Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 17, 2013 16:40:32 GMT -5
This is kind of tragic. You really don't seem to know what it means to let go. You seem to be on a mission here. I'm not gonna say its 'tragic' (coz that would be a bit dramatic), but it seems as if you might benefit from a letting go. First your an action-less blabbermouth and now your an un-knowledgeable moron Andrew. Are you feeling the Love yet? |
|
|
|
Post by andrew on Mar 17, 2013 16:54:13 GMT -5
Might as well go the whole hog now and meet the whole family...here is one of the kids... Happy kids! ... great shot man  |
|
|
|
Post by andrew on Mar 17, 2013 16:55:58 GMT -5
Happy kids! ... great shot man Wonderful picture, Andy. I take it the young man in front is your son -what about the little girl in the background? I was waiting for more pictures. Yep, that's Chris, nearly 11, and Analis, just turned 8...they had a lot of fun with the snow this year. |
|
|
|
Post by andrew on Mar 17, 2013 16:56:48 GMT -5
You seem to be on a mission here. I'm not gonna say its 'tragic' (coz that would be a bit dramatic), but it seems as if you might benefit from a letting go. First your an action-less blabbermouth and now your an un-knowledgeable moron Andrew. Are you feeling the Love yet? I'm feelin' it! |
|
|
|
Post by someNOTHING! on Mar 17, 2013 17:05:10 GMT -5
So, in this context, it appears that the system of thought insists that a) any discussion must be kept personal, and b)that its assumption about the origin of said question was from a place of being "disrespectful" is true. Additionally, there is c) the system of thought also appears to deny the other part of the "movement to answer". There actually IS a movement to answer as has been stated, but only if certain conditions are met. Is the need for propriety still overriding the potential that might come from being open and allowing the discussion to unfold? In asking you to edit, I would say I was really asking for the discussion to be a bit more impersonal, and I think you sometimes speak with the intention of being a bit disrespectful, yes. I'm still not going to answer the question you asked until you edit, it would take you approximately 20 seconds to do so which doesn't seem like a big ask to me if you are interested in an answer. In the thought process, how would insisting that "someone" remove a playful term, because it was interpreted as disrespectful (i.e., by a perceived "person/non-person") make a discussion "a bit more impersonal"? Is there an intention expressed through the system of thought to make the "other person/non-person" in said discussion be the one that should "be responsible" for the lack of openness that would be necessary for their to be a "movement to answer"? There you go, again, with the movement to answer why you won't answer. Andrew, straight up--why can't you just let it go? I haven't turned my back on sN which means I am okay to speak to him, I am saying that if he wants that question answered, them I'm going to require an edit. I think a more interesting question is 'why not edit?'. It would only take a few seconds, and regardless of whether it was intended a bit disrespectfully or not, it came through as a bit disrespectful. Why not edit sN? Suddenly, there's a reference to "not turning one's back" in the expression of the thought system, as well as an acknowledgment that the willingness/movement is indeed there. But again, it is countered with an apparent moral obligation on the behalf of another participant. Is there another intention being made to discredit another participant by introducing another question as in "why not edit"? It does appear that the thought process is beginning to acknowledge the fact that the "disrespectful" term in question may not have been intended as such, but it is still believed to be so or at least held firmly by the mind. This still sounds like there's a pointed need to keep the discussion personal, does it not? I'd say that's a flat out lie. Its not. If anything, answering his question would require a bit of contemplation and thought, so he is actually making it easier for me by NOT editing. The downside is that I have to deal with this kind of thing. Considering the time since the original question was posed, it would seem that the contemplation and thought had already taken place. Furthermore, there has been a general warming to the agreement that the willingness and movement were actually there, but now what is being conveyed is that it is easier to not to act and that there's a "downside". Is this "downside" due to the perceived "disrespect", the inability to act because "the personal" not being prioritized and/or the complexity of resolving the apparent competing thoughts on the matter? And then the rationalizing. Just saying, you're wrong. The easiest thing for me right now is if sN doesn't edit. There you go sN, even more reason to edit! Is there another assumption being made? Does the assumption add to, distract from, or even pertain to the value of the discussion about a certain thought process? |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 17, 2013 17:09:32 GMT -5
Right, you warn about believing your own speculations. My word lawyers didn't check that post and so now I'm being accused of claiming something completely different about you, encased in my own world, blah, blah. This is what I mean. Not easy to connect on level ground with you. I speculate that you believe your speculations, and calling them speculations is just something your word lawyers have you do for plausible deniability.
And i'm not even going to ask what 'word lawyers' actually are
as i speculate they are similar to the giraffes you keep claiming exist.
Instead of relying on your word lawyers enigma, try being internally silent and still,
clearing your mind of all thoughts, beliefs, speculations, theories, assumptions, bias, prejudices, preconceptions, etc etc...
Do this first, then listen or read and then you may understand what another is saying to you.
Here's the post in question...
Here i am clearly defining to you my opinion about speculating.
But if you need word lawyers to understand that simple statement,
then no wonder there is massive communication glitches between us.That is imprecise.
Here's what i said to you, taken from the linked post...Of course it's a speculation. It's clearly expressed as one by starting off with "Perhaps".
I express my speculations all the time...my theories , ideas, ponderings, musings, observations, opinions.
What i don't do, to the best of my current ability, is claim XYZ is the truth when i have no proof.
Nothing wrong with a speculation. The problem is when a speculation is believed to be the truth without verification.
But if you want to focus on 'believing' then my statement is about the danger of believing anyone's claims,
not just my own, and by everyone's claims, that includes yours.
But i notice you did not say... "Right, you warn about believing speculations"
...no, you said this..."Right, you warn about believing your own speculations"
...you narrowed your view to my speculations only, not mine and yours, not mine and others.
No, you only hilighted mine, of which i consider to be your usual MO of keeping the focus off anything you might be doing wrong.
Because in your world, you are never wrong, and being wrong will put a crack in that world you are encased in.
Wouldn't want that idyllic world to be shattered.The evidence has been presented for your benefit, not mine.
I already knew that this.....is incorrect so i expressed this here...Oh please quote me on that one. Don't bother as you won't be able to.
I have always stated that there's nothing wrong with speculating.
The problem is when a speculation is believed to be fact without verification.
I even spoke directly to you, expressing the same thing i have just done here about speculating,
Yet here you are claiming i said something else.
I am not accusing you of error enigma, i am showing you as a clear and undeniable fact that you made an error.Yes, because i see you are encased in your own world view where you are convinced
your conclusions are correct and anyone else's differing views are wrong.
While i was searching for the 'speculation definition' post, i come across this one that i never read before.
I think it is strong evidence for my theory that you are encased in your own world and cannot see beyond it.
Note that i am saying theory, i am not claiming it's a fact.
It's a working hypothesis of why you think your conclusions are factual and right and other's differing ones are incorrect.
Of why, as one example, when another says you are being derogative towards others, you can't see that you are.
Here's the post
Here's what i said in that post...Believe whatever you want enigma, it's a free concert.
To me, my real experiences trumps your speculations you have to create because you have not experienced it.
Interesting theory, but my understanding from my real experiences say otherwise.
So what it means is, no, please, believe whatever you want.
I tell you, directly, openly, honestly, clearly, that i have observed that when i change my behavior when interacting, the other person changes in their behavior towards me.
And your response is, 'That's not true, you did not experience this.'
I recently shared my self love journey with you, of how i used to unconsciously hate myself, how it eventually caught up with me, culminating in an attempted suicide, but how a few days later the self love i had just begun to practice broke through and since 2008-9 i no longer suffer any inner torment.
That since then i now live from a state of being of peace ,joy, love and freedom.
And you respond with, 'Oh the shi.t will hit the fan one day, you just watch.'
Even though i just finished describing that my 40+ years of shi.t hit my fan back in 2008 and i have since healed myself of it all.
Even when factual information is presented to you, it's factual because i and others are currently experiencing it,
you simply dismiss it as illusion and then declare what the reality of the situation is.
You cannot accept anything as factual or true other that your own conclusions.
You cannot see beyond your world view.
And because in your world where you see you are always right...anything that does not align with any conclusions you have, you dismiss or ridicule.
You actually believe you see the absolute truth about all of reality, yet your sight is so obscured you can't even read simple statements correctly."We are what we think. All that we are arises with our thoughts. With our thoughts we make our world." - Buddha I don't have any imaginary word lawyers in my world.
Nor do i have any agenda to disrupt your delusions, to invite or force you out of your world.
But when you make unsubstanciated claims about things or people, i may say something about it.
|
|
|
|
Post by someNOTHING! on Mar 17, 2013 17:18:00 GMT -5
The term is harmless and even playful. So, keeping the discussion personal is part of this system of thought? It seems inevitable, and not just in Andology. Many here seem so solidified in the personal identity that the notion of simply looking at the ideas 'happening here' in some sort of objective way is too foreign. Ironically, the ideas and the person are felt as one and can't be separated. Thus that fine line between tragic and comic! It's all about location, location, location!  |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 17, 2013 17:20:02 GMT -5
I am still of the opinion that enigma literally cannot see these things that he does. The really odd thing is that you think you do. "You see a lot, Doctor(Lector). But are you strong enough to point that high-powered perception at yourself? What about it? Why don't you - why don't you look at yourself and write down what you see? Or maybe you're afraid to." - Clarice Starling - Silence of the Lambs. |
|
|
|
Post by andrew on Mar 17, 2013 17:22:56 GMT -5
In asking you to edit, I would say I was really asking for the discussion to be a bit more impersonal, and I think you sometimes speak with the intention of being a bit disrespectful, yes. I'm still not going to answer the question you asked until you edit, it would take you approximately 20 seconds to do so which doesn't seem like a big ask to me if you are interested in an answer. In the thought process, how would insisting that "someone" remove a playful term, because it was interpreted as disrespectful (i.e., by a perceived "person/non-person") make a discussion "a bit more impersonal"? Is there an intention expressed through the system of thought to make the "other person/non-person" in said discussion be the one that should "be responsible" for the lack of openness that would be necessary for their to be a "movement to answer"? I haven't turned my back on sN which means I am okay to speak to him, I am saying that if he wants that question answered, them I'm going to require an edit. I think a more interesting question is 'why not edit?'. It would only take a few seconds, and regardless of whether it was intended a bit disrespectfully or not, it came through as a bit disrespectful. Why not edit sN? Suddenly, there's a reference to "not turning one's back" in the expression of the thought system, as well as an acknowledgment that the willingness/movement is indeed there. But again, it is countered with an apparent moral obligation on the behalf of another participant. Is there another intention being made to discredit another participant by introducing another question as in "why not edit"? It does appear that the thought process is beginning to acknowledge the fact that the "disrespectful" term in question may not have been intended as such, but it is still believed to be so or at least held firmly by the mind. This still sounds like there's a pointed need to keep the discussion personal, does it not? Its not. If anything, answering his question would require a bit of contemplation and thought, so he is actually making it easier for me by NOT editing. The downside is that I have to deal with this kind of thing. Considering the time since the original question was posed, it would seem that the contemplation and thought had already taken place. Furthermore, there has been a general warming to the agreement that the willingness and movement were actually there, but now what is being conveyed is that it is easier to not to act an Just saying, you're wrong. The easiest thing for me right now is if sN doesn't edit. There you go sN, even more reason to edit! d that there's a "downside". Is this "downside" due to the perceived "disrespect", the inability to act because "the personal" not being prioritized and/or the complexity of resolving the apparent competing thoughts on the matter? Is there another assumption being made? Does the assumption add to, distract from, or even pertain to the value of the discussion about a certain thought process? Did you edit yet? If so, I will sit and read this rather than a quick scan. |
|
|
|
Post by enigma on Mar 17, 2013 18:40:32 GMT -5
Right, you warn about believing your own speculations. My word lawyers didn't check that post and so now I'm being accused of claiming something completely different about you, encased in my own world, blah, blah. This is what I mean. Not easy to connect on level ground with you. I speculate that you believe your speculations, and calling them speculations is just something your word lawyers have you do for plausible deniability.
And i'm not even going to ask what 'word lawyers' actually are
as i speculate they are similar to the giraffes you keep claiming exist.
Instead of relying on your word lawyers enigma, try being internally silent and still,
clearing your mind of all thoughts, beliefs, speculations, theories, assumptions, bias, prejudices, preconceptions, etc etc...
Do this first, then listen or read and then you may understand what another is saying to you.
Here's the post in question...
Here i am clearly defining to you my opinion about speculating.
But if you need word lawyers to understand that simple statement,
then no wonder there is massive communication glitches between us.That is imprecise.
Here's what i said to you, taken from the linked post...Of course it's a speculation. It's clearly expressed as one by starting off with "Perhaps".
I express my speculations all the time...my theories , ideas, ponderings, musings, observations, opinions.
What i don't do, to the best of my current ability, is claim XYZ is the truth when i have no proof.
Nothing wrong with a speculation. The problem is when a speculation is believed to be the truth without verification.
But if you want to focus on 'believing' then my statement is about the danger of believing anyone's claims,
not just my own, and by everyone's claims, that includes yours.
But i notice you did not say... "Right, you warn about believing speculations"
...no, you said this..."Right, you warn about believing your own speculations"
...you narrowed your view to my speculations only, not mine and yours, not mine and others.
No, you only hilighted mine, of which i consider to be your usual MO of keeping the focus off anything you might be doing wrong.
Because in your world, you are never wrong, and being wrong will put a crack in that world you are encased in.
Wouldn't want that idyllic world to be shattered.The evidence has been presented for your benefit, not mine.
I already knew that this.....is incorrect so i expressed this here...Oh please quote me on that one. Don't bother as you won't be able to.
I have always stated that there's nothing wrong with speculating.
The problem is when a speculation is believed to be fact without verification.
I even spoke directly to you, expressing the same thing i have just done here about speculating,
Yet here you are claiming i said something else.
I am not accusing you of error enigma, i am showing you as a clear and undeniable fact that you made an error.Yes, because i see you are encased in your own world view where you are convinced
your conclusions are correct and anyone else's differing views are wrong.
While i was searching for the 'speculation definition' post, i come across this one that i never read before.
I think it is strong evidence for my theory that you are encased in your own world and cannot see beyond it.
Note that i am saying theory, i am not claiming it's a fact.
It's a working hypothesis of why you think your conclusions are factual and right and other's differing ones are incorrect.
Of why, as one example, when another says you are being derogative towards others, you can't see that you are.
Here's the post
Here's what i said in that post...Believe whatever you want enigma, it's a free concert.
To me, my real experiences trumps your speculations you have to create because you have not experienced it.
Interesting theory, but my understanding from my real experiences say otherwise.
So what it means is, no, please, believe whatever you want.
I tell you, directly, openly, honestly, clearly, that i have observed that when i change my behavior when interacting, the other person changes in their behavior towards me.
And your response is, 'That's not true, you did not experience this.'
I recently shared my self love journey with you, of how i used to unconsciously hate myself, how it eventually caught up with me, culminating in an attempted suicide, but how a few days later the self love i had just begun to practice broke through and since 2008-9 i no longer suffer any inner torment.
That since then i now live from a state of being of peace ,joy, love and freedom.
And you respond with, 'Oh the shi.t will hit the fan one day, you just watch.'
Even though i just finished describing that my 40+ years of shi.t hit my fan back in 2008 and i have since healed myself of it all.
Even when factual information is presented to you, it's factual because i and others are currently experiencing it,
you simply dismiss it as illusion and then declare what the reality of the situation is.
You cannot accept anything as factual or true other that your own conclusions.
You cannot see beyond your world view.
And because in your world where you see you are always right...anything that does not align with any conclusions you have, you dismiss or ridicule.
You actually believe you see the absolute truth about all of reality, yet your sight is so obscured you can't even read simple statements correctly."We are what we think. All that we are arises with our thoughts. With our thoughts we make our world." - Buddha I don't have any imaginary word lawyers in my world.
Nor do i have any agenda to disrupt your delusions, to invite or force you out of your world.
But when you make unsubstanciated claims about things or people, i may say something about it.
And you're telling me there are all sorts of peeps who enjoy this sort of loving, open conversing with you? |
|
|
|
Post by enigma on Mar 17, 2013 18:42:22 GMT -5
It seems inevitable, and not just in Andology. Many here seem so solidified in the personal identity that the notion of simply looking at the ideas 'happening here' in some sort of objective way is too foreign. Ironically, the ideas and the person are felt as one and can't be separated. Thus that fine line between tragic and comic! It's all about location, location, location! HA! The nondual realtor's creed.  |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 17, 2013 19:00:50 GMT -5
The best that anyone can do is point something out that they see themselves (accurate or not). Nobody can make another see something, so it's silly to 'tell people what to see'. People will see what they see.
Here's just a very small sample of you telling people what to see.
The blackmail incident in question was just one of many manipulations on your part, some of which have been pointed out along the way. You have a pattern of emotionally manipulating, though I speculate most of it is unconscious, which is the only reason for pointing it out. After all, if you were fully conscious of it there would be no possible benefit to you in pointing it out. It's not a big deal. Most folks have their ways, subtle or blatant, conscious or unconscious, of getting others to behave the way they want them to. It doesn't make you a bad person, but it also doesn't serve you or others. ............ It's not a lie, and it's not an accusation. Nobody cares that you were being unconsciously manipulative (That's what blackmail meant in this case) but it was offered as possible clarity for you. Also, nobody cares that the offer was received with a slap in the face because that was expected. ....... The fact that Silver is blackmailing is a separate issue from whatever is said to her with whatever style. I'm just pointing stuff out. The rest is just your believed speculations.              |
|
|
|
Post by Reefs on Mar 17, 2013 20:40:55 GMT -5
You seem to be on a mission here. I'm not gonna say its 'tragic' (coz that would be a bit dramatic), but it seems as if you might benefit from a letting go. Ah, the old Andrew rephrase and redirect strategy. One of the classics. Hafta ask him about his motivations for doing so.  |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 17, 2013 20:41:59 GMT -5
First your an action-less blabbermouth and now your an un-knowledgeable moron Andrew. Are you feeling the Love yet? I'm feelin' it! Maybe Silence's mission is to be the male version of Arisha. |
|
|
|
Post by enigma on Mar 17, 2013 20:55:23 GMT -5
Ah, the old Andrew rephrase and redirect strategy. One of the classics. Hafta ask him about his motivations for doing so. Maybe love made him do it??  |
|
