|
Post by laughter on Nov 6, 2018 10:47:47 GMT -5
are you serious with this tone right now? Really? 'cause like .. if so .. man .. funny bonez dude ... funny bonez ... I'm not sure what tone you are picking up You're assuming that you're in a position to offer me correction with regard to the clarity of my communication, so I'm hearing a teacher with a British accent, and it's really, quite comical.
|
|
|
Post by enigma on Nov 6, 2018 10:55:31 GMT -5
yes, I do see your point very clearly, but E has been very cautious in recent times of saying that something (his partner for example) is 'really' experienced, or 'actually' experienced (though he has been clear there is no 'actual stuff which is knife'). He was quite uncompromising in regard to the idea of 'becoming'. So when you say you 'burn the plastic knife and it becomes a small gob of plastic and loses the thing which is knife'.....I agree. But for E, that would have conveyed too much of an impression of there being some kind of 'actuality' or 'reality' that can 'change form' or 'become'. To put it another way, for a while he was very anti ANY statement which indicated there being 'form' in any sense of the word. Now form has structure and quality and it has been obvious all along Remind me to explain context to you sometime.
|
|
|
Post by enigma on Nov 6, 2018 11:11:52 GMT -5
So like said you were barking up the wrong tree because you had no foundation to what you said other than what E has said on this forum of late . You needed the history of what was said before . Basically I can see what's going on, and I feel safe in assuming the same thing was going on the 'other forum'. That is, E explains a thing and you make outlandish interpretations only to support an argument which is all in your head. I mean, I'm following this forum and I wonder how you interpret such outlandish things from what people say, and I can only assume you aren't really-listening - which you need to be internally silent to do. It's eggzackly the same in every discussion.
|
|
|
Post by andrew on Nov 6, 2018 11:19:01 GMT -5
You admitted you didn't say what you meant, and that the 2 sentences were independent. I'm sure you can communicate more effectively than that. Giraffe. We'll just have to agree to disagree about whether two sentences that convey two independent ideas necessarily require a paragraph for the sake of clarity. Yes we can agree to disagree on that, just as we can agree to disagree whether you have a belief in an objective reality
|
|
|
Post by enigma on Nov 6, 2018 11:19:10 GMT -5
yeah, though I see it as a word like 'God'....these words aren't going away, so it's best to engage with them. Sure we can engage with God / consciousness but God in my eyes is both personal and impersonal . No point in my eyes saying to the misses I love you when there is nobody there, no-one to love, no-one that has personal traits etc . It's the personal touch that peeps love about their partners, but they want to sit on their armchairs and deny they are there . There's nothing more personal than having a conversation with an aspect of yourself. As you say, God is both impersonal and personal.
|
|
|
Post by andrew on Nov 6, 2018 11:20:17 GMT -5
I'm not sure what tone you are picking up You're assuming that you're in a position to offer me correction with regard to the clarity of my communication, so I'm hearing a teacher with a British accent, and it's really, quite comical. Then in this case, my communication has been effective If you want lessons, let me know, and I'll see what we can sort out.
|
|
|
Post by enigma on Nov 6, 2018 11:24:30 GMT -5
when it comes to gopal, I find it best just to let him do his thing these days. My days of chasing him are gone hehe. Not at my expense it isn't . He won't cause any permanent damage. He knows that about you as well, which is why he can let a conversation go with 'Okay' when he gets insulted or when there's no real understanding happening.
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Nov 6, 2018 11:25:46 GMT -5
Giraffe. We'll just have to agree to disagree about whether two sentences that convey two independent ideas necessarily require a paragraph for the sake of clarity. Yes we can agree to disagree on that, just as we can agree to disagree whether you have a belief in an objective reality Uhm, yeah, that's not the way agreeing to disagree works. Specifically, if you agree to disagree in a given dialog, and then raise it again by reminding me of it, then you really haven't agreed to disagree.
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Nov 6, 2018 11:26:45 GMT -5
You're assuming that you're in a position to offer me correction with regard to the clarity of my communication, so I'm hearing a teacher with a British accent, and it's really, quite comical. Then in this case, my communication has been effective If you want lessons, let me know, and I'll see what we can sort out. Right, so you are being serious, which just keeps the giggles comin' guy.
|
|
|
Post by andrew on Nov 6, 2018 11:31:53 GMT -5
Yes we can agree to disagree on that, just as we can agree to disagree whether you have a belief in an objective reality Uhm, yeah, that's not the way agreeing to disagree works. Specifically, if you agree to disagree in a given dialog, and then raise it again by reminding me of it, then you really haven't agreed to disagree. I'm not seeing any harm in reminding each other what we agree to disagree about. In one way, it could be said I am offering assurance. Kind of like, 'don't worry your little cotton socks, I'm not going to try to change your mind about the structure of your beliefs'.
|
|
|
Post by andrew on Nov 6, 2018 11:32:30 GMT -5
Then in this case, my communication has been effective If you want lessons, let me know, and I'll see what we can sort out. Right, so you are being serious, which just keeps the giggles comin' guy. I'll give you a good rate, seeing as we go a fair way back now.
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Nov 6, 2018 11:33:43 GMT -5
Uhm, yeah, that's not the way agreeing to disagree works. Specifically, if you agree to disagree in a given dialog, and then raise it again by reminding me of it, then you really haven't agreed to disagree. I'm not seeing any harm in reminding each other what we agree to disagree about. In one way, it could be said I am offering assurance. Kind of like, 'don't worry your little cotton socks, I'm not going to try to change your mind about the structure of your beliefs'. Why did you morph the scenario into one that might cause harm?
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Nov 6, 2018 11:34:50 GMT -5
Right, so you are being serious, which just keeps the giggles comin' guy. I'll give you a good rate, seeing as we go a fair way back now. What you have on offer is so common that peeps can't even give it away, so sorry, you'll have to look for a different gig.
|
|
|
Post by enigma on Nov 6, 2018 11:35:00 GMT -5
You are inferring things which no one implied. I have said that the partner (or other experience) is really-experienced, a real-lived experience, a profound actuality. You made up 'they are not there' for the sake of banging the dunny door again. No one ever said it. No one implied it. It's not what anyone meant.In the context of there being an individual experiencer/perceiver, we have to say that an armchair has a back to it, and the human being that we love has thoughts/feelings and a backside. What was being said at the time (and I'm sure Tenka is alluding to this), is that it was conveyed to us that there is an individual experiencer/perceiver, but the human beings that we love only consist on what is seen in that moment. So this human being can have a face, and torso, but no backside or heart. Tenka was correctly challenging this context mix at the time i.e to speak of individual experiencers/perceivers is to speak in the context of form i.e the humans we experience/perceive do have hearts, brains and backsides. So when we 'really' experience the ones we love, we're not just 'really' experiencing the image of their face. What we are 'really' experiencing is all that we know of them as a human being. The distinction is between what you can know from your experience as opposed to what you assume. You assume the moon is still in the sky even when you are not perceiving it, and yet you agree that perception and creation are the same. What do you know about hidden backsides and brains that you can't perceive? By what means do you know this?
|
|
|
Post by andrew on Nov 6, 2018 11:35:47 GMT -5
Now form has structure and quality and it has been obvious all along Remind me to explain context to you sometime. This has been precisely the problem. The context of talking about personal perceivers is the context in which form has structure and quality. It makes no sense to say 'I perceive a mountain that has no back to it'. Or 'I perceive human beings at work that have no inner organs'. (i.e Tenka did speak in context).
|
|