|
Senses
Nov 16, 2013 22:12:55 GMT -5
Post by silence on Nov 16, 2013 22:12:55 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.. Okay. None of that matters. You ARE belligerent and hostile, period.
|
|
|
Senses
Nov 16, 2013 22:37:39 GMT -5
Post by laughter on Nov 16, 2013 22:37:39 GMT -5
I'm not sure what all of the drama is about.. I'm sorry I don't know what you're referring to as I didn't see any in that post. 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, That's exactly what I offered to do. This definition seems to me to depend on what you take actuality, existence and appearances to be. Since it's a very common thing for a person to mistake an idea about what appears to them as something that actually exists, to just gloss over these other ideas would defeat the purpose of the discussion before it barely begins, which was about "reality", which, as I pointed out, is only a word, only an idea. Actuality and existence and appearances are also words. Also ideas. Do you mistake them for something else? 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.. Did you miss this? 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. 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.. Did you miss this? 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.
|
|
|
Senses
Nov 16, 2013 22:37:55 GMT -5
Post by laughter on Nov 16, 2013 22:37:55 GMT -5
Greetings... ... 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: 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. name one 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. 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.. Well the way I see it is this: 1) we were near the end of an insane bit of mudslinging, and woven in with that, you suddenly invited open honest discussion on a number of different topics. 2) I responded, offering an opening observation about your offer to converse about "reality", and offered you the chance to get specific about the other interests. 3) You responded to that with the dictionary definition of reality and then started talking about Pink Unicorns, a Spiritual Circus and oneness and conflict. 4) I'll have you note that although your response (#3), didn't seem very empty, what I wrote to you in reply was neutral. Can you possibly claim otherwise and maintain any shred of dignity? Now here you actually admit that your response was loaded with past baggage: yep, i'm relating 'Pink Unicorns' to the forum's sgenda, IOW: so much for "coming empty". 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.. you have got to be deliberately acting foolish here ... I've already answered yes before you even asked that question -- just read my reply (#4). It was completely neutral. You. Are. The. Drama. Queen. Here. Not only that, but even though I gave you that fresh start (#2), you go ahead and decide to merge the mud slinging with that, which is an excellent indication of the complete insincerity of your invitation (#1), especially in light of my accepting it sincerely (#'s 2 and 3). This is not an illusion, this is the words on the page. For the sake of trying to maintain some semblance of a reasonable discussion I'll give another go at separating your latest emotional outburst from the line of discussion. That is, what you seemed to challenge me to do now, isn't it? -- engage in open honest and unconditionally sincere discussion about reality rather than personality, But as far as the rest of this nonsensical ego-baiting bullsh!t is concerned: most of the illusion you are trying to create with your clearly superior wit, is to disguise your utter incompetence at a simple discussion.. My incompetence?? ... here I'll give you another chance, comin' right up (previous post).... God you are insufferable. 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've already shown how it was you who failed to come empty. To you "come empty" is just an empty mantra. Now if you want to go back and count up the number of beliefs you've expressed about laughter and the evil frat, that's a tally that you'll lose. Hands down.
|
|
|
Senses
Nov 16, 2013 22:41:13 GMT -5
Post by acewall on Nov 16, 2013 22:41:13 GMT -5
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.. Okay. None of that matters. You ARE belligerent and hostile, period. mis-impressionism assists some folk to conjure-up all sorts of things in an effort to evade the truth. Some minds do better CLOSED, experiencing energy as pressure on their globe. Left to their own creativity, they enjoy their inventive minds an revel at what they can create within themselves. Other minds do best OPENED, prefering to see what others are saying, and responding as humans. Perhaps we need closed minds to survive at first, like during adolescence but later-on realise the importance of being part of the world;as this is our home. To have someone apart from ourselves is interesting when it comes down to enlightenment is unity! Although each bird has a different chirp they all add to the world with their birdsongs and droppings of fertiliser, some with seeds awaiting new pastuers to take root.
|
|
|
Senses
Nov 16, 2013 22:45:22 GMT -5
Post by laughter on Nov 16, 2013 22:45:22 GMT -5
Greetings.. 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.. Let's be clear here -- are you saying that I interject into more discussion overall or, specifically, that I make unsolicited replies to you more often than you make unsolicited replies to me? I tell you with a certainty that, especially in the past month (... and as I recall, the last three), it has been you more often than not that has initiated the conversation between you and I. Do you maintain otherwise? 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.. Do you realize how obvious of a troll-taunt the current conversation is showing this to be?
|
|
|
Senses
Nov 16, 2013 22:54:08 GMT -5
Post by acewall on Nov 16, 2013 22:54:08 GMT -5
Greetings.. 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.. Let's be clear here -- are you saying that I interject into more discussion overall or, specifically, that I make unsolicited replies to you more often than you make unsolicited replies to me? I tell you with a certainty that, especially in the past month (... and as I recall, the last three), it has been you more often than not that has initiated the conversation. Do you maintain otherwise? 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.. Do you realize how obvious of a troll-taunt the current conversation is showing this to be? LOL, I love the way we show ourselves up in the way that we post to each other our shit as though its shine speaks for how clean we preen our egos!
|
|
|
Senses
Nov 16, 2013 22:57:28 GMT -5
Post by laughter on Nov 16, 2013 22:57:28 GMT -5
Let's be clear here -- are you saying that I interject into more discussion overall or, specifically, that I make unsolicited replies to you more often than you make unsolicited replies to me? I tell you with a certainty that, especially in the past month (... and as I recall, the last three), it has been you more often than not that has initiated the conversation. Do you maintain otherwise? Do you realize how obvious of a troll-taunt the current conversation is showing this to be? LOL, I love the way we show ourselves up in the way that we post to each other our nuts as though its shine speaks for how clean we preen our egos! it is complete and utter madness, I won't claim otherwise!
|
|
|
Senses
Nov 16, 2013 22:58:19 GMT -5
Post by acewall on Nov 16, 2013 22:58:19 GMT -5
Mr B. Well says, "let go" and Mr Giggle says, "accountability" Personally, I am in awe of Mr Giggles computer-skills... where did you learn all that technique? Mr B. Well needs to turn the record over and play the otherside. Bottoms-up!
|
|
|
Senses
Nov 16, 2013 23:00:38 GMT -5
Post by laughter on Nov 16, 2013 23:00:38 GMT -5
Mr B. Well says, "let go" and Mr Giggle says, "accountability" Personally, I am in awe of Mr Giggles computer-skills... where did you learn all that technique? Mr B. Well needs to turn the record over and play the otherside. ... years of making a living writing code Did you notice that Mr. B. Well is clinging for dear life to the stick and just asking me to let go so that he can try to hit me with it again?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Senses
Nov 16, 2013 23:07:44 GMT -5
Post by Deleted on Nov 16, 2013 23:07:44 GMT -5
Did you miss this? 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. Tzu?? This is a sound invite it seems to me.
|
|
|
Senses
Nov 16, 2013 23:21:57 GMT -5
Post by acewall on Nov 16, 2013 23:21:57 GMT -5
Mr B. Well says, "let go" and Mr Giggle says, "accountability" Personally, I am in awe of Mr Giggles computer-skills... where did you learn all that technique? Mr B. Well needs to turn the record over and play the otherside. ... years of making a living writing code Did you notice that Mr. B. Well is clinging for dear life to the stick and just asking me to let go so that he can try to hit me with it again? Jesus, "Forgive them Father, they know not what they do." Me hopes Mr B. Well stays in here long-enuf to meet Mr B.Happy. Thwack Benson has installed his cameras in this thread and notified Slushy Jane to come to the party. She loves to hold the microphone stick.
|
|
|
Senses
Nov 17, 2013 0:53:23 GMT -5
Post by tzujanli on Nov 17, 2013 0:53:23 GMT -5
Greetings.. Tzu?? This is a sound invite it seems to me. I would like to believe so, too.. if you are inclined, read the last 48 hours of exchanges between The Sheriff and me, try no to be dazzled by the illusions woven and the 'technical prowess'.. i'm no match for such mastery, nor am i interested in that level of minding, i can only go at the fundamental cause and effect.. Again, i am eager to pursue open, honest, unconditionally sincere discussion, but Bill creates the illusion he is and i'm not.. you'll also notice that it becomes substantially more difficult to have a direct simple honest discussion when the 'tag-along' trolls that want to complicate the process interject their distractions, rather than contribute to a simple direct discussion, and Bill inspires the trolls to aid in his complication of an otherwise naturally simple discussion.. The discussion IS possible, IF the intent is actual.. read the exchanges with an open mind and let me know if you actually believe Bill's invite is sincere.. i'm matching his conditional approach, calling the illusions as he constructs them, well.. some of them, it's really tedious if you pay attention to Bill's well-played misrepresentations and out of context quote walls that he uses to sway the observer's beliefs about what is actually happening.. (see, i can do it, too.. but why?) there's nothing to be gained by pursuing further pokes at each other, but.. i suspect Bill will have the last word about 'pokes', so okay.. now: I made a simple and sincere request to explore 'reality', a genuine attempt to deescalate a pointless situation leading to threats being made.. there were some posts replied to out of chronological order that seemed to set Bill off, again, but.. in order to get to zero, it was necessary to neutralize some misrepresented commentary.. i am hopeful that the zero-point can be the beginning reference going forward, that BOTH Bill and Tzu will 'let it go', in favor of the opportunity to look at reality honestly, simply, directly, and.. hopefully, with minimal distractions from the tag-along troll brigade.. It would be remarkably refreshing to have a simple open honest unconditionally sincere discussion about something so fundamental as our understanding of 'reality'.. a fluid and dynamic conversation that doesn't get mired in pedantic obstacles to the organic exchange of understandings and perspectives.. i will remain hopeful.. Be well..
|
|
|
Senses
Nov 17, 2013 1:21:33 GMT -5
Post by enigma on Nov 17, 2013 1:21:33 GMT -5
[psychoanalysis]I speculate that Tzu believes his comments to be incontrovertibly true, and therefore sees himself as simply being open, honest and direct in bringing these truths to everyone's attention. As such, I doubt that he sees himself as belligerent, condescending or hostile.[/psychoanalysis] Funny thing, while reading his quotes, the thought flashed that he might benefit from the mental discipline and equanimity associated with the marshal arts. (That thought passed quickly) Yeah, hey, you called it. You's bearboyuant I tells ya'!
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Senses
Nov 17, 2013 9:35:30 GMT -5
Post by Deleted on Nov 17, 2013 9:35:30 GMT -5
Greetings.. Tzu?? This is a sound invite it seems to me. I would like to believe so, too.. if you are inclined, read the last 48 hours of exchanges between The Sheriff and me, try no to be dazzled by the illusions woven and the 'technical prowess'.. i'm no match for such mastery, nor am i interested in that level of minding, i can only go at the fundamental cause and effect.. Again, i am eager to pursue open, honest, unconditionally sincere discussion, but Bill creates the illusion he is and i'm not.. you'll also notice that it becomes substantially more difficult to have a direct simple honest discussion when the 'tag-along' trolls that want to complicate the process interject their distractions, rather than contribute to a simple direct discussion, and Bill inspires the trolls to aid in his complication of an otherwise naturally simple discussion.. The discussion IS possible, IF the intent is actual.. read the exchanges with an open mind and let me know if you actually believe Bill's invite is sincere.. i'm matching his conditional approach, calling the illusions as he constructs them, well.. some of them, it's really tedious if you pay attention to Bill's well-played misrepresentations and out of context quote walls that he uses to sway the observer's beliefs about what is actually happening.. (see, i can do it, too.. but why?) there's nothing to be gained by pursuing further pokes at each other, but.. i suspect Bill will have the last word about 'pokes', so okay.. now: I made a simple and sincere request to explore 'reality', a genuine attempt to deescalate a pointless situation leading to threats being made.. there were some posts replied to out of chronological order that seemed to set Bill off, again, but.. in order to get to zero, it was necessary to neutralize some misrepresented commentary.. i am hopeful that the zero-point can be the beginning reference going forward, that BOTH Bill and Tzu will 'let it go', in favor of the opportunity to look at reality honestly, simply, directly, and.. hopefully, with minimal distractions from the tag-along troll brigade.. It would be remarkably refreshing to have a simple open honest unconditionally sincere discussion about something so fundamental as our understanding of 'reality'.. a fluid and dynamic conversation that doesn't get mired in pedantic obstacles to the organic exchange of understandings and perspectives.. i will remain hopeful.. Be well.. I don't care about any of that stuff. The only thing I'm interested in is the substantive convo. The definition of reality has been posted. Now what falls within what is real and what falls outside of it?
|
|
|
Senses
Nov 17, 2013 9:52:11 GMT -5
Post by tzujanli on Nov 17, 2013 9:52:11 GMT -5
Greetings.. Greetings.. I would like to believe so, too.. if you are inclined, read the last 48 hours of exchanges between The Sheriff and me, try no to be dazzled by the illusions woven and the 'technical prowess'.. i'm no match for such mastery, nor am i interested in that level of minding, i can only go at the fundamental cause and effect.. Again, i am eager to pursue open, honest, unconditionally sincere discussion, but Bill creates the illusion he is and i'm not.. you'll also notice that it becomes substantially more difficult to have a direct simple honest discussion when the 'tag-along' trolls that want to complicate the process interject their distractions, rather than contribute to a simple direct discussion, and Bill inspires the trolls to aid in his complication of an otherwise naturally simple discussion.. The discussion IS possible, IF the intent is actual.. read the exchanges with an open mind and let me know if you actually believe Bill's invite is sincere.. i'm matching his conditional approach, calling the illusions as he constructs them, well.. some of them, it's really tedious if you pay attention to Bill's well-played misrepresentations and out of context quote walls that he uses to sway the observer's beliefs about what is actually happening.. (see, i can do it, too.. but why?) there's nothing to be gained by pursuing further pokes at each other, but.. i suspect Bill will have the last word about 'pokes', so okay.. now: I made a simple and sincere request to explore 'reality', a genuine attempt to deescalate a pointless situation leading to threats being made.. there were some posts replied to out of chronological order that seemed to set Bill off, again, but.. in order to get to zero, it was necessary to neutralize some misrepresented commentary.. i am hopeful that the zero-point can be the beginning reference going forward, that BOTH Bill and Tzu will 'let it go', in favor of the opportunity to look at reality honestly, simply, directly, and.. hopefully, with minimal distractions from the tag-along troll brigade.. It would be remarkably refreshing to have a simple open honest unconditionally sincere discussion about something so fundamental as our understanding of 'reality'.. a fluid and dynamic conversation that doesn't get mired in pedantic obstacles to the organic exchange of understandings and perspectives.. i will remain hopeful.. Be well.. I don't care about any of that stuff. The only thing I'm interested in is the substantive convo. The definition of reality has been posted. Now what falls within what is real and what falls outside of it? Great! So, rather than 'the' definition of reality, i'm more inclined to accept the Wiki condensed version, as 'a' definition, leaving open the opportunity for revisions as we explore that definition's relationship with 'isness'.. Do you accept that imagery which exists solely within the mind, and which cannot be demonstrated as an actuality, imagery such as 'Pink Unicorns', is not a component of reality? Be well..
|
|