|
|
Post by andrew on Mar 18, 2013 3:16:36 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. Bathing in the warmth of all this love from you and Reefsy right now, you guys should really be teaching people how to be so loving. |
|
|
|
Post by andrew on Mar 18, 2013 3:26:38 GMT -5
Which means there is a level of futility in pointing things out to him,
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. Yes, I see what you are saying. With regard to E, although I also think he is blinded by his beliefs, if I really thought that he had no potential to see what he is doing, I also wouldn't bother. |
|
|
|
Post by quinn on Mar 18, 2013 6:14:27 GMT -5
Which means there is a level of futility in pointing things out to him,
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. Yes, I see what you are saying. With regard to E, although I also think he is blinded by his beliefs, if I really thought that he had no potential to see what he is doing, I also wouldn't bother. "What he is doing" is exactly what you all are doing. Pointing out where you see delusion. You just want him to be mannerly while he's doing it. What belief are you all assuming he's blinded by? Or does each person have their own perception of where the blindness is? Let's see what I can come up with: Arisha: E doesn't believe that service to others is more important than self like I do M-G: E shouldn't use harsh words like "blackmail" and doesn't see self-love the same as I do Andrew: E appears to be excluding stuff and should include everything like I do Tzu: E needs to be still and look within like I do Focusing on E is a handy diversion from looking at the stories in our own heads. |
|
|
|
Post by andrew on Mar 18, 2013 6:49:30 GMT -5
Yes, I see what you are saying. With regard to E, although I also think he is blinded by his beliefs, if I really thought that he had no potential to see what he is doing, I also wouldn't bother. "What he is doing" is exactly what you all are doing. Pointing out where you see delusion. You just want him to be mannerly while he's doing it. What belief are you all assuming he's blinded by? Or does each person have their own perception of where the blindness is? Let's see what I can come up with: Arisha: E doesn't believe that service to others is more important than self like I do M-G: E shouldn't use harsh words like "blackmail" and doesn't see self-love the same as I do Andrew: E appears to be excluding stuff and should include everything like I do Tzu: E needs to be still and look within like I do Focusing on E is a handy diversion from looking at the stories in our own heads. What I said there wasn't so much about manner or about the words he uses (though it is linked), its about the inability to see what others are pointing to. When people point stuff out to me consistently, I may deny it initially, but I often come back afterwards and can see at least a bit of truth in it. E's frame of reference is such that he cannot see any truth in what is being pointed out to him by people that are pretty intelligent and intuitive. People have different ways of expressing what they see as the problem, but it can be boiled down to the same thing.....attachment to a position. Personally, I don't consider 'focusing on stories in our own heads' as necessarily always the most intelligent action. Sometimes this idea can be used to perpetuate separate and contain spontaneity/responsivity. |
|
|
|
Post by quinn on Mar 18, 2013 7:06:56 GMT -5
"What he is doing" is exactly what you all are doing. Pointing out where you see delusion. You just want him to be mannerly while he's doing it. What belief are you all assuming he's blinded by? Or does each person have their own perception of where the blindness is? Let's see what I can come up with: Arisha: E doesn't believe that service to others is more important than self like I do M-G: E shouldn't use harsh words like "blackmail" and doesn't see self-love the same as I do Andrew: E appears to be excluding stuff and should include everything like I do Tzu: E needs to be still and look within like I do Focusing on E is a handy diversion from looking at the stories in our own heads. What I said there wasn't so much about manner or about the words he uses (though it is linked), its about the inability to see what others are pointing to. When people point stuff out to me consistently, I may deny it initially, but I often come back afterwards and can see at least a bit of truth in it. E's frame of reference is such that he cannot see any truth in what is being pointed out to him by people that are pretty intelligent and intuitive. People have different ways of expressing what they see as the problem, but it can be boiled down to the same thing.....attachment to a position. Personally, I don't consider 'focusing on stories in our own heads' as necessarily always the most intelligent action. Sometimes this idea can be used to perpetuate separate and contain spontaneity/responsivity. But don't you see, Andrew, that E can see what you're pointing to? Whether or not he sees truth in it is up to him - not you, me or anyone else. |
|
|
|
Post by andrew on Mar 18, 2013 7:21:56 GMT -5
What I said there wasn't so much about manner or about the words he uses (though it is linked), its about the inability to see what others are pointing to. When people point stuff out to me consistently, I may deny it initially, but I often come back afterwards and can see at least a bit of truth in it. E's frame of reference is such that he cannot see any truth in what is being pointed out to him by people that are pretty intelligent and intuitive. People have different ways of expressing what they see as the problem, but it can be boiled down to the same thing.....attachment to a position. Personally, I don't consider 'focusing on stories in our own heads' as necessarily always the most intelligent action. Sometimes this idea can be used to perpetuate separate and contain spontaneity/responsivity. But don't you see, Andrew, that E can see what you're pointing to? Whether or not he sees truth in it is up to him - not you, me or anyone else. I see that he understands the words, but he cannot see the attachment that we are pointing to. I understand that its up to him to see it (assuming there is something there to see of course), but the problem is that the attachment comes through in the 'philosophy' that E is offering on the forum, so its inevitable that it will be pointed out to him, just as its inevitable that I will have stuff pointed out to me. Personally, I would prefer it if we could speak civilly and respectfully to each other when we are challenging each other, but I also understand that this is subjective, and I also understand that in some perspectives, the idea of there even being 'people' might be considered to be false in itself, which I would say would also affect the manner of communication. |
|
|
|
Post by quinn on Mar 18, 2013 8:16:42 GMT -5
But don't you see, Andrew, that E can see what you're pointing to? Whether or not he sees truth in it is up to him - not you, me or anyone else. I see that he understands the words, but he cannot see the attachment that we are pointing to. I understand that its up to him to see it (assuming there is something there to see of course), but the problem is that the attachment comes through in the 'philosophy' that E is offering on the forum, so its inevitable that it will be pointed out to him, just as its inevitable that I will have stuff pointed out to me. Personally, I would prefer it if we could speak civilly and respectfully to each other when we are challenging each other, but I also understand that this is subjective, and I also understand that in some perspectives, the idea of there even being 'people' might be considered to be false in itself, which I would say would also affect the manner of communication. I'm not questioning anyone's right to point something out. I've already said that's what everyone's doing. It's what I'm doing right now. I'm talking about the expectation that E needs to agree with you that he has that attachment. Or barring that, that he needs to say, "Oh, thank you for pointing that out. I've looked and this is what I've found." (Ok, don't focus on the 'thank you' part. I know you don't expect that.  ). Seems to me that those who are hammering E with "look at your delusions/attachments", when backed into a corner of why they're doing it, say it has to do with protecting the forum (or a poster). I'm calling foul on that. |
|
|
|
Post by andrew on Mar 18, 2013 8:39:13 GMT -5
I see that he understands the words, but he cannot see the attachment that we are pointing to. I understand that its up to him to see it (assuming there is something there to see of course), but the problem is that the attachment comes through in the 'philosophy' that E is offering on the forum, so its inevitable that it will be pointed out to him, just as its inevitable that I will have stuff pointed out to me. Personally, I would prefer it if we could speak civilly and respectfully to each other when we are challenging each other, but I also understand that this is subjective, and I also understand that in some perspectives, the idea of there even being 'people' might be considered to be false in itself, which I would say would also affect the manner of communication. I'm not questioning anyone's right to point something out. I've already said that's what everyone's doing. It's what I'm doing right now. I'm talking about the expectation that E needs to agree with you that he has that attachment. Or barring that, that he needs to say, "Oh, thank you for pointing that out. I've looked and this is what I've found." (Ok, don't focus on the 'thank you' part. I know you don't expect that. ). Seems to me that those who are hammering E with "look at your delusions/attachments", when backed into a corner of why they're doing it, say it has to do with protecting the forum (or a poster). I'm calling foul on that. I've been talking to E for over 3 years, so I don't carry big expectation of E seeing what I am saying, but I take all this on a day to day basis anyway i.e. I have no grand plan when it comes to E, I am only responding to the messages as they come up. If I am correct (and I acknowledge fully the 'if'), I suspect E's frame of reference is shifting 'bit by bit' rather than in great radical chunks. In fact, I would say that E's frame of reference has shifted a bit in the last year (as has mine). All I can say with the 'foul' thing, is that I see this forum is a community. I can understand why people sometimes feel protective here. My guess is that each of us, perhaps in a subtle way, have an idea of the way we would like to see the forum unfold. Some would like to see a stronger focus on 'Truth', some would like to see more openness to different spiritual paths, some would like to see each individual taking responsibility for only their own stories, some might like more moderation, some less moderation...these are just a few examples, and they reflect our values and priorities and our motivations for being here Its a tricky thing because we are all different. |
|
|
|
Post by silver on Mar 18, 2013 8:39:29 GMT -5
I see that he understands the words, but he cannot see the attachment that we are pointing to. I understand that its up to him to see it (assuming there is something there to see of course), but the problem is that the attachment comes through in the 'philosophy' that E is offering on the forum, so its inevitable that it will be pointed out to him, just as its inevitable that I will have stuff pointed out to me. Personally, I would prefer it if we could speak civilly and respectfully to each other when we are challenging each other, but I also understand that this is subjective, and I also understand that in some perspectives, the idea of there even being 'people' might be considered to be false in itself, which I would say would also affect the manner of communication. I'm not questioning anyone's right to point something out. I've already said that's what everyone's doing. It's what I'm doing right now. I'm talking about the expectation that E needs to agree with you that he has that attachment. Or barring that, that he needs to say, "Oh, thank you for pointing that out. I've looked and this is what I've found." (Ok, don't focus on the 'thank you' part. I know you don't expect that. ). Seems to me that those who are hammering E with "look at your delusions/attachments", when backed into a corner of why they're doing it, say it has to do with protecting the forum (or a poster). I'm calling foul on that. E is for Enigma - no this isn't a poem... E is for Entitled - Quinn thinks he should be... E is for Enabling - which I think is what Quinn is doing 'for' him. E is for E-lusion - that E has a whole host of peeps 'backed into a corner'. E is for egg - no fowl here. |
|
|
|
Post by topology on Mar 18, 2013 9:01:23 GMT -5
Yes, I see what you are saying. With regard to E, although I also think he is blinded by his beliefs, if I really thought that he had no potential to see what he is doing, I also wouldn't bother. "What he is doing" is exactly what you all are doing. Pointing out where you see delusion. You just want him to be mannerly while he's doing it. What belief are you all assuming he's blinded by? Or does each person have their own perception of where the blindness is? Let's see what I can come up with: Arisha: E doesn't believe that service to others is more important than self like I do M-G: E shouldn't use harsh words like "blackmail" and doesn't see self-love the same as I do Andrew: E appears to be excluding stuff and should include everything like I do Tzu: E needs to be still and look within like I do Focusing on E is a handy diversion from looking at the stories in our own heads.Seems to be the charge laid against E. Everyone is accusing everyone else of wagging the dog. |
|
|
|
Post by quinn on Mar 18, 2013 9:04:05 GMT -5
I'm not questioning anyone's right to point something out. I've already said that's what everyone's doing. It's what I'm doing right now. I'm talking about the expectation that E needs to agree with you that he has that attachment. Or barring that, that he needs to say, "Oh, thank you for pointing that out. I've looked and this is what I've found." (Ok, don't focus on the 'thank you' part. I know you don't expect that. ). Seems to me that those who are hammering E with "look at your delusions/attachments", when backed into a corner of why they're doing it, say it has to do with protecting the forum (or a poster). I'm calling foul on that. I've been talking to E for over 3 years, so I don't carry big expectation of E seeing what I am saying, but I take all this on a day to day basis anyway i.e. I have no grand plan when it comes to E, I am only responding to the messages as they come up. If I am correct (and I acknowledge fully the 'if'), I suspect E's frame of reference is shifting 'bit by bit' rather than in great radical chunks. In fact, I would say that E's frame of reference has shifted a bit in the last year (as has mine). All I can say with the 'foul' thing, is that I see this forum is a community. I can understand why people sometimes feel protective here. My guess is that each of us, perhaps in a subtle way, have an idea of the way we would like to see the forum unfold. Some would like to see a stronger focus on 'Truth', some would like to see more openness to different spiritual paths, some would like to see each individual taking responsibility for only their own stories, some might like more moderation, some less moderation...these are just a few examples, and they reflect our values and priorities and our motivations for being here Its a tricky thing because we are all different. To the first paragraph - ok. I don't want to belabor it. To the second, I guess I wasn't clear on the 'foul' part. I meant I don't think that's the real reason people go after E. I think he jiggles some splinter-like thing that's already there. Some chose to go after the 'jiggler' rather than the splinter. |
|
|
|
Post by topology on Mar 18, 2013 9:08:33 GMT -5
I'm not questioning anyone's right to point something out. I've already said that's what everyone's doing. It's what I'm doing right now. I'm talking about the expectation that E needs to agree with you that he has that attachment. Or barring that, that he needs to say, "Oh, thank you for pointing that out. I've looked and this is what I've found." (Ok, don't focus on the 'thank you' part. I know you don't expect that. ). Seems to me that those who are hammering E with "look at your delusions/attachments", when backed into a corner of why they're doing it, say it has to do with protecting the forum (or a poster). I'm calling foul on that. E is for Enigma - no this isn't a poem... E is for Entitled - Quinn thinks he should be... E is for Enabling - which I think is what Quinn is doing 'for' him. E is for E-lusion - that E has a whole host of peeps 'backed into a corner'. E is for egg - no fowl here. True to your MO, Silver. |
|
|
|
Post by quinn on Mar 18, 2013 9:17:40 GMT -5
I'm not questioning anyone's right to point something out. I've already said that's what everyone's doing. It's what I'm doing right now. I'm talking about the expectation that E needs to agree with you that he has that attachment. Or barring that, that he needs to say, "Oh, thank you for pointing that out. I've looked and this is what I've found." (Ok, don't focus on the 'thank you' part. I know you don't expect that. ). Seems to me that those who are hammering E with "look at your delusions/attachments", when backed into a corner of why they're doing it, say it has to do with protecting the forum (or a poster). I'm calling foul on that. E is for Enigma - no this isn't a poem... E is for Entitled - Quinn thinks he should be... E is for Enabling - which I think is what Quinn is doing 'for' him. E is for E-lusion - that E has a whole host of peeps 'backed into a corner'. E is for egg - no fowl here. Here's the thing, Silver. I don't see what you see. Where I see someone speaking in an assured manner, you see arrogance (entitlement). Enabling? I can't do that 'for' someone. It's kind of laughable to think that Enigma needs me to back him up. I don't think so! And I didn't say Enigma has people backed into a corner - I said "If backed into a corner...", i.e., when pressed for an answer. Kind of ironic that you "E-lusion-ed" that. |
|
|
|
Post by quinn on Mar 18, 2013 9:21:59 GMT -5
"What he is doing" is exactly what you all are doing. Pointing out where you see delusion. You just want him to be mannerly while he's doing it. What belief are you all assuming he's blinded by? Or does each person have their own perception of where the blindness is? Let's see what I can come up with: Arisha: E doesn't believe that service to others is more important than self like I do M-G: E shouldn't use harsh words like "blackmail" and doesn't see self-love the same as I do Andrew: E appears to be excluding stuff and should include everything like I do Tzu: E needs to be still and look within like I do Focusing on E is a handy diversion from looking at the stories in our own heads.Seems to be the charge laid against E. Everyone is accusing everyone else of wagging the dog.  You're right! Ironically, I'm bringing this up because I'm tired of all the focus on Enigma and his 'problems'. I'm focusing on E in the hopes that we can focus on other topics. Haha! |
|
|
|
Post by andrew on Mar 18, 2013 9:24:45 GMT -5
I've been talking to E for over 3 years, so I don't carry big expectation of E seeing what I am saying, but I take all this on a day to day basis anyway i.e. I have no grand plan when it comes to E, I am only responding to the messages as they come up. If I am correct (and I acknowledge fully the 'if'), I suspect E's frame of reference is shifting 'bit by bit' rather than in great radical chunks. In fact, I would say that E's frame of reference has shifted a bit in the last year (as has mine). All I can say with the 'foul' thing, is that I see this forum is a community. I can understand why people sometimes feel protective here. My guess is that each of us, perhaps in a subtle way, have an idea of the way we would like to see the forum unfold. Some would like to see a stronger focus on 'Truth', some would like to see more openness to different spiritual paths, some would like to see each individual taking responsibility for only their own stories, some might like more moderation, some less moderation...these are just a few examples, and they reflect our values and priorities and our motivations for being here Its a tricky thing because we are all different. To the first paragraph - ok. I don't want to belabor it. To the second, I guess I wasn't clear on the 'foul' part. I meant I don't think that's the real reason people go after E. I think he jiggles some splinter-like thing that's already there. Some chose to go after the 'jiggler' rather than the splinter. Okay, well I wouldn't disagree with that. What I sometimes do (when I am irritable usually), is to see everyone on this forum as within me (i.e. physical reality is a pure reflection of my state) and that each person here represents an aspect of 'myself'. In this sense, when I am irritable, I am in judgement of myself and denying as aspect of myself. I can then normally dig into a bit of compassion, and then.... appreciation/joy for what's happening. However, equally, I really do think there is a time to challenge the 'jiggler' (to use your word). A few years ago, I was doing a LOT of questioning beliefs (Byron Katie), and eventually I realized that the questioning itself was being used so as not to address a situation right in front of my eyes in my own house. I was using 'tools' to try and get rid of anger, but of course the anger wouldn't go because it was a clue to take action. 'Discernment' might be a useful idea here....discerning when to take 'internal' action and when to take 'external action', to address something, to change something at the level of form. I'm not saying I always get it right, I'm just saying I don't always concern myself with the internal cause of 'the splinter'...sometimes I just respond externally. Reminds me of this Tolle quote... ''If you find your here and now intolerable and it makes you unhappy, you have three options: remove yourself from the situation, change it, or accept it totally.'' Again though, it all boils down to our values, priorities and goals as to how we are on the forum. |
|
).
You're right! Ironically, I'm bringing this up because I'm tired of all the focus on Enigma and his 'problems'. I'm focusing on E in the hopes that we can focus on other topics. Haha!