|
|
Post by enigma on Jan 13, 2014 21:43:38 GMT -5
There's nothing hidden in that, nothing left to the imagination, no line of inquiry. Of course, in the context that can be referred to as non-conceptual, there are no green frogs, but that is a very special case. Don't EVEN go there!  |
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Jan 13, 2014 21:44:37 GMT -5
... but if someone says "there are no green frogs", and if one breaks the silence in reply, is it the lesser lunacy to say "that's just your opinion" or "no, that's not true"? Lesser lunacy is a consummation devoutly to be wished.  stop being an evil frog and answer the question!! |
|
|
|
Post by enigma on Jan 14, 2014 1:44:52 GMT -5
Lesser lunacy is a consummation devoutly to be wished. stop being an evil frog and answer the question!! It's a lesser lunacy to say no, that's not true, and I have proof.  |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 14, 2014 1:48:17 GMT -5
Yes absolutely. So look at that as applied to the way people speak to one another here on ST. That was mostly what I had in mind when I said it. Of course I can only offer my own questionable perspective on the perspectives of others, but I see a picture painter who often begins with an image, and then sets out to validate it, and because that image is the template for the investigation, it is almost almost verified. I see a couple of peeps that are so convinced of their rightness that it is used to justify all manner of judgment and verbal abuse and condescension. These are not bad people who think they are behaving badly, just people responding appropriately given their own absolute certainty about what they think they know. So the question is, how will you respond to what you experience in that moment? |
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Jan 14, 2014 2:08:22 GMT -5
stop being an evil frog and answer the question!! It's a lesser lunacy to say no, that's not true, and I have proof. What, a picture?? .... pshaw ... all that proves is that you're attached to using indirect communication and therefore are doubly-evil, and that's just my opinion. |
|
|
|
Post by enigma on Jan 14, 2014 2:32:25 GMT -5
That was mostly what I had in mind when I said it. Of course I can only offer my own questionable perspective on the perspectives of others, but I see a picture painter who often begins with an image, and then sets out to validate it, and because that image is the template for the investigation, it is almost almost verified. I see a couple of peeps that are so convinced of their rightness that it is used to justify all manner of judgment and verbal abuse and condescension. These are not bad people who think they are behaving badly, just people responding appropriately given their own absolute certainty about what they think they know. So the question is, how will you respond to what you experience in that moment? I just did. My whole deally is looking at what in blazes is really going on. There's no solution to this. Everybody is allowed their own subjective perspective, and they're going to believe that what they see is true no matter what they see. Most of what I talk about here is the difference between what is said here, and what folks think is said here. The record is objectively documented here as to what was actually said, but rarely does that make any difference at all. I've noticed that both Reefs and Laughter are aware of this phenomena as well and they both have tried to tediously reconstruct from that record. I've also noticed that it fails..... without fail. What folks can learn from that is what I've learned: Mind will only see what it wants to see. Facts are irrelevant. This is the form and function of illusion that most here imagine they are trying to see through. |
|
|
|
Post by enigma on Jan 14, 2014 2:35:40 GMT -5
It's a lesser lunacy to say no, that's not true, and I have proof. What, a picture?? .... pshaw ... all that proves is that you're attached to using indirect communication and therefore are doubly-evil, and that's just my opinion. Ooookaaay, I confess. I painted that picture meself.  |
|
|
|
Post by Reefs on Jan 14, 2014 2:56:47 GMT -5
I've been on forums where rules are too subjective. The biggest one used in spirituality is "members must respect others views." But respect is very subjective, so what that means is whatever slant the moderators take on it, and that is often influenced by their own beliefs. So it ends up messy, no one actually knows what the rules are, and enforcement becomes along the lines of "all animals are equal - but some animals are more equal than others." I've also been on a forum with no rules. It had its high time, where people expressed just what they felt and saw clearly - and where people were willing to look at their own responses, it worked very well. If a person took a dislike, or reacted emotionally, it often revealed some conditioning or attachment etc...and when the attachment is seen for what it is, it seems to disappear (I'm not asking for comment on those ideas, I'm simply explaining how it worked on that forum). One nail in the forums coffin came when a couple of individuals took it upon themselves to teach others how to 'see' more clearly. So in private messages, conversations along the lines of "Do you see the fear behind that person words,".. "No"... "Look, see how they see this... and the say that, it's because they fear it"... "Oh WOW, yes I see it now,"... "Well done, you are finding your own clear sightedness my friend." In short, manipulation masqueraded as teaching and support. That led to the next nail which was a them and us culture. People flocking together against the other flock. And any newcomers who didn't know the lingo, got shot down before they had a chance to get off the ground. For all the egotistical belief that it was a special place, when nobody wanted to speak on the message boards, it closed. I've also been on a forum with very clear and concise rules that are enforced with a regularity that leaves no room for personal bias. It was a place where heated debate really worked, because there was a rule that it must not get personal. So the second anyone started "you are this" or "you've done that" etc, they received a warning, a thread ban etc. That managed to keep discussion about the issues being discussed, rather than about the people discussing them. I'm just putting my experiences of forums out there, as input into the current attempts at addressing the club thing. Rotten apple spoils the barrel. Simple. |
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Jan 14, 2014 8:29:10 GMT -5
What, a picture?? .... pshaw ... all that proves is that you're attached to using indirect communication and therefore are doubly-evil, and that's just my opinion. Ooookaaay, I confess. I painted that picture meself. (** gasp! **) Accountability?? ... are you serial?? ... isn't that just the thing with this idea of a personal creator though?  How can a person ever possibly shoulder the weight of the whole world? Atlas shrugged, and the world rolled away. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 14, 2014 11:30:31 GMT -5
So the question is, how will you respond to what you experience in that moment? I just did. My whole deally is looking at what in blazes is really going on. There's no solution to this. Everybody is allowed their own subjective perspective, and they're going to believe that what they see is true no matter what they see. Most of what I talk about here is the difference between what is said here, and what folks think is said here. The record is objectively documented here as to what was actually said, but rarely does that make any difference at all. I've noticed that both Reefs and Laughter are aware of this phenomena as well and they both have tried to tediously reconstruct from that record. I've also noticed that it fails..... without fail. What folks can learn from that is what I've learned: Mind will only see what it wants to see. Facts are irrelevant. This is the form and function of illusion that most here imagine they are trying to see through. Hence, awareness of the distinction between what is actually said (objectivity) and what you the reader interprets as what is meant (subjectivity). I am aware of this phenomenon, and I see you and Laughter do it. Is it done to help show others that illusion can be created with subjectivity? |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 14, 2014 11:31:26 GMT -5
I've been on forums where rules are too subjective. The biggest one used in spirituality is "members must respect others views." But respect is very subjective, so what that means is whatever slant the moderators take on it, and that is often influenced by their own beliefs. So it ends up messy, no one actually knows what the rules are, and enforcement becomes along the lines of "all animals are equal - but some animals are more equal than others." I've also been on a forum with no rules. It had its high time, where people expressed just what they felt and saw clearly - and where people were willing to look at their own responses, it worked very well. If a person took a dislike, or reacted emotionally, it often revealed some conditioning or attachment etc...and when the attachment is seen for what it is, it seems to disappear (I'm not asking for comment on those ideas, I'm simply explaining how it worked on that forum). One nail in the forums coffin came when a couple of individuals took it upon themselves to teach others how to 'see' more clearly. So in private messages, conversations along the lines of "Do you see the fear behind that person words,".. "No"... "Look, see how they see this... and the say that, it's because they fear it"... "Oh WOW, yes I see it now,"... "Well done, you are finding your own clear sightedness my friend." In short, manipulation masqueraded as teaching and support. That led to the next nail which was a them and us culture. People flocking together against the other flock. And any newcomers who didn't know the lingo, got shot down before they had a chance to get off the ground. For all the egotistical belief that it was a special place, when nobody wanted to speak on the message boards, it closed. I've also been on a forum with very clear and concise rules that are enforced with a regularity that leaves no room for personal bias. It was a place where heated debate really worked, because there was a rule that it must not get personal. So the second anyone started "you are this" or "you've done that" etc, they received a warning, a thread ban etc. That managed to keep discussion about the issues being discussed, rather than about the people discussing them. I'm just putting my experiences of forums out there, as input into the current attempts at addressing the club thing. Rotten apple spoils the barrel. Simple. What do you mean please Reefs? |
|
|
|
Post by enigma on Jan 14, 2014 12:21:17 GMT -5
I just did. My whole deally is looking at what in blazes is really going on. There's no solution to this. Everybody is allowed their own subjective perspective, and they're going to believe that what they see is true no matter what they see. Most of what I talk about here is the difference between what is said here, and what folks think is said here. The record is objectively documented here as to what was actually said, but rarely does that make any difference at all. I've noticed that both Reefs and Laughter are aware of this phenomena as well and they both have tried to tediously reconstruct from that record. I've also noticed that it fails..... without fail. What folks can learn from that is what I've learned: Mind will only see what it wants to see. Facts are irrelevant. This is the form and function of illusion that most here imagine they are trying to see through. Hence, awareness of the distinction between what is actually said (objectivity) and what you the reader interprets as what is meant (subjectivity). I am aware of this phenomenon, and I see you and Laughter do it. Is it done to help show others that illusion can be created with subjectivity? Yes, It's part of what I've called 'Street Advaita': Takin it to the streets, or to be as clear as possible, making it real. Suffering is a very practical matter, and while I wouldn't presume to know what may be experienced as suffering on this forum by any particular individual, the dynamic of illusion creation is identical in all instances, and in a sense it 'begins here', in the seeing of what is not there, and the not seeing of what is. Mostly, folks tend to make spirituality an enigmatic process, and I agree with your focus here on the practical work. Most folks have a certain resistance to bringing that process completely home, to literally here and now. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 15, 2014 16:26:49 GMT -5
Hence, awareness of the distinction between what is actually said (objectivity) and what you the reader interprets as what is meant (subjectivity). I am aware of this phenomenon, and I see you and Laughter do it. Is it done to help show others that illusion can be created with subjectivity? Yes, It's part of what I've called 'Street Advaita': Takin it to the streets, or to be as clear as possible, making it real. Suffering is a very practical matter, and while I wouldn't presume to know what may be experienced as suffering on this forum by any particular individual, the dynamic of illusion creation is identical in all instances, and in a sense it 'begins here', in the seeing of what is not there, and the not seeing of what is. Mostly, folks tend to make spirituality an enigmatic process, and I agree with your focus here on the practical work. Most folks have a certain resistance to bringing that process completely home, to literally here and now. Spirituality is here and now always, and everywhere. So, yes, I focus on life or practical application/exploration more so than studying. What I was asking though, is whether, when you, laughter or reefs give a subjective interpretation and state that it is what has been said (only mentioning those names as you linked them to being aware of this phenomenon), whether it is done in order to show others that illusion is created this way? |
|
|
|
Post by Beingist on Jan 15, 2014 19:08:36 GMT -5
Hence, awareness of the distinction between what is actually said (objectivity) and what you the reader interprets as what is meant (subjectivity). I am aware of this phenomenon, and I see you and Laughter do it. Is it done to help show others that illusion can be created with subjectivity? Yes, It's part of what I've called 'Street Advaita': Takin it to the streets, or to be as clear as possible, making it real. Suffering is a very practical matter, and while I wouldn't presume to know what may be experienced as suffering on this forum by any particular individual, the dynamic of illusion creation is identical in all instances, and in a sense it 'begins here', in the seeing of what is not there, and the not seeing of what is. Mostly, folks tend to make spirituality an enigmatic process, and I agree with your focus here on the practical work. Most folks have a certain resistance to bringing that process completely home, to literally here and now. See, I KNEW you were Michael McDonald!! You don't know me but I'm your brother I was raised here in this living hell You don't know my kind in your world Fairly soon the time will tell You, telling me the things you're gonna do for me I ain't blind and I don't like what I think I see Takin' it to the streets Takin' it to the streets Takin' it to the streets Takin' it to the streets Take this message to my brother You will find him everywhere Wherever people live together Tied in poverty's despair You, telling me the things you're gonna do for me I ain't blind and I don't like what I think I see Takin' it to the streets Takin' it to the streets Takin' it to the streets Takin' it to the streets |
|
|
|
Post by enigma on Jan 17, 2014 3:57:12 GMT -5
Yes, It's part of what I've called 'Street Advaita': Takin it to the streets, or to be as clear as possible, making it real. Suffering is a very practical matter, and while I wouldn't presume to know what may be experienced as suffering on this forum by any particular individual, the dynamic of illusion creation is identical in all instances, and in a sense it 'begins here', in the seeing of what is not there, and the not seeing of what is. Mostly, folks tend to make spirituality an enigmatic process, and I agree with your focus here on the practical work. Most folks have a certain resistance to bringing that process completely home, to literally here and now. Spirituality is here and now always, and everywhere. So, yes, I focus on life or practical application/exploration more so than studying. What I was asking though, is whether, when you, laughter or reefs give a subjective interpretation and state that it is what has been said (only mentioning those names as you linked them to being aware of this phenomenon), whether it is done in order to show others that illusion is created this way? I've already explained that's what I do. I'm not speaking for the others beyond saying that they apparently notice the discrepancies. |
|
