|
|
Post by andrew on Mar 15, 2013 4:59:07 GMT -5
I already read it but I went back and read it again. My opinion is the same. Personally, I'm not particularly interested in everything being couched in subjective, soft and polite terms, and just because perception is subjective doesn't mean that I don't pay attention to the seeming 'truth of things', but as I have said, I consider prioritizing 'the truth of things' or 'what in blazes is going on' very highly to be the mark of a mind that is still functioning from within conditioning. Furthermore, the philosophical position that E takes is incorrect in terms of the non-dual model, and I see this incorrect philosophical position being used so that E can put himself above others. Having said that, I don't see a deliberate ploy on E's part to do this, he genuinely thinks he is acting in the name of Love. I think he has hoodwinked himself good and proper. Well part and parcel of model #2 is my exercising tact and refraining from pointing out that you're inviting Phil into the same conversation for like the quad-jilliondiath time. I think you just pointed it out. At the core of the issue here is E's philosophical position which I see as incorrect (in non-dual terms). I could stop talking about it, but this forum is at least in part, about non-duality. |
|
|
|
Post by Reefs on Mar 15, 2013 4:59:28 GMT -5
hoodwink = to take in by deceptive means; deceivedelude = to deceive the mind or judgment of Is that your way of saying that Enigma is deluded? Deluded is too strong a word. I would say he is unwittingly deceiving himself. Yes. I agree. Delude is strong, direct and open and honest. Hoodwink is softer, more indirect, less open and less honest. But they are all synonyms for 'deceive', so same same but different. They both express a low opinion. derogative = expressive of low opinion |
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Mar 15, 2013 5:04:54 GMT -5
hoodwink = to take in by deceptive means; deceivedelude = to deceive the mind or judgment of Is that your way of saying that Enigma is deluded? Deluded is too strong a word. I would say he is unwittingly deceiving himself. Dear Mr. Temp, Do you recall my reference to the metaphor of a young lady deliberately wearing scanty clothing and walking past a construction site? -- with warm but piquant and somewhat doleful regards |
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Mar 15, 2013 5:09:35 GMT -5
Well part and parcel of model #2 is my exercising tact and refraining from pointing out that you're inviting Phil into the same conversation for like the quad-jilliondiath time. I think you just pointed it out. At the core of the issue here is E's philosophical position which I see as incorrect (in non-dual terms). I could stop talking about it, but this forum is at least in part, about non-duality. to be clear and direct I'm not asking you to stop talking about it but there is an opportunity for a different conversation to unfold in the thread that would be a bit more inclusive and has at least a snowballs chance in hell of effecting a tiny fraction of a radian of influence on the direction of the conversation here in toto ... ... but of course all is all and in all there is nothing wrong so que sera sera yanno' ... just gotta' love that this song was posted by "zennmann"  |
|
|
|
Post by andrew on Mar 15, 2013 5:10:41 GMT -5
Deluded is too strong a word. I would say he is unwittingly deceiving himself. Yes. I agree. Delude is strong, direct and open and honest. Hoodwink is softer, more indirect, less open and less honest. But they are all synonyms for 'deceive', so same same but different. They both express a low opinion. derogative = expressive of low opinion The reason we have different words is to convey different subtleties and different energies. I would agree that what I said falls under 'derogative', but 'deluded' is too strong an energy and slightly misrepresents what I see happening, and that is that Enigma places highest priority on 'the truth of things', which is a harmful (and conditioned)way to go about things. This highest priority emerges out of flawed philosophy (flawed in non-dual terms) that leaves no space in his frame of reference for the possibility that he is not acting from love, and leaves no space in his frame of reference for the possibility that what there may be some validity in what people are seeing in him. The assumption is that if he cannot see it, it's not there to be seen. |
|
|
|
Post by andrew on Mar 15, 2013 5:11:58 GMT -5
Deluded is too strong a word. I would say he is unwittingly deceiving himself. Dear Mr. Temp, Do you recall my reference to the metaphor of a young lady deliberately wearing scanty clothing and walking past a construction site? -- with warm but piquant and somewhat doleful regards Yeah I remember. I'm not teasing here though. |
|
|
|
Post by andrew on Mar 15, 2013 5:13:24 GMT -5
I think you just pointed it out. At the core of the issue here is E's philosophical position which I see as incorrect (in non-dual terms). I could stop talking about it, but this forum is at least in part, about non-duality. to be clear and direct I'm not asking you to stop talking about it but there is an opportunity for a different conversation to unfold in the thread that would be a bit more inclusive and has at least a snowballs chance in hell of effecting a tiny fraction of a radian of influence on the direction of the conversation here in toto ... ... but of course all is all and in all there is nothing wrong so que sera sera yanno' ... just gotta' love that this song was posted by "zennmann" Okay. What direction would you like to see the conversation unfold? I'm happy with the potential of that...lead the way. |
|
|
|
Post by Reefs on Mar 15, 2013 5:17:32 GMT -5
Yes. I agree. Delude is strong, direct and open and honest. Hoodwink is softer, more indirect, less open and less honest. But they are all synonyms for 'deceive', so same same but different. They both express a low opinion. derogative = expressive of low opinion The reason we have different words is to convey different subtleties and different energies. I would agree that what I said falls under 'derogative', but 'deluded' is too strong an energy and slightly misrepresents what I see happening, and that is that Enigma places highest priority on 'the truth of things', which is a harmful (and conditioned)way to go about things. This highest priority emerges out of flawed philosophy (flawed in non-dual terms) that leaves no space in his frame of reference for the possibility that he is not acting from love, and leaves no space in his frame of reference for the possibility that what there may be some validity in what people are seeing in him. The assumption is that if he cannot see it, it's not there to be seen. You both play the derogative game. The energetic structure and quality behind it is exactly the same. A pic with lipstick is still just a pic. |
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Mar 15, 2013 5:18:55 GMT -5
Dear Mr. Temp, Do you recall my reference to the metaphor of a young lady deliberately wearing scanty clothing and walking past a construction site? -- with warm but piquant and somewhat doleful regards Yeah I remember. I'm not teasing here though. dude, in one sense, every joke is black and serious is the new black |
|
|
|
Post by andrew on Mar 15, 2013 5:22:26 GMT -5
The reason we have different words is to convey different subtleties and different energies. I would agree that what I said falls under 'derogative', but 'deluded' is too strong an energy and slightly misrepresents what I see happening, and that is that Enigma places highest priority on 'the truth of things', which is a harmful (and conditioned)way to go about things. This highest priority emerges out of flawed philosophy (flawed in non-dual terms) that leaves no space in his frame of reference for the possibility that he is not acting from love, and leaves no space in his frame of reference for the possibility that what there may be some validity in what people are seeing in him. The assumption is that if he cannot see it, it's not there to be seen. You both play the derogative game. The energetic structure and quality behind it is exactly the same. A pic with lipstick is still just a pic. I couldn't or wouldn't deny that I am involved in 'the derogative game', however, I wouldn't claim that everything I say comes from love and neither would I say that if someone takes what I say badly that it is all about them, and nothing to do with my ego involvement. I see us all in the same boat, I don't see one group above and beyond reproach. |
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Mar 15, 2013 5:22:42 GMT -5
to be clear and direct I'm not asking you to stop talking about it but there is an opportunity for a different conversation to unfold in the thread that would be a bit more inclusive and has at least a snowballs chance in hell of effecting a tiny fraction of a radian of influence on the direction of the conversation here in toto ... ... but of course all is all and in all there is nothing wrong so que sera sera yanno' ... just gotta' love that this song was posted by "zennmann" Okay. What direction would you like to see the conversation unfold? I'm happy with the potential of that...lead the way. between you and Phil, it's a funny inflection point formality is useful in the case of cultural distance I can't say if there's actual cultural distance between you two ... my guess is not really, so have at each other's throats! You might make clear though, to others that don't perceive it, the depth of your alignment with Phil. They mistake the fisticuffs for something else and use it as leverage in assembling the pitchfork-and-torch mob ... I think you're familiar with those from being chased by them ... am I right? |
|
|
|
Post by andrew on Mar 15, 2013 5:32:30 GMT -5
Okay. What direction would you like to see the conversation unfold? I'm happy with the potential of that...lead the way. between you and Phil, it's a funny inflection point formality is useful in the case of cultural distance I can't say if there's actual cultural distance between you two ... my guess is not really, so have at each other's throats! You might make clear though, to others that don't perceive it, the depth of your alignment with Phil. They mistake the fisticuffs for something else and use it as leverage in assembling the pitchfork-and-torch mob ... I think you're familiar with those from being chased by them ... am I right? Anyone that I have shared a lot with I experience deep alignment with, and I have been through a lot with Phil. There is a love there, not even in a non-dual sense, just....a love. If I didn't love him, I wouldn't do this with him every day. I sense in Phil a genuine goodness of intention, but I also think he is barking up the (relatively) wrong tree. |
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Mar 15, 2013 5:35:12 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. Topo', Gave it the 'ole college try but from what I can see you're just gonna get this:  |
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Mar 15, 2013 5:38:34 GMT -5
between you and Phil, it's a funny inflection point formality is useful in the case of cultural distance I can't say if there's actual cultural distance between you two ... my guess is not really, so have at each other's throats! You might make clear though, to others that don't perceive it, the depth of your alignment with Phil. They mistake the fisticuffs for something else and use it as leverage in assembling the pitchfork-and-torch mob ... I think you're familiar with those from being chased by them ... am I right? Anyone that I have shared a lot with I experience deep alignment with, and I have been through a lot with Phil. There is a love there, not even in a non-dual sense, just....a love. If I didn't love him, I wouldn't do this with him every day. I sense in Phil a genuine goodness of intention, but I also think he is barking up the (relatively) wrong tree. Thanks for that Mr. Temp ... and of course, responding to Enigma's post with a challenge to debate the idea of "no thought being ultimately true" is, if you think about it, a return to coming empty.  |
|
|
|
Post by Reefs on Mar 15, 2013 6:04:40 GMT -5
You both play the derogative game. The energetic structure and quality behind it is exactly the same. A pic with lipstick is still just a pic. I couldn't or wouldn't deny that I am involved in 'the derogative game', however, I wouldn't claim that everything I say comes from love and neither would I say that if someone takes what I say badly that it is all about them, and nothing to do with my ego involvement. I see us all in the same boat, I don't see one group above and beyond reproach. Pulling out the love card is a far too common phenomenon here. |
|
