|
|
Post by topology on Mar 20, 2013 13:49:13 GMT -5
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. Aye Yie Yie! Surrender = "releasing the need to do", isn't it? You're just changing the words used but the meaning is the same? |
|
|
|
Post by silence on Mar 20, 2013 13:51:06 GMT -5
I don't know where you get rude. I'm saying as long as you're involved in creating your own absence, you reinforce your presence. To go with the idea of 'absence', it IS possible to create situations which will bring about absenteeism. Andrew #1 hides in the corner with a blindfold while Andrew #2 sets a booby trap. But then we need an Andrew #3 to set a trap for Andrew #2. |
|
|
|
Post by andrew on Mar 20, 2013 13:51:51 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'. Gnaw, it doesn't imply any such thing except in your tar baby mind.  You didn't know if it was a tar baby recipe. Even if you had said that all recipes are tar baby recipes by definition (which you didn't), it would have been assuming that I didn't incorporate that understanding into the recipe. The comment was a wee bit condescending. Not your responsibility though obviously. |
|
|
|
Post by andrew on Mar 20, 2013 13:53:58 GMT -5
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. Aye Yie Yie! Surrender = "releasing the need to do", isn't it? You're just changing the words used but the meaning is the same? I don't quite equate 'surrender' with 'releasing the need to do', no. I see 'releasing the need to do' as a process that occurs over time, whereas 'surrender' happens in the moment. |
|
|
|
Post by enigma on Mar 20, 2013 13:56:22 GMT -5
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. I take full responsibility for my actions. There's another question nobody ever asked me. However, if I were to take responsibility for your experience of rudeness, I would be judging myself unfairly, though I'm confident Figs would help me get to the root of that self judgment issue. |
|
|
|
Post by Beingist on Mar 20, 2013 13:56:28 GMT -5
Aye Yie Yie! Surrender = "releasing the need to do", isn't it? You're just changing the words used but the meaning is the same? I don't quite equate 'surrender' with 'releasing the need to do', no. I see 'releasing the need to do' as a process that occurs over time, whereas 'surrender' happens in the moment. Yes, moment after moment after moment. In other words, over time. Man, you're head sure spins, sometimes, A! |
|
|
|
Post by enigma on Mar 20, 2013 13:58:01 GMT -5
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.  That's not what I suggested. Then what, do you speculate, would have been the motivation for my inquiry? |
|
|
|
Post by enigma on Mar 20, 2013 14:00:41 GMT -5
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. Out of all the opinions expressed here, what's your motivation for wanting to know the motivation of that particular opinion? |
|
|
|
Post by silence on Mar 20, 2013 14:02:11 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. Seems like run of the mill control issues. The fact that everything relates back to releasing attachment is starting to make more sense now. |
|
|
|
Post by enigma on Mar 20, 2013 14:06:32 GMT -5
To go with the idea of 'absence', it IS possible to create situations which will bring about absenteeism. Andrew #1 hides in the corner with a blindfold while Andrew #2 sets a booby trap. But then we need an Andrew #3 to set a trap for Andrew #2. I don't think that will be a problem. There seem to be infinite Andrews available to carry out whatever doing plan of non-doing is required in order for the imaginary self to bring about his own actual absence.  |
|
|
|
Post by enigma on Mar 20, 2013 14:12:19 GMT -5
Gnaw, it doesn't imply any such thing except in your tar baby mind. You didn't know if it was a tar baby recipe. Even if you had said that all recipes are tar baby recipes by definition (which you didn't), it would have been assuming that I didn't incorporate that understanding into the recipe. The comment was a wee bit condescending. Not your responsibility though obviously. It's not rude or condescending to say that any and all recipes designed to bring about self absence are tar babies. C'mon, Andrew. It's not like you to go unconscious without being provoked. What happened to you today? You can talk to Dr Phil.  |
|
|
|
Post by andrew on Mar 20, 2013 14:34:18 GMT -5
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. I take full responsibility for my actions. There's another question nobody ever asked me. However, if I were to take responsibility for your experience of rudeness, I would be judging myself unfairly, though I'm confident Figs would help me get to the root of that self judgment issue. I would say that taking full responsibility for your actions includes taking responsibility for the responses you get to your actions. |
|
|
|
Post by andrew on Mar 20, 2013 14:35:26 GMT -5
I don't quite equate 'surrender' with 'releasing the need to do', no. I see 'releasing the need to do' as a process that occurs over time, whereas 'surrender' happens in the moment. Yes, moment after moment after moment. In other words, over time. Man, you're head sure spins, sometimes, A! The former happens over a period of time, the latter does not. I might even say that its the process of releasing the need to do that leads to surrender. |
|
|
|
Post by andrew on Mar 20, 2013 14:36:19 GMT -5
That's not what I suggested. Then what, do you speculate, would have been the motivation for my inquiry? What would have been your motivation to ask about the recipe do you mean? |
|
|
|
Post by andrew on Mar 20, 2013 14:38:30 GMT -5
Expressing opinions is what this forum is about, I was interested in his motivation for expressing that one. Out of all the opinions expressed here, what's your motivation for wanting to know the motivation of that particular opinion? Primarily so I can understand Laugher's frame of reference. Secondly, so I can see more clearly (or discern) how to relate to him given his frame of reference. I can go deeper if you want me to. |
|
