|
|
Post by andrew on Sept 15, 2014 12:36:36 GMT -5
Yes, that's what you are asking. Its a good question  Do you exist? |
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Sept 15, 2014 12:38:23 GMT -5
Is that worse than regular TMT? hehe, yes, we need to start adding letters; WTMT (way too much thinking), SLTMT (sh*t load of Too much thinking), BWTMT (ban worthy too much thinking). That last one is a value judgement on a neutral observation. TMT is only bad or good if it's identified with. |
|
|
|
Post by figgles on Sept 15, 2014 12:43:35 GMT -5
That's not any better actually. What you are saying there is that your 'headlessness' depends upon the kind of post I write.  you've mistaken an absence for the presence of something yet again. She wrote the opposite of your interpretation. ...You are saying that I only write one kind of post, and you cannot read those kinds of post without involvement of yer head. No, her idea is that if words come from a personal place, then they are limited in their reach. You are still assigning your headlessness or head-fulness, to me and the content/nature of my posts. Can you imagine a point where you could read a post written by someone whom you now regard to be completely unconscious and neck deep in delusion, and still be 'head free'? You mistake her meaning because you take yourself to be a person. Yes, she is assigning her posts to you, but you are not what you think you are. Kudos Chuckles. That one took some creativity!! Talk about a wild spin. |
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Sept 15, 2014 12:44:01 GMT -5
Thus, those with decoder rings can tell the difference between a programmed human and a free human being, if I may be so bold. All you need is this:  Nope. Need a batsh!t meter too. |
|
|
|
Post by figgles on Sept 15, 2014 12:44:26 GMT -5
hehe, yes, we need to start adding letters; WTMT (way too much thinking), SLTMT (sh*t load of Too much thinking), BWTMT (ban worthy too much thinking). That last one is a value judgement on a neutral observation. TMT is only bad or good if it's identified with. Who said anything about bad or good? |
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Sept 15, 2014 12:45:11 GMT -5
you've mistaken an absence for the presence of something yet again. She wrote the opposite of your interpretation. No, her idea is that if words come from a personal place, then they are limited in their reach. You mistake her meaning because you take yourself to be a person. Yes, she is assigning her posts to you, but you are not what you think you are. Kudos Chuckles. That one took some creativity!! Talk about a wild spin. The source of the TMT is you. You completely misinterpreted what she wrote. I just followed along. It's what is meant by "falling down the bunny hole".  |
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Sept 15, 2014 12:46:07 GMT -5
That last one is a value judgement on a neutral observation. TMT is only bad or good if it's identified with. Who said anything about bad or good? oh, ... "ban-worthy" didn't implicate bad or good?  Short answer Einstein: you did. |
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Sept 15, 2014 12:50:22 GMT -5
Refuge in the clarity of ambiguity. Clearly, confusion is accepted at face value, but when pointed out, hyper-minding ensues in the ego's attempt to obfuscate. Aaaah, to live another day. Yeah, that's basically what happens. And it's also interesting that the face value confusion tops the still mind confusion by far. Face value and still mind may look identical, both are there to protect certain core beliefs, but there's a huge difference too. The still mind confusion has to be kept simple, there are certain limits. The face value confusion, however, does not know such limits. Face value means unrestricted hyper-minding. Exactomicisionpremente. |
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Sept 15, 2014 13:21:10 GMT -5
Well, you talk about humans and people and person having volition, so I am asking you again: DO you have volition? Yes, that's what you are asking. Its a good question That is exactly the type of answer that ALICE gives in a conversation on the topic.   |
|
|
|
Post by andrew on Sept 15, 2014 13:37:48 GMT -5
Yes, that's what you are asking. Its a good question That is exactly the type of answer that ALICE gives in a conversation on the topic. lol that crossed my mind. |
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Sept 15, 2014 13:39:33 GMT -5
That is exactly the type of answer that ALICE gives in a conversation on the topic. lol that crossed my mind.  |
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Sept 15, 2014 13:43:02 GMT -5
Maybe we can modify her programming and make her volitional. And less nasty!  Nah. Too many bugs already. Better to scrap her. Start from scratch with a new model.  |
|
|
|
Post by enigma on Sept 15, 2014 14:19:35 GMT -5
Beautifully said!  I'm well on board with that quote, I think I posted it on spiritualforums back in the day. I wonder if Enigma remembers the conversation about 'the dog'.....? I tend to repress bad experiences. |
|
|
|
Post by enigma on Sept 15, 2014 14:22:29 GMT -5
But Figgles validated it. Perhaps she didn't see the implications vis-vis hyperminding, but the validation, by my recollection, did occur. Okay. |
|
|
|
Post by andrew on Sept 15, 2014 14:32:07 GMT -5
I'm well on board with that quote, I think I posted it on spiritualforums back in the day. I wonder if Enigma remembers the conversation about 'the dog'.....? I tend to repress bad experiences. hehehe what I was saying didn't go down well. It began with me saying 'You don't know....' I will leave it there. |
|
you've mistaken an absence for the presence of something yet again. She wrote the opposite of your interpretation.
