|
|
Post by Beingist on Mar 20, 2013 18:02:31 GMT -5
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. Which would make sense, as you seem to be one of the few that makes sense out of him, and he of you. Which leads me to wonder if Andrewese and Enigmaese aren't somehow related languages? Of Andrewese, I can't make a d@mn bit of sense. Of Enigma, I can make sense most of the time, until he throws something out there that completely contradicts what I had understood before. And, I won't even touch his definitions, anymore. In the end, it's best for me to just stop reading either of you, the very second that I get taken off on a completely different conceptual rail in the effort. |
|
|
|
Post by andrew on Mar 20, 2013 18:09:38 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! Haha yes, that's true. In fact its quite possible that those that are most familiar with each other's frame of reference have more to argue the toss about than those that don't. |
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Mar 20, 2013 18:16:20 GMT -5
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. hey meaning is created by the reader ... that "ugly semantic" is stuck on the tar of my own front shirt  ... no 'pollogies necessary in this direction |
|
|
|
Post by andrew on Mar 20, 2013 18:20:33 GMT -5
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. Which would make sense, as you seem to be one of the few that makes sense out of him, and he of you. Which leads me to wonder if Andrewese and Enigmaese aren't somehow related languages? Of Andrewese, I can't make a d@mn bit of sense. Of Enigma, I can make sense most of the time, until he throws something out there that completely contradicts what I had understood before. And, I won't even touch his definitions, anymore. In the end, it's best for me to just stop reading either of you, the very second that I get taken off on a completely different conceptual rail in the effort. Haha. I would say that sometimes (but not all the time) the stuff we don't get initially is the stuff worth persevering with, and sometimes a complete turn around in our thinking is a good thing. For example, for you currently, a relevant theme is 'unlearning'. At some point you may find that 'learning' is a relevant theme, but I guess the idea of that doesn't resonate with you right now because 'unlearning' is still relevant. I think Enigma understands my frame of reference well, though he is perhaps at a slight disadvantage because he is pretty consistent with his themes overall, whereas I am less consistent. At least, on the surface I am. My values remain unchanged now for several years. |
|
|
|
Post by enigma on Mar 20, 2013 19:02:31 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. I axchuly find it a bit shocking that I could voice my opinion about the contradiction of a person using strategies to disappear the person (and I think it's clear that's what I was saying) and for you to see it as presumptuous, condescending, arrogant and belittling. (or any of the above) How would I be able to express any opinion other than yours without acquiring such labels? No wonder you think I'm so immoral and deserving of other's venom. I think I'm beginning to understand how this works.  |
|
|
|
Post by enigma on Mar 20, 2013 19:07:13 GMT -5
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! That strikes me as mocking and condescending, not to mention a wee bit arrogant and presumptuous. |
|
|
|
Post by andrew on Mar 20, 2013 19:07:45 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. I axchuly find it a bit shocking that I could voice my opinion about the contradiction of a person using strategies to disappear the person (and I think it's clear that's what I was saying) and for you to see it as presumptuous, condescending, arrogant and belittling. (or any of the above) How would I be able to express any opinion other than yours without acquiring such labels? No wonder you think I'm so immoral and deserving of other's venom. I think I'm beginning to understand how this works. I would have seen it as a little presumptuous that you assumed that I hadn't accounted for the contradiction. You didn't enquire. Equally, if you had said, 'I don't resonate with the idea of a recipe in this context', you would have also got a different response. But what I picked up what a subtle intent to condescend in the way you responded. And to be clear, I said in the message above ''a little''. |
|
|
|
Post by andrew on Mar 20, 2013 19:08:39 GMT -5
I'm sure that it is fine by you if I see it as love in action! That strikes me as mocking and condescending, not to mention a wee bit arrogant and presumptuous. Okay. In that case, I'm sorry. |
|
|
|
Post by enigma on Mar 20, 2013 19:10:48 GMT -5
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. What you appear to be focused on is your own condescending rudeness, and no, I have no intention of taking responsibility for that. |
|
|
|
Post by andrew on Mar 20, 2013 19:13:56 GMT -5
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. What you appear to be focused on is your own condescending rudeness, and no, I have no intention of taking responsibility for that. Even IF that is true that that is my focus, it doesn't mean that what I am pointing out to you is necessarily incorrect. So you don't take any responsibility for the responses you receive? |
|
|
|
Post by onehandclapping on Mar 20, 2013 19:19:01 GMT -5
HAHAHA! I don't look at the board for six months and the first thing I find upon my return is Andrew and Engima going at it. awwwwwwwe..... somethings never change.  |
|
|
|
Post by enigma on Mar 20, 2013 19:20:07 GMT -5
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? No, I would not make such an absolute statement about myself. |
|
|
|
Post by andrew on Mar 20, 2013 19:28:22 GMT -5
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? No, I would not make such an absolute statement about myself. what is your evidence, or clue, as to when you are not absent? |
|
|
|
Post by enigma on Mar 20, 2013 19:52:47 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. That's pretty good,axchuly. I talk about what I see in the clearest way I know how, although I'm not interested in presenting some logic for analysis and dictionary cross referencing. I do find myself often avoiding common terminology that will just trigger the same old useless images. I like to talk about stuff in a fresh way cuz fresh is how it looks to me. Maybe I also try to 'bring it home' and get it out of the woo woo ethers where most of speerichuality hangs out. This stuff is sposed to mean something right here and now. Conceptual understanding is not the friend of the seeker, and so it seems I'm always presupposing folks are looking and have turned the volume down on the mind, though I know it's often not the case. Hencely, I'm not sure I care if it registers in the mental understanding or not. I guess that doesn't make me a very effective communicator.  |
|
|
|
Post by topology on Mar 20, 2013 20:06:06 GMT -5
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. To answer your questions directly: (1) Do I see mocking? Yes and No. The No: When E and a few others start bantering about why they see a particular person as stuck, I don't find that to be by itself enough to qualify as mocking. I can see how the person being talked about can take it personally and label it themselves as Mocking out of a desire to make it stop. The Yes: There are times when that bantering about why a person is stuck begins to carry an energy of a lack of care. The lack of care is about no longer caring to help or see that person reach an understanding or realization. When the discussion begins to feel like is no longer about the benefit of the person being talked about I begin to perceive it as mocking. (2) Is there Love in the act of mocking? This is an even grayer issue. Obviously the activity is not experienced as personally loving. But does that mean that Love is absent? Or has Love conspired to bring this situation into being for some purpose or benefit? Perhaps the mocking stimulates the person to stand up for themselves when they've been passive and abused in the past. Perhaps the mocking is the last straw on the camels back which breaks the identification with the personal self-image. Who am I to judge what Love is conspiring? Who am I to call it the opposite of Love's wish? It would seem to me that Love is always present, waiting for you to make a choice. Do you return to Love's bosom? Or do you stay fixated on negative situations and self-images? In that moment of experiencing mocking by others, that opportunity to change our orientation becomes nascient. It is an opportunity to demonstrate how we want to be in response to the experience. And I find that Love does conspire to create those situations for us. |
|
... no 'pollogies necessary in this direction
The instance of a class when encountering class based consequences invokes the instance of the consequence. 
