|
|
Post by Reefs on Mar 17, 2013 20:56:54 GMT -5
Hafta ask him about his motivations for doing so.  Maybe love made him do it??  Smattering of ego?  |
|
|
|
Post by enigma on Mar 17, 2013 20:59:03 GMT -5
Maybe love made him do it?? Smattering of ego? I think we can get him to fess up to that.  |
|
|
|
Post by Reefs on Mar 17, 2013 20:59:36 GMT -5
I don't need to show where you state that this or that is true , because the tone you always speak with never gives any other choices but the one that what you are saying is true. So it's all about my tone of voice? Shall I tell you what your tone sounds like from here? ESA-esque? |
|
|
|
Post by Reefs on Mar 17, 2013 21:08:59 GMT -5
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"? 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? 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 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. Seems like sN doesn't like open honest discussions. Well, lets give him what you get. Give a game to play that suits his temperament.  |
|
|
|
Post by Reefs on Mar 17, 2013 21:26:57 GMT -5
Smattering of ego? I think we can get him to fess up to that. I already know the answer: <andrew> Pffft. I never claimed being free of ego. And sometimes it's appropriate for me to live out my wildest ego trips. YOU, on the other hand, are stuck in your mental position of prior to all of that.</andrew> |
|
|
|
Post by enigma on Mar 17, 2013 21:28:13 GMT -5
So it's all about my tone of voice? Shall I tell you what your tone sounds like from here? ESA-esque? Mucho much so. |
|
|
|
Post by enigma on Mar 17, 2013 21:31:56 GMT -5
I think we can get him to fess up to that. I already know the answer: <andrew> Pffft. I never claimed being free of ego. And sometimes it's appropriate for me to live out my wildest ego trips. YOU, on the other hand, are stuck in your mental position of prior to all of that.</andrew> He may confesslessly confess to being stucklessly stuck in the state of egoless ego. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 17, 2013 21:33:55 GMT -5
You are not pointing out. You only make such an appearance you do. And what M-G says is very much true. Show me where I "state at the very beginning that it's true and others better wise up and fall in line and accept this." Obviously, you can't because I never said that, and yet you feel free to declare it to be very much true and call me wrong. You are claiming what you see are the facts of the situation, and if anyone disagrees with your observations, you then claim they are wrong or blind. You offer no open communication to discover if what you see is true or not. Sound familiar? I don't need to show where you state that this or that is true , because the tone you always speak with never gives any other choices but the one that what you are saying is true.
Yeah, my bad using for using the quote tags, as some of you are sticklebacks about perfection.
"state at the very beginning that it's true and others better wise up and fall in line and accept this."
How's this...
'state at the very beginning that it's true and others better wise up and fall in line and accept this.'
Meaning you do not literally say this, but that is what i interpret as your attitude, from reading your posts.
Or, what arisha said.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 17, 2013 22:00:47 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?
So in answer to your question, no, that is not what i am communicating to you in this post.
If you can't see what i have clearly written, then you can't.
Your response simply adds weight to my theory that you have major sight issues due to the thought world you are encased in.
But did you notice that even though the lengthy post i wrote is about my observations of you, all you were focused on was looking at me.
It seems to me you have a bit of trouble with self observation enigma.
Tah's ok, been there, lived like for over half my life, so i know how easy it is to not notice oneself, so i don't comdemn you for it.
Here it is again...
"You see a lot, Doctor. 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 Reefs on Mar 17, 2013 22:18:24 GMT -5
I already know the answer: <andrew> Pffft. I never claimed being free of ego. And sometimes it's appropriate for me to live out my wildest ego trips. YOU, on the other hand, are stuck in your mental position of prior to all of that.</andrew> He may confesslessly confess to being stucklessly stuck in the state of egoless ego. Wait and see.  |
|
|
|
Post by enigma on Mar 17, 2013 22:45:43 GMT -5
I don't need to show where you state that this or that is true , because the tone you always speak with never gives any other choices but the one that what you are saying is true.
Yeah, my bad using for using the quote tags, as some of you are sticklebacks about perfection.
"state at the very beginning that it's true and others better wise up and fall in line and accept this."
How's this...
'state at the very beginning that it's true and others better wise up and fall in line and accept this.'
Meaning you do not literally say this, but that is what i interpret as your attitude, from reading your posts.
Or, what arisha said.
It's that sort of giraffe herding speculation that I mean to talk about. |
|
|
|
Post by enigma on Mar 17, 2013 22:49:56 GMT -5
And you're telling me there are all sorts of peeps who enjoy this sort of loving, open conversing with you?
So in answer to your question, no, that is not what i am communicating to you in this post.
If you can't see what i have clearly written, then you can't.
Your response simply adds weight to my theory that you have major sight issues due to the thought world you are encased in.
But did you notice that even though the lengthy post i wrote is about my observations of you, all you were focused on was looking at me.
It seems to me you have a bit of trouble with self observation enigma.
Tah's ok, been there, lived like for over half my life, so i know how easy it is to not notice oneself, so i don't comdemn you for it.
Here it is again...
"You see a lot, Doctor. 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.
It's not up to me to prove your speculations wrong. Stop speculating and they'll go away by themselves. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 17, 2013 23:32:44 GMT -5
I am still of the opinion that enigma literally cannot see these things that he does. I agree.
or to others who are blinded by their beliefs.
But as i discovered about my self on my own self exploration journey, i theorise inner blindness is never 100%.
That there is never a state of total blindness then an instant transformation to total awareness.
But that people are born aware and awake, but at various degrees, and this level changes according to each person's experiences.
So it's never a complete waste of time communicating with anyone.
I saw there was something wrong with me, but i could not see what it was.
It took me 20-30 years to find all that was broken, wounded and dysfunctioning in me.
Could easliy have done it quicker if i dedicated all my time to the exploration.
So now i see much further than i used to, but i still don't see everything.
There is far too much to explore to bge able to see everything.
But the main thing is my insight in getting better as i journey. |
|
|
|
Post by arisha on Mar 18, 2013 0:19:17 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. I don't think he cannot. Just pretends he doesn't. He was said so many times about what he does, and the stuff is too obvious to not notice it. |
|
|
|
Post by andrew on Mar 18, 2013 3:14:42 GMT -5
Hafta ask him about his motivations for doing so. Maybe love made him do it?? That's been you pulling that card lately...'It weren't me, it was Love! I couldn't help me'self! Love just grabbed hold of me fingers and had me push that report button. I had no motivation to do it, honest!' |
|
