|
|
Post by andrew on Mar 20, 2013 15:58:02 GMT -5
Is this love in action? Again, I would say the choices you make or not congruent with the claims you make. Mostly, it's me being silly while also trying to make a point, but if you wanna see it as loooooove in action, it's fine by me.  I'm sure that it is fine by you if I see it as love in action! |
|
|
|
Post by enigma on Mar 20, 2013 15:58:35 GMT -5
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.   It's one version of hell, I guess. Hehe. J/K Andrew. Lighten up.  |
|
|
|
Post by andrew on Mar 20, 2013 16:01:48 GMT -5
You didn't say, ''any and all recipes designed to bring about self-absence are tar babies''. If you had, I would possibly have argued it, but it is unlikely that I would have said you were a wee bit condescending/rude. How you interpret and how you react to how you interpret is your responsibility. You want me to ask you questions that you want to answer and phrase my responses your way so's you don't get upset. Take a little responsibility for yourself. You just said that you do take responsibility for other people's responses. I don't care if you ask me questions or not, and I would have been quite happy for you to have ignored me. There were hundreds of different things that you could have said that I wouldn't have seen as a wee bit rude, and which didn't involve questioning me. Even if you had said...''I don't resonate with the idea of a recipe'', I wouldn't have seen that as rude at all. What I am focused on here is your condescending intent, and that it is incongruent with your claims. |
|
|
|
Post by enigma on Mar 20, 2013 16:01:52 GMT -5
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. not the story no, just the term ... really ugly semantic 'nuff said the story elaborates on the idea in a tragicomic way that both transcends the gruesome fate of the poor unfortunate bunny and is quite applicable to the dynamic I've seen on these forums Yes, the story seems quite appropriate to lots of bunnies here. I apologize if anyone is offended by the term. Dunno nuthin bout that and I'm not inclined to research it. |
|
|
|
Post by enigma on Mar 20, 2013 16:05:14 GMT -5
I would say that taking full responsibility for your actions includes taking responsibility for the responses you get to your actions. Turn the tables around. Enigma and Silence started talking about you instead of to you or with you, verging on what would be call Mocking. This was in response to your action of stating what you stated the way you stated it. Are you responsible for their mocking? I declare that Andrew is responsible for everything I say. The only question that remains is, how do we fix him?  |
|
|
|
Post by enigma on Mar 20, 2013 16:08:24 GMT -5
To some extent, yes. I do know I'm poking around in some sore spots and peeps are going to go unconscious and retaliate. It's okay, but you think that makes me a bad person, and that's your baggage, not mine. I don't think you are a bad person at all, I just don't think your behaviour is congruent with your claims, however I do think it is congruent with the pattern of stuckness that I see in you. I speculate you've speculated some more claims for me without asking, which is what Silence has mentioned; hoisting me up to a pretentious perch so that you can throw rocks at me to knock me back down. |
|
|
|
Post by andrew on Mar 20, 2013 16:11:23 GMT -5
Turn the tables around. Enigma and Silence started talking about you instead of to you or with you, verging on what would be call Mocking. This was in response to your action of stating what you stated the way you stated it. Are you responsible for their mocking? I declare that Andrew is responsible for everything I say. The only question that remains is, how do we fix him? In order to take full responsibility for what you say to everyone, I would have to be unusually irritated or upset. I am not often that irritated/upset. I tend to take partial responsibility for the way you respond to me. |
|
|
|
Post by andrew on Mar 20, 2013 16:13:20 GMT -5
I don't think you are a bad person at all, I just don't think your behaviour is congruent with your claims, however I do think it is congruent with the pattern of stuckness that I see in you. I speculate you've speculated some more claims for me without asking, which is what Silence has mentioned; hoisting me up to a pretentious perch so that you can throw rocks at me to knock me back down. The questions I ask you, you don't want to answer. How about this one? Would you say that you are always absent and that Love moves in your absence? |
|
|
|
Post by topology on Mar 20, 2013 16:29:18 GMT -5
Pulling out the linguistics pedantry.  The instance of a class when encountering class based consequences invokes the instance of the consequence. Person A says: "I have a recipe" -- instance of the class recipe Person B thinks: "All recipes result in punching a tar baby" -- class based logic Person B says: "The recipe person A has results in punching a tar baby" This is no different than this: Person A says: "I'm going to punch that tree over there" Person B thinks: "Punching any tree is going to hurt the hand" Person B says: "Punching that tree is going to hurt your hand" Your complaint as you state it was that E should have said what his reasoning was instead of his conclusion. In the second situation there doesn't seem to be a reason to need to state what person B thinks, likely because it is what person A thinks as well, meaning its "common knowledge". In the former situation, there could be an argument made that the class based logic is not "common" enough knowledge to warrant stating the reasoning over the conclusion, but that's no reason to call it rudeness. Rudeness implies being offended. There are two possible offenses that I see. (1) the term "tar baby" sounds racists if one doesn't have the context of the origin of the term. (2) There is a bit of Cain syndrome, Cain has brought forward the fruits of his labor, but it is rejected (for whatever reason), so Cain becomes resentful and offended at the rejection. I thought it was a wee bit 'offensive' though I wasn't a whole lot offended. I wouldn't have minded at all if Enigma had ignored the message (which could be seen as a rejection). If he had said ''all recipes are tar baby recipes'', I may have argued it and thought he was a little presumptuous/arrogant but really just typical Enigma. However, what he did was something a little different and I would say the intent involved a level of condescension/belittling. So, if anything, its not the rejection, its the subtle intent that I pick up on that I find a wee bit rude. The racist thing didn't cross my mind. Here's what I see about Enigma. Enigma has his own special language and ontology, taken from his experience through the world. Insights using terms phrased through parables or fables, (Tar baby) etc. Idioms that are strange because in their strangeness they get the attention of the mind (Seeing Giraffes). The only thing that I could accuse Enigma of is using this highly cultivated, highly non-common language in his communication with people who do not share the understanding of the language he is using. This generates miscommunication left and right until a person clues in and picks up on the idioms and symbolism. His adherence to the languaging which is clearest to him has made it difficult for those who are not able to grok the language. This creates the perception of a club. There's the people that are able to speak Enigmaese and there's the people that feel like Jackie Chan when they hear him talk:  Enigma has a purpose with bringing up this alternative languaging. The "WTF are you saying" effect shakes the hearer's mind out of some of its somnombulistic rut and forces them to move beyond the safety zone of the languaging they cling to. Language is the fabric of the mind. It is the threads through which the veil of separation is woven. Obtuse languaging can cause the tension necessary to wake up out of the linguistic hypnosis. Or it can cause you to become the epicenter of miscommunication and negative attention for not being conformant enough. |
|
|
|
Post by Beingist on Mar 20, 2013 16:35:19 GMT -5
[...] There's the people that are able to speak Enigmaese and there's the people that feel like Jackie Chan when they hear him talk: Yup, that's me (sometimes). Wait a minute, E has a purpose? I'd like to hear E say that. Otherwise, if I may say so, top, this only feeds the already festering confusion caused by his own contradictions. If it's true, then it's no wonder peeps are confused by his languaging. It can also bring about confusion in a sincere listener (and resentment in an insincere one), as we've seen. |
|
|
|
Post by andrew on Mar 20, 2013 16:49:26 GMT -5
I thought it was a wee bit 'offensive' though I wasn't a whole lot offended. I wouldn't have minded at all if Enigma had ignored the message (which could be seen as a rejection). If he had said ''all recipes are tar baby recipes'', I may have argued it and thought he was a little presumptuous/arrogant but really just typical Enigma. However, what he did was something a little different and I would say the intent involved a level of condescension/belittling. So, if anything, its not the rejection, its the subtle intent that I pick up on that I find a wee bit rude. The racist thing didn't cross my mind. Here's what I see about Enigma. Enigma has his own special language and ontology, taken from his experience through the world. Insights using terms phrased through parables or fables, (Tar baby) etc. Idioms that are strange because in their strangeness they get the attention of the mind (Seeing Giraffes). The only thing that I could accuse Enigma of is using this highly cultivated, highly non-common language in his communication with people who do not share the understanding of the language he is using. This generates miscommunication left and right until a person clues in and picks up on the idioms and symbolism. His adherence to the languaging which is clearest to him has made it difficult for those who are not able to grok the language. This creates the perception of a club. There's the people that are able to speak Enigmaese and there's the people that feel like Jackie Chan when they hear him talk: Enigma has a purpose with bringing up this alternative languaging. The "WTF are you saying" effect shakes the hearer's mind out of some of its somnombulistic rut and forces them to move beyond the safety zone of the languaging they cling to. Language is the fabric of the mind. It is the threads through which the veil of separation is woven. Obtuse languaging can cause the tension necessary to wake up out of the linguistic hypnosis. Or it can cause you to become the epicenter of miscommunication and negative attention for not being conformant enough. Do you see Enigma mocking? If so, do you see this mocking as love in action? Nice J.C photo by the way (good initials too). If I remember right, Question also used to use that photo. |
|
|
|
Post by topology on Mar 20, 2013 17:21:47 GMT -5
[...] There's the people that are able to speak Enigmaese and there's the people that feel like Jackie Chan when they hear him talk: Yup, that's me (sometimes). Wait a minute, E has a purpose? I'd like to hear E say that. Otherwise, if I may say so, top, this only feeds the already festering confusion caused by his own contradictions. If it's true, then it's no wonder peeps are confused by his languaging. It can also bring about confusion in a sincere listener (and resentment in an insincere one), as we've seen. Maybe he's not doing the specialized languaging with conscious intent. Maybe its the only way his mind has come to make sense of what is going on and so the words are simply the only way he knows how to express his understanding. But I think there comes a point where peeps who've been around the block a few times and have been around several other blocks a few times solidify on an "approach" or "angle" with its own languaging. It's probably (to him) his clearest mode of expression and understanding. ZD has his ATAing angle. Enigma has his "noticing" angle, which is heavy into looking into the mind and psyche. Maybe it just doesn't occur to Enigma that the peeps he be speaking to don't be understanding him and that he should provide a dictionary for his idioms. But to the peeps who be banging their heads on the language wall, it comes across as a lack of caring to really communicate and be understood. You either "get it" or you don't and it ain't worth his time to help you get it if you're clearly stuck in not getting it. I tried to tutor remedial algebra.... Seriously. With all my insightful expressions and saying things clear as a bell (in my perception), there were still students who just couldn't get it... It was frustrating and saddening, and makes you doubt your ability to help people. |
|
|
|
Post by topology on Mar 20, 2013 17:35:34 GMT -5
Here's what I see about Enigma. Enigma has his own special language and ontology, taken from his experience through the world. Insights using terms phrased through parables or fables, (Tar baby) etc. Idioms that are strange because in their strangeness they get the attention of the mind (Seeing Giraffes). The only thing that I could accuse Enigma of is using this highly cultivated, highly non-common language in his communication with people who do not share the understanding of the language he is using. This generates miscommunication left and right until a person clues in and picks up on the idioms and symbolism. His adherence to the languaging which is clearest to him has made it difficult for those who are not able to grok the language. This creates the perception of a club. There's the people that are able to speak Enigmaese and there's the people that feel like Jackie Chan when they hear him talk: Enigma has a purpose with bringing up this alternative languaging. The "WTF are you saying" effect shakes the hearer's mind out of some of its somnombulistic rut and forces them to move beyond the safety zone of the languaging they cling to. Language is the fabric of the mind. It is the threads through which the veil of separation is woven. Obtuse languaging can cause the tension necessary to wake up out of the linguistic hypnosis. Or it can cause you to become the epicenter of miscommunication and negative attention for not being conformant enough. Do you see Enigma mocking? If so, do you see this mocking as love in action? Nice J.C photo by the way (good initials too). If I remember right, Question also used to use that photo. Here's what I see. Enigma has a POV on things and if there is simply no communication happening, he and someone else who speaks Enigmaese tend to go off by themselves and talk about how and why they think the person isn't getting it. That talking about it can get very inconsiderate from a personal perspective (thinking of the BPT with Silver). I am not a fan of it because from my perspective it shuts a person down and makes them resistive more than opening them up. However, that doesn't necessarily mean I disagree with what is being said. Even when Reefs is giving his caustic version of what is going on, I can see the possible legitimacy of the interpretation. There is some utility for the person being "mocked" if they are of the mindset of being willing to look at things. However more often than not the person that get's "mocked" is either unwilling or unable to see things from E's perspective and develops a resentment because they feel like they are being talked about negatively. ULTIMATELY the error is for anyone to be identifying with any kind of image of themselves. And so a sensitivity towards "mocking" stems from identification with a character or a story and wanting to fight the perception of a negative story developing. That is the opportunity that being mocked presents, a chance to possibly disidentify with the character being talked about. It's not my cup of tea to go that far, but there is value with having to wrestle with shadows. |
|
|
|
Post by andrew on Mar 20, 2013 17:43:06 GMT -5
Do you see Enigma mocking? If so, do you see this mocking as love in action? Nice J.C photo by the way (good initials too). If I remember right, Question also used to use that photo. Here's what I see. Enigma has a POV on things and if there is simply no communication happening, he and someone else who speaks Enigmaese tend to go off by themselves and talk about how and why they think the person isn't getting it. That talking about it can get very inconsiderate from a personal perspective (thinking of the BPT with Silver). I am not a fan of it because from my perspective it shuts a person down and makes them resistive more than opening them up. However, that doesn't necessarily mean I disagree with what is being said. Even when Reefs is giving his caustic version of what is going on, I can see the possible legitimacy of the interpretation. There is some utility for the person being "mocked" if they are of the mindset of being willing to look at things. However more often than not the person that get's "mocked" is either unwilling or unable to see things from E's perspective and develops a resentment because they feel like they are being talked about negatively. ULTIMATELY the error is for anyone to be identifying with any kind of image of themselves. And so a sensitivity towards "mocking" stems from identification with a character or a story and wanting to fight the perception of a negative story developing. That is the opportunity that being mocked presents, a chance to possibly disidentify with the character being talked about. It's not my cup of tea to go that far, but there is value with having to wrestle with shadows. You told me a lot of stuff there that I don't disagree with, but I don't see an answer to the questions I asked. You say ''there is some utility for the person being 'mocked' if they are of the mindset...'' which implies sort of that you seeing mocking, but then you put it in inverted comma things, and I'm not sure what that means. You then use the word 'mocked' in the second paragraph without inverted commas. Are you seeing mocking or not? Is it love in action or not IYO? Let me just say that I would say that I think I am very clear about E's frame of reference. I would say I understand his frame of reference perhaps better than I understand anyone else's on the forum. |
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Mar 20, 2013 18:01:20 GMT -5
I would say I understand his frame of reference perhaps better than I understand anyone else's on the forum. Well by now I'd certainly hope so! |
|
The instance of a class when encountering class based consequences invokes the instance of the consequence. 
