|
|
Post by enigma on Mar 20, 2013 23:02:03 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. It's passive aggressiveness. Yeah, he started out his day with aggression and I never figured out what his issue was. I'm sure he'll be fine after a good night's rest.  |
|
|
|
Post by enigma on Mar 20, 2013 23:03:56 GMT -5
Awww. How sweet.  What can I say, I'm just a lovable teddy bear. |
|
|
|
Post by someNOTHING! on Mar 20, 2013 23:29:15 GMT -5
I think Andrew would ask why there was a need to make fun of anything. Which Andrew?  Like And-And-And-And-And-Andolo...er.drew? Yeah, I could see that. I tried to talk to the hydra, but they were all taking it personally and willfully multiplying with each word. Like your avatar pic. Great Blue Hole, Belize! |
|
|
|
Post by Reefs on Mar 21, 2013 1:10:54 GMT -5
Which Andrew? Like And-And-And-And-And-Andolo...er.drew? Yeah, I could see that. I tried to talk to the hydra, but they were all taking it personally and willfully multiplying with each word. Like your avatar pic. Great Blue Hole, Belize! It's not a hole, it's a full circle! |
|
|
|
Post by andrew on Mar 21, 2013 3:10:04 GMT -5
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.  Im pretty sure I already addressed this, but just because I take responsibility for the responses I get, doesn't meant that I won't call someone out or put in a boundary. |
|
|
|
Post by andrew on Mar 21, 2013 3:13:14 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. It's passive aggressiveness. This is about responsibility and accountability. The wider issue is how we are with each other in this community. One of the points I am making is that its all very well to be taking responsibility for the 'stings' but if there is no responsibility being taken for causing 'stings' in others, then the point of spirituality itself has been missed. |
|
|
|
Post by andrew on Mar 21, 2013 3:15:28 GMT -5
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. So it seems you knew that I had accounted for the contradiction, but didn't want to ask about it, and so settled for a wee bit of condescension. |
|
|
|
Post by andrew on Mar 21, 2013 3:18:50 GMT -5
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? No, I'm thinking that there must be some awareness or knowing that the person isn't absent and that you address that. This is actually a very interesting issue. What makes you think that the person isn't absent? Would you say the person was absent when you reported those posts? Is the person absent when you mock people? How do you know? What is the difference you notice when the person is absent and when the person is not absent? Furthermore, what action do you take in order to absentee the person when the awareness is there that the person is present? |
|
|
|
Post by andrew on Mar 21, 2013 3:21:18 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. For me, it all boils down to intent and context. But let me put it this way, I don't imagine the great teachers of the past making fun of people as such. |
|
|
|
Post by andrew on Mar 21, 2013 3:25:49 GMT -5
In my perception, since this will help answer Andrews question to me. Not Mocking: Mocking: Not Mocking: 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. Taking full responsibility is actually more Ho'oponopono than Abe-Hicks. I resonate with the Abe-Hicks teachings but I don't buy into it lock, stock and barrel, and in my opinion, there is a time and a place to challenge people on their behaviour. |
|
|
|
Post by andrew on Mar 21, 2013 3:26:48 GMT -5
Okay. In that case, I'm sorry. I forgive you. Thank you, but the forgiveness isn't necessary in this instance. |
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Mar 21, 2013 3:32:57 GMT -5
Thank you, but the forgiveness isn't necessary in this instance. that could be interpreted as a rescission of your apology ... as it is the reader that makes meaning I suspect a Reefs-like empiricism on your part Andy |
|
|
|
Post by Reefs on Mar 21, 2013 3:36:30 GMT -5
Thank you, but the forgiveness isn't necessary in this instance. Pure arrogance. |
|
|
|
Post by andrew on Mar 21, 2013 3:37:48 GMT -5
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. You are not in a position to discern whether the mocking you see is love in action or not? Where do you draw the line i.e. at what point do you question someone on their behaviour? I've seen E mock a lot of people and it seems that you do see mocking too. Have you actually challenged him on this? |
|
|
|
Post by andrew on Mar 21, 2013 3:39:15 GMT -5
Thank you, but the forgiveness isn't necessary in this instance. that could be interpreted as a rescission of your apology ... as it is the reader that makes meaning I suspect a Reefs-like empiricism on your part Andy The forgiveness wasn't necessary in this instance because I'm not judging myself right now. To accept the forgiveness, I would actually have to step into a position of judging myself. |
|
