|
|
Post by Reefs on Mar 20, 2013 20:12:17 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?  That's funny, indeed. According to Andrews logic HE is responsible for YOUR mocking. So why is HE trying to fix YOU instead of himself? Given the great manyness of Andrews flowing freely in full circles around their positionless positions the answer must be: The Andrew that takes responsibility is not the Andrew that is trying to fix you. Several separate Andrews with different stories and logic using one and the same login and fighting each other.  |
|
|
|
Post by enigma on Mar 20, 2013 20:20:34 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. I agree. On the issue of 'opening people up', sometimes surgery is necessary. If the goal is to get folks to feel better, trust you, like you, and share their deepest thoughts and feeling with you, this can be done with a little understanding, openness and genuine sincerity and kindness, but if the goal is to encourage one to see some things they've spent their entire adult lives trying not to see, this will immediately violate the foundation of that relationship as surely as it violates the foundation of the self, and for precisely the same reason. Such relationships are desired to support the self, not to threaten it. That doesn't mean that we may not come together with one who is ready to look and to see, and when this happens in the context of a mutually loving, trusting relationship, it's truly a wonderful thing, but if that's the case, it's all effortless anyhoo. |
|
|
|
Post by Reefs on Mar 20, 2013 20:24:02 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.  Rule of thumb when talking to Andrew: NEVER make fun of the terms person, personal or personhood. |
|
|
|
Post by Reefs on Mar 20, 2013 20:27:24 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. It's passive aggressiveness. |
|
|
|
Post by enigma on Mar 20, 2013 20:30:40 GMT -5
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''. I presumed that you were aware of the obvious contradiction and had a plan, or at least a way of looking at it that you believe accounted for it. I was also pretty sure we would be talking about that next, but I was mistaken. Instead we went for a little giraffe ride. |
|
|
|
Post by enigma on Mar 20, 2013 20:31:45 GMT -5
That strikes me as mocking and condescending, not to mention a wee bit arrogant and presumptuous. Okay. In that case, I'm sorry. I forgive you. |
|
|
|
Post by enigma on Mar 20, 2013 20:33:10 GMT -5
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? Sure. I thought we had been over that already. |
|
|
|
Post by Beingist on Mar 20, 2013 20:33:44 GMT -5
Okay. In that case, I'm sorry. I forgive you. Awww. How sweet.  |
|
|
|
Post by enigma on Mar 20, 2013 20:34:59 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.  It's the first time in 6 months that has happened!..........Okay, okay, that's a lie.  |
|
|
|
Post by enigma on Mar 20, 2013 20:41:40 GMT -5
No, I would not make such an absolute statement about myself. what is your evidence, or clue, as to when you are not absent? Are you thinking it's like a person either being in a room or being absent from the room? Like maybe a sign comes on when there's a vacancy and otherwise it's off? |
|
|
|
Post by topology on Mar 20, 2013 21:01:20 GMT -5
I declare that Andrew is responsible for everything I say. The only question that remains is, how do we fix him? In my perception, since this will help answer Andrews question to me. Not Mocking: That's funny, indeed. According to Andrews logic HE is responsible for YOUR mocking. So why is HE trying to fix YOU instead of himself? Mocking: Given the great manyness of Andrews flowing freely in full circles around their positionless positions Not Mocking: the answer must be: The Andrew that takes responsibility is not the Andrew that is trying to fix you. Several separate Andrews with different stories and logic using one and the same login and fighting each other. |
|
|
|
Post by topology on Mar 20, 2013 21:04:30 GMT -5
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. Rule of thumb when talking to Andrew: NEVER make fun of the terms person, personal or personhood. I think Andrew would ask why there was a need to make fun of anything. |
|
|
|
Post by Reefs on Mar 20, 2013 21:33:57 GMT -5
In my perception, since this will help answer Andrews question to me. Not Mocking: That's funny, indeed. According to Andrews logic HE is responsible for YOUR mocking. So why is HE trying to fix YOU instead of himself? Mocking: Given the great manyness of Andrews flowing freely in full circles around their positionless positions Not Mocking: the answer must be: The Andrew that takes responsibility is not the Andrew that is trying to fix you. Several separate Andrews with different stories and logic using one and the same login and fighting each other. Actually, what Andrew says there, taking responsibility in a greater sense could be just a misconception of the A-H teachings. A-H say you are responsible for what happens around you AS IT RELATES to you. Which means you are not responsible for others reactions, you are only responsible for the part of their reaction that relates to you. Everyone is only responsible for what he/she does with his/her focus, for where the attention goes. Feelings are just indicators of what one is doing with ones focus. So if a comment of Enigma causes uneasiness in Andrew then Enigma is not responsible for that uneasiness. It's Andrews who feels uneasy so it has something to do with Andrew's focus. That's Andrew's responsibility. Andrew chose to focus on what Enigma said and it causes that reaction. He could have focused on something else. But he didn't. Everyone is the center of their own world. No one else can create in their world. So you can't control what others do and can't take responsibility for what others do. The only thing you can control is the meeting point, the points where co-creation happens and how it happens. If you like it civil and calm then you focus and turn your attention to civil and calm and there won't be interactions happening with uncivil and agitated folks happening. You will zig when they zag and there won't be any co-creating if the intention is clear. But usually the intention is not clear so there's a little bit of everything happening. A clear intention also means not embracing just everything that comes along. That would be going with THE flow. It means ignoring what isn't a match to the original intention so that you can go with YOUR flow. |
|
|
|
Post by Reefs on Mar 20, 2013 21:34:49 GMT -5
Rule of thumb when talking to Andrew: NEVER make fun of the terms person, personal or personhood. I think Andrew would ask why there was a need to make fun of anything. Which Andrew?  |
|
|
|
Post by topology on Mar 20, 2013 22:27:05 GMT -5
A clear intention also means not embracing just everything that comes along. That would be going with THE flow. It means ignoring what isn't a match to the original intention so that you can go with YOUR flow. Totally agree. I'm currently staying out of getting caught up in MG's mental gears.  |
|
