|
|
Post by topology on Mar 16, 2013 15:06:48 GMT -5
But you go so far as to tell someone that their way of pointing away from identification is not good enough and your way of pointing away from identification is superior. I don't see the people that I tend to confront most on here as particularly free from identification, and that is normally reflected in the way they point. hehehe, they say the same things about you.  And so the merry-go-round goes around and around and around. |
|
|
|
Post by andrew on Mar 16, 2013 15:09:05 GMT -5
I don't see the people that I tend to confront most on here as particularly free from identification, and that is normally reflected in the way they point. hehehe, they say the same things about you. And so the merry-go-round goes around and around and around. yup! |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 16, 2013 15:41:37 GMT -5
Discussion. I haven't seen Enigma back away from any kind of discussion. He's willing to engage long past when others might abandon discussion due to conflict or lack of common ground.
I see enigma engages long past others only when he's out to prove his ideas are right and the other's is wrong.
Any time he's in a discussion where he's struggling to do this, he backs away,
but not without letting the other know that it's their fault the conversation has ended.
According to my observations, no, enigma is not open.
Enigma remains firmly attached to his beliefs, of which he is entitled to.
But due to this, open explorative discussion is not possible with closed off people.
They will engage only to promote their ideas and are not interested in exploring other's differing ones.I have already expressed to Tzu my opinion that the 'giving what i get' approach is a hinderance.
However, i do not approach enigma this way and he still remains closed.
My conversations with enigma are very different to the one's Tzu has with him,
and granted there were moments of openness, but at the end of the day, enigma returns to his closed state.That is a speculation based on your bias viewpoint.
Enigma is very open when it comes to sharing what he claims are the facts of reality, but is closed off when his claims are disputed.
Enigma is very open to express his conclusions about the attitude, motives and mind state of others,
but when enquiries are made to know his attitude, motives and mind state, he becomes very quiet. You may wanna also tell enigma your idea about attacking others as he does this a lot.
How long it will take for a person to undergo the energy shift is dictated by their level of openeness.
But i agree with you on one point, being verbally abusive towards a verbally abusive person does not help set up an environment suitable for open explorative discussion.
|
|
|
|
Post by enigma on Mar 16, 2013 18:59:43 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 disagree. Though there may certainly be ideas about Being (or Truth, or God, or whatever), Being itself is not an idea. It's reality. Spoken like a true Beingist.  |
|
|
|
Post by Beingist on Mar 16, 2013 19:02:12 GMT -5
I disagree. Though there may certainly be ideas about Being (or Truth, or God, or whatever), Being itself is not an idea. It's reality. Spoken like a true Beingist. Yup. That's me! |
|
|
|
Post by someNOTHING! on Mar 16, 2013 19:09:02 GMT -5
A question was asked about Andology, the way of thinking, expressing, and/or intent of the body-mind on that end of the view. Let's keep that phenomena 'out front', so to speak, as an object in awareness. Right, and I am finding the whole 'Andology' thing a bit disrespectful, so if you would like me to answer your question, then I am asking for a bit of editing. Would only take you a minute. The term is harmless and even playful. So, keeping the discussion personal is part of this system of thought? |
|
|
|
Post by andrew on Mar 16, 2013 19:11:04 GMT -5
Right, and I am finding the whole 'Andology' thing a bit disrespectful, so if you would like me to answer your question, then I am asking for a bit of editing. Would only take you a minute. The term is harmless and even playful. So, keeping the discussion personal is part of this system of thought? It comes through as a bit disrespectful. I am happy to keep it more impersonal than that, if you are interested, then hit the edit button and I will endeavour to answer your question. |
|
|
|
Post by someNOTHING! on Mar 16, 2013 19:19:31 GMT -5
The term is harmless and even playful. So, keeping the discussion personal is part of this system of thought? It comes through as a bit disrespectful. I am happy to keep it more impersonal than that, if you are interested, then hit the edit button and I will endeavour to answer your question. But why now? It has been used several times and even done so with pictures of big books, which have been laughed at by a certain namesake, and nothing was made of it then. Does the system of thought need a certain set of guidelines or prerequisites met prior to its expression? What is the point being made now? |
|
|
|
Post by andrew on Mar 16, 2013 19:24:51 GMT -5
It comes through as a bit disrespectful. I am happy to keep it more impersonal than that, if you are interested, then hit the edit button and I will endeavour to answer your question. But why now? It has been used several times and even done so with pictures of big books, which have been laughed at by a certain namesake, and nothing was made of it then. Does the system of thought need a certain set of guidelines or prerequisites met prior to its expression? What is the point being made now? Why now? Probably because you have asked me to answer a question for you. Quite a lot of what you have said has been kinda disrespectful and when it is, I mainly just ignore it or bounce it back. But if you want me to respond to your question sincerely, then I require a bit of simple respect (or at the minimum, an absence of disrespect) from you in that post. |
|
|
|
Post by someNOTHING! on Mar 16, 2013 19:30:29 GMT -5
But why now? It has been used several times and even done so with pictures of big books, which have been laughed at by a certain namesake, and nothing was made of it then. Does the system of thought need a certain set of guidelines or prerequisites met prior to its expression? What is the point being made now? Why now? Probably because you have asked me to answer a question for you. Quite a lot of what you have said has been kinda disrespectful and when it is, I mainly just ignore it or bounce it back. But if you want me to respond to your question sincerely, then I require a bit of simple respect (or at the minimum, an absence of disrespect) from you in that post. The subject matter is being approached empty. Leave all attempts to keep it personal to the side for now. What is the intention of this message board? How does the system of thought in question approach it? |
|
|
|
Post by andrew on Mar 16, 2013 19:32:57 GMT -5
Why now? Probably because you have asked me to answer a question for you. Quite a lot of what you have said has been kinda disrespectful and when it is, I mainly just ignore it or bounce it back. But if you want me to respond to your question sincerely, then I require a bit of simple respect (or at the minimum, an absence of disrespect) from you in that post. The subject matter is being approached empty. Leave all attempts to keep it personal to the side for now. What is the intention of this message board? How does the system of thought in question approach it? You already made it personal by speaking a bit disrespectfully. Address that, and then maybe we can talk a bit more impersonally and respectfully. |
|
|
|
Post by someNOTHING! on Mar 16, 2013 19:48:00 GMT -5
The subject matter is being approached empty. Leave all attempts to keep it personal to the side for now. What is the intention of this message board? How does the system of thought in question approach it? You already made it personal by speaking a bit disrespectfully. Address that, and then maybe we can talk a bit more impersonally and respectfully. The system of thought in question appears to insist on being limited by the personal.In this context, would the system's apparent need for an imposed level of propriety override all other potential outcomes? |
|
|
|
Post by andrew on Mar 16, 2013 20:00:28 GMT -5
You already made it personal by speaking a bit disrespectfully. Address that, and then maybe we can talk a bit more impersonally and respectfully. The system of thought in question appears to insist on being limited by the personal.In this context, would the system's apparent need for an imposed level of propriety override all other potential outcomes? This is a simple matter. You asked me to contemplate and answer a question sincerely, yet you asked from a place of being slightly disrespectful, so the movement to answer that question was not there. It doesn't seem like you are going to edit, and its no big surprise that the movement to answer these other questions is currently also not there. |
|
|
|
Post by someNOTHING! on Mar 16, 2013 20:25:27 GMT -5
The system of thought in question appears to insist on being limited by the personal.In this context, would the system's apparent need for an imposed level of propriety override all other potential outcomes? This is a simple matter. You asked me to contemplate and answer a question sincerely, yet you asked from a place of being slightly disrespectful, so the movement to answer that question was not there. It doesn't seem like you are going to edit, and its no big surprise that the movement to answer these other questions is currently also not there. So, in this context, it appears that the system of thought insists that a) any discussion must be kept personal, and b)that oops, company has arrived...will have to wait until tomorrow. Apologies. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 16, 2013 20:35:25 GMT -5
There's no need for drama.
You claim to know a fact about reality, and also claim you're a screwed up idiot.
However, each person is entitled to their preferences regarding topics and issues
regardless of what others may think of the person or the items raised.
If you perceive that judges,executioners and audiences are elements of drama, then you do, i don't.
Right, there's no need for drama, except that it keeps one's universe from collapsing. Most wouldn't want that! hehe
You said this...I would say that no one can "let their self out", but that's just one screwed up idiot's pointer to the plain inexplicable fact that everyone's already OUT because no one was ever or even IN to begin with. I know, I know, bring on the judges/executioners/audience,,,,let's get this drama started.... 
Allusion to what? Seems communication is more successful when using directness rather than allusion. I don't know these "we" you refer to.And why wouldn't people think this considering the song is sung from the viewpoint of the devil.
The whole song is the devil recounting all the things he has seen and done in his lifetime.
What message do you see in the song?
|
|
And so the merry-go-round goes around and around and around. 
