|
Post by andrew on Jan 19, 2014 16:00:18 GMT -5
As I see it, those terms do not mock. They seriously describe without poking fun at, or ridiculing the ideas put forth. Only if you believe the images that you create, and the fact is that you ignore the deconstruction of them. When you do that, it's actually quite humorous. I might be wrong, but my guess is that what Fig sees primarily is a pattern of thinking. Its not the image that is challenged, its the thought structure, the frame of reference.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 19, 2014 16:01:25 GMT -5
Only if you believe the images that you create, I mention such things a 'being stuck' because I'm interested in discussing it....exploring it with the one I'm challenging. AGain, very much in the eye of the beholder. My experience is that very often, the mocking itself takes the place of actual discussion...it's used as a means of avoiding directly answering questions and offering concise explanations and descriptions of experience.
|
|
|
Post by andrew on Jan 19, 2014 16:01:51 GMT -5
What I said was accurate. The statistical difference would be enormous. I am fine with what I said, I don't believe that the personal disparagement was strong, and was basically pitched at the level that you began with. Like I said, I don't see the kill joy role as necessarily a problem if the conceptual structure is unproblematic i.e the role is fine in certain situations. This is an example of that repetition that takes the form of a sort of endless affirmation. It's a form of propaganda. Its no more propaganda or more repetitious than what you are saying. You see your self-contradiction there, right?
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Jan 19, 2014 16:02:04 GMT -5
There is a dissonance between you disclaiming any desire for it to stop on one hand, and the fact that you often bring the discussion back to the point, such as right here -- it's also another example of you putting yourself in a positive light while putting others in a negative. Which you are also doing in saying that Fig is putting herself in a positive light whole putting others in a negative light. You see your self-contradiction, right? I've acknowledged repeatedly that in identifying figgles as creating images I'm creating an image of my own. You're following a recursive thought pattern. At this point both of you have acknowledged the image creation, but the fact is that you don't quite seem conscious of the fact that this is what you're doing or why you're doing it while you're doing it.
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Jan 19, 2014 16:03:30 GMT -5
There is a dissonance between you disclaiming any desire for it to stop on one hand, and the fact that you often bring the discussion back to the point, such as right here -- it's also another example of you putting yourself in a positive light while putting others in a negative. Where's the dissonance? I explained why I'm talking about it: "what I want most, is for those who engage in that behavior to take a real honest look at the 'whys' behind it, and to discuss that." As far as putting myself in a positive light while putting others in a negative, that may be happening, but its far from being my focus. The dissonance is obvious -- saying that you don't want a change can be expressed as "I don't care if the mockery stops", but the fact that you keep bringing the focus of the conversation back to it can be expressed as "I care about this mockery".
|
|
|
Post by andrew on Jan 19, 2014 16:03:47 GMT -5
Which you are also doing in saying that Fig is putting herself in a positive light whole putting others in a negative light. You see your self-contradiction, right? I've acknowledged repeatedly that in identifying figgles as creating images I'm creating an image of my own. You're following a recursive thought pattern. At this point both of you have acknowledged the image creation, but the fact is that you don't quite seem conscious of the fact that this is what you're doing or why you're doing it. What? I acknowledge that there is ego playing itself out here and that I am creating images. Should I not challenge what you are saying on that basis? You are challenging too. Do you see your self-contradiction there?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 19, 2014 16:06:57 GMT -5
Where's the dissonance? I explained why I'm talking about it: "what I want most, is for those who engage in that behavior to take a real honest look at the 'whys' behind it, and to discuss that." As far as putting myself in a positive light while putting others in a negative, that may be happening, but its far from being my focus. The dissonance is obvious -- saying that you don't want a change can be expressed as "I don't care if the mockery stops", but the fact that you keep bringing the focus of the conversation back to it can be expressed as "I care about this mockery". Most of the caring is in the sense that I am intensely interested in how someone who says they are interested in seeing clearly and in being free, can at the very same time engage in group mocking of someone who expresses a divergent opinion. No, I don't have any need for this forum to be any one way over another....but I do enjoy what I regard to be 'good conversations' here.....the mocking and such imo, does get in the way of that, but moreover, it, itself is a very interesting subject of conversation.
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Jan 19, 2014 16:07:54 GMT -5
I've acknowledged repeatedly that in identifying figgles as creating images I'm creating an image of my own. You're following a recursive thought pattern. At this point both of you have acknowledged the image creation, but the fact is that you don't quite seem conscious of the fact that this is what you're doing or why you're doing it. What? I acknowledge that there is ego playing itself out here and that I am creating images. Should I not challenge what you are saying on that basis? You are challenging too. Do you see your self-contradiction there? The purpose of my challenge is to short-circuit the image creation, while your original challenge is founded on the image creation. Yes I can see how this seems like a self-contradiction to you but the distinction is intent: I'm inviting you into a conversation where we abandon the tactic of image creation, but there's really no way to do that actively without resorting to the tactic I'm inviting you to abandon.
|
|
|
Post by andrew on Jan 19, 2014 16:08:09 GMT -5
Where's the dissonance? I explained why I'm talking about it: "what I want most, is for those who engage in that behavior to take a real honest look at the 'whys' behind it, and to discuss that." As far as putting myself in a positive light while putting others in a negative, that may be happening, but its far from being my focus. The dissonance is obvious -- saying that you don't want a change can be expressed as "I don't care if the mockery stops", but the fact that you keep bringing the focus of the conversation back to it can be expressed as "I care about this mockery". The issue is far less the mockery and more about where the mockery arises from, and its relationship to spirituality. If I was on a football forum, I wouldn't question people mocking each other at all.
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Jan 19, 2014 16:11:56 GMT -5
The dissonance is obvious -- saying that you don't want a change can be expressed as "I don't care if the mockery stops", but the fact that you keep bringing the focus of the conversation back to it can be expressed as "I care about this mockery". Most of the caring is in the sense that I am intensely interested in how someone who says they are interested in seeing clearly and in being free, can at the very same time engage in group mocking of someone who expresses a divergent opinion. No, I don't have any need for this forum to be any one way over another....but I do enjoy what I regard to be 'good conversations' here.....the mocking and such imo, does get in the way of that, but moreover, it, itself is a very interesting subject of conversation. You say you are interested in clarity, but spend most of your energy in the conversation constructing elaborate images which you then assume as an objective basis for discussion, despite the objections to them and the arguments counter to them. This might sound condescending, but if you were to turn that intense interest inward you might gain some insight as to the source of the mockery.
|
|
|
Post by andrew on Jan 19, 2014 16:14:45 GMT -5
What? I acknowledge that there is ego playing itself out here and that I am creating images. Should I not challenge what you are saying on that basis? You are challenging too. Do you see your self-contradiction there? The purpose of my challenge is to short-circuit the image creation, while your original challenge is founded on the image creation. Yes I can see how this seems like a self-contradiction to you but the distinction is intent: I'm inviting you into a conversation where we abandon the tactic of image creation, but there's really no way to do that actively without resorting to the tactic I'm inviting you to abandon. So it is a self-contradiction still, right? Kind of like becoming what you are fighting against. I'm pretty sure that our conversation on this thread started with a picture that you painted of me, but if you want to try and have a spiritual based conversation with me that has no image creating at all, we could give that a go, though I suspect it would be difficult.
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Jan 19, 2014 16:15:19 GMT -5
The dissonance is obvious -- saying that you don't want a change can be expressed as "I don't care if the mockery stops", but the fact that you keep bringing the focus of the conversation back to it can be expressed as "I care about this mockery". The issue is far less the mockery and more about where the mockery arises from, and its relationship to spirituality. If I was on a football forum, I wouldn't question people mocking each other at all. Where does the repetition come from? Where does the vector to constantly debate, to make another appear wrong, where does that come from? If you were on a football forum, it would indeed be appropriate to repeat "Everyone knows that United rules and Liverpool is a bunch of cripples!" ever other post.
|
|
|
Post by andrew on Jan 19, 2014 16:19:07 GMT -5
Most of the caring is in the sense that I am intensely interested in how someone who says they are interested in seeing clearly and in being free, can at the very same time engage in group mocking of someone who expresses a divergent opinion. No, I don't have any need for this forum to be any one way over another....but I do enjoy what I regard to be 'good conversations' here.....the mocking and such imo, does get in the way of that, but moreover, it, itself is a very interesting subject of conversation. You say you are interested in clarity, but spend most of your energy in the conversation constructing elaborate images which you then assume as an objective basis for discussion, despite the objections to them and the arguments counter to them. This might sound condescending, but if you were to turn that intense interest inward you might gain some insight as to the source of the mockery. I would say the source of mockery is beliefs/understanding worth investigating/questioning. Now, so I'm clear, would you say that I am painting a negative picture there?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 19, 2014 16:19:18 GMT -5
You say you are interested in clarity, but spend most of your energy in the conversation constructing elaborate images As I see it, I express what I am seeing in the ideas presented by others. In order to discuss something, that's generally the way an idea is put forth. That does not mean though that I'm not open to refining my opinion as the other explains and describes and engages in direct dialogue. This is where I very much disagree. I'm very open to counter-arguments, WHEN they are actually given...and when they actually 'counter' my point in a meaningful way. Interestingly enough, I have done so...and what I see is that In order to engage in the type of overt mockery and nastiness that some here engage in, I'd have to be very insecure and very attached to my point of view as being the 'right' one.
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Jan 19, 2014 16:21:55 GMT -5
The purpose of my challenge is to short-circuit the image creation, while your original challenge is founded on the image creation. Yes I can see how this seems like a self-contradiction to you but the distinction is intent: I'm inviting you into a conversation where we abandon the tactic of image creation, but there's really no way to do that actively without resorting to the tactic I'm inviting you to abandon. So it is a self-contradiction still, right? Kind of like becoming what you are fighting against. I'm pretty sure that our conversation on this thread started with a picture that you painted of me, but if you want to try and have a spiritual based conversation with me that has no image creating at all, we could give that a go, though I suspect it would be difficult. Yes, technically you're right, that's the way that it started here. Pointing out an inherent self-contradiction based on content isn't the type image creation that I'm highlighted to you here which caused you to start this recursive-loop of a sub-dialog though. The distinction is that here you were starting the re-creation of an old image you've expressed before to introduce it into the thread. I brought that to your attention. For you then to say that this is just painting a picture of you is a recursive loop. The source of your perceived self-contradiction here is not me.
|
|