|
|
Post by enigma on Feb 13, 2013 12:36:35 GMT -5
No I wasn't speculating, I was just retorting.
I see a speculation about me unless you have absolute proof that 'specualtion' is my fav word.
Im gonna go with you do not have the ability to see inside me to know if it's my fav word or not.
However, if you mean retort as - A quick reply to a question or remark (especially a witty or critical one)
How's that working out for you?
And last but not least, a person can combine retorting and speculating at the same time.
Who cares? You used the word 'speculation' a few times in rapid succession and so it was called your fav word. Why drag it into word court? |
|
|
|
Post by enigma on Feb 13, 2013 13:04:52 GMT -5
E: The sky is blue. S: Why would you say the sky is green? E: I didn't say the sky is green. S: I know what I read. E: You don't know what you read. Your interpretation of what you read is not what you read. What you read is "The sky is blue." Yep this sums up your approach E. You are keen to direct people's attention to what appearances are 'objectively' appearing. I see this as a contradiction to the very idea of 'appearances'....by definition, an 'appearance' is subjective. No-one is seeing quite the same thing. I'm not saying that there isn't a time to question what someone is seeing (i.e to approach from within a context of 'objectivity') but I see this approach as really no different to the old scientific approach in which it was assumed that an objective world exists and which can be objectively studied. Yes, it's a limited approach, and most of what is seen by folks is opinion and perspective and is perfectly legitimate whether it agrees with mine or not, so the only time I talk about such perceptions is when the words that triggered them were clearly not the source, as in: (Made up convo) "The sky is blue." "Why do you say my son's death is minutia?" The purpose of talking about such things is not to declare there is an objective world and an objective truth, but to point out that an illusion was just created in which what was heard was clearly not what was said. Noticing this over and over as it happens is the process of becoming conscious, and this is the current spiritual focus for many on the forum right now. The 'unconscious' are rooted in duality. Would you have me talk to unconsciousness about transcending consciousness? I agree, though (generalizing) women can get as stuck in feeling as men can get stuck in intellectualizing. Just as we cannot intellectualize our way out of intellectualizing, we can't feel our way out of feeling, and so the intellectual gets indignant at the idea that he needs to STFU for a while, and the feeler gets insulted at the idea that things are actually being said and done that have nothing to do with what is being felt. As you say, there needs to be a balance. I think it's an attempt to create a balance. Seeing through filters is called seeing illusion through conditioning. Putting an end to that is to put an end to suffering. I don't know what Portto meant by that. I figured he was teasinglessly teasing you.  |
|
|
|
Post by andrew on Feb 13, 2013 13:52:11 GMT -5
Yep this sums up your approach E. You are keen to direct people's attention to what appearances are 'objectively' appearing. I see this as a contradiction to the very idea of 'appearances'....by definition, an 'appearance' is subjective. No-one is seeing quite the same thing. I'm not saying that there isn't a time to question what someone is seeing (i.e to approach from within a context of 'objectivity') but I see this approach as really no different to the old scientific approach in which it was assumed that an objective world exists and which can be objectively studied. Yes, it's a limited approach, and most of what is seen by folks is opinion and perspective and is perfectly legitimate whether it agrees with mine or not, so the only time I talk about such perceptions is when the words that triggered them were clearly not the source, as in: (Made up convo) "The sky is blue." "Why do you say my son's death is minutia?" The purpose of talking about such things is not to declare there is an objective world and an objective truth, but to point out that an illusion was just created in which what was heard was clearly not what was said. Noticing this over and over as it happens is the process of becoming conscious, and this is the current spiritual focus for many on the forum right now. The 'unconscious' are rooted in duality. Would you have me talk to unconsciousness about transcending consciousness? I agree, though (generalizing) women can get as stuck in feeling as men can get stuck in intellectualizing. Just as we cannot intellectualize our way out of intellectualizing, we can't feel our way out of feeling, and so the intellectual gets indignant at the idea that he needs to STFU for a while, and the feeler gets insulted at the idea that things are actually being said and done that have nothing to do with what is being felt. As you say, there needs to be a balance. I think it's an attempt to create a balance. Seeing through filters is called seeing illusion through conditioning. Putting an end to that is to put an end to suffering. I don't know what Portto meant by that. I figured he was teasinglessly teasing you. I would say there is always an individual filter of perception, hence why what is perceived is subjective. Your preference seems to be to look through a filter of 'objectivity', and in this filter there is a duality presupposed i.e. that reality can be objectively perceived, or that the truth of things can be perceived. I think this filter can be appropriate sometimes, and certainly I see it as having value for those that are swayed wholly by instinct/intuition/feeling. However, I think it has very little to do with non-duality. The reason is, that it is entirely possible to 'be conscious' (by your definition) and basically have released zero attachment, because 'being conscious' is just another model, or filter, or position that can be potentially attached to. As I see it, the goal is to release attachment to all models, filters, and positions. The filter that is seen through is then absent of self-images, so it is a much purer filter, that allows us to experience and perceive directly. What is seen is still subjective though. When attachment has been released, there is still a freedom to take up a position of 'being conscious' when appropriate, but equally we are just as happy to engage intuitively, to engage with other senses, and even engage with imagination. |
|
|
|
Post by silence on Feb 13, 2013 15:34:07 GMT -5
Greetings.. It's not just me, Silence.. there are quite a few that find it difficult to have discussions on this forum without the 'non-dual posse' derailing the process of open and honest discussion with their agendas and judgments and mockery.. What do these open, honest discussions look like? Is there some forum you've participated on that you're looking to replicate the interactions? Forget 'him' the question was for 'you', what is your intention? why do you ask me? this is an opportunity to look at what 'you' want from this exchange, and why.. Be well.. Why do I ask you? Probably because you're the one day in, day out bitching and moaning that enigma won't act and talk the way you want him to. I've seen and worked with children that have enough maturity to see beyond this daily pouting you carry on with. |
|
|
|
Post by tzujanli on Feb 13, 2013 15:44:33 GMT -5
Greetings.. Greetings.. What do these open, honest discussions look like? Is there some forum you've participated on that you're looking to replicate the interactions? Forget 'him' the question was for 'you', what is your intention? why do you ask me? this is an opportunity to look at what 'you' want from this exchange, and why.. Be well.. Why do I ask you? Probably because you're the one day in, day out pregnant doging and moaning that enigma won't act and talk the way you want him to. I've seen and worked with children that have enough maturity to see beyond this daily pouting you carry on with. Didn't work.. Psych 101, do better.. try asking why you don't treat the same presentations equally, remaining neutral of your own preferences.. Be well.. |
|
|
|
Post by topology on Feb 13, 2013 17:21:26 GMT -5
What Enigma is pointing at isn't for the benefit of anyone other than you. What Enigma is pointing at is the following:
You have certain agendas or talking points, certain messages that you want to tell Enigma. These are sitting in the background waiting for triggers and contexts to activate their expression. When you read James' post, it sounded like one of his talking points was similar or in support of one of your talking points. You then proceeded as if James had the same talking point as you.
This is all Enigma is trying to point at:
1) You have talking points that you hold onto and throw at him.
2) You will mis-hear someone else's talking point if it is "close enough" to your own talking point. This is a mistake in perception and a misrepresentation of another person.
These are your conclusions about silver?
If you answer yes to both, then i repeat, speculation...unless you have verifiable proof.I will try to explain for a second time. I was putting what Enigma had said into my own wording. I was attempting to translate what was said in a way which Silver might be able to hear or not have such an averse reaction to. I was trying to facilitate communication, not necessarily express my own view of things. I do not claim that what was said was The Truth TM. I do not claim to have made it any easier for Silver to understand, but that was my intent. I will claim to have successfully represented Enigma's thoughts in different wording as Enigma indicated so. |
|
|
|
Post by enigma on Feb 13, 2013 19:11:53 GMT -5
Greetings.. Oh, I see how Arisha imagined that. Yes, your observation is correct. I have chosen to end communication , not from any adverse reactions to enigma's comments, because there haven't been any.
I had a buddha type experience while in the psych ward back in 2008
and from that day on i simply do not become offended within any verbal interactions with people.
To this day i still am in awe of this surprise ability that just clicked in while at hospital.
I just find that when a person proclaims to be utterly convinced they are right about things they have actually not experienced, it's time to call it a day with them.In exactly the same way that you assume that you know what others think and experience.. by interpreting the words posted here and comparing them against your personal beliefs.. Be well..[/quote] Well, right there's yer problem. I don't do that and you do. Even if we assume we do the same, why would you criticize me for for my conclusions when yours are admittedly derived in eggzakly the same way? |
|
|
|
Post by enigma on Feb 13, 2013 19:24:35 GMT -5
Yes, it's a limited approach, and most of what is seen by folks is opinion and perspective and is perfectly legitimate whether it agrees with mine or not, so the only time I talk about such perceptions is when the words that triggered them were clearly not the source, as in: (Made up convo) "The sky is blue." "Why do you say my son's death is minutia?" The purpose of talking about such things is not to declare there is an objective world and an objective truth, but to point out that an illusion was just created in which what was heard was clearly not what was said. Noticing this over and over as it happens is the process of becoming conscious, and this is the current spiritual focus for many on the forum right now. The 'unconscious' are rooted in duality. Would you have me talk to unconsciousness about transcending consciousness? I agree, though (generalizing) women can get as stuck in feeling as men can get stuck in intellectualizing. Just as we cannot intellectualize our way out of intellectualizing, we can't feel our way out of feeling, and so the intellectual gets indignant at the idea that he needs to STFU for a while, and the feeler gets insulted at the idea that things are actually being said and done that have nothing to do with what is being felt. As you say, there needs to be a balance. I think it's an attempt to create a balance. Seeing through filters is called seeing illusion through conditioning. Putting an end to that is to put an end to suffering. I don't know what Portto meant by that. I figured he was teasinglessly teasing you. I would say there is always an individual filter of perception, hence why what is perceived is subjective. Your preference seems to be to look through a filter of 'objectivity', and in this filter there is a duality presupposed i.e. that reality can be objectively perceived, or that the truth of things can be perceived. I think this filter can be appropriate sometimes, and certainly I see it as having value for those that are swayed wholly by instinct/intuition/feeling. Yes Yes. Being conscious isn't a position one takes up when appropriate. It's not opposed to intuition or other senses or imagination. ;D |
|
|
|
Post by silence on Feb 13, 2013 22:15:14 GMT -5
Greetings.. Why do I ask you? Probably because you're the one day in, day out pregnant doging and moaning that enigma won't act and talk the way you want him to. I've seen and worked with children that have enough maturity to see beyond this daily pouting you carry on with. Didn't work.. Psych 101, do better.. try asking why you don't treat the same presentations equally, remaining neutral of your own preferences.. Be well.. What does neutrality have anything to do with what's being talked about? I'd say your deflecting again due to your aversion to having open honest discussions. *wink wink* |
|
|
|
Post by arisha on Feb 13, 2013 22:26:41 GMT -5
Greetings.. Oh, I see how Arisha imagined that. Yes, your observation is correct. I have chosen to end communication , not from any adverse reactions to enigma's comments, because there haven't been any.
I had a buddha type experience while in the psych ward back in 2008
and from that day on i simply do not become offended within any verbal interactions with people.
To this day i still am in awe of this surprise ability that just clicked in while at hospital.
I just find that when a person proclaims to be utterly convinced they are right about things they have actually not experienced, it's time to call it a day with them.In exactly the same way that you assume that you know what others think and experience.. by interpreting the words posted here and comparing them against your personal beliefs.. Be well..[/quote] Yes, simple like that. It can be known in the exactly the same way. And in a number of other ways as well. The question asked is rather a silly one for a person who claims he can see with clarity. |
|
|
|
Post by Reefs on Feb 13, 2013 22:52:17 GMT -5
I would say I am responding to 'energy' primarily. But I am aware that I have to be a little careful of that, and I am disciplined. I have trained myself to focus very specifically on content when required. self-control = restraint exercised over one's own impulses, emotions, or desires <---- not spontaneous, not natural, i.e. fixed mental position  |
|
|
|
Post by andrew on Feb 14, 2013 3:07:02 GMT -5
I would say there is always an individual filter of perception, hence why what is perceived is subjective. Your preference seems to be to look through a filter of 'objectivity', and in this filter there is a duality presupposed i.e. that reality can be objectively perceived, or that the truth of things can be perceived. I think this filter can be appropriate sometimes, and certainly I see it as having value for those that are swayed wholly by instinct/intuition/feeling. Yes Yes. Being conscious isn't a position one takes up when appropriate. It's not opposed to intuition or other senses or imagination. ;D Being conscious is a mental position one can take up if you look closely at it. Its a position of 'looking objectively' or 'looking at what's true'. I'm not saying that there is anything wrong with doing that, but its just one position, and like any other position, can be attached to. |
|
|
|
Post by andrew on Feb 14, 2013 3:21:47 GMT -5
I would say I am responding to 'energy' primarily. But I am aware that I have to be a little careful of that, and I am disciplined. I have trained myself to focus very specifically on content when required. self-control = restraint exercised over one's own impulses, emotions, or desires <---- not spontaneous, not natural, i.e. fixed mental position All I am talking about it directing focus. For example, I noticed your comment and there was a spark of irritation. However, I realized that that isn't going to serve me (or anyone else right now), so I shifted focus. It means I can now reply directly to what was said. There are always (mental) positions being adopted, the issue is whether they are attached to. Your case is very interesting because based on what you have said, there seems to be only one reason why you would distinguish between conceptual and non-conceptual, and that reason would be to hold onto 'non-conceptual' as a position. |
|
|
|
Post by Reefs on Feb 14, 2013 4:02:19 GMT -5
self-control = restraint exercised over one's own impulses, emotions, or desires <---- not spontaneous, not natural, i.e. fixed mental position All I am talking about it directing focus. For example, I noticed your comment and there was a spark of irritation. However, I realized that that isn't going to serve me (or anyone else right now), so I shifted focus. It means I can now reply directly to what was said. There are always (mental) positions being adopted, the issue is whether they are attached to. Your case is very interesting because based on what you have said, there seems to be only one reason why you would distinguish between conceptual and non-conceptual, and that reason would be to hold onto 'non-conceptual' as a position. Thanks for finally admitting that your level 3 enlightenment is just a mind game. |
|
|
|
Post by andrew on Feb 14, 2013 4:10:31 GMT -5
All I am talking about it directing focus. For example, I noticed your comment and there was a spark of irritation. However, I realized that that isn't going to serve me (or anyone else right now), so I shifted focus. It means I can now reply directly to what was said. There are always (mental) positions being adopted, the issue is whether they are attached to. Your case is very interesting because based on what you have said, there seems to be only one reason why you would distinguish between conceptual and non-conceptual, and that reason would be to hold onto 'non-conceptual' as a position. Thanks for finally admitting that your level 3 enlightenment is just a mind game. That context arose a few months ago when we were talking about Niz and the stages that he conceptualized, and I didn't claim level 3, so that's your giraffe. However, in the context that 'its all Mind', what I am suggesting would indeed be a mind game. |
|
