|
Post by topology on Apr 12, 2013 9:31:55 GMT -5
i use the 'Golden Rule' for plausible denial, "Do unto others as you would have others do unto you".. that wisdom is self-evident, so i am eager to return confrontation as what others would have 'done unto them'.. That is possibly the most twisted interpretation of The Golden Rule that I've ever heard. Total 180, on it's head, Orwellian double think. Do you write pamphlets for the Ministry of Love? It allows him to preserve the tint on his lens.
|
|
|
Post by tzujanli on Apr 12, 2013 9:58:31 GMT -5
Greetings.. i use the 'Golden Rule' for plausible denial, "Do unto others as you would have others do unto you".. that wisdom is self-evident, so i am eager to return confrontation as what others would have 'done unto them'.. That is possibly the most twisted interpretation of The Golden Rule that I've ever heard. Total 180, on it's head, Orwellian double think. Do you write pamphlets for the Ministry of Love? Context is helpful: Be well..
|
|
|
Post by enigma on Apr 12, 2013 12:02:38 GMT -5
Greetings.. That is possibly the most twisted interpretation of The Golden Rule that I've ever heard. Total 180, on it's head, Orwellian double think. Do you write pamphlets for the Ministry of Love? Context is helpful: Be well.. Context? All I see is you implausibly denying responsibility for your misinterpretation of the golden rule. Does this mean you see the error in your interpretation of this "self evident wisdom"? Maybe what you intended to say is "An eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth"?
|
|
|
Post by Peter on Apr 12, 2013 12:42:14 GMT -5
Context is often helpful....but here it's just confusing me further. So you're saying that partly for a joke and partly not-joking you invoke The Golden Rule (inverted) in order to be able to deny....deny what? Sorry, I know nothing kills humour quite like an explanation.
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Apr 12, 2013 12:59:12 GMT -5
Greetings.. Tzu', O.k. so I'm reviving this thread because I want to open a brief and targeted dialogue with you about you. Now I want to point out, that I initially acknowledged that the thread title was essentially an ad hominem attack but "You Are What You Seek" is already on page gazillion and I didn't want to start yet another Tzu-bashing venue ... so here I am. Anywhoo topo' mentioned that he'd found you to be a bit combative over at SF, and what I noticed is that you took a little break from us and when you returned it is my studied assessment that the aggression level had toned down a bit and I've even seemed to imagine a few genuine points of discussion being raised by you -- in between being chased about for allegedly putting words in your mouth and supposedly contradicting myself about clubs that is. So my question is this: do you feel that you participate here at least in part because you like a good fight? No.. i would prefer an honest open direct exploration of existence, but.. the resistance to that 'preference of mine' is often confrontational, so.. partially for the humor and partially for the actuality, i use the 'Golden Rule' for plausible denial, "Do unto others as you would have others do unto you".. that wisdom is self-evident, so i am eager to return confrontation as what others would have 'done unto them'.. Do i "like a good fight"? in this arena, i will match anyone's 'style' of sincere/fair exploration of existence, but.. demonstrate a lack of sincerity or fairness or honesty, and i will endeavor to neutralize that distraction from the exploration.. if it becomes a "good 'fair' fight", that's a valid form of exploration.. i am comfortable in any 'fight' situation, though i prefer a more civil process.. there is a quote i find that suits my understanding: "better to be a warrior in the garden, that a gardener in the war", and i prefer the garden.. Be well.. Thanks for the answer Bob. In asking myself this question I'd have to answer "yes", and I find that a great opportunity for self-reflection. Why do I find myself putting energy into apparent conflict? Part of the answer to this is that I enjoy a good laugh, and I do see the humor in alot of what you write. I can't know your subjective state so anything I say about that is just speculation on my part, and is based on a card-board cut-out of you that I've built up in my mind based on reading what you've written here. Now I want you to know that I don't feel any malice or feeling of "gotcha" at all as I'm typing this, I'm just being completely open and honest with you. What I sense is a sort of joy and fun in the back-and-forth, in the debate, in butting heads with others on here on your part. Earnest made open mention of it when he reflected on his conversation with M-G ... that little thrill of self-righteousness that one gets in pointing out to the other just how wrong they are. The thing about the people I've encountered on this forum is a singular blend of two qualities that are on the opposite side of a spectrum: on one hand, they are very very open and vulnerable, and on the other hand, they are (or at least, can be) very very honest and often blunt. To cast my speculation about you in this light, it seems to me that you are quite heavy on the latter and quite light on the former.
|
|
|
Post by topology on Apr 12, 2013 13:11:21 GMT -5
Greetings.. No.. i would prefer an honest open direct exploration of existence, but.. the resistance to that 'preference of mine' is often confrontational, so.. partially for the humor and partially for the actuality, i use the 'Golden Rule' for plausible denial, "Do unto others as you would have others do unto you".. that wisdom is self-evident, so i am eager to return confrontation as what others would have 'done unto them'.. Do i "like a good fight"? in this arena, i will match anyone's 'style' of sincere/fair exploration of existence, but.. demonstrate a lack of sincerity or fairness or honesty, and i will endeavor to neutralize that distraction from the exploration.. if it becomes a "good 'fair' fight", that's a valid form of exploration.. i am comfortable in any 'fight' situation, though i prefer a more civil process.. there is a quote i find that suits my understanding: "better to be a warrior in the garden, that a gardener in the war", and i prefer the garden.. Be well.. Thanks for the answer Bob. In asking myself this question I'd have to answer "yes", and I find that a great opportunity for self-reflection. Why do I find myself putting energy into apparent conflict? Part of the answer to this is that I enjoy a good laugh, and I do see the humor in alot of what you write. I can't know your subjective state so anything I say about that is just speculation on my part, and is based on a card-board cut-out of you that I've built up in my mind based on reading what you've written here. Now I want you to know that I don't feel any malice or feeling of "gotcha" at all as I'm typing this, I'm just being completely open and honest with you. What I sense is a sort of joy and fun in the back-and-forth, in the debate, in butting heads with others on here on your part. Earnest made open mention of it when he reflected on his conversation with M-G ... that little thrill of self-righteousness that one gets in pointing out to the other just how wrong they are. The thing about the people I've encountered on this forum is a singular blend of two qualities that are on the opposite side of a spectrum: on one hand, they are very very open and vulnerable, and on the other hand, they are (or at least, can be) very very honest and often blunt. To cast my speculation about you in this light, it seems to me that you are quite heavy on the latter and quite light on the former.That would be his inversion of the Golden Rule. He's giving to "the club" what he thinks "the club" is giving to others. The problem is that he's assuming to know what "the club" is giving. This is where his lens is tinted.
|
|
|
Post by silence on Apr 12, 2013 17:10:39 GMT -5
i use the 'Golden Rule' for plausible denial, "Do unto others as you would have others do unto you".. that wisdom is self-evident, so i am eager to return confrontation as what others would have 'done unto them'.. That is possibly the most twisted interpretation of The Golden Rule that I've ever heard. Total 180, on it's head, Orwellian double think. Do you write pamphlets for the Ministry of Love? Yes, it's pretty wacky to say the least. Nor is that rule he's operating by even always an excuse even by his standards. One particular example would be showing up in the Niz thread saying people are engaged in a circle jerk.
|
|
|
Post by enigma on Apr 12, 2013 18:18:05 GMT -5
Thanks for the answer Bob. In asking myself this question I'd have to answer "yes", and I find that a great opportunity for self-reflection. Why do I find myself putting energy into apparent conflict? Part of the answer to this is that I enjoy a good laugh, and I do see the humor in alot of what you write. I can't know your subjective state so anything I say about that is just speculation on my part, and is based on a card-board cut-out of you that I've built up in my mind based on reading what you've written here. Now I want you to know that I don't feel any malice or feeling of "gotcha" at all as I'm typing this, I'm just being completely open and honest with you. What I sense is a sort of joy and fun in the back-and-forth, in the debate, in butting heads with others on here on your part. Earnest made open mention of it when he reflected on his conversation with M-G ... that little thrill of self-righteousness that one gets in pointing out to the other just how wrong they are. The thing about the people I've encountered on this forum is a singular blend of two qualities that are on the opposite side of a spectrum: on one hand, they are very very open and vulnerable, and on the other hand, they are (or at least, can be) very very honest and often blunt. To cast my speculation about you in this light, it seems to me that you are quite heavy on the latter and quite light on the former.That would be his inversion of the Golden Rule. He's giving to "the club" what he thinks "the club" is giving to others. The problem is that he's assuming to know what "the club" is giving. This is where his lens is tinted. Yes, that's where it all falls apart. Seems to me almost everybody is trying to be honest and sincere and helpful, but none of that means anything if one is not really seeing what's going on.
|
|
|
Post by tzujanli on Apr 12, 2013 19:16:15 GMT -5
Greetings.. That would be his inversion of the Golden Rule. He's giving to "the club" what he thinks "the club" is giving to others. The problem is that he's assuming to know what "the club" is giving. This is where his lens is tinted. Yes, that's where it all falls apart. Seems to me almost everybody is trying to be honest and sincere and helpful, but none of that means anything if one is not really seeing what's going on. Precisely.. may i suggest that you use that awareness when you look inward? you seem to think you know what everyone else's intentions are, yet you seem oblivious to your own.. But, no.. i am not "assuming to know what "the club" is giving", i am observing what in the blazes is actually going on.. the 'club' is assuming its style of beliefs has useful results, or they just enjoy a forum that tolerates their rationalizations for bullying.. and, considering recent events, i am more inclined to see the 'club' as more of 'gang' than a club.. Be well..
|
|
|
Post by tzujanli on Apr 12, 2013 19:25:58 GMT -5
Greetings.. Greetings.. No.. i would prefer an honest open direct exploration of existence, but.. the resistance to that 'preference of mine' is often confrontational, so.. partially for the humor and partially for the actuality, i use the 'Golden Rule' for plausible denial, "Do unto others as you would have others do unto you".. that wisdom is self-evident, so i am eager to return confrontation as what others would have 'done unto them'.. Do i "like a good fight"? in this arena, i will match anyone's 'style' of sincere/fair exploration of existence, but.. demonstrate a lack of sincerity or fairness or honesty, and i will endeavor to neutralize that distraction from the exploration.. if it becomes a "good 'fair' fight", that's a valid form of exploration.. i am comfortable in any 'fight' situation, though i prefer a more civil process.. there is a quote i find that suits my understanding: "better to be a warrior in the garden, that a gardener in the war", and i prefer the garden.. Be well.. Thanks for the answer Bob. In asking myself this question I'd have to answer "yes", and I find that a great opportunity for self-reflection. Why do I find myself putting energy into apparent conflict? Part of the answer to this is that I enjoy a good laugh, and I do see the humor in alot of what you write. I can't know your subjective state so anything I say about that is just speculation on my part, and is based on a card-board cut-out of you that I've built up in my mind based on reading what you've written here. Now I want you to know that I don't feel any malice or feeling of "gotcha" at all as I'm typing this, I'm just being completely open and honest with you. What I sense is a sort of joy and fun in the back-and-forth, in the debate, in butting heads with others on here on your part. Earnest made open mention of it when he reflected on his conversation with M-G ... that little thrill of self-righteousness that one gets in pointing out to the other just how wrong they are. The thing about the people I've encountered on this forum is a singular blend of two qualities that are on the opposite side of a spectrum: on one hand, they are very very open and vulnerable, and on the other hand, they are (or at least, can be) very very honest and often blunt. To cast my speculation about you in this light, it seems to me that you are quite heavy on the latter and quite light on the former. I would very much enjoy the opportunity for the lot of us keyboard kommandos to spend an evening around the campfire, i feel certain there would be great shifts in understandings of who/what each of us represents.. Since you see me as heavy on the honest and blunt end of the spectrum, who do you see as "very very open and vulnerable"? Be well..
|
|
|
Post by topology on Apr 12, 2013 19:32:01 GMT -5
Greetings.. Yes, that's where it all falls apart. Seems to me almost everybody is trying to be honest and sincere and helpful, but none of that means anything if one is not really seeing what's going on. Precisely.. may i suggest that you use that awareness when you look inward? you seem to think you know what everyone else's intentions are, yet you seem oblivious to your own.. But, no.. i am not "assuming to know what "the club" is giving", i am observing what in the blazes is actually going on.. the 'club' is assuming its style of beliefs has useful results, or they just enjoy a forum that tolerates their rationalizations for bullying.. and, considering recent events, i am more inclined to see the 'club' as more of 'gang' than a club.. Be well.. What recent events would those be, Tzu? Let's dig into specific events and interactions, leave no stone un turned, but one event at a time with deeper consideration for what is possibly going on. Leave room for all interpretations.
|
|
|
Post by tzujanli on Apr 12, 2013 19:35:30 GMT -5
Greetings.. Context is often helpful....but here it's just confusing me further. So you're saying that partly for a joke and partly not-joking you invoke The Golden Rule (inverted) in order to be able to deny.... deny what? Sorry, I know nothing kills humour quite like an explanation. Hi Peter: That was part of the humor (from 'my' perspective), a 'twisted' reflection (Golden Rule) of the way others excuse their own ethical incompetence as 'humor'.. a reflection of the word-gaming that others employ to create the transparent illusion of their lack of complicity in dysfunctional discussions.. dang, i did it again, eh.. Be well..
|
|
|
Post by tzujanli on Apr 12, 2013 19:36:55 GMT -5
Greetings.. Greetings.. Precisely.. may i suggest that you use that awareness when you look inward? you seem to think you know what everyone else's intentions are, yet you seem oblivious to your own.. But, no.. i am not "assuming to know what "the club" is giving", i am observing what in the blazes is actually going on.. the 'club' is assuming its style of beliefs has useful results, or they just enjoy a forum that tolerates their rationalizations for bullying.. and, considering recent events, i am more inclined to see the 'club' as more of 'gang' than a club.. Be well.. What recent events would those be, Tzu? Let's dig into specific events and interactions, leave no stone un turned, but one event at a time with deeper consideration for what is possibly going on. Leave room for all interpretations. Explain your motives, please? Be well..
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Apr 12, 2013 19:41:31 GMT -5
Greetings.. Thanks for the answer Bob. In asking myself this question I'd have to answer "yes", and I find that a great opportunity for self-reflection. Why do I find myself putting energy into apparent conflict? Part of the answer to this is that I enjoy a good laugh, and I do see the humor in alot of what you write. I can't know your subjective state so anything I say about that is just speculation on my part, and is based on a card-board cut-out of you that I've built up in my mind based on reading what you've written here. Now I want you to know that I don't feel any malice or feeling of "gotcha" at all as I'm typing this, I'm just being completely open and honest with you. What I sense is a sort of joy and fun in the back-and-forth, in the debate, in butting heads with others on here on your part. Earnest made open mention of it when he reflected on his conversation with M-G ... that little thrill of self-righteousness that one gets in pointing out to the other just how wrong they are. The thing about the people I've encountered on this forum is a singular blend of two qualities that are on the opposite side of a spectrum: on one hand, they are very very open and vulnerable, and on the other hand, they are (or at least, can be) very very honest and often blunt. To cast my speculation about you in this light, it seems to me that you are quite heavy on the latter and quite light on the former. I would very much enjoy the opportunity for the lot of us keyboard kommandos to spend an evening around the campfire, i feel certain there would be great shifts in understandings of who/what each of us represents.. Since you see me as heavy on the honest and blunt end of the spectrum, who do you see as "very very open and vulnerable"? Be well.. I offered my own answer to my question to you so as not to leave you alone as the object of a chase, but my initial line of inquiry was directed at you and noone else. Generally speaking, that observation about openness, while the result of a year of participation, was inspired in part by what topo' said about his thread about "first coming" and the responses there. Perhaps you'd like to contribute to it? Here's a link.
|
|
|
Post by enigma on Apr 12, 2013 19:52:10 GMT -5
Greetings.. Yes, that's where it all falls apart. Seems to me almost everybody is trying to be honest and sincere and helpful, but none of that means anything if one is not really seeing what's going on. Precisely.. may i suggest that you use that awareness when you look inward? you seem to think you know what everyone else's intentions are, yet you seem oblivious to your own.. But, no.. i am not "assuming to know what "the club" is giving", i am observing what in the blazes is actually going on.. the 'club' is assuming its style of beliefs has useful results, or they just enjoy a forum that tolerates their rationalizations for bullying.. and, considering recent events, i am more inclined to see the 'club' as more of 'gang' than a club.. Be well.. What you're seeing are your own stories about 'what in blazes is going on' as you project everything you don't want to see in yourself, and really there's nothing anybody can do about that cept you.
|
|