|
|
Post by Beingist on Mar 14, 2013 19:56:13 GMT -5
There's a tendency toward hatefulness on the part of some here. I don't know what Arisha's excuse is, but apparently yours is that you simply give what you get, which implies you hear hatefulness in my voice. If you pay closer attention you'll find I'm simply relating what I'm seeing in as clear a way as possible, which does not require ugliness or hatefulness. Believe me, I'm capable of putting together hateful tirades, but if I did, then some of the accusations made against me would actually be true. My words are descriptions, conveyed as gently as possible without compromising clarity. That's why Peter isn't chasing me through the halls trying to get me to stop using words that clearly convey that belligerence. There is no belligerence here, just information being conveyed. You tell people that they are not well, insane and deluded and present those assertions as if you see 'the truth of things' and others do not. Its a dangerous and manipulative ploy because it presents you as 'THE expert' and therefore if you say that people are 'not well', then it MUST be true. I would say the fact that you prioritize 'the truth of things' above all else is actually a major clue that you are still operating from within your conditioning and needing to put yourself above others. Its fine to have an opinion, but perception is subjective, and these kinds of opinions should be offered subjectively, except perhaps in rare situations, or unless you have medical qualifications. In all sincerity, I cannot disagree with this. However, I must say, that I get the same exact impression of others in this forum, particularly Mr. tzulanji, which is why he and E appear to be nemeses of some sort. |
|
|
|
Post by tzujanli on Mar 14, 2013 20:10:08 GMT -5
You tell people that they are not well, insane and deluded and present those assertions as if you see 'the truth of things' and others do not. Its a dangerous and manipulative ploy because it presents you as 'THE expert' and therefore if you say that people are 'not well', then it MUST be true. I would say the fact that you prioritize 'the truth of things' above all else is actually a major clue that you are still operating from within your conditioning and needing to put yourself above others. Its fine to have an opinion, but perception is subjective, and these kinds of opinions should be offered subjectively, except perhaps in rare situations, or unless you have medical qualifications. In all sincerity, I cannot disagree with this. However, I must say, that I get the same exact impression of others in this forum, particularly Mr. tzulanji, which is why he and E appear to be nemeses of some sort. Hi B: I'll wager that if you actually reviewed my last 100 posts, you would find that all i am doing is looking for 'neutral'.. granted i'm having to grind through some 'stubborn gears' to get there, but the intention is open, direct, honest discussions where people aren't being told what they should believe.. Be well.. |
|
|
|
Post by Beingist on Mar 14, 2013 20:43:44 GMT -5
In all sincerity, I cannot disagree with this. However, I must say, that I get the same exact impression of others in this forum, particularly Mr. tzulanji, which is why he and E appear to be nemeses of some sort. Hi B: I'll wager that if you actually reviewed my last 100 posts, you would find that all i am doing is looking for 'neutral'.. granted i'm having to grind through some 'stubborn gears' to get there, but the intention is open, direct, honest discussions where people aren't being told what they should believe.. Be well.. Okay, so you're grinding your gears all over E, just to find ... 'neutral'. mmmkay. |
|
|
|
Post by silence on Mar 14, 2013 20:55:07 GMT -5
This has come up several times and I can't help but laugh. So if someone scanned their medical degree and uploaded it here, your complaint would be null and void? Unlikely I would need to see a document/upload, if someone explained to me the way in which they were qualified to make diagnoses of those kinds, I would likely accept their word. That doesn't mean I would necessarily agree with the diagnosis, but at least there is some basis for it. Uh, huh. The sensitivity around this topic suggests to me that a lot of people here have either entertained the notion that they may fit under some sort of diagnosis or have been diagnosed themselves. To be clear, I'm only ever offering my opinion in this type of context. |
|
|
|
Post by silence on Mar 14, 2013 20:59:06 GMT -5
You tell people that they are not well, insane and deluded and present those assertions as if you see 'the truth of things' and others do not. Its a dangerous and manipulative ploy because it presents you as 'THE expert' and therefore if you say that people are 'not well', then it MUST be true. I would say the fact that you prioritize 'the truth of things' above all else is actually a major clue that you are still operating from within your conditioning and needing to put yourself above others. Its fine to have an opinion, but perception is subjective, and these kinds of opinions should be offered subjectively, except perhaps in rare situations, or unless you have medical qualifications. In all sincerity, I cannot disagree with this. However, I must say, that I get the same exact impression of others in this forum, particularly Mr. tzulanji, which is why he and E appear to be nemeses of some sort. The only solution is a beard-off!  |
|
|
|
Post by silence on Mar 14, 2013 21:02:19 GMT -5
Hi B: I'll wager that if you actually reviewed my last 100 posts, you would find that all i am doing is looking for 'neutral'.. granted i'm having to grind through some 'stubborn gears' to get there, but the intention is open, direct, honest discussions where people aren't being told what they should believe.. Be well.. Okay, so you're grinding your gears all over E, just to find ... 'neutral'. mmmkay. That's exactly what I meant by seeking peace through war. |
|
|
|
Post by Reefs on Mar 14, 2013 21:34:59 GMT -5
Unlikely I would need to see a document/upload, if someone explained to me the way in which they were qualified to make diagnoses of those kinds, I would likely accept their word. That doesn't mean I would necessarily agree with the diagnosis, but at least there is some basis for it. Uh, huh. The sensitivity around this topic suggests to me that a lot of people here have either entertained the notion that they may fit under some sort of diagnosis or have been diagnosed themselves. To be clear, I'm only ever offering my opinion in this type of context. Andrew also gives regular updates on other members realization status. Maybe ask what qualifies him to do that. Ask him to upload a certificate of awaking. |
|
|
|
Post by enigma on Mar 14, 2013 21:48:45 GMT -5
You tell people that they are not well, insane and deluded and present those assertions as if you see 'the truth of things' and others do not. Its a dangerous and manipulative ploy because it presents you as 'THE expert' and therefore if you say that people are 'not well', then it MUST be true. I would say the fact that you prioritize 'the truth of things' above all else is actually a major clue that you are still operating from within your conditioning and needing to put yourself above others. Its fine to have an opinion, but perception is subjective, and these kinds of opinions should be offered subjectively, except perhaps in rare situations, or unless you have medical qualifications. In all sincerity, I cannot disagree with this. However, I must say, that I get the same exact impression of others in this forum, particularly Mr. tzulanji, which is why he and E appear to be nemeses of some sort. How have I presented myself as an expert or claimed to see the truth of things where others do not? Where have I said that it MUST be true that people are not well, just because I say it? If I remember correctly, I told Silence that I get the same impression, or had the same idea, or words to that effect. I certainly didn't declare I'm an expert and what I say MUST be true because I say it. That's essentially what Andrew said that you "in all sincerity cannot disagree with". Is that the story you're sticking with? There are a lot of stories floating around this forum, and they are told over and over, and after a while they start to sound true just by virtue of sheer repetition. |
|
|
|
Post by Beingist on Mar 14, 2013 22:11:33 GMT -5
In all sincerity, I cannot disagree with this. However, I must say, that I get the same exact impression of others in this forum, particularly Mr. tzulanji, which is why he and E appear to be nemeses of some sort. How have I presented myself as an expert or claimed to see the truth of things where others do not? Where have I said that it MUST be true that people are not well, just because I say it? If I remember correctly, I told Silence that I get the same impression, or had the same idea, or words to that effect. I certainly didn't declare I'm an expert and what I say MUST be true because I say it. That's essentially what Andrew said that you "in all sincerity cannot disagree with". Is that the story you're sticking with? There are a lot of stories floating around this forum, and they are told over and over, and after a while they start to sound true just by virtue of sheer repetition. What I said was that I cannot disagree with what Andrew said. I did not say that I espoused them as some sort of declaration. No one here ever asserts that what they say is true, simply because they say it. And to say that Andrew said that is an exaggeration. Rather, in what everyone says is a tone, an implication of what one believes to be true, and indeed, you, too, appear to have beliefs, and they most certainly appear, at least to some of us, that you believe that they are unquestionably true. Same with tzu. Same with Arisha. Question was another one. Tat. Reefs. Heck, even I am not immune. You have mentioned inumerous times, E., that all you're discussion is what you see as 'what in blazes is going on.' I am wont to agree with that. Indeed, you do only state what you see is 'what in blazes is going on'. But, then, so does tzu. So does Arisha. So does Andrew. The unfortunate circumstance, however, is that few of us seem to see the same thing. I admittedly see much the same stuff as you do (at least when I can figure out what in blazes you're actually saying), but, in the end, I have my own perceptions, too, and am no less limited by them as you are. |
|
|
|
Post by enigma on Mar 14, 2013 23:15:19 GMT -5
How have I presented myself as an expert or claimed to see the truth of things where others do not? Where have I said that it MUST be true that people are not well, just because I say it? If I remember correctly, I told Silence that I get the same impression, or had the same idea, or words to that effect. I certainly didn't declare I'm an expert and what I say MUST be true because I say it. That's essentially what Andrew said that you "in all sincerity cannot disagree with". Is that the story you're sticking with? There are a lot of stories floating around this forum, and they are told over and over, and after a while they start to sound true just by virtue of sheer repetition. What I said was that I cannot disagree with what Andrew said. I did not say that I espoused them as some sort of declaration. Does that mean you don't disagree and also don't agree? So to perceive is to be limited, to say anything is to hold a belief, and believe it to be unquestionably true. There's literally no way to argue with that without being limited by a belief believed to be unquestionably true. I like it betterer when peeps pretend they can't know anything.  |
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Mar 14, 2013 23:17:33 GMT -5
In all sincerity, I cannot disagree with this. However, I must say, that I get the same exact impression of others in this forum, particularly Mr. tzulanji, which is why he and E appear to be nemeses of some sort. The only solution is a beard-off! whata bierdo! |
|
|
|
Post by Beingist on Mar 14, 2013 23:30:33 GMT -5
What I said was that I cannot disagree with what Andrew said. I did not say that I espoused them as some sort of declaration. Does that mean you don't disagree and also don't agree? It means I can't disagree. Interpret that as you will. So to perceive is to be limited in the sense that Truth (or Peace, or Joy, or 'what is', or whatever) is imperceptable. To say anything is to assert a belief in something, yes, if it comes from the personal vantage point (thanks, again, for that one, Reefs). The belief that it is unquestionably true depends on strength of the belief. Otherwise, you seem to be reading more into that, than what is being said. |
|
|
|
Post by topology on Mar 14, 2013 23:54:17 GMT -5
How have I presented myself as an expert or claimed to see the truth of things where others do not? Where have I said that it MUST be true that people are not well, just because I say it? If I remember correctly, I told Silence that I get the same impression, or had the same idea, or words to that effect. I certainly didn't declare I'm an expert and what I say MUST be true because I say it. That's essentially what Andrew said that you "in all sincerity cannot disagree with". Is that the story you're sticking with? There are a lot of stories floating around this forum, and they are told over and over, and after a while they start to sound true just by virtue of sheer repetition. What I said was that I cannot disagree with what Andrew said. I did not say that I espoused them as some sort of declaration. No one here ever asserts that what they say is true, simply because they say it. And to say that Andrew said that is an exaggeration. Rather, in what everyone says is a tone, an implication of what one believes to be true, and indeed, you, too, appear to have beliefs, and they most certainly appear, at least to some of us, that you believe that they are unquestionably true. Same with tzu. Same with Arisha. Question was another one. Tat. Reefs. Heck, even I am not immune. You have mentioned inumerous times, E., that all you're discussion is what you see as 'what in blazes is going on.' I am wont to agree with that. Indeed, you do only state what you see is 'what in blazes is going on'. But, then, so does tzu. So does Arisha. So does Andrew. The unfortunate circumstance, however, is that few of us seem to see the same thing. I admittedly see much the same stuff as you do (at least when I can figure out what in blazes you're actually saying), but, in the end, I have my own perceptions, too, and am no less limited by them as you are. I would like to chime in as well. I too perceive things similarly to Enigma. But I have to admit, its just a perception made through a mind that has a particular way of interpreting things. What I see is that Enigma will put forward his observations without qualifications, without saying "This is my perception/observation of things" and the receiver of the observation then assumes that Enigma is claiming that his observation is objective truth. Then the receiver feels like they have to battle this observation which appears to be a claim to objective truth because it is uncomfortable. Reefs takes this to an extreme. "Polite" people soften the observation with qualifications such as "This is what things look like to me". So I see two opposing tacit assumptions at play. 1) Assumes that everything anyone says is ultimately a flawed perception through a mind, a subjective observation that needs no qualification that "This is just the way things are appearing to me". 2) Assumes that people will qualify their statements with how un-objective they are in order to do one of two things: (A) to accommodate alternate perceptions of what is going on or (B) Not hurt the other person's feelings so much. This is fundamentally a culture clash leading to significant miscommunication. Peeps accustomed to (1) have thick skins and prefer being direct and don't take what others say so personally. Peeps accustomed to (2) will get offended more easily and feel affronted. When trying to communicate back to a (1) at (1's) level, the pendulum swings past the midpoint and they come across angry and crusading. (1)'s don't care much for (2) style of communication and (2)'s expect to be accommodated because its the polite and civilized way of being. |
|
|
|
Post by enigma on Mar 15, 2013 2:24:54 GMT -5
What I said was that I cannot disagree with what Andrew said. I did not say that I espoused them as some sort of declaration. No one here ever asserts that what they say is true, simply because they say it. And to say that Andrew said that is an exaggeration. Rather, in what everyone says is a tone, an implication of what one believes to be true, and indeed, you, too, appear to have beliefs, and they most certainly appear, at least to some of us, that you believe that they are unquestionably true. Same with tzu. Same with Arisha. Question was another one. Tat. Reefs. Heck, even I am not immune. You have mentioned inumerous times, E., that all you're discussion is what you see as 'what in blazes is going on.' I am wont to agree with that. Indeed, you do only state what you see is 'what in blazes is going on'. But, then, so does tzu. So does Arisha. So does Andrew. The unfortunate circumstance, however, is that few of us seem to see the same thing. I admittedly see much the same stuff as you do (at least when I can figure out what in blazes you're actually saying), but, in the end, I have my own perceptions, too, and am no less limited by them as you are. I would like to chime in as well. I too perceive things similarly to Enigma. But I have to admit, its just a perception made through a mind that has a particular way of interpreting things. What I see is that Enigma will put forward his observations without qualifications, without saying "This is my perception/observation of things" and the receiver of the observation then assumes that Enigma is claiming that his observation is objective truth. Then the receiver feels like they have to battle this observation which appears to be a claim to objective truth because it is uncomfortable. Reefs takes this to an extreme. "Polite" people soften the observation with qualifications such as "This is what things look like to me". So I see two opposing tacit assumptions at play. 1) Assumes that everything anyone says is ultimately a flawed perception through a mind, a subjective observation that needs no qualification that "This is just the way things are appearing to me". 2) Assumes that people will qualify their statements with how un-objective they are in order to do one of two things: (A) to accommodate alternate perceptions of what is going on or (B) Not hurt the other person's feelings so much. This is fundamentally a culture clash leading to significant miscommunication. Peeps accustomed to (1) have thick skins and prefer being direct and don't take what others say so personally. Peeps accustomed to (2) will get offended more easily and feel affronted. When trying to communicate back to a (1) at (1's) level, the pendulum swings past the midpoint and they come across angry and crusading. (1)'s don't care much for (2) style of communication and (2)'s expect to be accommodated because its the polite and civilized way of being. From my perspective, IMHO, I perceive that to be the case, though of course I can't know, but I sense it to be true from my limited and flawed ability to observe. To me, it is the qualifying of a unique perspective that seems to imply that there is an underlying truth if only it could be known. If only the body/mind were more perfect, more clear, smart enough, enlightened enough, not so stuck, it could know for certain. The whole game is a nonsense, an absurdity. I've probly said hundreds of times, 'nothing is ultimately true. All ideas arise out of nothingness, refer only to other ideas, and return to nothingness.' How could anybody possibly believe I mean to say anything is true? How many times have I said beliefs are not useful? How can anybody believe I believe in anything? How many times have I said it all collapses into a little greasy spot? How can anybody believe I think I know something? All that I say here is that nothing is true, in a million different ways. Separation is not true, volition is not true, your thoughts about anything are not true. Somewhere they collapse back into nothing and never meant anything. That's all I say, and from that the stories spin; wild and wacky stories about how we should be more humble, more selfless, more friendly, less hurtful, more helpful, less mocking, more introspective, on and on. This is the stuff nightmares are made of. Everybody's in the same boat, and it's sinking. Let it sink. Drown in that nothingness. |
|
|
|
Post by andrew on Mar 15, 2013 3:22:28 GMT -5
Unlikely I would need to see a document/upload, if someone explained to me the way in which they were qualified to make diagnoses of those kinds, I would likely accept their word. That doesn't mean I would necessarily agree with the diagnosis, but at least there is some basis for it. Uh, huh. The sensitivity around this topic suggests to me that a lot of people here have either entertained the notion that they may fit under some sort of diagnosis or have been diagnosed themselves. To be clear, I'm only ever offering my opinion in this type of context. I would say that when there is no need to see ourselves in a particular spiritual light, the need is dropped to see people (in general) as ignorant, deluded, insane, unwell. There may still be appropriate contexts in which these words apply, but they are more the exception rather than the norm. |
|
