|
Post by billfromtexas on Aug 28, 2016 15:50:28 GMT -5
Anja has been banned without a warning from Peter That is not the case. I see Anja has been banned and I must assume that Zendancer hit the button. He did send me a message about Anja that I've still to reply to. Sorry I've been in transit for a few days. No problem, Peter. On my side.
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Aug 28, 2016 17:57:42 GMT -5
and it's not like he had no familiarity with the topics discussed here.. but obviously his unrelenting, quirky, upsetting of sensibilities, against the grain -style- did not conform to forum expectations Wait a second - the problem is not style, but content. Posting several off-topic posts in a row about some stand-up comedians to a thread about a spiritual teacher or some concept of nondualism or whatever unrelated topic is a problem with content. Being abusive, hateful or insulting is a problem with content. Sometimes 3rd parties don't always perceive an insult from one party to the other as insulting. This can sometimes get quite extreme, especially if the 3rd party has a negative opinion of the object (the "target") of the insult. Or, conversely, if they have a positive opinion of the subject (the "insulter") of the insult. It's an interesting phenomenon to watch unfold. I know that when I first encountered it here 3 and 4 years ago, I was really surprised by just how extreme this situation can become. Ultimately, observing this as it happens is a great way to explore the nature of objectivity, subjectivity, insult, dispassionate regard thereof, what it is that gets insulted, and the complexity with which all these factors intertwine to form a composite sense of narrative. To put things in simple terms, obviously the only thing subject to insult is an image. Also, just as obviously, that's not the end of the story.
|
|
|
Post by quinn on Aug 28, 2016 20:08:06 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by wei sa on Aug 29, 2016 0:49:45 GMT -5
I don't see any reason to bring the 'projection'-card into the discussion here. We can just talk straight to the point here. (edit: Just to be clear: I figured you were implying that I'm projecting. If instead you were actually speaking literally (i.e. you thought that my description was actually accurate), then the above can just be disregarded.) What does it say? Again, we can talk straight to the point here, not need to try to be clever or evasive (or insinuate something between the lines because saying it out loud would immediately reveal its falsity). Because for me that doesn't seem to say anything at all as it is completely irrelevant. You cannot possibly think that your posts to Zendancer in the 'If I am the world'-thread relating to Suzanne Segal had anything to do with you being banned? Or your reply to me in the 'life is relationship - love is the answer' -thread?Had you already forgotten about posting this about Enigma's partner in the 'Life is relationship, Love is the answer'-thread?: "That's just because she's some sort of a sado/masochistic counter-part for you, Enigma. IF that woman really is your gal or your wife, she is not to be admired..."like...totally" not."Link to post. Visa, it is a psychological fact that everybody projects certain stuff on others once in a while to a certain degree. For example, assuming that others are as good and well-meaning as you are, would mean to miss the mark when you encounter someone who has no good intentions and is just up to fool and abuse your naivitee. On the other, hand to project your own hidden and un-acknowledged nastyness onto others, who merely express themselfs without having bad intentions at all, would the the opposite example. Yes yes, I think this is obvious to most people on this forum, and is theoretically relevant to every single discussion anywhere. This is why I said that it's not necessary to bring it up. The nastyness that I see in you is in no way unacknowledged in myself - I am well aware that all of these things are present in myself too to one extent or another. Like you, I even have narcissistic tendencies, although they aren't quite as out of control. Like you I'm also a compulsive over-thinker, but unlike you I've realised its futility. Because I'm quite aware of these facets in myself, I can also see that you're taking the easy way out, letting yourself indulge in your favourite addictions, compulsions and delusions without challenging them. Of course it's possible to think that, and I know you love that theory as it supports your self-image of being some kind of vigilant freedom-fighter on a crusade against false gurus. However, that theory lacks credibility and evidence so obviously that I would think that even you would see through it, no matter what stories you're trying to create about yourself and the world. BTW, I don't think you really challenge peoples' positions and views so much in any substantial way. What I see more is trying to cram different ideas into the couple of pet-theories you hold, or provocation to gain attention - neither of these is really challenging, partly since they're repetitive and predictable. Ironically the member who's probably most prominently in the business of actually challenging views is Enigma - who you rail against a lot, no doubt because in your fantasies you've imagined him as some capitalist false guru. Considering how rigidly you're holding to your dear beliefs, it doesn't seem to me that you're really into challenging things. Of course that too is completely possible to read from Enigma's story, but you don't know enough about Enigma, let alone of Maria, for it to be anything else than pointless speculation. (Also, this is not how you expressed it in the thread, otherwise you would probably wouldn't have been banned.) But the thing is, the thinking mind can "read into" whatever in whatever way it pleases. One can easily find supporting arguments and evidence for any claim ever made in the history of humanity. This is one of the things that delusional people miss, as they think their ideas, theories, stories etc are so special. A delusional person has cooked up some kind of story for whatever reason (usually as an egoic compensation/defence -mechanism), and then notices that he/she can easily find supporting evidence. "OMG, this idea is really onto something, it's so solid"! More and more supporting evidence is found - "wow, this is really how it is, I've discovered something really valuable"! They've forgotten that they could easily have found as much supporting evidence for any other story, including ones that directly contradict their favourite one. In high schools and universities, a fairly common essay assignment is to argue for and against a particular claim. One notices that one can easily find evidence, arguments etc for BOTH of the contradictory claims, and that it's not a big deal. Furthermore one might notice that one can actually convincingly argue for ANY CLAIM, including completely delusional ones. I agree that probably usually a student/teacher -relationship in a couple is problematic, but I don't see why it would automatically always be so. For example, if one of them has attained SR, then being a teacher wouldn't have the same kind of ego-gratification as it does for someone who thinks he's a separate person, and so wouldn't imply any kind of power/authority-structure - one simply has something to teach and shares it. Sure.
|
|
|
Post by wei sa on Aug 29, 2016 1:07:54 GMT -5
As for some of the other things you posted - well, quite some stories you've cooked up there! Stories are fun as long as you don't believe in them too much. I don't have interest in commenting all the point in your posts, but I'll just comment on this bit: Enigma said: [...] And so, if you're going to test to see if presence can do a better job of protecting you than your mind, you must actually be present. In that empty, open alertness, all of your senses and knowledge, plus your insight and intuition, is fully available to you. Pay attention and you will see that you are being taken care of. The painter of the pictures will catch you if you fall."[...] 5.) The last bolded paraphraph speaks for itself, I think. It sounds encouraging on the first read, but on a second read it sounds like as if it is just some abstract affirmational drivel, given by someone who pretends to know what he is talking about but doesn't. These are empty words. All of them. The whole statement. They have not signifying content. Nothing is pointed to. They are not empty words, but they appear empty to the inflexible rational mind. You're so stuck in your head and in your ideas that I can see how what is suggested wouldn't make sense for you, as it cannot be tested by remaining in the comfort-zone of your mind playing pinball with your concepts. If you cannot intuitively see through the insubstantiality of (your) thoughts, an alternative approach could be to try to take this intellectualisation much much further, rather than staying in the play-pen with the handful of your simplistic pet-theories. Rather than staying in your comfort zone, you could try to thoroughly explore every relevant angle, including the ones that challenge your favourite ideas. In this way maybe intelligence can devour itself, but the game has to be upped considerably for that to happen. It seems to me that currently you're operating like a run of the mill conspiracy-theorist, and I doubt much spiritual insight will be generated that way. Oh by the way, here's a riddle for you:
|
|
|
Post by wei sa on Aug 29, 2016 1:14:12 GMT -5
Wait a second - the problem is not style, but content. Posting several off-topic posts in a row about some stand-up comedians to a thread about a spiritual teacher or some concept of nondualism or whatever unrelated topic is a problem with content. Being abusive, hateful or insulting is a problem with content. Sometimes 3rd parties don't always perceive an insult from one party to the other as insulting. This can sometimes get quite extreme, especially if the 3rd party has a negative opinion of the object (the "target") of the insult. Or, conversely, if they have a positive opinion of the subject (the "insulter") of the insult. It's an interesting phenomenon to watch unfold. I know that when I first encountered it here 3 and 4 years ago, I was really surprised by just how extreme this situation can become. Ultimately, observing this as it happens is a great way to explore the nature of objectivity, subjectivity, insult, dispassionate regard thereof, what it is that gets insulted, and the complexity with which all these factors intertwine to form a composite sense of narrative. To put things in simple terms, obviously the only thing subject to insult is an image. Also, just as obviously, that's not the end of the story. Yup, sometimes there seems to be a surprising amount of agenda here. I would think we have too big a fish to fry for that to be worthwhile! And yes, a self-inquiry meta-angle is always available. Sometimes there's interest to go that way, other times there isn't.
|
|
|
Post by billfromtexas on Aug 29, 2016 4:18:40 GMT -5
Yeah, I remember been there at that Queen show. Do you remember it too? Probably not. Let me remind you that is was me who took the pictures of you, being half naked and loaded while trying to licks some chicks belly and she slapped you...yadda-yadda... Now, Laffy, you want me to post these pics all over social media? Just kidding....I sell them to you, including the negatives. Deal? Jimmy Fallon & Jack Black Recreate "More Than Words" Music Video : www.youtube.com/watch?v=1ISYT6EeUM0
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 29, 2016 4:34:07 GMT -5
Wait a second - the problem is not style, but content. Posting several off-topic posts in a row about some stand-up comedians to a thread about a spiritual teacher or some concept of nondualism or whatever unrelated topic is a problem with content. Being abusive, hateful or insulting is a problem with content. Sometimes 3rd parties don't always perceive an insult from one party to the other as insulting. This can sometimes get quite extreme, especially if the 3rd party has a negative opinion of the object (the "target") of the insult. Or, conversely, if they have a positive opinion of the subject (the "insulter") of the insult. It's an interesting phenomenon to watch unfold. I know that when I first encountered it here 3 and 4 years ago, I was really surprised by just how extreme this situation can become. Ultimately, observing this as it happens is a great way to explore the nature of objectivity, subjectivity, insult, dispassionate regard thereof, what it is that gets insulted, and the complexity with which all these factors intertwine to form a composite sense of narrative. To put things in simple terms, obviously the only thing subject to insult is an image. Also, just as obviously, that's not the end of the story. "Not three!"
|
|
|
Post by billfromtexas on Aug 29, 2016 5:15:33 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by billfromtexas on Aug 29, 2016 5:30:40 GMT -5
"The unrestricted (global)capitalistic economical system pretends to have no other agenda than to provide and deliver a free-market economical system which works under the premise of: Angebot und Nachfrage, but in fact it does have an agenda and is NOT a free-market economical system but the opposite of it, which means it actually prevents and destroys free-markets, therfore it can be called a lie, by what it promotes itself to be but actually isn't."
|
|
|
Post by billfromtexas on Aug 29, 2016 7:20:57 GMT -5
Sometimes 3rd parties don't always perceive an insult from one party to the other as insulting. This can sometimes get quite extreme, especially if the 3rd party has a negative opinion of the object (the "target") of the insult. Or, conversely, if they have a positive opinion of the subject (the "insulter") of the insult. It's an interesting phenomenon to watch unfold. I know that when I first encountered it here 3 and 4 years ago, I was really surprised by just how extreme this situation can become. Ultimately, observing this as it happens is a great way to explore the nature of objectivity, subjectivity, insult, dispassionate regard thereof, what it is that gets insulted, and the complexity with which all these factors intertwine to form a composite sense of narrative. To put things in simple terms, obviously the only thing subject to insult is an image. Also, just as obviously, that's not the end of the story. "Not three!" There is what "derailing a thread" into off-topic is: spiritualteachers.proboards.com/thread/4696/?page=7Someone asked what to do in his current situation and after a while, since page 6, the thread is about stock-gambling only. And it continues talking about stock-market options by Zendancer keeping talking about it. Well....just sayin'....of course. No offense... Edit: Bob Marley - I shot the sheriff (Live) : www.youtube.com/watch?v=nrnZSLwfzVs
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 29, 2016 7:42:02 GMT -5
There is what "derailing a thread" into off-topic is: spiritualteachers.proboards.com/thread/4696/?page=7Someone asked what to do in his current situation and after a while, since page 6, the thread is about stock-gambling only. And it continues talking about stock-market options by Zendancer keeping talking about it. Well....just sayin'....of course. No offense... Edit: Bob Marley - I shot the sheriff (Live) : www.youtube.com/watch?v=nrnZSLwfzVsthat thread meandered from goat farming to goat trading.. nothing unusual there but talking to yourself and taking pot shots from afar is kind of off-topic, isn't it?
|
|
|
Post by billfromtexas on Aug 29, 2016 7:44:00 GMT -5
(Ha-ha-men and Jaya-Justice...a dialog:) "Yah met dat indian woman doday?" "Sure did." "What she say?" "You been here Saturday and said you come back monday?" "Okay. Haz some white wine for I and I, brodda?" "Sure. Has some spliff to make a better party?" "Sure. Has some baguette for eatin'...sista?" "Sure." "Then...I and I party-hardy now." ............ Lee Dorsey - Working In The Coal Mine [promo video - British] : www.youtube.com/watch?v=sjuJpdJ8mrI
|
|
|
Post by billfromtexas on Aug 29, 2016 8:03:31 GMT -5
Visa, it is a psychological fact that everybody projects certain stuff on others once in a while to a certain degree. For example, assuming that others are as good and well-meaning as you are, would mean to miss the mark when you encounter someone who has no good intentions and is just up to fool and abuse your naivitee. On the other, hand to project your own hidden and un-acknowledged nastyness onto others, who merely express themselfs without having bad intentions at all, would the the opposite example. Yes yes, I think this is obvious to most people on this forum, and is theoretically relevant to every single discussion anywhere. This is why I said that it's not necessary to bring it up. The nastyness that I see in you is in no way unacknowledged in myself - I am well aware that all of these things are present in myself too to one extent or another. Like you, I even have narcissistic tendencies, although they aren't quite as out of control. Like you I'm also a compulsive over-thinker, but unlike you I've realised its futility. Because I'm quite aware of these facets in myself, I can also see that you're taking the easy way out, letting yourself indulge in your favourite addictions, compulsions and delusions without challenging them.
Of course it's possible to think that, and I know you love that theory as it supports your self-image of being some kind of vigilant freedom-fighter on a crusade against false gurus. However, that theory lacks credibility and evidence so obviously that I would think that even you would see through it, no matter what stories you're trying to create about yourself and the world. BTW, I don't think you really challenge peoples' positions and views so much in any substantial way. What I see more is trying to cram different ideas into the couple of pet-theories you hold, or provocation to gain attention - neither of these is really challenging, partly since they're repetitive and predictable. Ironically the member who's probably most prominently in the business of actually challenging views is Enigma - who you rail against a lot, no doubt because in your fantasies you've imagined him as some capitalist false guru. Considering how rigidly you're holding to your dear beliefs, it doesn't seem to me that you're really into challenging things. Of course that too is completely possible to read from Enigma's story, but you don't know enough about Enigma, let alone of Maria, for it to be anything else than pointless speculation. (Also, this is not how you expressed it in the thread, otherwise you would probably wouldn't have been banned.) But the thing is, the thinking mind can "read into" whatever in whatever way it pleases. One can easily find supporting arguments and evidence for any claim ever made in the history of humanity. This is one of the things that delusional people miss, as they think their ideas, theories, stories etc are so special. A delusional person has cooked up some kind of story for whatever reason (usually as an egoic compensation/defence -mechanism), and then notices that he/she can easily find supporting evidence. "OMG, this idea is really onto something, it's so solid"! More and more supporting evidence is found - "wow, this is really how it is, I've discovered something really valuable"! They've forgotten that they could easily have found as much supporting evidence for any other story, including ones that directly contradict their favourite one. In high schools and universities, a fairly common essay assignment is to argue for and against a particular claim. One notices that one can easily find evidence, arguments etc for BOTH of the contradictory claims, and that it's not a big deal. Furthermore one might notice that one can actually convincingly argue for ANY CLAIM, including completely delusional ones. I agree that probably usually a student/teacher -relationship in a couple is problematic, but I don't see why it would automatically always be so. For example, if one of them has attained SR, then being a teacher wouldn't have the same kind of ego-gratification as it does for someone who thinks he's a separate person, and so wouldn't imply any kind of power/authority-structure - one simply has something to teach and shares it. Sure. If you want me to elaborate on the bolded comments of you, please let me know. Otherwise I remain silent about them for the sake of letting them sink into what they are pointing to, which is........you name it. Thank you for participation, Visa.
|
|
|
Post by wei sa on Aug 29, 2016 8:11:46 GMT -5
Not necessary, I was already expressing myself clearly.
|
|