|
|
Post by Beingist on Mar 16, 2013 11:31:38 GMT -5
Yeah, he probably will go beyond the 100 posts mark today. You seem to be racking them up yourself talking about me. Putting my posts on ignore doesn't seem to have resolved your obsession with me, perhaps one of the others will post this for you to see. Well, you know, when can't talk TO a person (i.e., because they're mental wheels are spinning to fast for them to listen), talking ABOUT them provides an alternative method for getting your point across. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 16, 2013 11:36:46 GMT -5
You seem to be racking them up yourself talking about me. Putting my posts on ignore doesn't seem to have resolved your obsession with me, perhaps one of the others will post this for you to see. Well, you know, when can't talk TO a person (i.e., because they're mental wheels are spinning to fast for them to listen), talking ABOUT them provides an alternative method for getting your point across. I cannot imagine a more rigid position than coming to a forum with such a driving need to 'get my point across' that I will prevent another from conversing with me and all the while 'dictate' my pov to them. Assuming Reefs actually had something of value to communicate to Andrew in his past 'jabs,' how open do you really think one is to 'hearing the message' when they're being communicated with in such a manner? |
|
|
|
Post by andrew on Mar 16, 2013 11:36:46 GMT -5
They are imperceptible for the simple reason that they don't exist! A dog perceives food, trees, rabbits...it probably even dreams at night, but still stuff that exists. Indeed, as concepts, they do not exist. But, are you now going to tell me that a dog has no basis in reality? Are you going to say that 'what is' ... really isn't? mmkay. I think I'm gonna have to throw up my hands, again, with you. When someone enjoys so much being stuck in the mud, it seems rather pointless to tell them that they're stuck in the mud. I will put it this way....'what is, is' as equally as 'what is, isn't really'. The difficulty for many that hold onto the non-dual conceptual crutches is facing the fear that releasing the crutches will lead back to identification with form (and the mental suffering that accompanies that). But if the crutches are being held onto, then the identification with form is still happening, albeit in a different 'more sheltered' form. |
|
|
|
Post by topology on Mar 16, 2013 11:36:48 GMT -5
You seem to be racking them up yourself talking about me. Putting my posts on ignore doesn't seem to have resolved your obsession with me, perhaps one of the others will post this for you to see. Well, you know, when can't talk TO a person (i.e., because they're mental wheels are spinning to fast for them to listen), talking ABOUT them provides an alternative method for getting your point across.Sounds like a precursor to an argument about mocking and bullying. |
|
|
|
Post by andrew on Mar 16, 2013 11:41:08 GMT -5
You seem to be racking them up yourself talking about me. Putting my posts on ignore doesn't seem to have resolved your obsession with me, perhaps one of the others will post this for you to see. Yes, Andrew, I've been scratching my head over this one myself. He puts you on his ignore list, but then diligently follows the conversations you are having with others, making disparaging comments about you all the way along....It does indeed look like 'obsession.' ...I suspect I'm on that list as well.  I have a feeling that that is likely! This could get funny. Perhaps one of the others will act as an intermediary between us and Reefs in order to have a conversation! |
|
|
|
Post by Reefs on Mar 16, 2013 11:41:16 GMT -5
Neti neti starts with a presupposition that there is something prior to ideas. So I am suggesting that 'no idea' certainly seems (and is experienced) like 'no idea', but is actually still an idea. Perhaps best described as a non-idea, or non-content. Still an idea though, still content. When 'Being' or 'Existence' of 'changelessness' is focussed upon, it is an idea being focussed upon. I would also attest to there being a state of being that seems outside of mind, but in this state, non-ideas and non-content are not actually focused on. Only qualia are perceived. There is no focus on abstract ideas. Its like the mountain thing...mountain, no mountain, mountain. Yes, you most certainly like to make 'what is' into an idea. You seem stuck on ideas, stuck in your mind, stuck on perception, stuck on experience, and the quality of experience. Yes, Andology is consistent, to be sure. It presumes that all ideas are prior to what they describe, that anything seen is created by the label first, and can then be manipulated and confused to keep separateness alive (the underlying goal of the ego's fluid and almost seamless control). This looks inconsistent, but that's how egos appear. For example, to Andology, "neti neti" seems to just be a vain idea to reach another "experience" or "state of mind", because it appears to only understand the term from "a reality experienced by an individual in a state of mind". It seemingly "attests" experience from mind and assuming all must be contained within ego-driven mind. In essence it claims primacy of the physical (mind) and alludes to spirituality in a way that remains consistent to its "state of mind" at the time. It doesn't allow that all this "minding" stuff is happening within a field of awareness, that mind is secondary. In the Andology model, its mind must be primary (e.g., "attest to there being a state of being that seems outside of mind", even though there are vague wishes of maintaining an air of spiritual. It seeks to bring everything down to its level and whack it around with endless words, ideation, and confusion. Its toolbox for maintaining the illusion of separation. Again, it is consistent in its inconsistency. Wandering aimlessly through a forest of idea, choosing the fruits it likes that are consistent with its state of mind, etc. Relatively clear, but not actually. It's just ego talking. Sincerely, Love Yeah, actually Andology means oodles of assumptions. He goes in full circles. It usually takes a month or two to complete one circle/cycle. It starts with pointing out where he sees someone stuck based on his current dogma. When they don't want to look because they find his projections hilarious, then he starts the moralist program and begins to unload his negativity (style issues, moral codes) into the discussion. When no one is really buying this, he goes into mania mode to save his current dogma with 100+ posts per day. But the house of cards usually collapses very quickly within hours. Then he disappears for a week or two. Then he comes back, pointing out delusions in others again with a new dogma. Since last Christmas we had at least two of these cycles with the paradox dogma and the context dogma. |
|
|
|
Post by andrew on Mar 16, 2013 11:42:57 GMT -5
You seem to be racking them up yourself talking about me. Putting my posts on ignore doesn't seem to have resolved your obsession with me, perhaps one of the others will post this for you to see. Well, you know, when can't talk TO a person (i.e., because they're mental wheels are spinning to fast for them to listen), talking ABOUT them provides an alternative method for getting your point across. Hehehe nice defence. Point is, he is still rackin' em up. |
|
|
|
Post by andrew on Mar 16, 2013 11:44:10 GMT -5
Yes, Andology is consistent, to be sure. It presumes that all ideas are prior to what they describe, that anything seen is created by the label first, and can then be manipulated and confused to keep separateness alive (the underlying goal of the ego's fluid and almost seamless control). This looks inconsistent, but that's how egos appear. For example, to Andology, "neti neti" seems to just be a vain idea to reach another "experience" or "state of mind", because it appears to only understand the term from "a reality experienced by an individual in a state of mind". It seemingly "attests" experience from mind and assuming all must be contained within ego-driven mind. In essence it claims primacy of the physical (mind) and alludes to spirituality in a way that remains consistent to its "state of mind" at the time. It doesn't allow that all this "minding" stuff is happening within a field of awareness, that mind is secondary. In the Andology model, its mind must be primary (e.g., "attest to there being a state of being that seems outside of mind", even though there are vague wishes of maintaining an air of spiritual. It seeks to bring everything down to its level and whack it around with endless words, ideation, and confusion. Its toolbox for maintaining the illusion of separation. Again, it is consistent in its inconsistency. Wandering aimlessly through a forest of idea, choosing the fruits it likes that are consistent with its state of mind, etc. Relatively clear, but not actually. It's just ego talking. Sincerely, Love Yeah, actually Andology means oodles of assumptions. He goes in full circles. It usually takes a month or two to complete one circle/cycle. It starts with pointing out where he sees someone stuck based on his current dogma. When they don't want to look because they find his projections hilarious, then he starts the moralist program and begins to unload his negativity (style issues, moral codes) into the discussion. When no one is really buying this, he goes into mania mode to save his current dogma with 100+ posts per day. But the house of cards usually collapses very quickly within hours. Then he disappears for a week or two. Then he comes back, pointing out delusions in others again with a new dogma. Since last Christmas we had at least two of these cycles with the paradox dogma and the context dogma. Hehehehe. Its normally you that disappears for a few days at a time when things aren't going too well for you. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 16, 2013 11:44:41 GMT -5
Yes, Andrew, I've been scratching my head over this one myself. He puts you on his ignore list, but then diligently follows the conversations you are having with others, making disparaging comments about you all the way along....It does indeed look like 'obsession.' ...I suspect I'm on that list as well. I have a feeling that that is likely! This could get funny. Perhaps one of the others will act as an intermediary between us and Reefs in order to have a conversation! |
|
|
|
Post by Reefs on Mar 16, 2013 11:46:37 GMT -5
They are imperceptible for the simple reason that they don't exist! A dog perceives food, trees, rabbits...it probably even dreams at night, but still stuff that exists. Indeed, as concepts, they do not exist. But, are you now going to tell me that a dog has no basis in reality? Are you going to say that 'what is' ... really isn't? mmkay. I think I'm gonna have to throw up my hands, again, with you. When someone enjoys so much being stuck in the mud, it seems rather pointless to tell them that they're stuck in the mud. The saying goes: You can't fight city hall broken records. |
|
|
|
Post by Beingist on Mar 16, 2013 11:58:56 GMT -5
Indeed, as concepts, they do not exist. But, are you now going to tell me that a dog has no basis in reality? Are you going to say that 'what is' ... really isn't? mmkay. I think I'm gonna have to throw up my hands, again, with you. When someone enjoys so much being stuck in the mud, it seems rather pointless to tell them that they're stuck in the mud. I will put it this way....'what is, is' as equally as 'what is, isn't really'. The difficulty for many that hold onto the non-dual conceptual crutches is facing the fear that releasing the crutches will lead back to identification with form (and the mental suffering that accompanies that). But if the crutches are being held onto, then the identification with form is still happening, albeit in a different 'more sheltered' form. This is an assumption. |
|
|
|
Post by Beingist on Mar 16, 2013 11:59:22 GMT -5
Indeed, as concepts, they do not exist. But, are you now going to tell me that a dog has no basis in reality? Are you going to say that 'what is' ... really isn't? mmkay. I think I'm gonna have to throw up my hands, again, with you. When someone enjoys so much being stuck in the mud, it seems rather pointless to tell them that they're stuck in the mud. The saying goes: You can't fight city hall broken records.  |
|
|
|
Post by Beingist on Mar 16, 2013 12:00:24 GMT -5
Well, you know, when can't talk TO a person (i.e., because they're mental wheels are spinning to fast for them to listen), talking ABOUT them provides an alternative method for getting your point across. Hehehe nice defence. Point is, he is still rackin' em up. So am I. So are you. So, what? |
|
|
|
Post by Beingist on Mar 16, 2013 12:01:29 GMT -5
Well, you know, when can't talk TO a person (i.e., because they're mental wheels are spinning to fast for them to listen), talking ABOUT them provides an alternative method for getting your point across.Sounds like a precursor to an argument about mocking and bullying. You may be right, top. We'll see. I won't likely be involved in that one. |
|
|
|
Post by andrew on Mar 16, 2013 12:06:52 GMT -5
I will put it this way....'what is, is' as equally as 'what is, isn't really'. The difficulty for many that hold onto the non-dual conceptual crutches is facing the fear that releasing the crutches will lead back to identification with form (and the mental suffering that accompanies that). But if the crutches are being held onto, then the identification with form is still happening, albeit in a different 'more sheltered' form. This is an assumption. Everything we say is an assumption, but which bit are you talking about specifically? |
|
