|
Post by silver on Nov 22, 2013 16:20:23 GMT -5
Obviously? ... If Joey was someone I had never corresponded with before and had been unequivocal, without calling for a license to mock in the same breath as he was politely requesting me to refrain from mocking, then that's a case of an obvious fragile facade that I'd have backed off of. If he was simply someone I'd never corresponded with before I'd want to learn more and wouldn't be heavy-handed about it. I'm just taking what he's saying right now at face value and forgetting history. If he's ultimately just amusing himself, that's fine, no skin off my nose. As you say it might be an elaborate joke and that's fine with me. Andrew seems to be suffering a bit too. Tzu's reaction to being mocked is to dish it back. I think he sees that as effective in some way. So, how would you propose that either Andrew or Tzu deal with what was dished out? Realistically, I mean?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 22, 2013 18:05:23 GMT -5
I'm just taking what he's saying right now at face value and forgetting history. If he's ultimately just amusing himself, that's fine, no skin off my nose. As you say it might be an elaborate joke and that's fine with me. Andrew seems to be suffering a bit too. Tzu's reaction to being mocked is to dish it back. I think he sees that as effective in some way. So, how would you propose that either Andrew or Tzu deal with what was dished out? Realistically, I mean? Yer kidding right? Even if I could fit in their moccasins for a 100 mile walk, I'd have no clue. Hard enough in me own mocs. Mocs! Realistically -- that's a goodun.
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Nov 22, 2013 18:30:03 GMT -5
Yeah, well that's not what that question was all about. I took what you said as that these self-images that are created deserve respect. Ok, ok - we can stop puking on each other. Yes, they deserve respect. Why wouldn't they? Just because a self-image is illusion doesn't make it less-than. The point is to show the illusion, not to belittle it, right? There are lots of ways to highlight illusion without resorting to "Haha - you're so full of it!". I guess if the goal is to teach, I'd say, maybe? This is a very old debate. Admittedly I'm stretching the idea of an icon to include personal self-image as well, but it seems to me that if we start offering respect to image that there's nowhere to draw the line that isn't arbitrary. Arbitrary is o.k. We used to have the old original guidelines in the GD section and now there are the NAT's, and that's where those arbitrary lines are around here. I'm also not advocating going after an image just because it's an image -- I conceded in the OP that the images are necessary. When the conversation starts hitting on the images there are various reasons to leave them alone or even in some cases treat them gingerly, but I see those as special cases. They're just images.
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Nov 22, 2013 18:39:14 GMT -5
Obviously? ... If Joey was someone I had never corresponded with before and had been unequivocal, without calling for a license to mock in the same breath as he was politely requesting me to refrain from mocking, then that's a case of an obvious fragile facade that I'd have backed off of. If he was simply someone I'd never corresponded with before I'd want to learn more and wouldn't be heavy-handed about it. Unless mocking others is somehow important to you, I don't get why, when asked to stop, you just wouldn't stop. That would be contextual. If someones mocking or deriding and demands that the mocking stop in return then I'd say the request in and of itself isn't a good enough reason to honor it. ....No need to psychologically dissect the circumstances as you've been doing. A polite request was made and if it costs you little to nothing to oblige, why not just do so? Yes, I acknowledged that request several times. As I explained, I never started mocking Joey_Q in this thread, although I suspect that his opening posts in it likely contained some of his own.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 22, 2013 19:04:05 GMT -5
As I was saying, I ask questions because I am interested in your understanding of your own actions. But there are questions that you haven't answered. It's ok if you can't. I wonder if maybe you use mockery because you find yourself short of anything else to say? It's easy to miss a post that isn't quoted to show up in 'notifications'. So I'm bringing this forward. It may be that you don't want to answer laughter, and that's not a problem. But if you are interested, then I'm interested in hearing any exploration you can give.
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Nov 22, 2013 19:15:01 GMT -5
As I was saying, I ask questions because I am interested in your understanding of your own actions. But there are questions that you haven't answered. It's ok if you can't. I wonder if maybe you use mockery because you find yourself short of anything else to say? Yes missed it the first time. Not all of the responses given contained direct answers to the questions posed, yes, that's true, but in my estimation I did reply directly to the posts that contained them with relevant dialog. Rather than my offering some analysis of the conversation I'll leave it this way -- if you want one of the specific responses elaborated on then specify which one and please, in addition, offer some possible direction for further elaboration. Also: one of your questions was answered with a question which you didn't even offer a directly response to, so I'd return your invitation to you, but in a more direct form, that of wrote repetition: Do you see a point in what isn't silence?
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Nov 22, 2013 19:23:12 GMT -5
I am interested in your understanding of your own actions. What is your understanding of the nature of the line of questioning about my understanding of my actions?
|
|
|
Post by quinn on Nov 22, 2013 19:24:23 GMT -5
Ok, ok - we can stop puking on each other. Yes, they deserve respect. Why wouldn't they? Just because a self-image is illusion doesn't make it less-than. The point is to show the illusion, not to belittle it, right? There are lots of ways to highlight illusion without resorting to "Haha - you're so full of it!". I guess if the goal is to teach, I'd say, maybe? How about if the goal is to share viewpoints and understandings. Wait, what? We're talking about mocking, not confrontation. The NATs are for people who don't want to be aggressively challenged. You can challenge someone without mockery. And yeah, sure, it's all arbitrary. Here's a guideline: If you're laughing with someone - it's not mocking. If you're laughing at them - it is. Ok - I can tell that's the way you see it. I have no problem with challenge. You seem to be conflating challenge/confrontation with mocking.
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Nov 22, 2013 20:06:15 GMT -5
I guess if the goal is to teach, I'd say, maybe? How about if the goal is to share viewpoints and understandings. If that's done in such a way that it's taken sincerely then I wouldn't see any reason for mockery even if the self-image projected is serious and sober. Wait, what? We're talking about mocking, not confrontation. The NATs are for people who don't want to be aggressively challenged. You can challenge someone without mockery. Actually at this point we were talking about respecting the self-image, and if you look at the NAT guidelines they're currently about personal disparagement, so that surely rules out mockery in a NAT. And yeah, sure, it's all arbitrary. Here's a guideline: If you're laughing with someone - it's not mocking. If you're laughing at them - it is. I'd disagree with this based on the point that laughing at an image is not laughing at a someone ... unless, do you take the image to be what that someone is? If the mocking goes past the image then it could cross the line to a form of harassment. The problem of course is, how does the reader take it? What if the reader has entangled the image of themselves with their sense of their self? Then what seems like mocking to some might seem like harassment to others. This is, like all the stuff here, entirely subjective. If someone states flat out that they know the difference between these two: self-image and self, and, then demonstrates it some way ... by oh, maybe say, a few thousand posts on the subject of non-duality ... then that's a different story from someone who comes right out and says that they take themselves to be a story a collection of things and a set of other characteristics. Wouldn't you think? Ok - I can tell that's the way you see it. I have no problem with challenge. You seem to be conflating challenge/confrontation with mocking. Yes you're right at that point I did merge the two ideas -- the way I see it, not all challenge is mocking, but all mocking is likely to be taken as a form of indirect challenge. I think the way you see it challenge is direct and doesn't include mocking, is that right? Direct, blunt-force trauma to an image can be just as damaging to it as a dizzying mockudrama, eh?
|
|
|
Post by silence on Nov 22, 2013 20:26:27 GMT -5
What is it that deserves respect? That is not mocking-puke, that's just my reaction. Ridicule in the name of no-person-here is absurd. Yes, that's a clever excuse. By the same token, I'm not here to help people and carefully execute careful poking or mocking to lead people along and not mock when they are feeling over sensitive. Ever single post without exception is just a result of feeling spontaneously moved to share something.
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Nov 22, 2013 20:32:58 GMT -5
Unless mocking others is somehow important to you, I don't get why, when asked to stop, you just wouldn't stop. ....No need to psychologically dissect the circumstances as you've been doing. A polite request was made and if it costs you little to nothing to oblige, why not just do so? I think that was the subject here -- I'm not totally clear on much of anything, but it seems he's hinting that he thinks it does a body good...that intervention thing, to help someone get their spiritual head on straight or some such. Where, exactly in what I wrote did I hint that? I doesn't say anything close. I tend to agree that as an authority figure, even here, that there's no benefit to denying a mundane request. Like I said to the figster, I never started what he asked me to stop.
|
|
|
Post by silver on Nov 22, 2013 20:41:27 GMT -5
I think that was the subject here -- I'm not totally clear on much of anything, but it seems he's hinting that he thinks it does a body good...that intervention thing, to help someone get their spiritual head on straight or some such. Where, exactly in what I wrote did I hint that? I doesn't say anything close. I tend to agree that as an authority figure, even here, that there's no benefit to denying a mundane request. Like I said to the figster , I never started what he asked me to stop.That's got nothing to do with it.......if you're the authority around here, and he asked you to stop something (IF it's in the GM/NAT section), there would be no reason to turn down his request. Your answer gives every appearance that you condone the behavior that you eventually joined in on, so it doesn't make you look so very honest, sheriff.
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Nov 22, 2013 20:44:28 GMT -5
Where, exactly in what I wrote did I hint that? I doesn't say anything close. Like I said to the figster , I never started what he asked me to stop.That's got nothing to do with it.......if you're the authority around here, and he asked you to stop something (IF it's in the GM/NAT section), there would be no reason to turn down his request. Your answer gives every appearance that you condone the behavior that you eventually joined in on, so it doesn't make you look so very honest, sheriff. Ok, right so the answer to the first question is absence which means that you just made that up about the hint. As far as this second bit goes, figs was talkin' 'bout this thread, and referring to Joey_Q's repeated polite requests that I stop mocking him -- to re-iterate: I never started mocking him in this thread.
|
|
|
Post by silver on Nov 22, 2013 20:48:45 GMT -5
That's got nothing to do with it.......if you're the authority around here, and he asked you to stop something (IF it's in the GM/NAT section), there would be no reason to turn down his request. Your answer gives every appearance that you condone the behavior that you eventually joined in on, so it doesn't make you look so very honest, sheriff. Ok, right so the answer to the first question is absence which means that you just made that up about the hint. As far as this second bit goes, figs was talkin' 'bout this thread, and referring to Joey_Q's repeated polite requests that I stop mocking him -- to re-iterate: I never started mocking him in this thread. I thought it was about the OP topic. What are you talking about? Made up? what hint?
|
|
|
Post by quinn on Nov 22, 2013 21:30:23 GMT -5
I'd disagree with this based on the point that laughing at an image is not laughing at a someone ... unless, do you take the image to be what that someone is? If the mocking goes past the image then it could cross the line to a form of harassment. How is that even possible? I don't understand what that means. It's always about the image. Yes, there is always the issue of how the person takes it. That's not going to go away. But I'm not talking about that part. I'm talking about the urge to mock. What it springs from. Yes. Yes.
|
|