|
|
Post by enigma on Mar 27, 2013 14:55:46 GMT -5
I can see you [tops] take after papa E. You find fault an awful lot. To be totally frank, I consider top to be one of the least, if not THE least judgmental person here, Ag. Hence, I simply cannot put the above statement and my understanding of tops together. Like, in any way whatsoever. I agree. I'm aligned with the energy of his integrity as he seeks to explore what in blazes is really going on. The anit-club club has picked on the least biased of the group in trying to demonstrate bias, which strikes me as odd. I speculate his neutrality is a threat because if he really is neutral, then his comments have to be taken seriously and can't be dismissed as clubhouse activity. He has and will disagree with me, but as I've said, there's a difference between a particular perspective on a given tree, which is fine, and seeing a giraffe instead of a tree, which is delusion. Is it kinda sorta like Papa Smurf, cuz I can energetically align with that.  |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 27, 2013 14:59:10 GMT -5
I can go into fine detail to explain how i came to my conclusions.
It's been a few weeks now and i am still waiting for your proof of your claim that it's a fact that silver is blackmailing.
So how about you go first, seeing as my request was lodged way before your's was. Point is, my 'accusations' are just as provable as yours.
All i keep hearing is your accusation, but no proof provided so far.
I have no doubt you are convinced you have proof, but i prefer to see it for myself
instead of simply believing you.
You know, direct experience instead of just believing what someone else experienced.
I learnt that lesson after detaching from the religion i was in.
All you have provided so far is you repeatedly stating your conclusions are correct,
but you have not proved your conclusions are correct.
Repeatedly sharing how convinced you are does not convince me in the slightest.
And it's ok enigma, i don't expect you to prove any of the things you claim.
I expect you to remain as you are, encased in your thought world that you're right and others are wrong.
It's been weeks of repeated asking, and you still don't provide proof so why would i expect you to change your MO.
|
|
|
|
Post by Beingist on Mar 27, 2013 15:22:08 GMT -5
]Edit: oh, and it's 'papa E'. It's Uncle 'nigma. Is it kinda sorta like Papa Smurf, cuz I can energetically align with that. You as Papa Smurf? Yeah, I can rez widdat. |
|
|
|
Post by enigma on Mar 27, 2013 15:24:06 GMT -5
Tastes will vary, for sure. And I agree that sometimes folks hide behind jokes to avoid engaging in the points. I'm guilty of that myself. To be non-jokey then, do you see how the content of your critique of Top (that he is refining an identity as a teacher) might be applicable to the very comment from which that critique emanated? I see it and it looks to me as a good example of the usefulness of the phenomena of projection. By that logic all comments fall into the same category.. i figure Top will understand the discussion better than an advocate, it was his request to be 'reminded'.. Be well.. Top's request to be reminded when he is not 'coming empty' in an interaction surely wasn't the open invitation of unfounded accusation and projection that you and others seem to think it was. While I personally appreciate Top's transparency, I'm not sure to what extent he realizes everything he says can and will be used against him in a court of word law. If, in fact, this forum were not punctuated by a level of unconscious insanity, then said level of transparency would indeed be an asset to the community. As it is, it just serves as more ammunition. |
|
|
|
Post by enigma on Mar 27, 2013 15:26:20 GMT -5
Tastes will vary, for sure. And I agree that sometimes folks hide behind jokes to avoid engaging in the points. I'm guilty of that myself. To be non-jokey then, do you see how the content of your critique of Top (that he is refining an identity as a teacher) might be applicable to the very comment from which that critique emanated? I see it and it looks to me as a good example of the usefulness of the phenomena of projection. Also the phenomenon of recursion, ie: self-reference. If you mean unconsciously self referencing, how does that differ from projection? |
|
|
|
Post by topology on Mar 27, 2013 15:43:38 GMT -5
Greetings.. I want to see where Silver's understanding is at wrt to "non-dualism". She's been on the board for a while, what's she getting out of it? Has she explored ATA beyond thinking about it? What is her sense of separation? As for what I am teaching? No idea. I'm trying to relate how I've changed and how I experience the world after going through those changes. The answer to those questions are what I am learning. I don't know what "wrt" or ATA is.. but, thanks for the plain talk.. you appear to be teaching others in the manner of E's MO, seemingly an emulation, though slightly softer at the moment.. Be well.. Emulating means there is something in me wanting to copy him. I can't find that intent in me. Perhaps my similarity is a happenstance. Or perhaps west Texas dust bowls do something the mind in some sinister way. But I'm just being myself. Wrt - with respect to ATA - attending the actual, which is zd's description of shifting attention away from thoughts and participating in the phenomenal experience more. I just spent the last half hour sitting outside my building and letting the noises and throng of life seep into me. I can feel the energy of spring. The new shoots sprouting from the ground, the down from molting baby birds, the slower but more vibrant pace. Looking at the whole visual field I get a sense of life humming along. Insects moving causing grass blades to jiggle, the wind gently brushing by. People walking by wondering why some fat guy is sitting in the grass instead of walking somewhere.  |
|
|
|
Post by tzujanli on Mar 27, 2013 15:52:29 GMT -5
Greetings.. Greetings.. I don't know what "wrt" or ATA is.. but, thanks for the plain talk.. you appear to be teaching others in the manner of E's MO, seemingly an emulation, though slightly softer at the moment.. Be well.. Emulating means there is something in me wanting to copy him. I can't find that intent in me. Perhaps my similarity is a happenstance. Or perhaps west Texas dust bowls do something the mind in some sinister way. But I'm just being myself. Wrt - with respect to ATA - attending the actual, which is zd's description of shifting attention away from thoughts and participating in the phenomenal experience more. I just spent the last half hour sitting outside my building and letting the noises and throng of life seep into me. I can feel the energy of spring. The new shoots sprouting from the ground, the down from molting baby birds, the slower but more vibrant pace. Looking at the whole visual field I get a sense of life humming along. Insects moving causing grass blades to jiggle, the wind gently brushing by. People walking by wondering why some fat guy is sitting in the grass instead of walking somewhere. Nice!! That really felt 'alive', authentic.. Are thoughts not actual? Be well.. |
|
|
|
Post by topology on Mar 27, 2013 15:56:07 GMT -5
By that logic all comments fall into the same category.. i figure Top will understand the discussion better than an advocate, it was his request to be 'reminded'.. Be well.. Top's request to be reminded when he is not 'coming empty' in an interaction surely wasn't the open invitation of unfounded accusation and projection that you and others seem to think it was. While I personally appreciate Top's transparency, I'm not sure to what extent he realizes everything he says can and will be used against him in a court of word law. If, in fact, this forum were not punctuated by a level of unconscious insanity, then said level of transparency would indeed be an asset to the community. As it is, it just serves as more ammunition. I'm going to disagree, E. I think the transparency puts on more of a human, relatable face. Besides, I can't be anything but transparent. It creates a split in my mind and a great deal of self-consciousness to not be transparent. Reefs gets a fair amount of flack because he's unrelatable. With you, people know what you look like, know that Marie exists, and talk about your experiences more. Who knows if Reefs is even of the same species? I'm putting my money on teenage mutant mole rat. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 27, 2013 16:05:47 GMT -5
The difference between me and you is i openly state my observations are not fact.
They are simply my observations and i put no conditions on them,
people can make up their own minds about what i say.
If you do not agree with my observations then you don't, i am ok with that.
If you wish to dispute anything i have said, i am also ok with that.
Direct experience = woo woo bs.
But if you think you can see pure truth by it, then may you be blessed in your religion.
Direct experience is so "woo woo bs" that there is a whole field of rational philosophy dedicated to it: plato.stanford.edu/entries/phenomenology/ |
|
|
|
Post by silver on Mar 27, 2013 16:19:40 GMT -5
I can see you [tops] take after papa E. You find fault an awful lot. To be totally frank, I consider top to be one of the least, if not THE least judgmental person here, Ag. Hence, I simply cannot put the above statement and my understanding of tops together. Like, in any way whatsoever. Edit: oh, and it's 'papa E'. It's Uncle 'nigma. I respect your vantage point and your opinions, B. |
|
|
|
Post by silver on Mar 27, 2013 16:29:38 GMT -5
I can see you take after papa E. You find fault an awful lot. I WAS having what I thought was an open conversation with you about things, but you chose to see it as putting you down. I didn't see anything in that post about what I'd mentioned earlier about continuing with the class. I'd say in part, another diversionary tactic - I don't know your motivations and I'll find out sooner or later - but it doesn't matter. You seem to want to try very hard to deflect anything you see as criticisms. We all do that. I accept your attitude. You wanted Andrew to be more open and yet you yourself reserve the right to not do the same, and then act like no one will notice. 'Experiences' with spirit are indirect - always - no matter how valid / real they may seem at the time. Wanting to believe isn't the same as proof that these experiences were no more than wishful coincidences, but I DO tend to believe they are valid - still doesn't prove it. I've had other experiences with vague but very very strong premonitions about things I would have no idea they were going to happen. I believe I shared some of this stuff on SF and SB - Maybe you and I could start a thread for woo-woo experiences or call them anything you like. I'd be willing to bet everyone's had them, they just are shy of sharing them for various reasons, which is fine. Why is E my papa? What I'm finding fault with is story telling which extrapolates way beyond what is said or happening. Hypothesis about motives, assumptions about how things are viewed. What criticism do you see me deflecting? I said I wanted Andrew to be more direct, not open. I don't find experiences with spirit to be indirect. Unless you have a concept of spirit in mind which is telling you that spirit is indirect, "always"? I experience psychic phenomena and have a direct experience of spirit. I have several friends who experience the presence of disembodied spirits and other presences. Believing in something without direct experience of it seems odd. But the subject is separation. The distinction between "me" and "not me". I will agree that it is very easy to identify with the localized mind and body that fills with a flavor of being, a way of thinking, a personality and psyche. But is that local accumulation of dense energy you? All of you? The whole of you? OR are you more than that? The experiencer, not just of the local body-mind but of the world that is occurring. If the experiencer identifies with the local body-mind, it feels cut off and disconnected because it identifies itself with something less than the whole of who/what it is. The loss of distinction between "me" and "not me" returns the experiencer to its proper focus, the totality of the experience. This is the communion between the experiencer and the experience. The experiencer feels connected, present, participating in the experience and breathing in the essence of what is manifesting. The experiencer stands in awe and wonder of the experience. This is the experience as the sense of separation diminishes. Sitting with that glass of water, communing with it, breathing in its essence. It is not separate from you. Where did I say in there that he was your (or anybody else's) papa? Nowhere, that's where. He's the old man of this forum, that's what I was saying, in essence - which I don't think too many others would have that go over their heads. If you're going to 'teach' then you have to be just a little quicker than that. It seems like my trying to be your student is not working out terribly well because you dwell way too often and way too long on the minutae of a conversation. You may be adequate and good to excellent teacher of other people, but I'd rather just have 'normal' conversations with you. I see you deflecting a great many criticisms and yet you want others to receive yours without fuss and bother. I'm not sure if there's a way for anybody to be more direct, if they are not simultaneously more open, fyi. We're not robots, at least I'm not - to a degree though, I would say everyone is - sort of - at the mercy - if you will - of each of our subconsciouses. |
|
|
|
Post by silver on Mar 27, 2013 16:33:13 GMT -5
There was a time when Top - I thought - was far more transparent - something's changed, that's all I can say that I recognize.
Also, I find it very interesting that this 'club' business is even mentioned - to me, proof that it's brought up merely as surreptitious mudslinging, sympathy-grubbing mini-expedition.
|
|
|
|
Post by Beingist on Mar 27, 2013 16:52:42 GMT -5
There was a time when Top - I thought - was far more transparent - something's changed, that's all I can say that I recognize. Also, I find it very interesting that this 'club' business is even mentioned - to me, proof that it's brought up merely as surreptitious mudslinging, sympathy-grubbing mini-expedition. C'mon, Ag, no one's slinging any mud at you. |
|
|
|
Post by silver on Mar 27, 2013 17:37:30 GMT -5
There was a time when Top - I thought - was far more transparent - something's changed, that's all I can say that I recognize. Also, I find it very interesting that this 'club' business is even mentioned - to me, proof that it's brought up merely as surreptitious mudslinging, sympathy-grubbing mini-expedition. C'mon, Ag, no one's slinging any mud at you. I hear ya. |
|
|
|
Post by enigma on Mar 27, 2013 17:49:14 GMT -5
Point is, my 'accusations' are just as provable as yours.
All i keep hearing is your accusation, but no proof provided so far.
I have no doubt you are convinced you have proof, but i prefer to see it for myself
instead of simply believing you.
You know, direct experience instead of just believing what someone else experienced.
I learnt that lesson after detaching from the religion i was in.
All you have provided so far is you repeatedly stating your conclusions are correct,
but you have not proved your conclusions are correct.
Repeatedly sharing how convinced you are does not convince me in the slightest.
And it's ok enigma, i don't expect you to prove any of the things you claim.
I expect you to remain as you are, encased in your thought world that you're right and others are wrong.
It's been weeks of repeated asking, and you still don't provide proof so why would i expect you to change your MO.
Alright I'll rephrase. You can't prove your accusations any more than I can prove mine, so why not let it all go already? |
|
