|
|
Post by silver on Mar 18, 2013 13:32:42 GMT -5
Oh, yeah? {j/k}  The more nicer way for me to say the above, is that we both have valid points, and that they are separate issues. Are they separate issues? I gave a motivation that sees them as related. What do you see as motivation for your taking a shot at Quinn when the content of the shot you fired was all about Enigma? See? You see my pointing out something is an attack. It's simply not! I think we all speak with a certain measure of force when we think or feel strongly about some issue. You are doing it to, in your own style. Do you feel I shouldn't talk to her that way? Do you feel I was rude or downright unfair to her? |
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Mar 18, 2013 13:54:06 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.  Very well said Quinn. This matches both my experience and my observation, and like Andrew, my conversation, though not as in depth or as continuous as his or from as broad an applicable knowledge base, has spanned several years. Quinn I think this particular exchange between you and Andrew should be pasted to the top of the form in a sticky thread.  |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 18, 2013 13:57:47 GMT -5
"http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=k5gr1p_Pp0U" Got an inkling that this was gonna be good. Cheers B   |
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Mar 18, 2013 14:13:53 GMT -5
I see why it could be said that a lot of the arguments on the forum can be divided into free willers vs. no free willers, but I am not a straight free willer. I can see the relative truth and validity of 'no free will' in some contexts, and I can see the relative truth and validity of 'free will' in other contexts. I am suggesting that if you want to see what people often point out to you, then seeing the latter contexts might be helpful. It might also be helpful to notice that although you are a no free willer, in talking on the forum, free will is assumed. You wouldn't put forward any suggestions or recommendations or advice, if you didn't assume free will. Good assessment Andrew. It seems to me that the no free willy's often use 'no free will...therefore no intent or motivation) as a 'get outa jail free card.' What they don't get is that they've created the jail themselves. They seem to equate being conscious of intent with self 'blame.' For some reason, They fail to see that awareness of intent need not go hand in hand with negative, judgmental 'blaming' or 'shaming,' which leads me to wonder, again, if the unwillingness to engage with motivation or intent arises from a need to avoid the shaming judgment of self that is deemed to necessarily go hand in hand with this kind of inquiry. They either hold themselves apart from the experience of being motivated to act OR they experience the unpleasantness of harshly judging themselves. And Again, at the crux of all that is needing to see things as black vs. white...true vs. false, actual vs. illusion. That leaves an awful lot of ground uncovered with respect to enumerating the scenario's as to why someone might refuse to either state or speculate on an intent, the most prominent one that I can imagine being an assessment of futility with respect to flipping context in the particular conversation. Applying this to the instant incidence of prosecution notwithstanding of course due to the triviality of the offense. |
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Mar 18, 2013 14:17:24 GMT -5
"http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=k5gr1p_Pp0U" Got an inkling that this was gonna be good. Cheers B rotf ... what was this like some sort of Dr. Suess auto-tune app? |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 18, 2013 14:27:43 GMT -5
That leaves an awful lot of ground uncovered with respect to enumerating the scenario's as to why someone might refuse to either state or speculate on an intent, the most prominent one that I can imagine being an assessment of futility with respect to flipping context in the particular conversation. I dunno....If there's nothing really at stake, and someone's asking, why not just go there...? I'm not really sure what you mean by 'flipping context'. Who said anything about 'prosecution'....? |
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Mar 18, 2013 14:28:04 GMT -5
Yes, I do have a way of irritating peeps with remarkable consistency. We finally agree on something! Yeah, that's because the folks you irritate don't see your mocking and actions as ego-less, motivational-less, and intentional-less. They essentially believe you're a liar. Which is only fair, because wouldn't you think peeps were lying if they told you they were ego-less, motivational-less, and intentional-less, and acted contrary to that? In consenting to the use of abstraction in order to communicate we all willingly make ourselves liars. |
|
|
|
Post by Beingist on Mar 18, 2013 14:28:20 GMT -5
Got an inkling that this was gonna be good. Cheers B rotf ... what was this like some sort of Dr. Suess auto-tune app?  I don't know what a Dr. Suess auto-tune app is. No, this was just the tone of figgles' post, that I happened to catch. |
|
|
|
Post by quinn on Mar 18, 2013 14:35:09 GMT -5
rotf ... what was this like some sort of Dr. Suess auto-tune app? I don't know what a Dr. Suess auto-tune app is. No, this was just the tone of figgles' post, that I happened to catch. That was great, B. It did sound like Dr. Seuss, overly caffeinated or something. Classic. |
|
|
|
Post by silver on Mar 18, 2013 14:37:16 GMT -5
That leaves an awful lot of ground uncovered with respect to enumerating the scenario's as to why someone might refuse to either state or speculate on an intent, the most prominent one that I can imagine being an assessment of futility with respect to flipping context in the particular conversation. I dunno....If there's nothing really at stake, and someone's asking, why not just go there...? I'm not really sure what you mean by 'flipping context'. Who said anything about 'prosecution'....? This just keeps getting funnier and funnier all the time. Who said anything about an offense? What offense? Yeah, why not just skip over that there's no offense anywhere to be seen? Bing! I think I just spotted someone else's giraffe! (It's my first!) |
|
|
|
Post by topology on Mar 18, 2013 14:37:55 GMT -5
Are they separate issues? I gave a motivation that sees them as related. What do you see as motivation for your taking a shot at Quinn when the content of the shot you fired was all about Enigma? See? You see my pointing out something is an attack. It's simply not! I think we all speak with a certain measure of force when we think or feel strongly about some issue. You are doing it to, in your own style. Do you feel I shouldn't talk to her that way? Do you feel I was rude or downright unfair to her? These are the issues I am responding to: 1) you responded to Quinn but your focus was Enigma and his receiving support, which is carrying out an indirect fight with enigma. The evidence is your claiming that Quinn is enabling Enigma. 2) you spoke for Quinn saying she thought that Enigma has a right to be entitled. She said no such thing, you were inserting your words into her mouth. I see this as an attack because of the focus on Enigma and how in your mind Quinn is enabling/supporting Enigma. You go so far as to put words in her mouth to misrepresent what she said. You have a negative opinion of E. You see someone expressing a less negative opinion of E in a discussion you were not yet involved in. Then you step in to be critical of their support of E. It comes across as an attack. |
|
|
|
Post by Beingist on Mar 18, 2013 14:41:36 GMT -5
Bing! I think I just spotted someone else's giraffe! (It's my first!) |
|
|
|
Post by silver on Mar 18, 2013 14:42:22 GMT -5
See? You see my pointing out something is an attack. It's simply not! I think we all speak with a certain measure of force when we think or feel strongly about some issue. You are doing it to, in your own style. Do you feel I shouldn't talk to her that way? Do you feel I was rude or downright unfair to her? These are the issues I am responding to: 1) you responded to Quinn but your focus was Enigma and his receiving support, which is carrying out an indirect fight with enigma. The evidence is your claiming that Quinn is enabling Enigma. 2) you spoke for Quinn saying she thought that Enigma has a right to be entitled. She said no such thing, you were inserting your words into her mouth. I see this as an attack because of the focus on Enigma and how in your mind Quinn is enabling/supporting Enigma. You go so far as to put words in her mouth to misrepresent what she said. You have a negative opinion of E. You see someone expressing a less negative opinion of E in a discussion you were not yet involved in. Then you step in to be critical of their support of E. It comes across as an attack. I see. So, if one speaks like E, it's all okey-dokey. If anyone speaks in their own style, vernacular, what-ever, it's okay for you to attack that person. I did observe those things and made my own statements. A forum is a for discussions. If she wants to discuss it, great, I'm okay with whomever wants to discuss it, but just throwing the poo back at someone isn't much of a discussion or debate! Boooring. Why, then is it okay for E & Co. to be critical of everything under the sun? Huh? Complete with ridicule, mocking, everything but the kitchen sink. And you're okay with it. Perplexing! |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 18, 2013 14:42:44 GMT -5
rotf ... what was this like some sort of Dr. Suess auto-tune app? I don't know what a Dr. Suess auto-tune app is. No, this was just the tone of figgles' post, that I happened to catch. The funny thing 'bout tone B is that when we don't like or agree with a particular written message, it's possible to judge it to be much more terse or angry or preachy than it actually is. The fact is, I was once an avid 'no free willy' myself  ....if anything there was a sort of pensive, wistful kind of tone there, as I aws looking back to try to recall what was going on in my rather vehement assertion back in those days, that there was no person, no free will and no intent to connect with. I'm not stating anything as fact re; this, but more just kind of sharing my musings as I'm working them out. |
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Mar 18, 2013 14:43:50 GMT -5
That leaves an awful lot of ground uncovered with respect to enumerating the scenario's as to why someone might refuse to either state or speculate on an intent, the most prominent one that I can imagine being an assessment of futility with respect to flipping context in the particular conversation. I dunno....If there's nothing really at stake, and someone's asking, why not just go there...? I'm not really sure what you mean by 'flipping context'. Who said anything about 'prosecution'....? Who said anything about 'prosecution'....? I did and I was just messin' with ya'  ... to be explicit as to the root and wend of the joke it was the same sort of elevation of attention to the incident under discussion that the number of days and words, devoted to it constitute. I'm not really sure what you mean by 'flipping context'. Andrew refers to that here: I see why it could be said that a lot of the arguments on the forum can be divided into free willers vs. no free willers, but I am not a straight free willer. I can see the relative truth and validity of 'no free will' in some contexts, and I can see the relative truth and validity of 'free will' in other contexts. I am suggesting that if you want to see what people often point out to you, then seeing the latter contexts might be helpful. In general "Free will" only becomes an object of discussion in the context of "destiny". They're two ends of an abstraction stick. The rational, thinking mind can demonstrate that both are ever evident and we can apply what we know about the rational thinking mind we can see that both are illusory. One can look at the instant incident as so trivial as to not warrant adopting a context that assumes the relevance of the stick or alternatively as being so trivial to make such an assumption correspondingly trivial. I can craft one of those ex-post-facto stories you referred to earlier in the thread by speculating that perhaps Enigma opted for the first path to highlight the triviality of the incident by the effort applied to pry him out of his silence on motivation. |
|
....if anything there was a sort of pensive, wistful kind of tone there, as I aws looking back to try to recall what was going on in my rather vehement assertion back in those days, that there was no person, no free will and no intent to connect with.