|
|
Post by andrew on Mar 21, 2013 3:40:14 GMT -5
Thank you, but the forgiveness isn't necessary in this instance. Pure arrogance. I don't see you applying the Abe-Hicks approach that you just spoke of back there. |
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Mar 21, 2013 3:42:17 GMT -5
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. Ahhh, now I see your intended signal. An alternative is to accept the forgiveness even from a perspective of not judging yourself as just a simple human courtesy. |
|
|
|
Post by Reefs on Mar 21, 2013 3:43:09 GMT -5
I don't see you applying the Abe-Hicks approach that you just spoke of back there. Why should I apply that approach?  Is that the same logic as in: he talks all day about non-duality so he must be a non-dualist. But his behavior isn't very non-dual. Therefore he is deluding himself? |
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Mar 21, 2013 3:44:23 GMT -5
I'm on the floor rolling at the prospect of how many pages are gonna get generated over Andy's simple expression of gratitude.
|
|
|
|
Post by andrew on Mar 21, 2013 3:46:04 GMT -5
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. Ahhh, now I see your intended signal. An alternative is to accept the forgiveness even from a perspective of not judging yourself as just a simple human courtesy. Yes, that's an option too. My 'thank you' was a way of acknowledging that. |
|
|
|
Post by Reefs on Mar 21, 2013 3:47:36 GMT -5
I'm on the floor rolling at the prospect of how many pages are gonna get generated over Andy's simple expression of gratitude. Nothing is simple with the Andrews. There are layers and layers of motivations hidden deep beneath his login. |
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Mar 21, 2013 3:47:45 GMT -5
Ahhh, now I see your intended signal. An alternative is to accept the forgiveness even from a perspective of not judging yourself as just a simple human courtesy. Yes, that's an option too. My 'thank you' was a way of acknowledging that. Yes, the distinction between starting with the expression of gratitude and not is quite stark -- not making fun here. |
|
|
|
Post by andrew on Mar 21, 2013 3:48:30 GMT -5
I don't see you applying the Abe-Hicks approach that you just spoke of back there. Why should I apply that approach? Is that the same logic as in: he talks all day about non-duality so he must be a non-dualist. But his behavior isn't very non-dual. Therefore he is deluding himself? My logic was that your sharing of the Abe-Hicks approach is an indication that you apply it. If not, that's fine, but it also doesn't apply to me in all contexts. |
|
|
|
Post by andrew on Mar 21, 2013 3:49:28 GMT -5
Yes, that's an option too. My 'thank you' was a way of acknowledging that. Yes, the distinction between starting with the expression of gratitude and not is quite stark -- not making fun here. Yes, I feel there would have a been a difference in the energy of the message with/without |
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Mar 21, 2013 3:49:34 GMT -5
I'm on the floor rolling at the prospect of how many pages are gonna get generated over Andy's simple expression of gratitude. Nothing is simple with the Andrews. There are layers and layers of motivations hidden deep beneath his login. In a subtle way I'm inclined to agree with you but you seem to ignore the one Andrew in your observation so I'm gonna have to stay on the fence. I appologize for the incomplete enumeration. |
|
|
|
Post by Reefs on Mar 21, 2013 3:52:59 GMT -5
Nothing is simple with the Andrews. There are layers and layers of motivations hidden deep beneath his login. In a subtle way I'm inclined to agree with you but you seem to ignore the one Andrew in your observation so I'm gonna have to stay on the fence. I appologize for the incomplete enumeration. Apology accepted. |
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Mar 21, 2013 4:41:09 GMT -5
Yes, the distinction between starting with the expression of gratitude and not is quite stark -- not making fun here. Yes, I feel there would have a been a difference in the energy of the message with/without  reply at your peril alien! |
|
|
|
Post by andrew on Mar 21, 2013 4:43:12 GMT -5
Yes, I feel there would have a been a difference in the energy of the message with/without reply at your peril alien!  |
|
|
|
Post by topology on Mar 21, 2013 7:09:02 GMT -5
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? I've posted before about my views on trauma and resiliency. As long as trauma stays within the range of what a person is capable of being resilient to then I don't step in. If I feel like trauma is pushing past the point of resiliency then I may step in. When you are asking about love in action, you are focusing on the personal perspective, and no mocking is not a loving action of the person. I am trying to rebalance the focus and bring in the perspective of impersonal love. Have I ever challenged E? In the Bad Poetry Thread I did step in when I felt like the interaction with Silver was pushing past the point of resiliency. I was responded to with the accusation of being a knight In shining armor, rescuing a damsel in distress. |
|
|
|
Post by andrew on Mar 21, 2013 7:38:30 GMT -5
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? I've posted before about my views on trauma and resiliency. As long as trauma stays within the range of what a person is capable of being resilient to then I don't step in. If I feel like trauma is pushing past the point of resiliency then I may step in. When you are asking about love in action, you are focusing on the personal perspective, and no mocking is not a loving action of the person. I am trying to rebalance the focus and bring in the perspective of impersonal love. Have I ever challenged E? In the Bad Poetry Thread I did step in when I felt like the interaction with Silver was pushing past the point of resiliency. I was responded to with the accusation of being a knight In shining armor, rescuing a damsel in distress. I'm struggling to put together the pieces of your frame of reference here....you say that mocking is not a loving action of the person....and then you bring 'impersonal love' into it and I don't understand why. If we really must make a distinction between personal love and impersonal love, I would say that ALL behaviour is loving from the impersonal perspective, which really makes it irrelevant to this discussion, because the question here is, in the context of behaviour being loving or not, is mocking loving? I would say there MAY be a rare context in which it could be said that mockery is loving, but these contexts are few and far between. I don't think teachers of peace tend to mock. I don't remember B.P thread that well, but I do recall you challenging Reefs. Not so much E. I understand the decision to not step in unless you discern that it is crossing a personal line for the person being mocked, but what I don't get is why you are more likely to tell someone being mocked to take responsibility for a sting, than you are to tell the mocker to take responsibility for their stinging. In ACIM, they talk about obnoxious behaviour being a call for love. Would you say that mocking is a bit obnoxious? How do you respond to that call? Out of interest, does ACIM distinguish between impersonal love and personal love? I don't recall that it does particularly but I might be wrong. |
|
