|
Post by Reefs on Apr 12, 2013 23:21:07 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.. Dear Dude/Dudette, That sounds like Tath 2.0 Sincerely, The Great Blue Hole Of Belize
|
|
|
Post by Reefs on Apr 12, 2013 23:22:24 GMT -5
Greetings.. 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"? Dear Dude/Dudette, wikipedia: Sincerely, The Great Blue Hole Of Belize
|
|
|
Post by tzujanli on Apr 12, 2013 23:40:20 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 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. I am accustomed to your predictable replies, Phil.. what i'm seeing is the you that is attached to your superior self-image, the one you deny.. Be well..
|
|
|
Post by topology on Apr 12, 2013 23:56:06 GMT -5
Greetings.. 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.. I am hoping that by genuinely discussing individual interactions from a place of openness that we can set aside combativeness and get some understanding about what is going on. Here is the model I would like to approach our discussion through. Each of us has our own ontology. Meaning we have a limited number of buckets in our mind with labels. When we look at a situation our mind tries to categorize it and fit the situation into one of these buckets. Each person may focus on a different aspect of the interaction which results in mismatched bucket-labeling, not even taking into account the difference in ontology. What I would like us to do is look very closely at this process. Pick an interaction, a situation, and we can all (or whoever wants to participate) say what we see and explain why we see it that way. What are the buckets we have through which we are viewing the interaction, what aspects are we fixating on, why are we fixating on those aspects and not others. If two people can do this with each other it reveals the differing mental processes that are active and it makes room for mutual understanding. No one is wrong per se, no need to fight over who has the right perception, but just look at how perception works in different people. I think this suggestion is in alignment with everyone's stated intent. If we approach it as equals with the openness to hear the other person's perspective, then we might actually understand each other. It doesn't mean we have to accept another person's perception as our own. We're just too busy talking past each other to effectively communicate. I'm proposing a change in the way we are interacting as I think it will be enlightening to learn how the other person's mind operates.
|
|
|
Post by enigma on Apr 13, 2013 0:30:19 GMT -5
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"? Dear Dude/Dudette, wikipedia: Sincerely, The Great Blue Hole Of Belize youtu.be/5OQ0MOBqdGQ?t=2m31s
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 13, 2013 2:41:27 GMT -5
.. what i'm seeing is the you that is attached to your superior self-image, the one you deny.. You have written that being " Reshaped into a clearer mirror" is in your mind. A safer exploration of this privilege, isn't possible anywhere else.
|
|
|
Post by tzujanli on Apr 13, 2013 6:07:39 GMT -5
Greetings.. .. what i'm seeing is the you that is attached to your superior self-image, the one you deny.. You have written that being " Reshaped into a clearer mirror" is in your mind. A safer exploration of this privilege, isn't possible anywhere else. Hi Wren: I'm not quite following your point, could you explain further, please? Be well..
|
|
|
Post by tzujanli on Apr 13, 2013 6:21:46 GMT -5
Greetings.. Greetings.. Explain your motives, please? Be well.. I am hoping that by genuinely discussing individual interactions from a place of openness that we can set aside combativeness and get some understanding about what is going on. Here is the model I would like to approach our discussion through. Each of us has our own ontology. Meaning we have a limited number of buckets in our mind with labels. When we look at a situation our mind tries to categorize it and fit the situation into one of these buckets. Each person may focus on a different aspect of the interaction which results in mismatched bucket-labeling, not even taking into account the difference in ontology. What I would like us to do is look very closely at this process. Pick an interaction, a situation, and we can all (or whoever wants to participate) say what we see and explain why we see it that way. What are the buckets we have through which we are viewing the interaction, what aspects are we fixating on, why are we fixating on those aspects and not others. If two people can do this with each other it reveals the differing mental processes that are active and it makes room for mutual understanding. No one is wrong per se, no need to fight over who has the right perception, but just look at how perception works in different people. I think this suggestion is in alignment with everyone's stated intent. If we approach it as equals with the openness to hear the other person's perspective, then we might actually understand each other. It doesn't mean we have to accept another person's perception as our own. We're just too busy talking past each other to effectively communicate. I'm proposing a change in the way we are interacting as I think it will be enlightening to learn how the other person's mind operates. Hi Top: I sincerely applaud your intention, but.. are you paying attention to the actuality of this forum? Watch what happens. I'll go first. Since i have been here, i have consistently expressed my understanding that clarity (seeing/experiencing clearly) is the essential link to understanding who/what we are and our relationship with existence. I have expressed my understanding that a 'still mind' affords the best opportunity for clarity. Why do you suppose there would be an interest in engaging in a mind-fest of psychoanalysis and group therapy, when a 'still mind' negates that whole process? Be well..
|
|
|
Post by topology on Apr 13, 2013 7:19:48 GMT -5
Greetings.. I am hoping that by genuinely discussing individual interactions from a place of openness that we can set aside combativeness and get some understanding about what is going on. Here is the model I would like to approach our discussion through. Each of us has our own ontology. Meaning we have a limited number of buckets in our mind with labels. When we look at a situation our mind tries to categorize it and fit the situation into one of these buckets. Each person may focus on a different aspect of the interaction which results in mismatched bucket-labeling, not even taking into account the difference in ontology. What I would like us to do is look very closely at this process. Pick an interaction, a situation, and we can all (or whoever wants to participate) say what we see and explain why we see it that way. What are the buckets we have through which we are viewing the interaction, what aspects are we fixating on, why are we fixating on those aspects and not others. If two people can do this with each other it reveals the differing mental processes that are active and it makes room for mutual understanding. No one is wrong per se, no need to fight over who has the right perception, but just look at how perception works in different people. I think this suggestion is in alignment with everyone's stated intent. If we approach it as equals with the openness to hear the other person's perspective, then we might actually understand each other. It doesn't mean we have to accept another person's perception as our own. We're just too busy talking past each other to effectively communicate. I'm proposing a change in the way we are interacting as I think it will be enlightening to learn how the other person's mind operates. Hi Top: I sincerely applaud your intention, but.. are you paying attention to the actuality of this forum? Watch what happens. I'll go first. Since i have been here, i have consistently expressed my understanding that clarity (seeing/experiencing clearly) is the essential link to understanding who/what we are and our relationship with existence. I have expressed my understanding that a 'still mind' affords the best opportunity for clarity. Why do you suppose there would be an interest in engaging in a mind-fest of psychoanalysis and group therapy, when a 'still mind' negates that whole process? Be well.. How does a still mind negate the whole process? Are you declining the proposal?
|
|
|
Post by tzujanli on Apr 13, 2013 9:38:25 GMT -5
Greetings.. Greetings.. Hi Top: I sincerely applaud your intention, but.. are you paying attention to the actuality of this forum? Watch what happens. I'll go first. Since i have been here, i have consistently expressed my understanding that clarity (seeing/experiencing clearly) is the essential link to understanding who/what we are and our relationship with existence. I have expressed my understanding that a 'still mind' affords the best opportunity for clarity. Why do you suppose there would be an interest in engaging in a mind-fest of psychoanalysis and group therapy, when a 'still mind' negates that whole process? Be well.. How does a still mind negate the whole process? Are you declining the proposal? I am not declining your proposal, in fact i said, "I'll go first".. What is there to analyze about a 'still mind'? Be well..
|
|
|
Post by Reefs on Apr 13, 2013 10:30:57 GMT -5
Dear Dude/Dudette, Is that a good thing or a bad thing? Sincerely, The Great Blue Hole Of Belize
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 13, 2013 10:32:32 GMT -5
Hi Wren: I'm not quite following your point, could you explain further, please? The way I understand it, a mirror wants to know what it looks like. As in, consciousness wants to see how it is in the world. Science can explain that consciousness always wants to orientate itself. As discussed in this piece.The concept of a clear mirror in forum terms, is akin to 'coming empty', and yet there is a constant request from you, for other posters to adhere to your structure of a 'still mind'. This incessant focus affords a neglect of what other posters write with equal, and less condescending, clarity. I call this a safer exploration, as the forum is an opportunity to see that clear reflection will be sullied by the intention to structure water. In so far as it creates limits and boundaries, for what can easily be, unlimited expression.
|
|
|
Post by topology on Apr 13, 2013 10:32:47 GMT -5
Greetings.. How does a still mind negate the whole process? Are you declining the proposal? I am not declining your proposal, in fact i said, "I'll go first".. What is there to analyze about a 'still mind'? Be well.. I'm not understanding what you said about having a still mind negates the whole process. You call it psycho therapy, but asking people what they mean when there is confusion about what is said or there is ambiguity seems to be more of simply a healthy communication process. How is looking at an interaction and listening to each other's perspectives not compatible with a still mind? Help me understand that.
|
|
|
Post by enigma on Apr 13, 2013 10:41:09 GMT -5
Dear Dude/Dudette, Is that a good thing or a bad thing? Sincerely, The Great Blue Hole Of Belize I dunno. It was just a thing I close encountered while exploring TGBHOB.
|
|
|
Post by Reefs on Apr 13, 2013 10:45:22 GMT -5
Dear Dude/Dudette, Is that a good thing or a bad thing? Sincerely, The Great Blue Hole Of Belize I dunno. It was just a thing I close encountered while exploring TGBHOB. Dear Dude/Dudette, TGBHOB is always good for a surprise. Sincerely, The Great Blue Hole Of Belize
|
|