|
|
Post by enigma on Mar 23, 2013 18:04:44 GMT -5
This is what happens when we begin at the end, with a preconceived idea or feeling that we're attached to, and then go to work to justify it. We end up with a story that usually requires continual revision as it keeps running into facts that contradict it. However, mind is far too clever to be fooled by facts as it can just make up it's own and allow itself to believe them. She hasn't currently written the chapter that explains your 'low behavior' when you have no particular allegiance to Reefs, but it's just a matter of time. I could prolly write it for her, but I wouldn't want to infringe on her copy-write. Even though I don't understand your comments/questions (because I don't play that particular game), I don't think Top asked questions that made sense - to me, anyway. I know you're 'getting at something', I just don't relate - not fully. Top claims to not be taking sides in favor of Reefs. You claim he is. He says he has no allegiance to Reefs and doesn't particularly approve of his approach and therefore is not taking his side, has no motivation to do so, is not verbally or otherwise supporting him, and so he politely asks you where you see that 'taking sides' happening. IOW, what is the indication, beyond a vague feeling sense that it must be happening, that taking sides is actually happening if he is not, in fact, even verbally supporting Reefs? What does it mean to take sides but not to speak in support of the one he takes sides with. (Lets assume he's not making financial donations to Reefs' mockery account) |
|
|
|
Post by silver on Mar 23, 2013 18:12:03 GMT -5
Even though I don't understand your comments/questions (because I don't play that particular game), I don't think Top asked questions that made sense - to me, anyway. I know you're 'getting at something', I just don't relate - not fully. Top claims to not be taking sides in favor of Reefs. You claim he is. He says he has no allegiance to Reefs and doesn't particularly approve of his approach and therefore is not taking his side, has no motivation to do so, is not verbally or otherwise supporting him, and so he politely asks you where you see that 'taking sides' happening. IOW, what is the indication, beyond a vague feeling sense that it must be happening, that taking sides is actually happening if he is not, in fact, even verbally supporting Reefs? What does it mean to take sides but not to speak in support of the one he takes sides with. (Lets assume he's not making financial donations to Reefs' mockery account) That's very funny. When I say take sides, I'm not specifically pointing at Reefs but what is the following - the non-duality thingy. The 'club'. I'm already dealing pretty well with what Reefs specifically represents. Just as in the belief that all are one or everything is one, so I believe that each person is what they believe or subscribe to as a belief or philosophy or way of living or way that they think they are living. |
|
|
|
Post by enigma on Mar 23, 2013 18:14:16 GMT -5
I can only guess from here, but it seems to me you've talked repeatedly about seeing/responding to things a little differently. Looking more objectively, taking things less personally, and such. You've also seen some errors in your perception on occasion, even if your reaction is to justify it. Just the seeing of it is helpful. Are you saying none of this has happened at all? Why does that particular response indicate to you that now I'm acting like none of those things happened. You asked the general question of whether or not anybody is ever helped by this "further friction". I'm suggesting that perhaps you have. Read more: spiritualteachers.proboards.com/post/110964/quote/2681?page=100#ixzz2OPJsRvPe From who to who? I haven't even given you any reason to be defensive yet, and you're already going to war. |
|
|
|
Post by enigma on Mar 23, 2013 18:21:16 GMT -5
Top claims to not be taking sides in favor of Reefs. You claim he is. He says he has no allegiance to Reefs and doesn't particularly approve of his approach and therefore is not taking his side, has no motivation to do so, is not verbally or otherwise supporting him, and so he politely asks you where you see that 'taking sides' happening. IOW, what is the indication, beyond a vague feeling sense that it must be happening, that taking sides is actually happening if he is not, in fact, even verbally supporting Reefs? What does it mean to take sides but not to speak in support of the one he takes sides with. (Lets assume he's not making financial donations to Reefs' mockery account) That's very funny. When I say take sides, I'm not specifically pointing at Reefs but what is the following - the non-duality thingy. The 'club'. I'm already dealing pretty well with what Reefs specifically represents. Just as in the belief that all are one or everything is one, so I believe that each person is what they believe or subscribe to as a belief or philosophy or way of living or way that they think they are living. So you're saying he's taking sides with nonduality agaist you....or with a few others here who have been labeled as club members.....or sumthin? He's not talking to you about nonduality and he hasn't made any real supporting comments in favor of anybody. He has commented both positively and negatively about me, so he won't be on the guest list for the next club picnic. So who or what is it he's siding with? |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 23, 2013 18:45:56 GMT -5
Yes, I like to speak up for Andrew too. Andrew is a pillar of kindness in these rough ascension times. He is a shining example of konditional luv in an environment where there is no love at all. He speaks up for the unfortunate who cannot defend themselves and corners the villains when appropriate. Mocking. What value do you place in this behavior Reefs?
Mocking - abusing vocally; expressing contempt or ridicule,derisive, gibelike, jeering, taunting
disrespectful - exhibiting lack of respect; rude and discourteous.
So i theorise the practice is to lower Andrew's value or raise his own.Saying something once is good. Saying it twice just to make sure it is heard is fine. Saying it over and over and over and over and over and over and over again... Not so much. My point was that saying something over and over and over and over and over again becomes crusadish.
- a vigorous and dedicated action or movement in favour of a cause
- to campaign vigorously for something
Why do you value some of enigma's behavior over other's complaints about them? |
|
|
|
Post by silver on Mar 23, 2013 18:49:17 GMT -5
Why does that particular response indicate to you that now I'm acting like none of those things happened. You asked the general question of whether or not anybody is ever helped by this "further friction". I'm suggesting that perhaps you have. Read more: spiritualteachers.proboards.com/post/110964/quote/2681?page=100#ixzz2OPJsRvPe From who to who? I haven't even given you any reason to be defensive yet, and you're already going to war. That last bit I'm saying that you're choosing to label me as being defensive, but I don't think that's accurate. I surely didn't express any hostility - It seems to me that you exaggerate stuff to put the other person in a negative light that they (I) don't deserve! As far as Top switching, perhaps I'm just noticing that he does most definitely seem to be engaging in this whereas before, I didn't see that he was, or simply wasn't aware of any of that. It's not all that important. It happens unless it doesn't. I didn't see an answer to this in the link you gave: "You asked the general question of whether or not anybody is ever helped by this "further friction". I'm suggesting that perhaps you have." So, I'm at a loss as to how it helped. |
|
|
|
Post by Reefs on Mar 23, 2013 21:16:35 GMT -5
Yes, I like to speak up for Andrew too. Andrew is a pillar of kindness in these rough ascension times. He is a shining example of konditional luv in an environment where there is no love at all. He speaks up for the unfortunate who cannot defend themselves and corners the villains when appropriate. Mocking. What value do you place in this behavior Reefs? It ends the focus on ridiculous personal stories and the typical 'I am more enlightened than you' competition that goes hand in hand with such stories. It brings things back into the birds-eye perspective. |
|
|
|
Post by enigma on Mar 23, 2013 21:31:36 GMT -5
That last bit I'm saying that you're choosing to label me as being defensive, but I don't think that's accurate. I surely didn't express any hostility - It seems to me that you exaggerate stuff to put the other person in a negative light that they (I) don't deserve! I'll stop exaggerating stuff as soon as you stop. I'm not sure what you think he's engaging in, but I'm pretty sure I could go back to the BP thread and find where he talked to you about pretty much the same thing in pretty much the same way, so I don't know what has changed. There wasn't an answer there for you, it was just a link to your post so that you couldn't blame me for twisting your words. It was in response to your question: "Why does that particular response indicate to you that now I'm acting like none of those things happened." Usually, your strategy is to claim you don't understand, and then ignore or divert attention for a while, and then finally declare it all 'old news' that you let go of a long time ago. We're at stage 2 at the moment. |
|
|
|
Post by silver on Mar 23, 2013 21:55:01 GMT -5
That last bit I'm saying that you're choosing to label me as being defensive, but I don't think that's accurate. I surely didn't express any hostility - It seems to me that you exaggerate stuff to put the other person in a negative light that they (I) don't deserve! I'll stop exaggerating stuff as soon as you stop. I'm not sure what you think he's engaging in, but I'm pretty sure I could go back to the BP thread and find where he talked to you about pretty much the same thing in pretty much the same way, so I don't know what has changed. There wasn't an answer there for you, it was just a link to your post so that you couldn't blame me for twisting your words. It was in response to your question: "Why does that particular response indicate to you that now I'm acting like none of those things happened." Usually, your strategy is to claim you don't understand, and then ignore or divert attention for a while, and then finally declare it all 'old news' that you let go of a long time ago. We're at stage 2 at the moment. You're not gettin' away with that, bub. You have to show where you think I was exaggerating in that particular instance, and once again, it's only opinions. But show me anyway. I saw him in the process of changing and he and I discussed it in private. Why are you pitch hiting btw? I don't understand what you're trying to tell me - still! |
|
|
|
Post by Reefs on Mar 23, 2013 21:57:37 GMT -5
Even though I don't understand your comments/questions (because I don't play that particular game), I don't think Top asked questions that made sense - to me, anyway. I know you're 'getting at something', I just don't relate - not fully. Top claims to not be taking sides in favor of Reefs. You claim he is. He says he has no allegiance to Reefs and doesn't particularly approve of his approach and therefore is not taking his side, has no motivation to do so, is not verbally or otherwise supporting him, and so he politely asks you where you see that 'taking sides' happening. IOW, what is the indication, beyond a vague feeling sense that it must be happening, that taking sides is actually happening if he is not, in fact, even verbally supporting Reefs? What does it mean to take sides but not to speak in support of the one he takes sides with. (Lets assume he's not making financial donations to Reefs' mockery account) Top = not agreeing with me = Top against me = Top in cahoots with my enemies Simple. Really.  |
|
|
|
Post by enigma on Mar 24, 2013 1:26:25 GMT -5
I'll stop exaggerating stuff as soon as you stop. I'm not sure what you think he's engaging in, but I'm pretty sure I could go back to the BP thread and find where he talked to you about pretty much the same thing in pretty much the same way, so I don't know what has changed. There wasn't an answer there for you, it was just a link to your post so that you couldn't blame me for twisting your words. It was in response to your question: "Why does that particular response indicate to you that now I'm acting like none of those things happened." Usually, your strategy is to claim you don't understand, and then ignore or divert attention for a while, and then finally declare it all 'old news' that you let go of a long time ago. We're at stage 2 at the moment. You're not gettin' away with that, bub. You have to show where you think I was exaggerating in that particular instance, and once again, it's only opinions. But show me anyway. Right after you show me. I have no idea what you're imagining this time. You're just stalling until you can declare it old news. |
|
|
|
Post by enigma on Mar 24, 2013 1:30:59 GMT -5
Top claims to not be taking sides in favor of Reefs. You claim he is. He says he has no allegiance to Reefs and doesn't particularly approve of his approach and therefore is not taking his side, has no motivation to do so, is not verbally or otherwise supporting him, and so he politely asks you where you see that 'taking sides' happening. IOW, what is the indication, beyond a vague feeling sense that it must be happening, that taking sides is actually happening if he is not, in fact, even verbally supporting Reefs? What does it mean to take sides but not to speak in support of the one he takes sides with. (Lets assume he's not making financial donations to Reefs' mockery account) Top = not agreeing with me = Top against me = Top in cahoots with my enemies Simple. Really. Yes, it's that simple. Her entire world is formed by unconscious thoughts and feelings. |
|
|
|
Post by silver on Mar 24, 2013 2:13:16 GMT -5
Top = not agreeing with me = Top against me = Top in cahoots with my enemies Simple. Really. Yes, it's that simple. Her entire world is formed by unconscious thoughts and feelings. D'oh! When Reefs said that, I thought he ment 'me' as in him. I was not reading that right. No, I'm still buds with Top - everything's copesetic. What I don't get about you guys is that if someone disagrees with you, seems they automatically get to wear the enemy lable. You two manage to read an awful lot into things that aren't there. |
|
|
|
Post by enigma on Mar 24, 2013 2:21:12 GMT -5
Yes, it's that simple. Her entire world is formed by unconscious thoughts and feelings. D'oh! When Reefs said that, I thought he ment 'me' as in him. I was not reading that right. No, I'm still buds with Top - everything's copesetic. What I don't get about you guys is that if someone disagrees with you, seems they automatically get to wear the enemy lable. You two manage to read an awful lot into things that aren't there. The same way you see things that aren't there, you also don't see things that are there. |
|
|
|
Post by Reefs on Mar 24, 2013 2:25:52 GMT -5
D'oh! When Reefs said that, I thought he ment 'me' as in him. I was not reading that right. No, I'm still buds with Top - everything's copesetic. What I don't get about you guys is that if someone disagrees with you, seems they automatically get to wear the enemy lable. You two manage to read an awful lot into things that aren't there. The same way you see things that aren't there, you also don't see things that are there.  |
|
