|
|
Post by tzujanli on Feb 6, 2013 21:07:37 GMT -5
Greetings..
If we will simply look at what is happening, without attachments to beliefs, desires, goals,and expectations, much of the conflict apparent in this forum will fall away..
If you think you know the answer, keep looking..
If you know you know the answer, look more..
Believing that you know the answer, keeps you from seeing the possibility that there is much more unknown, than known.. it creates an unwillingness to 'look', even the 'great teachers' who believed their's was 'the' way, were attached and stuck to that 'limitation'.. not giving themselves the liberation to see clearly, but only to see what they 'believe'..
Mostly, we argue for our own limitations..
Be well..
|
|
|
|
Post by silver on Feb 6, 2013 21:13:52 GMT -5
Greetings.. If we will simply look at what is happening, without attachments to beliefs, desires, goals,and expectations, much of the conflict apparent in this forum will fall away.. If you think you know the answer, keep looking.. If you know you know the answer, look more.. Believing that you know the answer, keeps you from seeing the possibility that there is much more unknown, than known.. it creates an unwillingness to 'look', even the 'great teachers' who believed their's was 'the' way, were attached and stuck to that 'limitation'.. not giving themselves the liberation to see clearly, but only to see what they 'believe'.. Mostly, we argue for our own limitations.. Be well.. I really like this>>>"Mostly, we argue for our own limitations..." |
|
|
|
Post by topology on Feb 6, 2013 21:16:30 GMT -5
That agreement, and $2.50, will buy a Starbucks latte.
This was not Enigma's only post to Silver that had the "and $X will buy you Y$". There was also this oneI want to make a distinction between what comes before the first comma and what comes after. Enigma is pointing out to Silver that she's making "I agree" posts. The part the comes after the comma can be read with any number of colorings. It could be intended as humor. I've posted comments like that intending them humorously in the past (other forums). It could be a comment on how Enigma sees the value of those particular posts, meaning they don't do much to advance the on-topic conversations. It really depends on how the reader adds their own flavor since the statement itself is neutral. |
|
|
|
Post by enigma on Feb 6, 2013 21:18:31 GMT -5
The problem you quoted me saying applies to you as well. Top has a very gentle and open approach generally, and yet even you have demonized him and made him wrong for your misperception that he is making others wrong. This is why I say the gentleness of the approach is not a major factor in helping one to gain clarity. The major factors are all in the perceiver of the message. The post of Top's to Silver you quoted earlier was about a malfunction of the bolt in the machine, and yet Silver blew a gasket in response. You only imagine you've had success with certain approaches. Your 'success' is due to the dynamics of the receiver of your message. You do enjoy your gossip, don't you. I 'blew a gasket' is your false interpretation of what went down. I don't like it when you yourself exaggerate stuff like that, E. You're not even in the same room, but more importantly, you're not in my mind and heart and psyche to know whether or not your 'interpretation' of my words mean that. Anyone can control their emotions and even when something is not as a person wants, they can speak or write and say what they feel needs to be said without getting huffy or bent out of shape. And that's just what I did. I could (but I won't) ask you which words in my post(s) addressed to Top caused you to believe I'd blown a gasket. I'm asking you to be a whole lot more careful when you make your judgments and judgment calls of what I'm saying to this or that person. Better yet, don't say anything about what you believe I'm saying or what I mean by what I'm saying, because it comes across as sheer gossip. Once again, the perceiver of the message perceives gossip and value judgment where there is none. My point is that this cannot be avoided if there is any hope of transmitting the message. "Blew a gasket" was a reference to a further malfunction of the 'machine' in Mr Goat's analogy. I don't even refer to your internal emotional response or how controlled or huffy or whatever, just the misperception clearly conveyed in your words themselves. |
|
|
|
Post by topology on Feb 6, 2013 21:19:48 GMT -5
I haven't explored the Sadona Method yet, can you provide me a good reference on it. Here's why I have to go for functional: 1) My internal tension is in sympathetic resonance with my external environment: Dirty/messy/chaotic house => Internal emotional tension. 2) I HATE CLEANING MY HOUSE ;D So in order for me to be at peace emotionally, I need to get functional about keeping my house clean. I'm not in control of the emotionally building up tension.
I think it's the other way round.
I think the messy house is a symbolic reflection of the mess inside.
Clean the inner mess and the house will stop being messy because you will be joyful to clean it.
And observing you are not in control of your emotional tension build up, simply means you are aware you currently are not in control.
You can then choose to remain out of control or regain control.
Which of course these decision paths will be influenced by your current beliefs about what is a self and do you have control of said self or not.The most "control" I have over emotions is not with their generation, but with the willingness to be aware of them and process them. Do you believe you are able to control your emotional reactions to things? |
|
|
|
Post by silver on Feb 6, 2013 21:20:44 GMT -5
Hey, Top. What about (or How about) Enigma's siggy about not playing the game) - This is ample talk on your part that points wildly at you playing the game - Not to mention speaking an awful lot for others. I suggest we let them speak for themselves - Unless they don't feel like it or want to. Oh, yes. Definitely speculation, M-G. What am I speculating about? I tried to state Enigma's message in different terms and he said I was successful in my expression of representing him correctly. Lots of us have talked about and pretty much agreed with the Biblical saying - Jesus saying that unless we become as a little child, we cannot enter the 'kingdom' - But, there are times that we act child-ish playing childish games with one another - pretending not to comprehend what each other is saying - because of this 'sides' business. It's intellectually dishonest - Enigma has nothing to do with my agreeing with M-G about speculating. I think you know that. These types of disagreements or misunderstandings - as claimed - usually crop up as a delaying tactic. I'm trying to avoid posting any more than I have to, in the past handful of days because it's so wearying to go round in circles so much of the time. |
|
|
|
Post by enigma on Feb 6, 2013 21:23:27 GMT -5
Enigma agreed that how I understood his points were consistent with how he intended them. What am I speculating about? Right, you weren't even necessarily agreeing with my comments (or comment). You simply (and accurately) stated what I was saying. There's no chance at all of speculation. |
|
|
|
Post by silver on Feb 6, 2013 21:30:11 GMT -5
That agreement, and $2.50, will buy a Starbucks latte.
This was not Enigma's only post to Silver that had the "and $X will buy you Y$". There was also this oneI want to make a distinction between what comes before the first comma and what comes after. Enigma is pointing out to Silver that she's making "I agree" posts. The part the comes after the comma can be read with any number of colorings. It could be intended as humor. I've posted comments like that intending them humorously in the past (other forums). It could be a comment on how Enigma sees the value of those particular posts, meaning they don't do much to advance the on-topic conversations. It really depends on how the reader adds their own flavor since the statement itself is neutral. [/quote] You can claim all you want that X statement is neutral, but it's still a distinct possibility it's just like a chess move - a strategizing. It's impossible to make that claim about such statements in these contentious contexts. These discussions become less and less enjoyable because there's just too much maneuverings that drives some far from where they want to be. |
|
|
|
Post by topology on Feb 6, 2013 21:32:33 GMT -5
What am I speculating about? I tried to state Enigma's message in different terms and he said I was successful in my expression of representing him correctly. Lots of us have talked about and pretty much agreed with the Biblical saying - Jesus saying that unless we become as a little child, we cannot enter the 'kingdom' - But, there are times that we act child-ish playing childish games with one another - pretending not to comprehend what each other is saying - because of this 'sides' business. It's intellectually dishonest - Enigma has nothing to do with my agreeing with M-G about speculating. I think you know that. These types of disagreements or misunderstandings - as claimed - usually crop up as a delaying tactic. I'm trying to avoid posting any more than I have to, in the past handful of days because it's so wearying to go round in circles so much of the time. If you are getting weary, is it something someone else is doing or something you are doing that is making you weary? No I don't know why you are agreeing with M-G about speculating. If you go back to the post where he said the one-word "Speculation", I was explaining to you what I viewed Enigma's intent was. So Enigma is very much involved. Either I was speculating about what Enigma intended, or Enigma was speculating about you and I was continuing that speculation. I honestly don't comprehend what you are agreeing with M-G about. M-G posted one word and didn't explain what we was seeing as speculation. You took that one-word and expounded on it to 50. Emotionally what I got from your post was "butt out". You didn't like me giving my interpretation of what Enigma was trying to say. |
|
|
|
Post by silver on Feb 6, 2013 21:40:33 GMT -5
Lots of us have talked about and pretty much agreed with the Biblical saying - Jesus saying that unless we become as a little child, we cannot enter the 'kingdom' - But, there are times that we act child-ish playing childish games with one another - pretending not to comprehend what each other is saying - because of this 'sides' business. It's intellectually dishonest - Enigma has nothing to do with my agreeing with M-G about speculating. I think you know that. These types of disagreements or misunderstandings - as claimed - usually crop up as a delaying tactic. I'm trying to avoid posting any more than I have to, in the past handful of days because it's so wearying to go round in circles so much of the time. If you are getting weary, is it something someone else is doing or something you are doing that is making you weary? No I don't know why you are agreeing with M-G about speculating. If you go back to the post where he said the one-word "Speculation", I was explaining to you what I viewed Enigma's intent was. So Enigma is very much involved. Either I was speculating about what Enigma intended, or Enigma was speculating about you and I was continuing that speculation. I honestly don't comprehend what you are agreeing with M-G about. M-G posted one word and didn't explain what we was seeing as speculation. You took that one-word and expounded on it to 50. Emotionally what I got from your post was "butt out". You didn't like me giving my interpretation of what Enigma was trying to say. Yes, I'm weary for a couple or three reasons, Top. So, I guess I could say 1/3rd is the rations on this forum that never seem to end; another 1/3rd is working out my own mental/emotional/etc. challenges with my own counselor, and the last 1/3rd is that the 3rd anniversary of my son's passing is coming up Valentine's Day which brings with it the expected extra emotionally challenging aspects. I've enjoyed being more quiet here at ST for the past few days. So, Top - will you forgive me if all I can say right now is that when I read M-G's post and the others, that he said it was speculation made sense to me at the time. I don't read E's posts any more than I have to. |
|
|
|
Post by enigma on Feb 6, 2013 21:43:53 GMT -5
What am I speculating about? I tried to state Enigma's message in different terms and he said I was successful in my expression of representing him correctly. Lots of us have talked about and pretty much agreed with the Biblical saying - Jesus saying that unless we become as a little child, we cannot enter the 'kingdom' - But, there are times that we act child-ish playing childish games with one another - pretending not to comprehend what each other is saying - because of this 'sides' business. It's intellectually dishonest - Enigma has nothing to do with my agreeing with M-G about speculating. I think you know that. These types of disagreements or misunderstandings - as claimed - usually crop up as a delaying tactic. I'm trying to avoid posting any more than I have to, in the past handful of days because it's so wearying to go round in circles so much of the time. I can't help but wonder, if I knew what words you thought you read in Top's post, would your response make any more sense to me? |
|
|
|
Post by silver on Feb 6, 2013 21:47:46 GMT -5
Lots of us have talked about and pretty much agreed with the Biblical saying - Jesus saying that unless we become as a little child, we cannot enter the 'kingdom' - But, there are times that we act child-ish playing childish games with one another - pretending not to comprehend what each other is saying - because of this 'sides' business. It's intellectually dishonest - Enigma has nothing to do with my agreeing with M-G about speculating. I think you know that. These types of disagreements or misunderstandings - as claimed - usually crop up as a delaying tactic. I'm trying to avoid posting any more than I have to, in the past handful of days because it's so wearying to go round in circles so much of the time. I can't help but wonder, if I knew what words you thought you read in Top's post, would your response make any more sense to me? That question didn't even make a lick o' sense to me, E. |
|
|
|
Post by enigma on Feb 6, 2013 21:48:20 GMT -5
I am interested to see what your opinion is of enigma's motivation(s) for his coffee comment. If it's as indepth as your assessment of arisha.
This was not Enigma's only post to Silver that had the "and $X will buy you Y$". There was also this oneI want to make a distinction between what comes before the first comma and what comes after. Enigma is pointing out to Silver that she's making "I agree" posts. The part the comes after the comma can be read with any number of colorings. It could be intended as humor. I've posted comments like that intending them humorously in the past (other forums). It could be a comment on how Enigma sees the value of those particular posts, meaning they don't do much to advance the on-topic conversations. It really depends on how the reader adds their own flavor since the statement itself is neutral. You can claim all you want that X statement is neutral, but it's still a distinct possibility it's just like a chess move - a strategizing. It's impossible to make that claim about such statements in these contentious contexts. These discussions become less and less enjoyable because there's just too much maneuverings that drives some far from where they want to be. [/quote] I think it's obvious that my comments mean to say that your agreement adds nothing to the conversation when it is agreement only. Why would you assume all sorts of chess move strategizing maneuverings? |
|
|
|
Post by silver on Feb 6, 2013 21:48:48 GMT -5
Okay, who just smote me?
;D
I saw you pop in and out, Reefs.
*snicker*
|
|
|
|
Post by silver on Feb 6, 2013 21:49:35 GMT -5
This was not Enigma's only post to Silver that had the "and $X will buy you Y$". There was also this oneI want to make a distinction between what comes before the first comma and what comes after. Enigma is pointing out to Silver that she's making "I agree" posts. The part the comes after the comma can be read with any number of colorings. It could be intended as humor. I've posted comments like that intending them humorously in the past (other forums). It could be a comment on how Enigma sees the value of those particular posts, meaning they don't do much to advance the on-topic conversations. It really depends on how the reader adds their own flavor since the statement itself is neutral. You can claim all you want that X statement is neutral, but it's still a distinct possibility it's just like a chess move - a strategizing. It's impossible to make that claim about such statements in these contentious contexts. These discussions become less and less enjoyable because there's just too much maneuverings that drives some far from where they want to be. I think it's obvious that my comments mean to say that your agreement adds nothing to the conversation when it is agreement only. Why would you assume all sorts of chess move strategizing maneuverings?[/quote] D'uh~* |
|
