Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 10, 2013 15:20:34 GMT -5
I don't really have an issue with that, but I tend to see the effort to make conditional love the same as unconditional love by declaring a common reference and focusing only on the idea that it is love, to the extent that we may mistake our personal conditional love for impersonal unconditional love. To be clear, it looks to me like an attempt to personally 'own' unconditional love.
I see it as there is love, and it can be surrounded, thus interfered with by conditions.
I don't know who you have observed and think they are trying to make 'conditional love' the same as 'uconditional love', as i know it ain't me.
There is a common understanding on earth that there is a thing called love and people can define it anyway they choose,
just like everything else that may or may not exist in reality.
My focus is on cleaning up my insides so i can emit and receive love as efficiently as possible, and i leave the love debate to those that want to debate it.
Emitting and receiving love is where the theories get tested.
I self examine and my emission and reception is improving, so i conclude i must be doin' ok with my interpretations.
OH AWESOME!...A huge Daddy Long Legs just dropped down from the ceiling right in front of my monitor.
Which reminds me...
The other day, i opened my car door and this huge palm sized Hunstman frantically ducked in under my seat.
Now rally driving on the dirt road has just become more exciting.
Even reaching down for my seatbelt latch has gone up a notch or two in excitement.
Me mum was like, "Quick, get the bug spray and kill it!!"
And i was like, "Mah, you know i don't kill other living things if i don't have to.
If Helen Hunstman wants to run across my face while i'm driving, then it will be an experience that i will treasure like all my other ones."
Mah just looked at me, semi facepalmed and told me i'm an idiot.
I laughed and said "YAY!"
And on that note, i think Daddy Long Legs are the most chilled out spiders i have encountered.Very nice.  |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 10, 2013 15:21:38 GMT -5
Though celibate for over ...~counts fingers~...WHOA, 18 years now (gee time sure does fly when you're havin' fun),
i find the harmony of making love far more stimulating that disagreement and conflict.
And it has not been my experiences that giving and receiving love induces conflict or tension.
So i am definately not part of the "we" group you cited.
I wasn't aware we had a love making feature on this forum.  Absent that, what we're left with is conversation. Whatever we converse about, when we get to the point of complete agreement then the conversation comes to a halt and we all help to wash the tea cups and then go home and make love.
I have foud that it's possible to make love in any situation.
Don't have to wait to go home to make some love, do it in conversation, do it in washing up.
Because the sex act of making love is an expression of harmony, unity, of oneness, of being totally focused on and in the moment.
( except when guys think about baseball and whatever the equivilant is for the gals. Hey girls, do you have an equivilant?)
So, conversation, washing up, walking/driving home can be equally as profound when one is in the moment, totally focused and unified and in harmony with the situation.
No, i am not talking about orgasm as the similarity. I am speaking of the profound awe that is evokable in every moment. |
|
|
|
Post by andrew on Feb 10, 2013 15:24:17 GMT -5
The following contains speculation. I see no conscious intent to harm Silver. However, I think that there might be some element of you taking out (or projecting) your marital issues on Silver. Similarly with Enigma, who is in a relationship in which he 'teaches' his partner.... in which he is showing her 'the way'. These dynamics in personal relationships off the forum may well be playing themselves out on the forum, and Silver represents something that you focus on in your partners. That is a nice piece of speculation there. How would you propose investigating whether or not that speculation is true? It also neglects to take into account other dynamics. 1) The Silver-Reefs dynamic. 2) The possibility that Silver is projecting onto me with respect to her mother-son dynamic. Let's continue speculation and work with this "club" idea, which in my mind is really a schism in philosophical approaches to the world. Reefs, Enigma and I all have a focus on becoming aware of subconscious dynamics and that is how we "work" with other people. The output of that focus varies between us. Reefs doesn't sugar coat anything and seems to focus on the more extreme interpretations (there's something to be said for when interpretations become possibly valid). Enigma doesn't quite go for the extreme interpretations but focuses more on his experience of what was literally said. My approach I would have a hard time classifying as its coming out of me instead of me observing it coming out of someone else. So here you have 3 salsas, mild (presumably me), medium (E), and muy caliente (Reefs). The fact that Silver trips up with all three of us along that scale of gradation would suggest, to me, that its something in Silver, a reactivity to having someone else point out how they perceive her behavior. Perhaps its triggering a trauma with someone in her past who did the same thing. Mother, Father, parent, sibling, former husband, old boyfriend, etc. I'm speculating as well. My speculation accounts for more data points that I see and I think it would be more accurately predictive as a model for future events. I don't think it can be finally established as true or false. Personally I think there is some truth in it, but in the end its up to you whether or not you want to consider the possibility. I agree that Silver may well be projecting some of her pain, but that's been well documented already. I am suggesting that there is another side of the coin here. I won't comment on Reefs in this instance because he doesn't share anything about his personal life. I could speculate some more, but its a step too far given the absence of information. What I see you and E have in common is a strong focus on 'what's true' and a consistent preference to keep 'reality' at hand and 'imagination' at a distance. You call this 'being conscious'. Based on what you have both said, my guess is that you 'lead' or 'encourage' or 'guide' your partners to do the same, but my guess is that your partners just don't quite share the same level of interest, or commitment to that focus/preference. And neither does Silver have a massive interest in it, and when you see her speaking in such a way that is reflective of not being 'conscious', it grabs your attention. Personally, I don't have a big interest in it either, I can see a level of value in it, but its not a priority for me by any means. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 10, 2013 15:26:23 GMT -5
The reason I see Reef's style as counterproductive is that it is prone to building a resentment and a closed ear to the message. I see a shut-down and active avoidance. Go back to Trauma and Resiliency. Reef's style, I feel, pushes the trauma past the point of resiliency and creates some damage which takes longer to recover from. I try to keep the level of trauma within the scope of resiliency. So in Reef's eyes I look like a fence sitter because I won't push past what I sense is a boundary between resiliency being possible and interfering with resiliency. I agree with all you say there Top. Nicely put. |
|
|
|
Post by topology on Feb 10, 2013 15:28:10 GMT -5
That is a nice piece of speculation there. How would you propose investigating whether or not that speculation is true? It also neglects to take into account other dynamics. 1) The Silver-Reefs dynamic. 2) The possibility that Silver is projecting onto me with respect to her mother-son dynamic. Let's continue speculation and work with this "club" idea, which in my mind is really a schism in philosophical approaches to the world. Reefs, Enigma and I all have a focus on becoming aware of subconscious dynamics and that is how we "work" with other people. The output of that focus varies between us. Reefs doesn't sugar coat anything and seems to focus on the more extreme interpretations (there's something to be said for when interpretations become possibly valid). Enigma doesn't quite go for the extreme interpretations but focuses more on his experience of what was literally said. My approach I would have a hard time classifying as its coming out of me instead of me observing it coming out of someone else. So here you have 3 salsas, mild (presumably me), medium (E), and muy caliente (Reefs). The fact that Silver trips up with all three of us along that scale of gradation would suggest, to me, that its something in Silver, a reactivity to having someone else point out how they perceive her behavior. Perhaps its triggering a trauma with someone in her past who did the same thing. Mother, Father, parent, sibling, former husband, old boyfriend, etc. I'm speculating as well. My speculation accounts for more data points that I see and I think it would be more accurately predictive as a model for future events. I don't think it can be finally established as true or false. Personally I think there is some truth in it, but in the end its up to you whether or not you want to consider the possibility. I agree that Silver may well be projecting some of her pain, but that's been well documented already. I am suggesting that there is another side of the coin here. I won't comment on Reefs in this instance because he doesn't share anything about his personal life. I could speculate some more, but its a step too far given the absence of information. What I see you and E have in common is a strong focus on 'what's true' and a consistent preference to keep 'reality' at hand and 'imagination' at a distance. You call this 'being conscious'. Based on what you have both said, my guess is that you 'lead' or 'encourage' or 'guide' your partners to do the same, but my guess is that your partners just don't quite share the same level of interest, or commitment to that focus/preference. And neither does Silver have a massive interest in it, and when you see her speaking in such a way that is reflective of not being 'conscious', it grabs your attention. Personally, I don't have a big interest in it either, I can see a level of value in it, but its not a priority for me by any means. I think your data is a bit narrow, E and I do this with pretty much everyone, not just Silver. Silver gets extra attention because she inserts herself into situations constantly. |
|
|
|
Post by andrew on Feb 10, 2013 15:35:34 GMT -5
I don't think it can be finally established as true or false. Personally I think there is some truth in it, but in the end its up to you whether or not you want to consider the possibility. I agree that Silver may well be projecting some of her pain, but that's been well documented already. I am suggesting that there is another side of the coin here. I won't comment on Reefs in this instance because he doesn't share anything about his personal life. I could speculate some more, but its a step too far given the absence of information. What I see you and E have in common is a strong focus on 'what's true' and a consistent preference to keep 'reality' at hand and 'imagination' at a distance. You call this 'being conscious'. Based on what you have both said, my guess is that you 'lead' or 'encourage' or 'guide' your partners to do the same, but my guess is that your partners just don't quite share the same level of interest, or commitment to that focus/preference. And neither does Silver have a massive interest in it, and when you see her speaking in such a way that is reflective of not being 'conscious', it grabs your attention. Personally, I don't have a big interest in it either, I can see a level of value in it, but its not a priority for me by any means. I think your data is a bit narrow, E and I do this with pretty much everyone, not just Silver. Silver gets extra attention because she inserts herself into situations constantly. I think it goes both ways. A lot of stuff that she says wouldn't really register if you're focus/interest wasn't what it was. There are times when I am really quite bemused at the degree to which you guys pick her up on stuff and pursue a point in the name of 'what's true', but then, my focus/interest is different to yours. I'm quite aware that the stuff that I pick up on and pursue is probably quite bemusing to many here!! |
|
|
|
Post by enigma on Feb 10, 2013 15:44:04 GMT -5
Your point is what? That I should see myself as wrong and label it that way? What if you're wrong? The sooner you see yourself as wrong the better for you and for everybody. What if you are not only too stuck to your being right but too ridiculous about your being right? Too ridicalus would be weally baaad. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 10, 2013 15:48:09 GMT -5
It seems to me that what you doing here is not pointing away from ideas about love, conditioned ideas or otherwise,
but are merely making an effort to direct people away from their ideas about love, onto your ideas about love,
like these ones... To claim love moves in the absence of people, then you would have to exist in a realm
where no one exists in order to see love moving independantly of humans, otherwise it is simply a theory, an idea.
Of course, for you to conclude your idea is a fact, and not just a mind created idea based on your interpretive observations of reality,
you must have had some 'no humans exist' experience and concluded the idea is sound.
However, in order to prove your claim, you would have to set up the conditions where no one exists in order to show others that love moves independantly without them.
To observe love without there being a human observer seems like a bit of a mind trick to perform.
As in how to be dead, and still observe love in a realm where everyone else is dead, then come back to life and tell other living beings what you saw,
let alone take other dead people to this place so they can see it for themselves and bring them all back to life so they can tell others what they saw.
It seems far more plausible and simple to theorise that love is an energy and is transmitted by conscious beings
who are aware of this energy and choose to transmit it towards other things in existance and can sense it coming from other beings.
Also, it seems uncharacteristic of a person who is motivated by love, to bludgeon others with their personal ideas about it
in order to influence others to adopt a love motivated state of being.
However, anyone can talk about love and try to influence others to change, and not be motivated by love when they do so.
Talking about love does not automatically mean a person is motivated by it when doing so.
These people are talkers, not doers. And if they have never done, then what do they know.
They simply share a lot of theory, ideas, beliefs, about the subject but have no real experience, all they have is images in their mindtanks about it.
Theories are tested to check the validity of them, and i can't see how "Love moves independantly of humans" can be tested by a human.
Sure, there can be a ton of words to explain the theory, to make is seem valid, but that's not testing it, that's just expanding a theory.
Making is so big it looks real, solid, tangible. That's funny! ;D I don't have any scientific theories of love to present to the community for independent confirmation. What I mean by 'your absence' is the absence of the belief in a separate, volitional person who's job it is to do love. I don't mean all the humans have to die. ;D
The very act of communication is to direct another to one's ideas.
The directing can be worded, "Hey, listen to this."1) I know. My idea of love is my idea of love, just like your idea about love is not love, but just your idea.
2) Well that's your idea and you have every right to express it.
I choose to only speak for myself, and i think i have a good handle on how to love.
3) Have you asked from everyone you have shared your ideas with why they don't want to hear it, or is your understanding based on your idea of why they don't want to hear it?
I don't bother with attaching 'truth' labels on things i cannot accurately verify.
I focus on seeing if my understanding produces a positve outcome for all involved. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 10, 2013 15:52:28 GMT -5
Yeah but enigma...
say you are in an incident where a person switches from being nice to you, which Joe or Mary Average would cite, "Oh, being nice, that's a love motivated behavior."...
and the person turns and starts being mean to you, which Joe or Mary Average would cite, "Oh, being mean, that's a hate motivated behavior."...
That the person has not turned love into a weapon, but has simply changed tools of interaction. They were using love and switched over to hate.
So, in light of that theory, the only person using their mind to turn love into a weapon to judge and condescend, is you.
It is you who are observing reality and mentally concluding someone has turned love into a weapon, but they may not have.
They may have simply changed tools mid conversation.
So perhaps it is you who is playing mind games with yourself and are not aware of it because you are convinced your conclusions are the only explanation.
Notice i said, "perhaps" and "theory", so i am not claiming my observations are true.
I state my observations because they fit the scenario and thus become viable theories to explore if a person chooses to.The problem is that Joe and Mary think love must conform to a set of behavioral conditions in order to be love. This is why I say your ideas about love is not what Love really is.
We, as in people, all have ideas, i see nothing wrong with having ideas...i think ideas are fun.
If you have a problem with Joe and Mary's ideas, then you do, i don't. |
|
|
|
Post by enigma on Feb 10, 2013 15:54:40 GMT -5
M-G, lets put aside these cumbersome metaphors and talk straight to the issue. I have no intent of harming Silver with our interaction. However, Silver gets hurt by reading into things which are not there. I look at how Enigma handles it and I see that Silver becomes defensive and can't hear what he is saying. I look at how Reefs handles it and I see Silver's hackles rising up. I stay the course as much as possible. In the Bad Poetry thread, I was able to talk silver down from her reaction that she was having. In the peaceful warrior thread, I stayed the course and we worked through the miscommunication. I have some skill in navigating through other people's pain. I'm not going to claim to be perfect at it. Here is the open question, which has been open on this board as a theme for a very long time. When someone says "Ow, that hurts" who has what responsibility for the pain? If person A says X and person B gets offended due to a violation of restrictive cultural norm or feels hurt because of past trauma that has not been completely processed, what responsibility does person A have? Factor in various subconscious coping and control mechanism that person B may have to try to control the dynamic. It's not always the case that there are subconscious control/coping mechanisms, but it is very often the case. If person B is playing the martyr and trying to demonize person A for what they said, what should person A do? If person B is goes into a victimhood or emotional tailspinning, what should person A do? What obligations does person A have? The following contains speculation. I see no conscious intent to harm Silver. However, I think that there might be some element of you taking out (or projecting) your marital issues on Silver. Similarly with Enigma, who is in a relationship in which he 'teaches' his partner.... in which he is showing her 'the way'. These dynamics in personal relationships off the forum may well be playing themselves out on the forum, and Silver represents something that you focus on in your partners. How I relate to Marie, at least in terms of talking about spearichuul ideas, is similar to how I talk to Quinn or Spongy, which is to say how I relate to those with sincerity and maturity. How I relate to Silver and Arisha is different because they are different, and make relating in any sane way impossible. |
|
|
|
Post by arisha on Feb 10, 2013 15:58:29 GMT -5
The sooner you see yourself as wrong the better for you and for everybody. What if you are not only too stuck to your being right but too ridiculous about your being right? Too ridicalus would be weally baaad. You've not only become too ridiculous in your attempts to be right, you've lost too many opportunities to understand things which you will never have again. |
|
|
|
Post by andrew on Feb 10, 2013 16:00:35 GMT -5
The following contains speculation. I see no conscious intent to harm Silver. However, I think that there might be some element of you taking out (or projecting) your marital issues on Silver. Similarly with Enigma, who is in a relationship in which he 'teaches' his partner.... in which he is showing her 'the way'. These dynamics in personal relationships off the forum may well be playing themselves out on the forum, and Silver represents something that you focus on in your partners. How I relate to Marie, at least in terms of talking about spearichuul ideas, is similar to how I talk to Quinn or Spongy, which is to say how I relate to those with sincerity and maturity. How I relate to Silver and Arisha is different because they are different, and make relating in any sane way impossible. Spongey certainly, but Quinn also to some extent, are happy to see you as having 'got it' and that they haven't quite 'got it'. So I can well believe that you relate to them the same as you do to Marie i.e. with you in the teacher role. Whereas Arisha and Silver don't look to you in that same way, they challenge you. It sounds like you see women with maturity and sincerity as those that are happy to put you in the teacher role. Silver might represent that aspect of Marie that isn't quite as committed or as focused as you on 'what's true'. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 10, 2013 16:34:06 GMT -5
This story would be relevant if i knew why Anonsage stopped posting. I'm guessing he stopped posting because he saw that no matter how good his 'bedside manner' was, there were going to be many who would not understand, not be receptive and would be hateful toward him.
I think there's quite enough conjecturing happening in ST, so it seems unproductive to add more.It's quite easy to say a lot of things. Proving them is where people find the going tough.
Regarding 'bedside manner', if that is what you are sticking with, then i shall no longer offer my alternatives for you to explore.
Here's a real life example showing why i cannot agree with your conclusions, enigma.
The local dump is also one of the local social gathering spots in scotsdale(very small country town)
I have come to be close friends with one of the guys who works there, and sometimes we hang out at the dump for hours chatting about all manner of things.
I rock up one pleasantly warm summer's day, and my friend and two other blokes are all sitting in the shed chatting away.
There is a new guy, who i got an intuitive negative vibe about the moment i saw him.
As i get out of the car and take off my headphones, this new guy is rather forceful in opinion and with slight arrogance,
informs me my music is too loud and he speaks down to me the number of times he does over the course of the several minutes of everyone chatting together.
My friend knows this new guy and my friend keeps a watchful eye on me to see how i am handling the roughness of this new guy.
I am not offended or feel threatened, so whenever he speaks "rudely" to me, i respond effortlessly with genuine love for him.
I keep noticing he has become fidgitier as the group discussion continues.
Then he sits down next to me and with such ease, apologises for his initial rudeness, stating he knows he has this 'public face' he uses to keep people at bay.
I express that i was never troubled by this and we ended up chatting one on one for an hour and
we have become friends, though i rarely see him because he lives in a neighboring town.
He said usually when he does the 'public face' thing with people, it makes them respond negatively and that in turn makes him respond even ruder.
He said he was slightly shell shocked by my loving and accepting attitute toward him and he didn't know what to do
because he was so used to becoming ruder towards people during interactions.
So when i was noticing him increase his fidgiting, that was when he was troubled and was making an effort to put his 'public face' to one side and let his real inner self out.
He willing chose to change his initial dislike/hatred of me to one of respectful friendliness.
And all i did was remain loving toward him while he was not toward me.
And i have experiences like this all the time. |
|
|
|
Post by enigma on Feb 10, 2013 16:48:15 GMT -5
You've stated the issue clearly. I don't have more to say on the responsibility issue at the moment, but I've been exploring the style issue you mentioned first. My conclusion is basically that, given that the style is not openly abusive, which means anything from quite blunt and personally neutral to very gentle, style doesn't actually lead to clarity about unconscious stuff. It does determine the tone of the conversation and the level of resistance experienced and expressed, but this doesn't imply something is seen that wasn't seen before. For example, 'talking someone down' from an emotional reaction is good if the goal is to calm one down, but it doesn't imply clarity has happened or even that one has necessarily been helped by it. Likewise, 'resolving miscommunication' is always good, but I usually see that even when miscommunications are cleared up, it happens in such a way that the issue that triggered the miscommunication is swept off to the side in the process. The same applies to all 'gentle' approaches where nothing is really seen in spite of an exchange of agreement, gratitude and various niceties, because there is no real motivation to look or to see. As I see it, the reason for this is that the focus is on style and style issues and never becomes focused on the content that one resists regardless of the style in which it is presented. Even if one graciously takes on new ideas, these ideas tend to never go anywhere or result in genuine change or clarity. However, because of the agreeable nature of the relationship, there may be all the signs of having taken on board the ideas and internally processed them. Upon closer examination, they were likely distorted to fit the listeners dynamics and beliefs rather than acting as a catalyst for changing them. We all have stories of apparent success with whatever approach we use, but I say success is not determined by the approach but by the readiness (openness, sincerity, courage) of the listener. Given that readiness, a 'student' position is taken up, and it's inevitable that a 'teacher' will appear. That 'teacher' can be anyone or anything. If the 'student' is ready, it is already done. If there is no readiness, nothing can be done. I can agree with this. When someone is in the midst of resistivity, i.e. having an extremely negative reaction to style (example Silver wrt Reefs), do you see it as having a negative impact on readiness? Or do you see it as a catalyst if the readiness is there? What in your mind leads to readiness? The reason I see Reef's style as counterproductive is that it is prone to building a resentment and a closed ear to the message. I see a shut-down and active avoidance. Go back to Trauma and Resiliency. Reef's style, I feel, pushes the trauma past the point of resiliency and creates some damage which takes longer to recover from. I try to keep the level of trauma within the scope of resiliency. So in Reef's eyes I look like a fence sitter because I won't push past what I sense is a boundary between resiliency being possible and interfering with resiliency. Welp, I don't see that a 'negative reaction' or a 'positive reaction' either facilitates or obstructs readiness, as readiness is more about sincerity than emotional calmness. The negative reaction may very well be an indicator of readiness as, if there is truly none, many of the comments simply won't register as making any sense. (Something that happens with Silver at times) There must be a willingness to see what one doesn't want to see, and this willingness requires a compensating motivation. Repeated struggle can act as this motivation, or a deep trust. Obviously, these correspond to the approaches we're talking about. This isn't the kind of trust that says 'I know you'll never say anything to hurt me and will always support me', which is the kind of trust folks are often looking for in friends and mates. This is the kind of trust that says 'I believe in you and I know you'll tell me what's true'. This kind of trust is rare as hen's teeth in the cyber world and I'm not interested in cultivating it. The latter is the kind of trust Marie has for me. It doesn't mean she believes everything I say, it means she will likely look wherever I point to see for herself, because she knows it's not about believing but rather seeing. She may struggle with ideas and insights, but she never struggles with me. Because there is always the willingness to look, she notices, sees, realizes and ideas and fears fall away. The more she sees this happen, the more willing she is to look. The way I interact on line is different and not as effective. I'm not committed to building and maintaining that trust, which cannot be done at all with most. All I do is present opportunities. What peeps do with them is really none of my concern. They will do what they will. The openness created with the gentle approach is usually an openness to feeling loved, appreciated, accepted, agreed with. It still doesn't mean an openness to seeing what one doesn't want to see. As long as you are gentle, there's nothing at all to push against and this is a relationship in which there is no threat and no motivation to look. The moment threat is felt, the foundation of the relationship is questioned. (At that point, there could be some emotional blackmail because you're not playing the game right.) |
|
|
|
Post by arisha on Feb 10, 2013 16:54:18 GMT -5
The problem is that Joe and Mary think love must conform to a set of behavioral conditions in order to be love. This is why I say your ideas about love is not what Love really is.
We, as in people, all have ideas, i see nothing wrong with having ideas...i think ideas are fun.
If you have a problem with Joe and Mary's ideas, then you do, i don't.This is very nice. |
|
