|
|
Post by Beingist on Mar 12, 2013 16:56:47 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. It's when you do it by ignoring it, or sidestepping the response, that I call into question where you're coming from. You can disqualify that all you want. Such would show me indifference. |
|
|
|
Post by andrew on Mar 12, 2013 16:57:22 GMT -5
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 you could add a 4th more impersonal motive, one more in line with Life's motive, which is to be happy. But I don't know... I take the 'being happy' as a given whatever the specific motive that prompted the reportings. I'm not sure that posts can be reported without any ego involvement, but having said that, that doesn't mean that I think reporting the posts was necessarily a 'lower option'. In some situations, a bit of ego involvement might be the most appropriate option. I know there have been times when I have been moved to report a post, but then I have decided against it. In that movement, there is always some level of irritation present. I wouldn't rule out reporting a message. |
|
|
|
Post by topology on Mar 12, 2013 17:04:44 GMT -5
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.  hmmm... looks like the admins might have control over the profanity filter afterall. |
|
|
|
Post by topology on Mar 12, 2013 17:08:07 GMT -5
|
|
|
|
Post by enigma on Mar 12, 2013 18:53:47 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 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.  Well, then I'm sorry it has to end. I see all sorts of things behind the frustration folks experience with me, but I don't think it's about not giving straight answers. I do see how it can seem that way when the answers are not in alignment with what is believed or expected. I suspect the charges of 'twisting' come from there too. Most questions, especially of the challenging type, begin with answers, and when the right answer isn't given back, mind writes a story about why that happened, and comes up with twisting, distraction, manipulation, avoidance. Mostly, the questions are based in illusion, and so addressing those illusions is the most appropriate response. However, one valid point that has been made here by some is the pointless nonsense of chasing everybody down the bunny hole as far as they want to go, and so lately I find myself turning around when the air starts getting really thin and musty. Mostly, this means the chats with you and Andrew are considerably shorterer. |
|
|
|
Post by enigma on Mar 12, 2013 18:55:06 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. Yeah, I'll buy that. |
|
|
|
Post by enigma on Mar 12, 2013 19:01:18 GMT -5
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. Right, if there is no truth of things, then you're free to try to make things the way you want them to be, which includes judging others for not conforming to your expectations, and pretending that Love is trying to tell you how to act. Love is telling us (all) to STFU and get the hell out of the way. Love doesn't play baby sitter to illusions. |
|
|
|
Post by enigma on Mar 12, 2013 19:12:57 GMT -5
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. And for the hundredth time, I'm telling you the assumptions on which that question is based are faulty. This is apparently how Figs and B also come to the conclusion that I don't give straight answers. My straight answer is that you question is based on faulty assumptions. You claim you aren't making the assumptions, and ask the questions again, then you admit you are making the assumptions and ask the question again. Then express exasperation that your faulty question still isn't being answered. Folks are always asking me 'Have you stopped beating your wife yet?' type questions, and can't figure out why they don't get a straight answer. |
|
|
|
Post by enigma on Mar 12, 2013 19:19:44 GMT -5
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.. Seems to me what is most obvious is that my behavior definitely does NOT serve my personal interests. Isn't that why you're trying to get me out of prison, and Figgy is trying to teach me the fine art of introspection, and Andrew is trying to get me unstuck and Arisha is telling me my situation is hopeless and Silver thinks I'm Beelzebub on a lilly pad? |
|
|
|
Post by andrew on Mar 12, 2013 19:23:29 GMT -5
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. Right, if there is no truth of things, then you're free to try to make things the way you want them to be, which includes judging others for not conforming to your expectations, and pretending that Love is trying to tell you how to act. Love is telling us (all) to STFU and get the hell out of the way. Love doesn't play baby sitter to illusions. Hold up, I said 'the truth of things' isn't my HIGHEST priority, I didn't say it has no relevance. What I am suggesting is that if 'the truth of things' is your highest priority, then paying attention to whether your words are harmful or not is going to be of lesser importance to you. I see the focus on 'the truth of things' as very aligned to a focus on 'being right', so its hard for me to see how 'Love' is compatible with your main focus. Oh, you seem to be the one saying that Love is telling you what to do, like reporting messages. |
|
|
|
Post by andrew on Mar 12, 2013 19:25:14 GMT -5
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.. Seems to me what is most obvious is that my behavior definitely does NOT serve my personal interests. Isn't that why you're trying to get me out of prison, and Figgy is trying to teach me the fine art of introspection, and Andrew is trying to get me unstuck and Arisha is telling me my situation is hopeless and Silver thinks I'm Beelzebub on a lilly pad? Its not as simple as that. The irony is that excluding the personal (if that's what you are doing), does very much serve a personal interest. |
|
|
|
Post by enigma on Mar 12, 2013 19:38:28 GMT -5
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. Just so's ya know, the censor can be disabled, and any or all words added, deleted or modified. It's kinda fun, though.  |
|
|
|
Post by enigma on Mar 12, 2013 19:42:38 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. It's when you do it by ignoring it, or sidestepping the response, that I call into question where you're coming from. You can disqualify that all you want. Such would show me indifference. Disqualified!  |
|
|
|
Post by Beingist on Mar 12, 2013 19:44:55 GMT -5
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. Well, then I'm sorry it has to end. I see all sorts of things behind the frustration folks experience with me, but I don't think it's about not giving straight answers. I do see how it can seem that way when the answers are not in alignment with what is believed or expected. I suspect the charges of 'twisting' come from there too. Most questions, especially of the challenging type, begin with answers, and when the right answer isn't given back, mind writes a story about why that happened, and comes up with twisting, distraction, manipulation, avoidance. Mostly, the questions are based in illusion, and so addressing those illusions is the most appropriate response. However, one valid point that has been made here by some is the pointless nonsense of chasing everybody down the bunny hole as far as they want to go, and so lately I find myself turning around when the air starts getting really thin and musty. Mostly, this means the chats with you and Andrew are considerably shorterer. What has to end?  I have no problem with short conversations. A simple question + a simple answer = a short conversation. Heck, I have short conversations all the time. Nothing wrong with short conversations. |
|
|
|
Post by enigma on Mar 12, 2013 19:46:05 GMT -5
Right, if there is no truth of things, then you're free to try to make things the way you want them to be, which includes judging others for not conforming to your expectations, and pretending that Love is trying to tell you how to act. Love is telling us (all) to STFU and get the hell out of the way. Love doesn't play baby sitter to illusions. Hold up, I said 'the truth of things' isn't my HIGHEST priority, I didn't say it has no relevance. What I am suggesting is that if 'the truth of things' is your highest priority, then paying attention to whether your words are harmful or not is going to be of lesser importance to you. I see the focus on 'the truth of things' as very aligned to a focus on 'being right', so its hard for me to see how 'Love' is compatible with your main focus. Oh, you seem to be the one saying that Love is telling you what to do, like reporting messages. No, Love doesn't tell ME what to do.  |
|
