|
|
Post by topology on Mar 21, 2013 10:02:55 GMT -5
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. 68 Love Holds No Grievances. Lessons 67 - 77 have the theme of 1) You ARE Love 2) You have a choice between holding onto grievances or opening up to miracles. The distinction that the course makes is about what you focus on. The ego focuses on grievances, Love focuses on miracles, which is a fancy term for simply being present and non-judgmental which affords to opportunity for healing misperception. Being concerned with where another person is coming from, whether it is love or not love, is a focus on grievances. When you are Love in action, there is no grievance, but a facilitating of transformation of perception. You seem to be hung up on a grievance, Andrew. I agree with Reefs, that it is all about what your attention get's absorbed in. |
|
|
|
Post by andrew on Mar 21, 2013 10:18:32 GMT -5
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. 68 Love Holds No Grievances. Lessons 67 - 77 have the theme of 1) You ARE Love 2) You have a choice between holding onto grievances or opening up to miracles. The distinction that the course makes is about what you focus on. The ego focuses on grievances, Love focuses on miracles, which is a fancy term for simply being present and non-judgmental which affords to opportunity for healing misperception. Being concerned with where another person is coming from, whether it is love or not love, is a focus on grievances. When you are Love in action, there is no grievance, but a facilitating of transformation of perception. You seem to be hung up on a grievance, Andrew. I agree with Reefs, that it is all about what your attention get's absorbed in. Grievance is quite a strong word....I don't feel it represents my own situation, I think that if there was a grievance there would probably be more lashing out then there is, and I could argue that I am involved in 'facilitating of transformation of perception'. Given this is an online community, I place equal value on taking responsibility for the stings we experience as I do for causing them in others. What I see you doing is encouraging people to take responsibility for stings they experience, but I don't see you encouraging people to take responsibility for causing them in others. I am still not clear what your response to the obnoxious nature of mocking is exactly....? To not challenge the mocking but to help those that are mocked to see the miracle of the mocking? |
|
|
|
Post by enigma on Mar 21, 2013 13:43:41 GMT -5
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. You mean like the 'Bee well' bee?  |
|
|
|
Post by enigma on Mar 21, 2013 13:47:04 GMT -5
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. The condescension and rudeness is your giraffe. Take responsibility for it. |
|
|
|
Post by enigma on Mar 21, 2013 13:56:54 GMT -5
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? It's not an interesting issue at all. It's kinda like the hyper-personing version of hyper-minding. I know why Reefs just says he doesn't play identity poker, though I don't expect you to understand. I've been playing along as best I can and I think it's playing right into your personal agenda. In the larger sense, this whole forum is obsessed with playing identity poker, and it doesn't feel like it serves to dispel that illusion by continually responding to questions about my personal motivations and my personal behavior and how I personally know when I'm personally there and personally not. So, I'm going back to enigmatic mode and you're free to conclude whatever you like about this person from your personal perspective. |
|
|
|
Post by andrew on Mar 21, 2013 13:59:17 GMT -5
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? It's not an interesting issue at all. It's kinda like the hyper-personing version of hyper-minding. I know why Reefs just says he doesn't play identity poker, though I don't expect you to understand. I've been playing along as best I can and I think it's playing right into your personal agenda. In the larger sense, this whole forum is obsessed with playing identity poker, and it doesn't feel like it serves to dispel that illusion by continually responding to questions about my personal motivations and my personal behavior and how I personally know when I'm personally there and personally not. So, I'm going back to enigmatic mode and you're free to conclude whatever you like about this person from your personal perspective. This is an interesting issue, far more interesting than whether you were a bit rude or whether I was projecting. Stop being enigmatic and answer the questions please. |
|
|
|
Post by enigma on Mar 21, 2013 13:59:28 GMT -5
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. So we're not like the great teachers of the past? Eeeexcellent.  |
|
|
|
Post by enigma on Mar 21, 2013 14:09:05 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? Or like: He talks about nonduality on a forum but he doesn't look, smell, act, talk like the great teachers of nonduality, therefore he is deluding himself. |
|
|
|
Post by silence on Mar 21, 2013 14:11:38 GMT -5
Grievance is quite a strong word....I don't feel it represents my own situation, I've seen this again and again with you. You seem to be some sort of word chef crafting the perfect word combination. Every word has all sorts of deep meaning and feeling states you associate with it. This also seems to be the root of why you take everything so seriously. Words don't seem to be symbols for you. They seem to take on a reality of their own where you endlessly challenge word combinations rather than acknowledge what they're representing. |
|
|
|
Post by silence on Mar 21, 2013 14:13:29 GMT -5
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. So we're not like the great teachers of the past? Eeeexcellent. Didn't you hear? Spirituality is about emulation.  |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 21, 2013 14:40:21 GMT -5
Grievance is quite a strong word....I don't feel it represents my own situation, I've seen this again and again with you. You seem to be some sort of word chef crafting the perfect word combination. Every word has all sorts of deep meaning and feeling states you associate with it. This also seems to be the root of why you take everything so seriously. Words don't seem to be symbols for you. They seem to take on a reality of their own where you endlessly challenge word combinations rather than acknowledge what they're representing. Yeah. What I keep seeing is that he never brings in words that are from his own being, or his own presence. He eats from the internet constantly and regurgitates the words to find the desired reality that you're describing. He will try to say that it's about relating, though it isn't. His intelligence is trying to make the words that he finds, somehow unique. Though only the words that he births, will have the depth that will truly nourish him. |
|
|
|
Post by enigma on Mar 21, 2013 14:45:00 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. There's so much talk about style and proper behavior and motivations here that we're about to turn the forum into a full time self help group and I'm not interested in that. I'm becoming less inclined to work with the self help folks (What the personal perspective peeps call rude, arrogant, condescending low behavior) and talk about nonduality for a change, assuming anybody's interested. |
|
|
|
Post by enigma on Mar 21, 2013 15:00:39 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. Yes, I would like to see that happen as well. The focus on personal love has so many conditions attached for proper authentication, all of which are subjective, that we find ourselves simply arguing about proper, moral behavior again, which has nothing to do with Love. I made the mistake of appealing to impersonal Love in my attempt to explain the absence of personal motivation, and the reverberations from that still haven't died down. |
|
|
|
Post by enigma on Mar 21, 2013 15:23:45 GMT -5
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? If all behavior is ultimately loving, who cares? I would not say all behavior is ultimately loving, which seems to be a confusion of contexts. Love moves in it's own name and isn't interested in your personal qualifiers. It's neither loving nor not loving. One way to observe 'Love in action' is to watch nature because for the most part, personal motivations are absent in all but the human. You would interpret what you see as kind and cruel, beautiful and ugly, gentle and violent, because you will look through your personal filters of what you like and what you fear. Impersonal Love doesn't appeal to your personal wants, but it does acknowledge your needs in the context of wholeness. It will offer endless opportunities for self recognition, not because it is personally motivated to get you to recognize Love, but simply because it IS Love being, and it has not deferred to your personal whims. To the extent that you value your personal ideas about what love should be over Love itself, it's most likely going to hurt. In this case, Love is not trying to hurt you, it is simply being what it is because it cannot be otherwise. Some would call this 'arguing with reality'. |
|
|
|
Post by enigma on Mar 21, 2013 15:30:58 GMT -5
It's not an interesting issue at all. It's kinda like the hyper-personing version of hyper-minding. I know why Reefs just says he doesn't play identity poker, though I don't expect you to understand. I've been playing along as best I can and I think it's playing right into your personal agenda. In the larger sense, this whole forum is obsessed with playing identity poker, and it doesn't feel like it serves to dispel that illusion by continually responding to questions about my personal motivations and my personal behavior and how I personally know when I'm personally there and personally not. So, I'm going back to enigmatic mode and you're free to conclude whatever you like about this person from your personal perspective. This is an interesting issue, far more interesting than whether you were a bit rude or whether I was projecting. Stop being enigmatic and answer the questions please. Same hammer, different nail. |
|
