|
|
Post by Beingist on Mar 18, 2013 14:44:43 GMT -5
 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. Okey Dokey.  |
|
|
|
Post by quinn on Mar 18, 2013 14:49:01 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? Silver - you can talk to me anyway you want to. It's fine. If I come back and tell you that part of what you said was actually an assumption, something you 'added', it's not to attack you. It's so you can see how that happens. You were able to see the assumption in "Where did I say I thought you were stuck being mad...?" That's all it's about. Just noticing. |
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Mar 18, 2013 14:49:57 GMT -5
Bing! I think I just spotted someone else's giraffe! (It's my first!) keen eye Silver, congrats! ... as I mentioned to the figless one, it was the result of following the intention to hallucinate ... like takin'' shrooms ... |
|
|
|
Post by andrew on Mar 18, 2013 14:53:03 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. Yes. I wonder the same thing. Its goes back to what we have said about there being a trade off, in the sense that in disengaging with all things personal, we distance ourselves from the not so nice stuff that comes with the personal, but unfortunately we also distance ourselves from all that is good about the personal too. |
|
|
|
Post by andrew on Mar 18, 2013 14:56:31 GMT -5
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. Yes, it comes up in the context of 'destiny', and this is linked, but I would say it is relevant in the context of whether there is any 'autonomy of choice' or not. I used to say 'no!' but I see different ways to look at it these days. |
|
|
|
Post by enigma on Mar 18, 2013 15:01:09 GMT -5
If it wasn't 'you' then something else invaded or acted upon your body or through your body. When we talk about 'doing but no doer', we are really pointing to a state. It's not actually true that 'the doer' is totally absent (even IF this 'doer' is a thought) from the experience. If it was, there would be no sense of cause and effect, no sense of purpose, no sense of motivatation, no sense of values, no sense of this being an experience, and none of these things would have any meaning. None of this stuff is left behind, nothing 'personal' is left behind, and neither is the experience of there being 'a doer', or 'a you'. When I was thinking about you earlier, a memory popped into my mind of something that happened some years ago in a gas station. A guy basically tried to steal something, the security jumped on him and the guy started hyperventilating in a big way. 'Unthinkingly' I stepped in to loosen the guards grip on the guy a bit and calm him down. I put my hand on his chest, spoke to him quietly and he calmed down. The guards stepped away and I stayed with the guy until the police came. This all happened 'in flow'. Afterwards I looked back on my actions and it seemed like a dream, like....'who the hell was that?'. It had all happened without thinking, without deliberation. But when my friends asked me about it (they had been there too), I could identify the motivation at every step of the way. I'm sure that if you wanted to, you could look closely at your motivation for reporting the posts, even though it happened spontaneously and seemingly thoughtlessly. You didn't used to report posts but something changed last year. There's the clue. I don't even care WHAT it is to be honest, I just don't accept that it happened without any sense of motivation. That's a great story Andrew and one that very much demonstrates how at the time, there may be no self referential thought involved and every action just seems to unfold, but in retrospect, we can very much connect with the sense of motivation and purpose behind it all. Are you connecting to it or imagining it? |
|
|
|
Post by silver on Mar 18, 2013 15:02:36 GMT -5
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. Yes. I wonder the same thing. Its goes back to what we have said about there being a trade off, in the sense that in disengaging with all things personal, we distance ourselves from the not so nice stuff that comes with the personal, but unfortunately we also distance ourselves from all that is good about the personal too. Beautiful, Andy. |
|
|
|
Post by silver on Mar 18, 2013 15:06:29 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? Silver - you can talk to me anyway you want to. It's fine. If I come back and tell you that part of what you said was actually an assumption, something you 'added', it's not to attack you. It's so you can see how that happens. You were able to see the assumption in "Where did I say I thought you were stuck being mad...?" That's all it's about. Just noticing. You're a cool person, Quinn. (wish there were more like you and less - pirates...) |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 18, 2013 15:11:18 GMT -5
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. Yes. I wonder the same thing. Its goes back to what we have said about there being a trade off, in the sense that in disengaging with all things personal, we distance ourselves from the not so nice stuff that comes with the personal, but unfortunately we also distance ourselves from all that is good about the personal too. Yes! |
|
|
|
Post by enigma on Mar 18, 2013 15:13:30 GMT -5
Go much earlier in your life than what is happening right now. What bit you did it long before you joined the forum. Remember the bad poetry thread? You admitted that Reefs and Enigma's actions brought up some old wounds in your life, which felt like an Atom Bomb going off in your psyche. Reefs and Enigma didn't put the atom bomb there, but you still blame them for hitting the detonator. You blame them for having natures which have a tendency for hitting people's detonators. The real issue is how did the atom bombs get there in the first place? Fixating on E and R is a convenient distraction for going deeper into looking at why you find them so irritating to the point that you want to lash out at them.
You can't distract me from what I'm trying to say and/or dilute its meaning or discredit me and what I'm trying to say here. We all insert what we would like to say, if we feel strongly enough about something - whether we're initially involved in 'X' thread/post - that's your trick to take the wind out of my sails, Top. (I don't know why I'm getting double-space, but *shrug*).
Iow, don't try to psychoanalyze me, because you're not that good at it.
I think he's actually quite good at looking at situations and seeing them objectively. I don't say that to support and enable him, cuz I'm just as clear he sees behavior from me that he doesn't approve of. As long as he seems to see what's actually there, I have no problem with his opinions about it. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 18, 2013 15:13:42 GMT -5
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. Oh okay. Hehe.... Often your posts go over my head Laughter......too 'eloquent' perhaps....or then again, maybe yer just smarter dan me.  |
|
|
|
Post by topology on Mar 18, 2013 15:15:35 GMT -5
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! You mistake my position. I'm not okay with the mocking. Never have been. But thanks for putting words in my mouth. Why did you do that? |
|
|
|
Post by silver on Mar 18, 2013 15:20:21 GMT -5
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! You mistake my position. I'm not okay with the mocking. Never have been. But thanks for putting words in my mouth. Why did you do that? You have to think it through. When someone sees something they disapprove of 'in the family' and they don't say anything about it, it sure seems like collusion to me. I don't remember you saying anything about disapproving of E's mocking that I can recall. You're pretty emo for a non-duallie. |
|
|
|
Post by silver on Mar 18, 2013 15:21:39 GMT -5
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. Andrew refers to that here: 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. Oh okay. Hehe.... Often your posts go over my head Laughter......too 'eloquent' perhaps....or then again, maybe yer just smarter dan me. He's our very own court jester~* |
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Mar 18, 2013 15:23:34 GMT -5
maybe yer just smarter dan me. No, I specifically disclaim that speculation but will offer the replacement story that I've got a talent for making it seem that way for the pure comedic joy of doing so.  |
|
....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.
