Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 12, 2013 13:54:25 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. I agree B, and I would say that this is what's behind the frustration that many feel in attempting to communicate with E. He often seems to skirt around questions by refusing to give a straight answer, and to make matters worse, in lieu of a direct answer, often offers up a mocking little jab as if to throw the questioner off his tail. Interestingly enough, in the conversation he and I are having right here at present, he is being very direct and forthcoming and thus It feels as though for the first time in a long time, we're having an actual conversation that is going somewhere. Rather nice i must say...& if you're reading this E...I really DO appreciate it.  |
|
|
|
Post by topology on Mar 12, 2013 13:56:17 GMT -5
Greetings.. Why do people choose conflict when cooperation is always the more productive choice. Be well.. Fear. Fear of lack. Fear of not being in control. Fear of being vulnerable. Fear of being abused. Fear of being taken advantage of. Fear of dying. Fear of being alienated. Fear of being judged. Fear of being blamed for the outcome. Which I think you can boil down to just these variations: 1) Fear of lack 2) Fear of being judged/alienated 3) Fear of death All stemming from the perception of being separate from God/Divine/Whatever. At least that is what I see. |
|
|
|
Post by andrew on Mar 12, 2013 14:01:53 GMT -5
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? Well, the idea that we are each solely responsible for our own 'stings' is a presupposition, and not an unhelpful one. On the other hand, I don't think its the only helpful presupposition, I think that 'Love' has us pay attention to what we are putting out there and whether it is potentially harmful or harmless. I find it odd that you seem okay to tell some people that disagree with you, that they are not well (and of course 'insane' and 'deluded'). It seems to me (and I think you have said yourself that its not your job to pay attention to how your words impact on others), that you don't pay attention to the affect of your words, and your justification is that 'Love' doesn't have you pay attention in that way. This does not match my own experience. I suggest that the difference might be that for me, the 'the truth of things' is not my highest priority by any means, and that's partly because I see 'the truth of things' as subjective. |
|
|
|
Post by andrew on Mar 12, 2013 14:05:40 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. I am suggesting more than that though. I am suggesting that 'the healthy way' is not JUST about paying attention to our own inner reactions, it is about paying attention to the potential affects of our messages. If this forum is to function more healthily, I think we should be looking at how we are hurting each other, just as much as how we are hurting ourselves. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 12, 2013 14:43:44 GMT -5
I've stated before that ultimately nothing bad is ever done. And if you re-read my post you will see that I asked you 3 questions and made one analogy. So what is the purpose for bringing Tzu into the discussion except to give relevance to something that your imagining is happening? Because it's true, and noticing it is useful. Seriously, TRF, my focus hasn't changed here in all the time I've been here, and I've stated it more times than I can remember, so why do you keep asking? No you didn't. You said "And why at every turn of the discussion you responded with denial, (I don't know what happened), to distraction, calling it (An inquisition), and then to aversion, (I'm done with this)?" Do you understand the words you wrote? Of course you're calling me a manipulative liar. At the very least, I want you to understand what you wrote. Is that too much to ask? And?....... Fine, but first you have to stop assuming, and then denying that you're assuming. How do you know there is resistance and defense? Because you feel it in yourself? Yes of course, I'm assuming your 'motivations', as you are. The point I'm making is that our actions speak for themselves and require no assumption because acts actually happen. I think it's honestly possible to talk and explore our motivations, even though we don't initially know what those motivations are. Our actions are a direct consequence of our motivations and in most cases are easily ascertained. So for the hundredth time, my interest is in how philosophic idealism (Self-Less-ness, no person, no ego, Oneness, etc, etc,) results in action that is contrary to that philosophy. I'm only using your reporting of posts to Peter as an example because you are available to offer some insight, which wouldn't otherwise be possible when exploring this subject. |
|
|
|
Post by quinn on Mar 12, 2013 14:51:26 GMT -5
|
|
|
|
Post by enigma on Mar 12, 2013 15:35:00 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. I'd say when there is the impression I'm unwilling to explain myself, it's because some assumptions are being made that do indeed disqualify the question. (Not so much the statement) Like asking for a personal motivation for an action that had none, or asking for a (necessarily objective) definition for a term that is defined as being inherently subjective. I don't have a problem with disqualifying questions. |
|
|
|
Post by tzujanli on Mar 12, 2013 15:47:05 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. Well, it's evident in your approach to interacting with others that conflict serves your personal interests.. which of course, begs a question about separation between people of differing 'interests'.. Be well.. |
|
|
|
Post by tzujanli on Mar 12, 2013 15:50:22 GMT -5
Greetings.. Why do people choose conflict when cooperation is always the more productive choice. Conflict happens. Get over it. What's your point, B? Nah, i'm not inclined to 'get over it', i sense there are ways to minimize choices that lead to conflict.. do i sense some emulation in your reply? Be well.. |
|
|
|
Post by andrew on Mar 12, 2013 15:55:08 GMT -5
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. I'd say when there is the impression I'm unwilling to explain myself, it's because some assumptions are being made that do indeed disqualify the question. (Not so much the statement) Like asking for a personal motivation for an action that had none, or asking for a (necessarily objective) definition for a term that is defined as being inherently subjective. I don't have a problem with disqualifying questions. What I am seeing is a movement to distance yourself from 'the personal', to the extent that acknowledging what the motivation was for your behaviour seems impossible to you. Here are some options for you: 1) You want the forum to uphold a certain standard and so reported messages that you considered to be below that standard so that Peter can take action. 2) You want protection from what you see as attacks and reported the messages so that Peter can take action. 3) You want to make a point to Peter about the people that you have reported, for example, the point that it is not you causing problems on the forum, it is others. There seem like obvious ones to me, but there could be other motives. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 12, 2013 16:38:43 GMT -5
I'd say when there is the impression I'm unwilling to explain myself, it's because some assumptions are being made that do indeed disqualify the question. (Not so much the statement) Like asking for a personal motivation for an action that had none, or asking for a (necessarily objective) definition for a term that is defined as being inherently subjective. I don't have a problem with disqualifying questions. What I am seeing is a movement to distance yourself from 'the personal', to the extent that acknowledging what the motivation was for your behaviour seems impossible to you. Here are some options for you: 1) You want the forum to uphold a certain standard and so reported messages that you considered to be below that standard so that Peter can take action. 2) You want protection from what you see as attacks and reported the messages so that Peter can take action. 3) You want to make a point to Peter about the people that you have reported, for example, the point that it is not you causing problems on the forum, it is others. There seem like obvious ones to me, but there could be other motives. All those motives are personal ones involving EGO. I think to be unbiased, you could add a 4th impersonal motive, one more in line with Life's motive, which is to be happy. That way the posts could have been reported to fulfill Life's motive. No? But I don't know... |
|
|
|
Post by Beingist on Mar 12, 2013 16:45:09 GMT -5
Greetings.. Conflict happens. Get over it. What's your point, B? Nah, i'm not inclined to 'get over it', i sense there are ways to minimize choices that lead to conflict.. do i sense some emulation in your reply? Be well.. Emulation of what? If you don't want to get over it, that's fine. Just quitcherbitchin', then. If you see conflict, and try to prevent it, you're only likely to create more conflict. |
|
|
|
Post by Beingist on Mar 12, 2013 16:47:44 GMT -5
 Laughing Out Loud I see the new format still includes the autocensor feature.
|
|
|
|
Post by quinn on Mar 12, 2013 16:51:28 GMT -5
Greetings.. What's your point, B? Nah, i'm not inclined to 'get over it', i sense there are ways to minimize choices that lead to conflict.. do i sense some emulation in your reply? Be well.. Emulation of what? If you don't want to get over it, that's fine. Just quitcherpregnant dogin', then. If you see conflict, and try to prevent it, you're only likely to create more conflict. Apparently the censor wasn't part of the upgrade.  |
|
|
|
Post by quinn on Mar 12, 2013 16:53:03 GMT -5
HaHa! You beat me to it!
|
|
