|
|
Post by silver on Mar 29, 2013 11:20:29 GMT -5
Heh... can't get the song 'A Boy Named Tzu' out of my head, now. Oh, I get it!  |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 29, 2013 11:59:08 GMT -5
How to accuse someone of something, claim it's a fact,
and avoid having to prove it when challenged, thus retaining the thing that matters to self,
the belief self is right and the other wrong."My accusations are just as provable as yours" is the same as "You can't prove your accusations any more than I can prove mine" given that you can't prove yours, which you know you can't. You seem to like to play games with words.
i simply take note of the fact that you still haven't proven silver is blackmailing.
It's so very simple enigma, if it's a fact that silver is blackmailing, then you must have evidence.
If you claim to be a seeker and knower of truth, then common sense states it to be reasonable
to expect you to present the evidence to prove/verify your claim is the truth.
But because you spend all of your time and energy dancing around this simple task,
i must logically conclude you don't have the evidence, thus your claim, until proven, is bs.
Your claim is not a fact, it's currently an unsubstantiated accusation/theory/idea/assumption/guess/belief.
You talk a lot, i mean a real lot, yet just from this one incident, to me, you lack credibility.
That's what i see from my position in reality, and i don't have to prove it,
because i am not claiming it's a fact, it's only what i observe from my position.
And thus i simply choose to not believe a person who claims to seek and know truth,
because when asked to prove one claimed truth, either can't or wont. *measures the average length of MG posts against the average length of E posts* I can see who does more talking a lotting.
which is enigma talks a lot about something he claims is a fact, but never utters one word of proof of his claim.Uh, he did not, that's the whole point, of which you continue to not see.
I theorise you do not see this because you are similar to enigma in that you also think your conclusions are fact, hence why you were troubled (and i had no idea you were going to be troubled by it) when i repeatedly said you were speculating when you were, because i theorise a high percentage of people who practice the woo woo direct experience thing unconsciously think their observational conclusions are the truth of the matter, that they somehow perceive/conclude they have achieved some sort of state of being where all that they see is the truth of reality.
If enigma states that 'silver blackmailing' is just his opinion, i would not be requesting proof of this because i totally understand every individual separate being has a unique view of reality and a unique way of mindfully processing the information seen. I don't have to seek proof of what another sees because they have just expressed what they see. I accept that they see XYZ and i have no need or desire to challenge that they have the ability to see and reason for themselves.
But enigma did not do this, this is what he said...It's not a lie, and it's not an accusation. Nobody cares that you were being unconsciously manipulative (That's what blackmail meant in this case) but it was offered as possible clarity for you. Also, nobody cares that the offer was received with a slap in the face because that was expected. The fact that Silver is blackmailing is a separate issue from whatever is said to her with whatever style.
But what does enigma do, he continues to talk a lot about the issue, except actually present the evidence that i logically conclude must exist in order to claim something is true/fact.
Of which i already expressed my opinion that i find enigma lacks credibility because he claims to be seeker and knower of truth
but cannot or will not share one bit of evidence for just one of his alleged truths/facts.
|
|
|
|
Post by enigma on Mar 29, 2013 12:08:25 GMT -5
Greetings.. I just don't understand. I can't decide when information gets applied because i'm not in control of thoughts occurring. When two opposing thoughts occur, it /looks like/ I have a choice between them, but the "choosing" just seems to be which ever thought was already dominant or stronger. That's the thing.. you've chosen that perspective, rather you've chosen to accept a particular story 'about' what 'you' are.. Stop 'thinking' stories.. you are in control, even by abdicating control as it seems you are wanting to do.. It is possible to be captured by the thought-loop that tries to 'reason' cause and effect, when it's plainly obvious by just 'looking'.. just look.. There are those that will capture others with 'stories about' what 'is' plainly obvious.. it is those 'stories' that are the source of competing self-images and competing story-tellers.. We make choices.. choosing to get lost in the thought-loops 'about' those choices are the distortions that separate attention from what 'is happening'.. Be well.. The perception of most folks is determined by conditioned factors of which they are not aware because the distinction cannot be made between what actually presents itself, and what we imagine about what presents itself. The difficulty is that interpretation (for example, the interpretation of a post) requires the use of interpretive filters that are necessarily a part of our conditioning, and so we are already 'thinking about' the post, subjectively defining words, deriving conclusions and gleaning implications in the process of simply trying to understand the post, and the further we go in this process, the more likely it is that we will misperceive. A good place to begin is to accept that this interpretive process is subjective and unavoidable and there is no absolute truth about a given interpretation. Even the writers actual conscious intention may not be 'the truth' of the interpretation because it was conveyed through similar filters of perception, the contents of which the the writer may not be consciously aware. IOW, the writer may consciously intend to convey one thing and unconsciously convey another. Understanding this could tame a bit of the apparent arrogance that some folks show in their interpretations. The best that we can do is to 'clean the filters', which is what I mean by 'coming empty' and 'being conscious'. |
|
|
|
Post by enigma on Mar 29, 2013 12:17:34 GMT -5
*measures the average length of MG posts against the average length of E posts* I can see who does more talking a lotting.
which is enigma talks a lot about something he claims is a fact, but never utters one word of proof of his claim.Uh, he did not, that's the whole point, of which you continue to not see.
I theorise you do not see this because you are similar to enigma in that you also think your conclusions are fact, hence why you were troubled (and i had no idea you were going to be troubled by it) when i repeatedly said you were speculating when you were, because i theorise a high percentage of people who practice the woo woo direct experience thing unconsciously think their observational conclusions are the truth of the matter, that they somehow perceive/conclude they have achieved some sort of state of being where all that they see is the truth of reality.
If enigma states that 'silver blackmailing' is just his opinion, i would not be requesting proof of this because i totally understand every individual separate being has a unique view of reality and a unique way of mindfully processing the information seen. I don't have to seek proof of what another sees because they have just expressed what they see. I accept that they see XYZ and i have no need or desire to challenge that they have the ability to see and reason for themselves.
But enigma did not do this, this is what he said...It's not a lie, and it's not an accusation. Nobody cares that you were being unconsciously manipulative (That's what blackmail meant in this case) but it was offered as possible clarity for you. Also, nobody cares that the offer was received with a slap in the face because that was expected. The fact that Silver is blackmailing is a separate issue from whatever is said to her with whatever style.
But what does enigma do, he continues to talk a lot about the issue, except actually present the evidence that i logically conclude must exist in order to claim something is true/fact.
Of which i already expressed my opinion that i find enigma lacks credibility because he claims to be seeker and knower of truth
but cannot or will not share one bit of evidence for just one of his alleged truths/facts.
I knew I should have gotten the word lawyers involved right from the beginning.  |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 29, 2013 13:08:18 GMT -5
How to accuse someone of something, claim it's a fact,
and avoid having to prove it when challenged, thus retaining the thing that matters to self,
the belief self is right and the other wrong."My accusations are just as provable as yours" is the same as "You can't prove your accusations any more than I can prove mine" given that you can't prove yours, which you know you can't. You seem to like to play games with words.
i simply take note of the fact that you still haven't proven silver is blackmailing.
It's so very simple enigma, if it's a fact that silver is blackmailing, then you must have evidence.
If you claim to be a seeker and knower of truth, then common sense states it to be reasonable
to expect you to present the evidence to prove/verify your claim is the truth.
But because you spend all of your time and energy dancing around this simple task,
i must logically conclude you don't have the evidence, thus your claim, until proven, is bs.
Your claim is not a fact, it's currently an unsubstantiated accusation/theory/idea/assumption/guess/belief.
You talk a lot, i mean a real lot, yet just from this one incident, to me, you lack credibility.
That's what i see from my position in reality, and i don't have to prove it,
because i am not claiming it's a fact, it's only what i observe from my position.
And thus i simply choose to not believe a person who claims to seek and know truth,
because when asked to prove one claimed truth, either can't or wont. From my perspective, she was clearly emotionally manipulating.
However, that is not the point of this long but enjoyable and fascinating conversation.
Considering you said these...It's not a lie, and it's not an accusation. Nobody cares that you were being unconsciously manipulative (That's what blackmail meant in this case) but it was offered as possible clarity for you. Also, nobody cares that the offer was received with a slap in the face because that was expected. The fact that Silver is blackmailing is a separate issue from whatever is said to her with whatever style.
Two theories are lack of self awareness and the inability to consider the possibility your conclusions/observations might be incorrect. Yet up until this very point, you always maintained that 'silver blackmailing' was a fact.Yeah, considering you said these...Point is, my 'accusations' are just as provable as yours. "My accusations are just as provable as yours" is the same as "You can't prove your accusations any more than I can prove mine" given that you can't prove yours, which you know you can't. You seem to like to play games with words.
|
|
|
|
Post by Beingist on Mar 29, 2013 13:11:27 GMT -5
You have similar moves to enigma. The amount of talking i do, and i openly and joyfully state that many of my posts are huge (perhaps you might even psychoanalyse and theorise i am compensating for something)...however, the number of words i express is irrelivant to the issue at hand,
which is enigma talks a lot about something he claims is a fact, but never utters one word of proof of his claim.Uh, he did not, that's the whole point, of which you continue to not see.
I theorise you do not see this because you are similar to enigma in that you also think your conclusions are fact, hence why you were troubled (and i had no idea you were going to be troubled by it) when i repeatedly said you were speculating when you were, because i theorise a high percentage of people who practice the woo woo direct experience thing unconsciously think their observational conclusions are the truth of the matter, that they somehow perceive/conclude they have achieved some sort of state of being where all that they see is the truth of reality.
If enigma states that 'silver blackmailing' is just his opinion, i would not be requesting proof of this because i totally understand every individual separate being has a unique view of reality and a unique way of mindfully processing the information seen. I don't have to seek proof of what another sees because they have just expressed what they see. I accept that they see XYZ and i have no need or desire to challenge that they have the ability to see and reason for themselves.
But enigma did not do this, this is what he said......and because he claims 'silver blackmailing' is the truth, is fact, i request proof.
But what does enigma do, he continues to talk a lot about the issue, except actually present the evidence that i logically conclude must exist in order to claim something is true/fact.
Of which i already expressed my opinion that i find enigma lacks credibility because he claims to be seeker and knower of truth
but cannot or will not share one bit of evidence for just one of his alleged truths/facts.
I knew I should have gotten the word lawyers involved right from the beginning. In your case, E., I'd suggest having the word lawyers on call, 24/7. |
|
|
|
Post by enigma on Mar 29, 2013 14:15:14 GMT -5
From my perspective, she was clearly emotionally manipulating.
However, that is not the point of this long but enjoyable and fascinating conversation.
Considering you said these...It's not a lie, and it's not an accusation. Nobody cares that you were being unconsciously manipulative (That's what blackmail meant in this case) but it was offered as possible clarity for you. Also, nobody cares that the offer was received with a slap in the face because that was expected. The fact that Silver is blackmailing is a separate issue from whatever is said to her with whatever style.
Two theories are lack of self awareness and the inability to consider the possibility your conclusions/observations might be incorrect. Yet up until this very point, you always maintained that 'silver blackmailing' was a fact.Yeah, considering you said these...Point is, my 'accusations' are just as provable as yours. "My accusations are just as provable as yours" is the same as "You can't prove your accusations any more than I can prove mine" given that you can't prove yours, which you know you can't. You seem to like to play games with words.
Then your work is done here. I never intended to claim my perception as a proven fact. You took "The fact that Silver is blackmailing is..." out of context. Yes, I admit that it was a careless use of words while testifying in word court, but the comment was intended to convey something about style, not to testify to the factual nature of the blackmailing. So you've been demanding proof for weeks based on that comment? Holy moley! |
|
|
|
Post by enigma on Mar 29, 2013 14:17:03 GMT -5
I knew I should have gotten the word lawyers involved right from the beginning. In your case, E., I'd suggest having the word lawyers on call, 24/7. The retainer is very expensive and I'm trying to economize.  |
|
|
|
Post by Beingist on Mar 29, 2013 14:21:36 GMT -5
In your case, E., I'd suggest having the word lawyers on call, 24/7. The retainer is very expensive and I'm trying to economize. Hmmm. Word paralegals? |
|
|
|
Post by topology on Mar 29, 2013 15:39:32 GMT -5
|
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Mar 29, 2013 15:43:13 GMT -5
(lol) looks like earnest has invented a new idiom ... perhaps we should call it "Goating"... |
|
|
|
Post by enigma on Mar 29, 2013 15:57:01 GMT -5
The retainer is very expensive and I'm trying to economize. Hmmm. Word paralegals? I don't think that job should be trusted to anyone but a licensed specialist.  |
|
|
|
Post by enigma on Mar 29, 2013 15:58:44 GMT -5
Would you like to begin our investigation of your motivations now, or would you like a week to prepare your case first?  |
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Mar 29, 2013 16:18:15 GMT -5
Would you like to begin our investigation of your motivations now, or would you like a week to prepare your case first? what you think there's going to be a trial? you can't smell the torches? ... see them in the distance down in the valley? ... if it were less humid we might be able to discern the clink of the pitchforks ... |
|
|
|
Post by topology on Mar 29, 2013 16:35:19 GMT -5
(lol) looks like earnest has invented a new idiom ... perhaps we should call it "Goating"...  I've got a terrible mind. When you said "goating", my mind produced "Goatse-ing". *shudders* |
|
