|
|
Post by enigma on Mar 20, 2013 13:22:37 GMT -5
Yes I think it is. But there were a lot of potential responses to what I said, including silence and enquiry. Instead an assumption was made, and a slightly condescending one at that. I don't see how just because something is an 'established semantic', that that makes it okay. What is your motivation for getting involved there L? There are a few different stories we can project back onto the post and any of them work. To the best of my recollection I could contrive an internal dialog that would have gone something like: "hmmm... the image is harsh, but was E being rude? ... hmmm ... it does refer to a very specific idea ... I know Andy's pretty knowledgeable, but is there a chance he didn't make the connection?" Also to the best of my recollection this is a major exaggeration of the thought process that went on ... I didn't consider your post but for perhaps a split second before replying as I did. In watching this play out, I've got to say, that making up these stories about motivation after the fact is major BS ... for one thing, there is a clock-time multiplier effect that occurs ... here, let's have some fun with it and take it all the way! Now the worst case scenario, the story that would place Laughter in the worst possible light and heap the maximum guilt and shame on this character would be to say that the reply was politically motivated and an obvious attempt to align with Enigma at Andrews expense, while the best case scenario is that it was an attempt to facilitate communication between Andrew and Enigma by offering Andrew an alternative perspective on what Laughter agreed was a "harsh image", an image that's got several alternative negative connotations, one of them being racial in nature. I'd have to say that given this Laughter fellow's propensity to give folks the benefit of the doubt that judgment should be rendered in his favor! (** takes a breath **) *** phew! *** whataloadof ... overhead .... Anywhere's Andy, the only answer to your question that makes any real sense is: (** skijump! **) I wasn't aware there was any racial connotation to the Br'er wabbit story, but given peeps propensity to use virtually anything as a weapon, I'm not shocked. |
|
|
|
Post by enigma on Mar 20, 2013 13:26:46 GMT -5
The irony is that, in the original story, Mr Rabbit becomes entangled with the tar baby because he was offended at the lack of manners. "Br'er Rabbit becomes offended by what he perceives as the Tar-Baby's lack of manners, punches it, and in doing so becomes stuck. The more Br'er Rabbit punches and kicks the tar "baby" out of rage, the worse he gets stuck." I don't feel the need to go that far and its too strong in my book to say that I was ''offended''. If your standards of behaviour were consistently very low, I would probably withdraw communication. In fact, I wouldn't even say that your standards are generally low, but I would say they are low GIVEN some of the claims you make. So if I were a known rudeness felon, you would withdraw communication because of the tar baby analogy? Or because you felt I should have considered your plan of self absence before concluding what I did?......or what? |
|
|
|
Post by andrew on Mar 20, 2013 13:27:51 GMT -5
The way it is phrased was interesting. It wasn't '' all recipes for absenteeism would be tar baby recipes''. That may have still been a bit assuming, given that I may already be aware of that and have incorporated that into the recipe, but it was ''Methinks it would be a tar baby recipe''. The way it was phrased implies that recipes of that sort MAY not be tar baby recipes. In which case, E could have enquired. I would say there is something to be done to 'get rid of ego', but I agree that we cannot 'do' our way into 'Being' by definition. What we can do is release the need TO 'do'. I think that is the fundamental point of contention. Is surrender something that can be "done" or is it something that happens? In the context in which I think you mean it, I would say its not really appropriate to talk about surrender as something 'done'. On the other hand, 'surrender' isn't something that I would particularly talk about for that very reason. Anything I would recommend as part of releasing the 'need to do' would be something that can be done. |
|
|
|
Post by enigma on Mar 20, 2013 13:30:18 GMT -5
I think I chose an appropriate analogy that conveys the point I meant to convey. I see no rudeness. Do you have tar baby issues I'm not aware of? Without enquiring as to the nature of the recipe, you weren't really in a position to judge whether it was a 'tar baby recipe'. If you didn't want to enquire, you could have stayed silent. Sure I was. I speculate that what's really going on is that some folks can only go on a short time without identifying someone who seems to be personally responsible for their discomfort. |
|
|
|
Post by Beingist on Mar 20, 2013 13:31:04 GMT -5
"THUD" ("ow"  ) B: remember ... keep your weight forward, the line of your head and your spine perpendicular to the ground, bend at the knees, not your waist, keep your upper body still and always always always call your drop-in! What do you think made me "THUD". I have hearing problems (tinnitis), which gives me no balance for skiing. Best I can do is downhill as fast as I can, then just try to stop (which means just falling down, thus the THUD). |
|
|
|
Post by enigma on Mar 20, 2013 13:31:27 GMT -5
It doesn't matter what ingredients the recipe consists of. If 'you' have a plan to make 'you' absent, you just punched the tar baby. oh, now we're p unching babies!!!  !!! hey pal ... ur on yer own with this one! Someone call the cops! Call child protective services! Where's Geraldo or Oprah when ya' need 'em!  |
|
|
|
Post by andrew on Mar 20, 2013 13:31:45 GMT -5
I don't feel the need to go that far and its too strong in my book to say that I was ''offended''. If your standards of behaviour were consistently very low, I would probably withdraw communication. In fact, I wouldn't even say that your standards are generally low, but I would say they are low GIVEN some of the claims you make. So if I were a known rudeness felon, you would withdraw communication because of the tar baby analogy? Or because you felt I should have considered your plan of self absence before concluding what I did?......or what? Gnaw, that's not what I am saying. Your reply wouldn't have been a reason for me to withdraw communication from anyone. I only said it was a 'wee bit rude'. |
|
|
|
Post by enigma on Mar 20, 2013 13:35:01 GMT -5
It doesn't matter what ingredients the recipe consists of. If 'you' have a plan to make 'you' absent, you just punched the tar baby. That's not true, and if you had enquired I would have showed you why not. I was sposed to check with you first to see if you had an argument against my opinion? There are three things that are guaranteed in life, and one of them is that you will have an argument against my opinion.  |
|
|
|
Post by Beingist on Mar 20, 2013 13:36:48 GMT -5
That's not true, and if you had enquired I would have showed you why not. I was sposed to check with you first to see if you had an argument against my opinion? There are three things that are guaranteed in life, and one of them is that you will have an argument against my opinion. Yeah, that's pretty much a given, huh?  |
|
|
|
Post by andrew on Mar 20, 2013 13:37:19 GMT -5
Without enquiring as to the nature of the recipe, you weren't really in a position to judge whether it was a 'tar baby recipe'. If you didn't want to enquire, you could have stayed silent. Sure I was. I speculate that what's really going on is that some folks can only go on a short time without identifying someone who seems to be personally responsible for their discomfort. You are never responsible for anyone else's sense of discordance with what you say. Like you said yesterday, you give yourself free license because you see ideas as entirely impersonal and therefore you are not responsible for what comes out of your mouth or fingers. |
|
|
|
Post by enigma on Mar 20, 2013 13:40:04 GMT -5
There are a few different stories we can project back onto the post and any of them work. To the best of my recollection I could contrive an internal dialog that would have gone something like: "hmmm... the image is harsh, but was E being rude? ... hmmm ... it does refer to a very specific idea ... I know Andy's pretty knowledgeable, but is there a chance he didn't make the connection?" Also to the best of my recollection this is a major exaggeration of the thought process that went on ... I didn't consider your post but for perhaps a split second before replying as I did. In watching this play out, I've got to say, that making up these stories about motivation after the fact is major BS ... for one thing, there is a clock-time multiplier effect that occurs ... here, let's have some fun with it and take it all the way! Now the worst case scenario, the story that would place Laughter in the worst possible light and heap the maximum guilt and shame on this character would be to say that the reply was politically motivated and an obvious attempt to align with Enigma at Andrews expense, while the best case scenario is that it was an attempt to facilitate communication between Andrew and Enigma by offering Andrew an alternative perspective on what Laughter agreed was a "harsh image", an image that's got several alternative negative connotations, one of them being racial in nature. I'd have to say that given this Laughter fellow's propensity to give folks the benefit of the doubt that judgment should be rendered in his favor!(** takes a breath **) *** phew! *** whataloadof ... overhead .... Anywhere's Andy, the only answer to your question that makes any real sense is: (** skijump! **) My guess at the time was basically option 2, but given that both myself and Enigma do communicate a lot anyway, what exactly were you interested in facilitating? Was it an interest in 'brokering peace' (for want of better words)? Why can't he just be expressing an opinion? Is that allowed? |
|
|
|
Post by andrew on Mar 20, 2013 13:40:11 GMT -5
That's not true, and if you had enquired I would have showed you why not. There are three things that are guaranteed in life, and one of them is that you will have an argument against my opinion. That's not what I suggested. |
|
|
|
Post by andrew on Mar 20, 2013 13:41:46 GMT -5
My guess at the time was basically option 2, but given that both myself and Enigma do communicate a lot anyway, what exactly were you interested in facilitating? Was it an interest in 'brokering peace' (for want of better words)? Why can't he just be expressing an opinion? Is that allowed? Expressing opinions is what this forum is about, I was interested in his motivation for expressing that one. |
|
|
|
Post by enigma on Mar 20, 2013 13:42:40 GMT -5
Before enquiring as to the nature of the recipe, it was already decided what kind of recipe it was. If E didn't want to enquire he could have just said nothing. The comment I believe was with respect to having any recipe, not a rejection of your recipe because it was coming from you. But go ahead and put your recipe forward. The issues I see is whether or not there is something you can DO to get rid of Ego. But that still leaves the ego that is trying to eradicate or tame all other egos. There's nothing that can be done to get rid of that ego. It's a non-doing, a surrender. But you can't cause surrender. Righty-o. |
|
|
|
Post by enigma on Mar 20, 2013 13:45:06 GMT -5
The comment I believe was with respect to having any recipe, not a rejection of your recipe because it was coming from you. But go ahead and put your recipe forward. The issues I see is whether or not there is something you can DO to get rid of Ego. But that still leaves the ego that is trying to eradicate or tame all other egos. There's nothing that can be done to get rid of that ego. It's a non-doing, a surrender. But you can't cause surrender. The way it is phrased was interesting. It wasn't '' all recipes for absenteeism would be tar baby recipes''. That may have still been a bit assuming, given that I may already be aware of that and have incorporated that into the recipe, but it was ''Methinks it would be a tar baby recipe''. The way it was phrased implies that recipes of that sort MAY not be tar baby recipes. In which case, E could have enquired. I would say there is something to be done to 'get rid of ego', but I agree that we cannot 'do' our way into 'Being' by definition. What we can do is release the need TO 'do'. Gnaw, it doesn't imply any such thing except in your tar baby mind.  |
|
)
!!!
