|
|
Post by topology on Mar 27, 2013 18:09:06 GMT -5
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. I haven't asked you to be my student. If you want you can ask my wife, these are my 'normal' conversations... I asked for specific examples of deflections so they can be reviewed and discussed. Being open and being direct seem to be more orthogonal dimensions. Being open, I see as willingness to share details. Being direct is simply addressing the matter at hand without being circuitous or waffling or evading. |
|
|
|
Post by topology on Mar 27, 2013 18:11:03 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. Can I have an example of how you think I was more transparent before and less transparent now? |
|
|
|
Post by silver on Mar 27, 2013 18:29:34 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. Can I have an example of how you think I was more transparent before and less transparent now? I'll answer the simpler question first. Granted, it's a relatively quick and dirty assessment - it's perhaps not so much transparency as something else - not sure what. |
|
|
|
Post by silver on Mar 27, 2013 18:35:44 GMT -5
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. I haven't asked you to be my student. If you want you can ask my wife, these are my 'normal' conversations... I asked for specific examples of deflections so they can be reviewed and discussed. Being open and being direct seem to be more orthogonal dimensions. Being open, I see as willingness to share details. Being direct is simply addressing the matter at hand without being circuitous or waffling or evading.  What? Are you gonna give me her phone number? (I will refrain from the psychoanalysis ~ yw.) While I am not like you and/or Reefs (it's not my style to make Lists of stuff and even though I can be lawyerish, it's more natural to avoid dissertations and walls o' words - I'm not judging them negatively - I'm just not 'up to' that sort of 'conversation'), I'm not attempting to avoid directness. Orthogonal? Is that some type of bird? Dumb it down just a wee bit, please, Top. I guess I lack the erudition and/or the patience to put together the depth of information you require. |
|
|
|
Post by topology on Mar 27, 2013 18:46:22 GMT -5
Greetings.. 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.. Oh they are. But they are pale mangled echos of the world we experience, like the shades of hades. The thought of a flower isn't looking at and experiencing the flower. The thought of a person or about a person isn't the person. Thoughts are good for symbol manipulation and logistics, expressing logic, but not so much for relating. In my most recent session with my therapist we tapped into an internalized thought-form. As a child there was a relationship I had and an event where I felt like I had done something wrong and she rejected me. I internalized the thought that i was worthy of being rejected, that i was worth-less. That internalized thought stayed with me for 20 years and was/is the source of my emotional disconnection. I retreated to the intellect to cope. Because I have an over developed intellect and under developed emotionality, the emotional types experience me as robotic. Not something I can help, it's just the way this body-mind has been conditioned. Hopefully over time the balance returns, but it's not something to judge myself for. |
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Mar 27, 2013 18:57:54 GMT -5
Greetings.. Nice!! That really felt 'alive', authentic.. Are thoughts not actual? Be well.. Oh they are. But they are pale mangled echos of the world we experience, like the shades of hades. The thought of a flower isn't looking at and experiencing the flower. The thought of a person or about a person isn't the person. Thoughts are good for symbol manipulation and logistics, expressing logic, but not so much for relating. In my most recent session with my therapist we tapped into an internalized thought-form. As a child there was a relationship I had and an event where I felt like I had done something wrong and she rejected me. I internalized the thought that i was worthy of being rejected, that i was worth-less. That internalized thought stayed with me for 20 years and was/is the source of my emotional disconnection. I retreated to the intellect to cope. Because I have an over developed intellect and under developed emotionality, the emotional types experience me as robotic. Not something I can help, it's just the way this body-mind has been conditioned. Hopefully over time the balance returns, but it's not something to judge myself for. not this emo ... and I ain't never met ya'! |
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Mar 27, 2013 19:03:07 GMT -5
Also the phenomenon of recursion, ie: self-reference. I'm not as familiar with that concept (and only freshly familiar with projection). How is it compared to projection? To compare the two I'd have to go out onto a limb as I'm not that familiar the lexicon of psychology. |
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Mar 27, 2013 19:09:33 GMT -5
Greetings.. Also the phenomenon of recursion, ie: self-reference. It seems that you look for opportunities for using that word, "recursion".. why not explain the self-referential loop more plainly? that's one of the issue, here.. jokes, intellectual superiority, ideological references, self-proclaimed teachers, etc, but.. plainly spoken direct discussions are rare.. Be well.. I respectfully decline the invitation to be the fourth push onto that particular stack. By that logic all comments fall into the same category..  |
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Mar 27, 2013 19:14:01 GMT -5
Greetings.. It seems that you look for opportunities for using that word, "recursion".. why not explain the self-referential loop more plainly? that's one of the issue, here.. jokes, intellectual superiority, ideological references, self-proclaimed teachers, etc, but.. plainly spoken direct discussions are rare.. Be well.. Why not just ask him to clarify the term without lumping him in with that list of things that you see as issues? We all come to the table with our own understanding of terms and concepts. It seems to me very clear that to maintain direct discussions it is useful to avoid putting your discussant on defense. Hehe, rereading this, I see the way it could be read as me putting my discussant on defense, perhaps illustrating recursion and projection??... yes, it becomes a contagion and of course, laughter is always the cure!  |
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Mar 27, 2013 19:19:51 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. *** siiighhhhhhhh *** it was so pure and hopeful when he issued it that I didn't have the heart to say anything .... but Reefs did! ... it seems that it's become the "escape clause" for anyone that top challenges in a back-and-forth these days ... |
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Mar 27, 2013 19:21:35 GMT -5
Also the phenomenon of recursion, ie: self-reference. If you mean unconsciously self referencing, how does that differ from projection? yer the psych guy I'm justa programmer and wannabe physicist that likes to meditate so u tell me! |
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Mar 27, 2013 19:24:29 GMT -5
Greetings.. 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.. (nice) 2 |
|
|
|
Post by enigma on Mar 27, 2013 19:28:40 GMT -5
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. Did any of them demand clarification of your motive??  |
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Mar 27, 2013 19:29:18 GMT -5
Yes, i've heard it so many times enigma, but what i still haven't heard is the actual proof.
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?  "why" questions are ammo for like at least 3 pages of GoatWall |
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Mar 27, 2013 19:31:37 GMT -5
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. Did any of them demand clarification of your motive?? qwik! call the Bee Police! ... "all units, presence on the corner of dust and mote!, I repeat, inaction in the grass! inaction in the grass! all units please respond..." |
|
What? Are you gonna give me her phone number? (I will refrain from the psychoanalysis ~ yw.)
