GMT -5
Post by laughter on Nov 16, 2013 18:01:20 GMT -5
Greetings.. Even if that was true, it doesn't make returning hostility any less hostile. Especially when you're basically spending all your time trying to throw hostility back at people. I see that you're not adverse to a bit of hostility, either.. the simple observation is that the perps in the ST hostility market were at it long before i arrived, i'm just making it clear that their illusion that their brand of hostility is somehow spiritual, is both an illusion and unrelated to spirituality.. Be well.. So did you take what Si had to say in this particular instance as being hostile or were you referring to something else?
|
|
|
Senses
Nov 16, 2013 18:06:11 GMT -5
Post by laughter on Nov 16, 2013 18:06:11 GMT -5
Greetings.. just cause you once 'let-go' doesnt mean that others havn't let-go less than you, or that some are at peace in the realm of perpetual let-go. Let-go your need to have others do 'let-go' to see it they can swim as good as you did, once. The whole idea of needing another to bow-down to your needs, needs to be re-invented. What's in it for You Mr B. Well? Do you think Others want what you've got? Hardly like it,from over this side of the globe. Review your Tapes. What is YOUR interest in the relationship i have with other members? why not bring something substantive and original to the discussion, 'Tzu slayers' are a dime a dozen here at ST.. or, is that how it is on the other side of the globe, you just jump on with the others? c'mon kids where's your clarity, where's your capacity to let go and see past your beliefs?.. Be well.. Perfect example of your imagination run amok. This same element of paranoia was a major factor in my choosing to disengage with verby. Primarily for his own well-being.
|
|
|
Senses
Nov 16, 2013 18:10:06 GMT -5
Post by ???????? ???????????? on Nov 16, 2013 18:10:06 GMT -5
I didn't read all these HUGE posts, but I know one thing for a fact. Both people involved do nothing except trying to defend their ego.
|
|
|
Senses
Nov 16, 2013 19:00:34 GMT -5
Post by acewall on Nov 16, 2013 19:00:34 GMT -5
Greetings.. just cause you once 'let-go' doesnt mean that others havn't let-go less than you, or that some are at peace in the realm of perpetual let-go. Let-go your need to have others do 'let-go' to see it they can swim as good as you did, once. The whole idea of needing another to bow-down to your needs, needs to be re-invented. What's in it for You Mr B. Well? Do you think Others want what you've got? Hardly like it,from over this side of the globe. Review your Tapes. What is YOUR interest in the relationship i have with other members? why not bring something substantive and original to the discussion, 'Tzu slayers' are a dime a dozen here at ST.. or, is that how it is on the other side of the globe, you just jump on with the others? c'mon kids where's your clarity, where's your capacity to let go and see past your beliefs?.. Be well.. thank you Mr B. Well. 'WHAT' changes as the topic that others speak about with you, changes. Others dont seem to have a problem with THAT; only your I does. If you feel Slain,then THAT is simply what you're doing to Others... Mind is both Slayer and healer. Sometimes I speak to you, some times I speak with the Others you mention.(Observation reqd?) Wont coment on 'KIDS' as thats infering that you are Old an Wrinkly. I dont see you THAT way."Where's your capacity to let go and see past your beliefs?.." which beliefs are you drawn into? Map them out here in PT.org so that each of us can join-in with your joy of slaying beliefs.
|
|
|
Senses
Nov 16, 2013 19:40:12 GMT -5
Post by tzujanli on Nov 16, 2013 19:40:12 GMT -5
Greetings.. Greetings.. I see that you're not adverse to a bit of hostility, either.. the simple observation is that the perps in the ST hostility market were at it long before i arrived, i'm just making it clear that their illusion that their brand of hostility is somehow spiritual, is both an illusion and unrelated to spirituality.. Be well.. So did you take what Si had to say in this particular instance as being hostile or were you referring to something else? Denial is not a defensible position.. Be well..
|
|
|
Senses
Nov 16, 2013 19:46:56 GMT -5
Post by laughter on Nov 16, 2013 19:46:56 GMT -5
Greetings.. So did you take what Si had to say in this particular instance as being hostile or were you referring to something else? Denial is not a defensible position.. Be well.. The interjection itself doesn't imply hostility, and your answer is no answer at all.
|
|
|
Senses
Nov 16, 2013 21:36:28 GMT -5
Post by tzujanli on Nov 16, 2013 21:36:28 GMT -5
Greetings... Greetings.. LOL.. yeah, and i predicted you couldn't 'let it go', ... oh ... this is classic General Tzu' -- wrap a snide comment inside some arrogant bluster in order to mask a complete and utter failure to attend to the words on the page: I mentioned to you at more than one point that every conversation has a beginning a middle and an end. We're definitely getting near the end here. At this point my goal is to have something to point back toward at those times when I want to illustrate why the conversation came to a dead-end. Toward that end. Please. Keep typing. Exactly what did you think I was referring to by "the conversation"? If you tally up the number of times you've interjected into my conversations vs. vice-versa, especially in the last 3 or so months, then this bit you keep coming back to about lack of self-control is an obvious projection on your part. (** muttley snicker **) ... oh ... gonna play it like you didn't mistake what was goin' on until I pointed it out to you? Yeah, playin' dumb, that suits you quite well. i've confronted you and E with so many glaring inconsistencies in your beliefs, name one and all that is returned is attempted character assassination, no substantive open honest unconditionally sincere discussions.. You are a legend in your own mind standing on a imaginary battlefield and fending off the dark army of phantom bad-guys single-handedly. It's quite pathetic actually. so, there's an offer on the table, 'reality'.. what will you do.. Be well.. As if I wasn't the one who had the presence and peace of mind to divide your childish drivel from one last hurrah at "open honest discussion" I'm likely to offer you ... like I said, this is for prosperity, and you're already talkin' about Unicorns only two posts in. LOL.. Poor Bill, already painting your next grand illusion about Tzu.. yep, i'm relating 'Pink Unicorns' to the forum's sgenda, and i've asked if you have the capacity to let that go.. it's a yes/no question, none of your usual drama needed.. most of the illusion you are trying to create with your clearly superior wit, is to disguise your utter incompetence at a simple discussion.. you cannot help but litter the page with your beliefs about what 'was', when the question put to you is about 'now'.. will you come empty to the discussion or drag your tired old baggage with you.. it's another yes/no question, of course the validity of the answer will be evident in your reply.. So, if you're prepared to let go of your attachments to your beliefs abot 'tzu', and to focus on a single point of the question about reality at a time, we could begin another journey.. I'm not sure what all of the drama is about.. can we explore the fairly straightforward statement: "Reality is the state of things as they actually exist, rather than as they may appear or might be imagined."? as you may or may not understand, i am interested in simplicity, so.. do you agree that matters that exist only in the mind's imagination, are not actual components of reality, "Pink Unicorns" being the example i previously referenced.. that is not to imply that matters that exist solely in the imagination might not have an effect upon reality, like the hypothetical where people imagining 'Pink Unicorns' telling them to shoot people that don't believe in 'Pink Unicorns', and then acting on that imagined situation.. it's a situation where not real affects real, and makes for an interesting discussion about the relationship between imagination and reality.. are you interested in such a discussion? Be well..
|
|
|
Senses
Nov 16, 2013 21:52:26 GMT -5
Post by tzujanli on Nov 16, 2013 21:52:26 GMT -5
Greetings.. Greetings.. Denial is not a defensible position.. Be well.. The interjection itself doesn't imply hostility, and your answer is no answer at all. My 'answer' isn't intended to be an 'answer'.. it points to your inclination for creating illusions of words that appears to be a denial, more like plausible denial, but.. the reality is that if i were inclined to do the research and i'm not and you know it, that reality is that you interject into many more discussions i do.. so, denial is your 'get out of jail free' card.. and, even then, you are so attached to being 'right' that you quote a host of texts out of context to create the illusion that you actually know is false.. denial is not a defensible position, it's an attachment to a past that you know you want to create illusions to cover the actuality.. i am secure in the certainty of what transpired, and i can simply let it go.. 'you' doth protest too much, too invested in gaining people's belief in your right-ness.. can you let all that go, can you come to the table empty to honestly explore reality? or, will you continue the illusion of words.. Be well..
|
|