|
|
Post by Reefs on Mar 22, 2013 3:26:12 GMT -5
That's where they got all serious. The Andrews are missing a certain lightheartedness as their endless bellyaching about perceived mocking shows. Actually mocking isn't really negative or intended to give some kind of 'sting'. And it's also far from obnoxious. The actual obnoxious sting is the passive aggressiveness of the moralists around here with their long long lists of 'how to behave spiritually correct' and their attempts to fix the outlaws. Teasing is appropriate in situations where discussions are going full circle in a broken record style and where those involved already started digging trenches. As soon as the excavation teams start their noble work, all logic and common sense is usually gone. Obnoxious moralistic finger-pointing is the POV from inside the trenches and will only increase the stuckness. Teasing is the POV from above the battlefield, the birds eye perspective so to speak. The teaser is the lighthearted one, the one that is already detached from the situation. The obnoxious moralist is the deadly serious one, the one that is still attached to the situation. ''Mocking isn't negative or intended to give some kind of 'sting'. And its also far from obnoxious'' How's your forum going Reefs? Last time I looked, there were more people leaving than coming. I have a feeling that you are a forum clearer. I have a forum? I don't even have a website.  |
|
|
|
Post by andrew on Mar 22, 2013 3:38:40 GMT -5
''Mocking isn't negative or intended to give some kind of 'sting'. And its also far from obnoxious'' How's your forum going Reefs? Last time I looked, there were more people leaving than coming. I have a feeling that you are a forum clearer. I have a forum? I don't even have a website. The one you had a hand in setting up. The one under E's name. |
|
|
|
Post by Reefs on Mar 22, 2013 4:01:24 GMT -5
I have a forum? I don't even have a website. The one you had a hand in setting up. The one under E's name. And? |
|
|
|
Post by enigma on Mar 22, 2013 9:40:40 GMT -5
What?? No personal motivations at all?? How is that possible?? He must have been avoiding or sumthin. He did the 'consciousness talking to consciousness' cop out. Basically he attached himself to a 'prior to everything' position. Which might be true in one context but not the ultimate truth. Hard to shake those guys out of their stuckness. He has transcended the personal and got stuck in the impersonal. Basically he was only swapping beliefs. Given his particular path and the dangers that come with that path, playing identity poker now and then would have been useful. He was even so deluded that he couldn't see his attachment to cheap cigarettes. He called it 'a habit of the body'. Haha! Yeah, right. The body cop out.  I can't help but think his behavior wouldn't have been so low if his teacher had been Bashar the magnificent. Tsk, tsk.  |
|
|
|
Post by topology on Mar 22, 2013 9:40:41 GMT -5
That's where they got all serious. The Andrews are missing a certain lightheartedness as their endless bellyaching about perceived mocking shows. Actually mocking isn't really negative or intended to give some kind of 'sting'. And it's also far from obnoxious. The actual obnoxious sting is the passive aggressiveness of the moralists around here with their long long lists of 'how to behave spiritually correct' and their attempts to fix the outlaws. Teasing is appropriate in situations where discussions are going full circle in a broken record style and where those involved already started digging trenches. As soon as the excavation teams start their noble work, all logic and common sense is usually gone. Obnoxious moralistic finger-pointing is the POV from inside the trenches and will only increase the stuckness. Teasing is the POV from above the battlefield, the birds eye perspective so to speak. The teaser is the lighthearted one, the one that is already detached from the situation. The obnoxious moralist is the deadly serious one, the one that is still attached to the situation. ''Mocking isn't negative or intended to give some kind of 'sting'. And its also far from obnoxious'' How's your forum going Reefs? Last time I looked, there were more people leaving than coming. I have a feeling that you are a forum clearer. Andrew, your response looks like someone who perceives themselves to be attacked and is lashing back out looking for weakness in his opponent. |
|
|
|
Post by andrew on Mar 22, 2013 9:44:35 GMT -5
''Mocking isn't negative or intended to give some kind of 'sting'. And its also far from obnoxious'' How's your forum going Reefs? Last time I looked, there were more people leaving than coming. I have a feeling that you are a forum clearer. Andrew, your response looks like someone who perceives themselves to be attacked and is lashing back out looking for weakness in his opponent. I sat with the response for about a minute before I posted, and also considered different kinds of responses. It wasn't lashing out, it was quite carefully considered. I discerned that it was reasonable to put in a boundary of sorts. I think it worked. Now, what is your motivation for challenging me on this? Can we establish first of all if you consider Reefs to have conducted himself in a way that reflects the absence of 'the person' in the last page or two? Do you consider Reefs to have been facilitating peace in the last 2 pages, or facilitating discord? |
|
|
|
Post by enigma on Mar 22, 2013 9:46:30 GMT -5
Sounds like what we need is a crusade to encourage more mocking and put a stop to this awful obnoxious moralism. I wouldn't say that we 'need' it. But it could be useful. It's a strange game this moralists game, ye know. The only winning move is .... Yup, I'm cashing in my identity poker chips.  |
|
|
|
Post by topology on Mar 22, 2013 9:51:26 GMT -5
Grievances: Think of it as a scale between no-grievance (0) and full on blaming and seeking revenge (100). You're at a non-zero value on the scale. Your focus is on a grievance of some kind. facilitating transformation of perception: It is always about the transformation of your own perception, never about trying to change anyone else's perception. Is your perception transforming or are you trying to get someone else's perception to transform? Your perception is faulty. I've confronted people for what I perceived to be their stinging. You've got selective memory. I told you, unless I feel like resiliency is at risk I stay out of other people's interpersonal problems. I will also step in if I feel like I can clarify miscommunication or have something to add. So your response to the obnoxious nature of mocking is to stay clear of it unless a) there is a resilience issue, b) you want to clarify miscommunication, or c) 'have something to add'? I guess c) is the interesting one, because aside from that it doesn't sound like you respond to the obnoxious nature of mocking (though you do challenge those that have been stung by the mocking to take responsibility for the sting). I don't recall you directly challenging E on mocking, though I admit I not be remembering, and by directly challenging, I mean personally addressing him on the subject. Between E and R, I find R's caustic nature to be more mocking, exhibiting a lack of care for the person. What I experience from E is actually a great amount of care. The reason I focus more on the person who feels stung, it is that perception of "I am weak and woundable, and you wounded me" that needs healing. I am talking on another thread and my grievance rating is 0. On this thread, if 0 is no grievance and 100 is strong grievance, I would put myself on a 10. Are you on a 0? It doesn't sound like it to me, but that might be my '10' talking. On this thread? right now with you, I have 0 grievance. I would say that my perception is transforming but there is also a level of motivation in facilitating transformation in another's perspective. there is a difference between being open to facilitation of another's growth and going out of your way to push them through changes you think they need to make. In the former there is also a letting go of how you think other people should change for an acceptance of how they are changing. |
|
|
|
Post by silver on Mar 22, 2013 9:54:22 GMT -5
''Mocking isn't negative or intended to give some kind of 'sting'. And its also far from obnoxious'' How's your forum going Reefs? Last time I looked, there were more people leaving than coming. I have a feeling that you are a forum clearer. Andrew, your response looks like someone who perceives themselves to be attacked and is lashing back out looking for weakness in his opponent. If this is true, then there's no difference in either's behavior - same same. I'm startled by your choosing sides, Top. That's what I see, anyway - I could be wrong...not like the Top I once knew. |
|
|
|
Post by andrew on Mar 22, 2013 9:55:56 GMT -5
So your response to the obnoxious nature of mocking is to stay clear of it unless a) there is a resilience issue, b) you want to clarify miscommunication, or c) 'have something to add'? I guess c) is the interesting one, because aside from that it doesn't sound like you respond to the obnoxious nature of mocking (though you do challenge those that have been stung by the mocking to take responsibility for the sting). I don't recall you directly challenging E on mocking, though I admit I not be remembering, and by directly challenging, I mean personally addressing him on the subject. Between E and R, I find R's caustic nature to be more mocking, exhibiting a lack of care for the person. What I experience from E is actually a great amount of care. The reason I focus more on the person who feels stung, it is that perception of "I am weak and woundable, and you wounded me" that needs healing. I am talking on another thread and my grievance rating is 0. On this thread, if 0 is no grievance and 100 is strong grievance, I would put myself on a 10. Are you on a 0? It doesn't sound like it to me, but that might be my '10' talking. On this thread? right now with you, I have 0 grievance. I would say that my perception is transforming but there is also a level of motivation in facilitating transformation in another's perspective. there is a difference between being open to facilitation of another's growth and going out of your way to push them through changes you think they need to make. In the former there is also a letting go of how you think other people should change for an acceptance of how they are changing. You think every little sting should be addressed by going within? Personally, I don't think every little thing is worth addressing and 'healing'. But then I probably have slightly different priorities and values to you. Personally I think there is a time and a place to go within and a time and a place to challenge the mocking. So you haven't directly (personally) challenged E on his mocking? |
|
|
|
Post by enigma on Mar 22, 2013 9:57:46 GMT -5
Andrew, your response looks like someone who perceives themselves to be attacked and is lashing back out looking for weakness in his opponent. I sat with the response for about a minute before I posted, and also considered different kinds of responses. It wasn't lashing out, it was quite carefully considered. I discerned that it was reasonable to put in a boundary of sorts. I think it worked. So you figgr you put him in his place with that one?  Facilitating peace might not have been his hidden motivation. Is it yours? |
|
|
|
Post by andrew on Mar 22, 2013 9:58:21 GMT -5
Andrew, your response looks like someone who perceives themselves to be attacked and is lashing back out looking for weakness in his opponent. If this is true, then there's no difference in either's behavior - same same. I'm startled by your choosing sides, Top. That's what I see, anyway - I could be wrong...not like the Top I once knew. Yes, I found his choice there quite interesting. |
|
|
|
Post by silver on Mar 22, 2013 9:58:54 GMT -5
The reason I focus more on the person who feels stung, it is that perception of "I am weak and woundable, and you wounded me" that needs healing. I guess all those commercials trying to make people aware of verbal/mental/emotional abuse was empty and meaningless. |
|
|
|
Post by silver on Mar 22, 2013 10:00:59 GMT -5
I sat with the response for about a minute before I posted, and also considered different kinds of responses. It wasn't lashing out, it was quite carefully considered. I discerned that it was reasonable to put in a boundary of sorts. I think it worked. So you figgr you put him in his place with that one? Now, what is your motivation for challenging me on this? Can we establish first of all if you consider Reefs to have conducted himself in a way that reflects the absence of 'the person' in the last page or two? Do you consider Reefs to have been facilitating peace in the last 2 pages, or facilitating discord? Facilitating peace might not have been his hidden motivation. Is it yours? I don't think Andrew is 'into' putting peeps in their place - I haven't seen that, anyway... my 2 pesos |
|
|
|
Post by andrew on Mar 22, 2013 10:02:21 GMT -5
I sat with the response for about a minute before I posted, and also considered different kinds of responses. It wasn't lashing out, it was quite carefully considered. I discerned that it was reasonable to put in a boundary of sorts. I think it worked. So you figgr you put him in his place with that one? Now, what is your motivation for challenging me on this? Can we establish first of all if you consider Reefs to have conducted himself in a way that reflects the absence of 'the person' in the last page or two? Do you consider Reefs to have been facilitating peace in the last 2 pages, or facilitating discord? Facilitating peace might not have been his hidden motivation. Is it yours? I figured he might back off a bit, yes, even if just for a while, but 'putting him in his place' is not correct. I would say that facilitating peace is the primary interest and focus when limiting beliefs are not ruling the roost. Was I facilitating peace with my comment? I would actually say, in that instance, yes. |
|
