Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 12, 2013 12:10:19 GMT -5
It seems like there's disagreement over whether ST is an arena for gadflyism (within bounds) or whether it should be a more general exploration of spirituality, where there is no gadflyism. Those that do not like being stung by gadflies seem to think that this should be a general site. Those that realize that the sting is of their own doing welcome the stings as an exploration of spirituality (?) <-- overtly and knowingly showing my bias there.  Yes, I very much agree Max. And to add further, there are those here who mention the seemingly egoic,needy behaviors of others for the purpose of wanting to change their forum experience here to something different/better........ and then there are those who mention the seemingly egoic, needy behaviors of others here for the purpose of possibly having the other see something they were blind to, or for the possibility of pointing out where the one behaving in egoic, needy ways is being limited/hampered by their current belief system, or in some cases, they even seem to be behaving in direct contradiction to their words of self described state of being. |
|
|
|
Post by enigma on Mar 12, 2013 12:27:17 GMT -5
Yes, actually, that's what I'm talking about. I guess you're familiar with the experience of writing something you didn't really intend to write, had no motivation to write what was written, and no prior thoughts leading up to a final thought to write a line. It's all wonderfully spontaneous and more often than not more beautiful than anything you could have conceived. We allow ourselves to be carried into this state, which is really a state of the absence of the 'me', when we're able to let go of our own personal motivations to direct the whole process. There is still the intention to create which forms a kind of focus of attention, but the rest is spontaneous and quite immediate. If I asked you what your motivation was for writing a particular line, you may not have an answer because, really, you weren't there to motivate it. Of course you easily come up with a story because mind is eager to fill in any blanks, but at the time you wrote it, you didn't have a story. Yes. Resonating like a son of a gun with all of the above.  Yes. That's it exactly.  As I see it, we come out of the flow and mind jumps back in, the moment we begin expecting things to be a certain way, or judging them to be less than or somehow not what 'should' be. Essentially, the moment we look at something arising in this moment with a sense of discernment, to examine, compare, or conclude. And that coming out of the flow, is A okay. the ebb and flow of life. The ability to discern is an important/valuable/beautiful aspect of experience. Is it really one vs. the other? Flow state vs. a sense that I am working hard 'running my life'? I don't see it that way at all. I do not ever experience a sense these days of 'running my life' as I am often in the flow, and even when mind is active, I'm 'flowing' with and allowing the judgment, discernment, expectation, 'mind' in general to do it's thing in the myriad of ways it will. However, I am conscious/aware of what's happening. To connect with a sense of motivation behind an action (in particular, an action that is indicative of judgment) does not equal 'getting down to the job of running your life.' It simply amounts to being aware of mind is doing. It's very possible to see the thoughts and feelings that created the motivation, while still seeing that all of that 'just happened' without a sense of an existent 'me' to orchestrate it all. If I had lost myself in painting a picture and then suddenly picked up the painting and chucked it out the window.....that's an act that very likely has some thoughts and feelings of judgment behind it. Am I 'running my life' if I stop to note precisely 'what' thoughts and feelings arose prior to chucking my painting? I dont' see it as such. After all, The arising of the thoughts and feelings behind the act of chucking the painting, like the actual chucking of the painting, also 'just happened.' But the fact that they 'just happened' in no way impairs my ability to see them and say what they are. Being aware of and observing thoughts that precede action does not equal a sense of a someone who is diligently and actively, running the show. Sure, I never meant to imply I wasn't "conscious/aware of what's happening" or wasn't aware of the thoughts preceding the post reporting. The thought was to report the post and I was fully aware of it. I was aware that the posts likely violated a forum rule. Beyond that, I was just empty. It means there was no battle of good and evil going on, no struggle to make something happen or to punish or to support a self image or anything else. I know it's odd for folks, and maybe that's why I created the challenge of having to explain it. Who knows? For most folks there is a guard who stands watch over every action and qualifies it, projects possible outcomes, justifies, restrains, argues with the self. It's a mental split that results from folks not trusting themselves because there are all sorts of selves that need to be policed. If all those selves go away then the guard is not needed and can be sent home. When there's no guard, no intermediary, then stuff just happens and it's okay. A line in a poem just happens and reporting a post just happens. The answer to why they both happen is found in the stars. How can I know when I sent the guard who does all the justifying home to his family? I don't censor and control myself here nearly as well as folks would like. I don't supply adequate justification or follow the correct rules of style and don't feel as guilty as I should when somebody is offended. Folks think justifications are part of the action because they're so used to justifying their own actions to themselves. That's not part of your painting or your poem, and it need not be a part of your dance. |
|
|
|
Post by someNOTHING! on Mar 12, 2013 12:29:22 GMT -5
I would say that no one can "let their self out", but that's just one screwed up idiot's pointer to the plain inexplicable fact that everyone's already OUT because no one was ever or even IN to begin with. I know, I know, bring on the judges/executioners/audience,,,,let's get this drama started....  "Ladies and gentlemen of the jury, Your Honor.....blah blah blah, and I hope/think I'm right." Maybe I should practice my horse stance 'er sum'm else original. God forbid ride the beast off the cliff, come what may. FWIW, E is a gadfly, stinging the ass of 30 some odd board members. It's pretty cute, btw. If you have a belief outstanding, something is said/done, and you react unconsciously (no matter how astute and civil you may sound) based on that belief,,, you've been served (i.e., it's too late). The drama goes on...and on...and on...what is that annoying "reason" one keeps getting drawn into the battle? hehe E-Gads!  Haha! That's a nice one! Gonna have to steal that one. |
|
|
|
Post by someNOTHING! on Mar 12, 2013 12:42:14 GMT -5
It seems like there's disagreement over whether ST is an arena for gadflyism (within bounds) or whether it should be a more general exploration of spirituality, where there is no gadflyism. Those that do not like being stung by gadflies seem to think that this should be a general site. Those that realize that the sting is of their own doing welcome the stings as an exploration of spirituality (?) <-- overtly and knowingly showing my bias there. I-i-i-it's a dance of sorts; toes get stepped on from time to time. Most agree that in this particular arena, personal preferences generally get in the way of what is sought. Expectations often have a way of not being met, thus the call to "come empty" and maybe get a better sense of what is being pointed at, not getting drawn into the feelings hurt by how it is being pointed at. Make a little sense? |
|
|
|
Post by andrew on Mar 12, 2013 12:56:51 GMT -5
It seems like there's disagreement over whether ST is an arena for gadflyism (within bounds) or whether it should be a more general exploration of spirituality, where there is no gadflyism. Those that do not like being stung by gadflies seem to think that this should be a general site. Those that realize that the sting is of their own doing welcome the stings as an exploration of spirituality (?) <-- overtly and knowingly showing my bias there. I appreciate you see the bias there. I would say its goes both ways. I would say its equally as important to be responsible for what is being created 'within', as it is to take responsibility for what we put out. The moment I glance at an emaciated child, the bodymind registers that. The moment someone says that someone else would benefit from having something beaten out of them, this bodymind registers that (sorry to bring that up again, but its a good example). As I see it, if what we are each working towards is what we all talk about, then its an error to start only with the presupposition that bodyminds exist separately in such way that they don't affect each other. I also think its an error to start with the presupposition that because they are only 'words', that they should have no affect. Ideas carry energy, they are creative in nature. They can separate and divide or they can harmonize. |
|
|
|
Post by enigma on Mar 12, 2013 12:58:15 GMT -5
Greetings.. Swell, okay.. so we'll start with the preconceived notions of how this conversation plays out.. i would ask y'all to think about your objections to the format.. it allows you to let go of 'your' preconceptions and speak through the awareness of someone that none of the 'minding' we suffer from.. i will not further address that matter, though.. let's begin with formal inquiry, NO preconceptions. Why do people choose conflict when cooperation is always the more productive choice. Be well.. To the extent that cooperation better serves the ME, that's what will be done, but usually it's conflict that best serves one's personal interests. |
|
|
|
Post by enigma on Mar 12, 2013 13:02:44 GMT -5
It seems like there's disagreement over whether ST is an arena for gadflyism (within bounds) or whether it should be a more general exploration of spirituality, where there is no gadflyism. Those that do not like being stung by gadflies seem to think that this should be a general site. Those that realize that the sting is of their own doing welcome the stings as an exploration of spirituality (?) <-- overtly and knowingly showing my bias there. I share your bias.  |
|
|
|
Post by enigma on Mar 12, 2013 13:10:22 GMT -5
It seems like there's disagreement over whether ST is an arena for gadflyism (within bounds) or whether it should be a more general exploration of spirituality, where there is no gadflyism. Those that do not like being stung by gadflies seem to think that this should be a general site. Those that realize that the sting is of their own doing welcome the stings as an exploration of spirituality (?) <-- overtly and knowingly showing my bias there. I appreciate you see the bias there. I would say its goes both ways. I would say its equally as important to be responsible for what is being created 'within', as it is to take responsibility for what we put out. The moment I glance at an emaciated child, the bodymind registers that. The moment someone says that someone else would benefit from having something beaten out of them, this bodymind registers that (sorry to bring that up again, but its a good example). As I see it, if what we are each working towards is what we all talk about, then its an error to start only with the presupposition that bodyminds exist separately in such way that they don't affect each other. I also think its an error to start with the presupposition that because they are only 'words', that they should have no affect. Ideas carry energy, they are creative in nature. They can separate and divide or they can harmonize. I don't see where anybody here starts with those presuppositions. Is that just hypothetical? |
|
|
|
Post by topology on Mar 12, 2013 13:10:48 GMT -5
I would say that no one can "let their self out", but that's just one screwed up idiot's pointer to the plain inexplicable fact that everyone's already OUT because no one was ever or even IN to begin with. I know, I know, bring on the judges/executioners/audience,,,,let's get this drama started.... "Ladies and gentlemen of the jury, Your Honor.....blah blah blah, and I hope/think I'm right." Maybe I should practice my horse stance 'er sum'm else original. God forbid ride the beast off the cliff, come what may. FWIW, E is a gadfly, stinging the ass of 30 some odd board members. It's pretty cute, btw. If you have a belief outstanding, something is said/done, and you react unconsciously (no matter how astute and civil you may sound) based on that belief,,, you've been served (i.e., it's too late). The drama goes on...and on...and on...what is that annoying "reason" one keeps getting drawn into the battle? hehe E-Gads! ST is a pretty small forum that we are all trying to occupy.  |
|
|
|
Post by Beingist on Mar 12, 2013 13:13:10 GMT -5
Why do people choose conflict when cooperation is always the more productive choice. Conflict happens. Get over it. |
|
|
|
Post by andrew on Mar 12, 2013 13:21:01 GMT -5
Just want to talk about this a bit more. Because I don't experience myself as separate from mind or from ideas, I am sensitive to the energy of them. There are times when someone will say something to me on here, and even before I have read the words, the energy of the message has hit me with a solid thud, almost like a low blow. Aggression and manipulation always comes through, and its not even the content as much as it is the intent of the message, though content usually reflects intention. The responsibility for me comes with dealing with and responding to the energy without just lashing out. Its not always easy. The 'currents of water' (as Enigma said yesterday) can be powerful. That's why I don't rule out the possibility that Enigma did report posts 'intelligently', though I find the unwillingness to state motivation to be curious.
So personally, although I resonate with the idea of 'stings' being our responsibility, I don't think its a clear cut issue. I wouldn't just allow someone in this house to throw their weight around, and equally I think that confronting it on a forum can be necessary for a healthy functioning forum.
|
|
|
|
Post by Beingist on Mar 12, 2013 13:27:11 GMT -5
[...] though I find the unwillingness [on Enigma's part] to state motivation to be curious. To be fair, he doesn't often explain himself, when he is asked a straightforward question, and I find that rather nervewracking. It kinda disqualifies the very statement that led to the question. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 12, 2013 13:31:26 GMT -5
Greetings.. Swell, okay.. so we'll start with the preconceived notions of how this conversation plays out.. i would ask y'all to think about your objections to the format.. it allows you to let go of 'your' preconceptions and speak through the awareness of someone that none of the 'minding' we suffer from.. i will not further address that matter, though.. let's begin with formal inquiry, NO preconceptions. Why do people choose conflict when cooperation is always the more productive choice. Be well.. I'm not objecting to the format, because I'm unclear on what the format is. But I am interested in exploring preconceptions, as preconceptions may be causing some blockage to openness. As far as I know, all preconceptions are unconscious until they are discovered, usually with a little help from my friends. When a friend helps me discover a preconception or unconscious belief, it very well could be met by myself as a threat of some sort. I may react defensively and wonder why my friend is seeking conflict. But actually I am interested in ridding myself of unconscious blockages that could be keeping me from fully experiencing living and connecting with other people. So if someone is trying to rid me of those blockages and I think they are conflict oriented, they could actually be cooperating with my goal. In other words, in order to answer your conflict/cooperation question we would have to agree what is the productive goal. In this case, the productive goal is to explore preconceptions. I'd say that as long as we are cooperating to reach that goal, some apparent conflict in service of that goal is allowable. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 12, 2013 13:37:08 GMT -5
Just want to talk about this a bit more. Because I don't experience myself as separate from mind or from ideas, I am sensitive to the energy of them. There are times when someone will say something to me on here, and even before I have read the words, the energy of the message has hit me with a solid thud, almost like a low blow. Aggression and manipulation always comes through, and its not even the content as much as it is the intent of the message, though content usually reflects intention. The responsibility for me comes with dealing with and responding to the energy without just lashing out. Its not always easy. The 'currents of water' (as Enigma said yesterday) can be powerful. That's why I don't rule out the possibility that Enigma did report posts 'intelligently', though I find the unwillingness to state motivation to be curious. So personally, although I resonate with the idea of 'stings' being our responsibility, I don't think its a clear cut issue. I wouldn't just allow someone in this house to throw their weight around, and equally I think that confronting it on a forum can be necessary for a healthy functioning forum. I don't think anyone is saying that an arena allowing gadflyism would not also allow challenging the gadfly. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 12, 2013 13:43:51 GMT -5
Can you understand how in your reponse of "I dont' know" when we asked about the thoughts that came prior to the reporting, we could come to conclude that you were not conscious/aware of what was happening? Again, E, it seems as though you are unwilling or unable to back up a stop and explain what the thought was prior to the thought of actually reporting the post. THAT is what I'm asking. Kay...now we're getting somewhere...  Can you not see that despite the fact that there may not have been a battle of good and evil going on, there were yet more thoughts behind/connected to, that one that said; These posts violate a forum rule? In fact there's a whole host of assumptions/beliefs that lie behind the thoughts that these posts are in violation of rules and then the thought that "I am going to report this post." To begin with, there had to have been a sense that you would be providing a certain illumination to Peter in showing him these posts, also there would have been a sense of 'wanting' to have Peter see things from your pov, there was likely a sense that Peter was not seeing the full picture and that registered as being less than optimum. All of those thoughts can and likely did arise, even though there was no battle with them going on. But there was obviously a little battle going on in terms of you feeling unfairly targeted in the face of others behaviors, or there would have been no thought to report. Agree with all of this, however, the ability to see the thoughts that arise surrounding an action, does not equal a guard or intermediary. And the absence of intermediary is well and fine IF one is aware/conscious, but if not, all sorts of lashing out can ensure, without the one acting, never even being the slightest bit suspicious of what's really going on. Isn't one of the main reasons for the importance of 'being conscious' so that we can move and Flow WITH life rather than lash out against it? I'm not advocating censoring or control here, merely the willingness to take an honest look once in awhile at what's really going on. The problem with folks who firmly believe they are 'done' is that they no longer see any benefit to once in a while purposefully invoking that intermediary to stand back and really inquire into the how's and why's of what they do. Reporting posts is certainly no crime E. But it does very likely indicate a sense of perceiving something in this here and now moment as being ever so slightly, amiss. This means that judgment and discernment has arisen. Again, there is nothing wrong with this, part of experience. If something is being perceived as being amiss, an 'intermediary' has already entered the picture, at the level of experience. Yes, You've let go of the intermediary when the thoughts to act arise, but I'm not sure if you can see that in order for the thought of wanting to change something, to arise, the intermediary had to enter in. Who is it that sees and compares and concludes that this post violates the rules and that it is important to clear things up but a person? |
|
