|
|
Post by figgles on Sept 16, 2014 13:38:33 GMT -5
Notice how with you, in particular, she often uses praise and delightful poetic lightness like "silver bell" to trigger positive emotions, Fact is, from the time she arrived on the forum, I've had a particular fondness for Silver. The reasons for that fondness haven't changed or dissipated, even though at present, we're not exactly on the same page. Believe it or not, I actually see Silver telling me what she really thinks of me, to be a positive thing, for her. There seems to be a newfound confidence there, since coming back from her ordeal. Again, it is possible to fall out of agreement with someone on a particular point or subject and not have that devolve into a situation where they become 'the enemy.' |
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Sept 16, 2014 13:45:17 GMT -5
***Breathing deeply and getting into my happy place*** It really wasn't so bad, was it?  Oh, well while it was short, it was self-justifying.  It was also illustrative of one of your most well-worn and powerful of tactics: the diversionary digression. E's focus was clear and simple: did you even notice that you were criticizing side-dialogs in a side-dialog of your own? Your distinction based on what emotion you perceive to be expressed in the dialog is not only inapplicable, but diverts away from the topic presented by a particular device of rhetoric: the emotional appeal. An excellent example of how your content is utterly and hopelessly polluted by a process designed to influence the reader with regard to your image. |
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Sept 16, 2014 13:48:12 GMT -5
Notice how with you, in particular, she often uses praise and delightful poetic lightness like "silver bell" to trigger positive emotions, Fact is, from the time she arrived on the forum, I've had a particular fondness for Silver. The reasons for that fondness haven't changed or dissipated, even though at present, we're not exactly on the same page. Believe it or not, I actually see Silver telling me what she really thinks of me, to be a positive thing, for her. There seems to be a newfound confidence there, since coming back from her ordeal. Again, it is possible to fall out of agreement with someone on a particular point or subject and not have that devolve into a situation where they become 'the enemy.' You're actually doing here exactly what I've described. Since quite a bit of what you write is about your image -- both what you project, and your self-assessment of that projection -- I'd speculate that you value that image. If my speculation is correct, you might want to pause and go back and read what I've written to Silver carefully before you keep writing. Nostradamus speaks: if figgles addresses this idea of image preservation at all, it will to be to cultivate an image of one who is unconcerned with image.
 |
|
|
|
Post by steven on Sept 16, 2014 14:12:28 GMT -5
Ahh sorry...I thought you and Reefs were talking about natural versus un-natural states, and asking if Meditation was 'THE' natural state...as if there is a natural state and an un-natural state. But wait, that natural state that you mentioned just now, wouldn't that imply an un-natural state? If thats the natural state, then what is the un-natural state? And more importantly, which nature is it outside of, apart from....and how did it get there? The egoic state is an un-natural state. You don't really believe that do you? |
|
|
|
Post by silver on Sept 16, 2014 14:12:51 GMT -5
I'm going to try, but I don't have much hope that I can reach you, is that what you said in the first sentence gives me the willies and it creeps me out, because you say it's a positive thing - for me - totally disowning any potential good or positive thing it can be - for you - as if this is all kind of a sit-down with Figgles, the Psycho-analyzer or sumthin'. It's chilling, that you seemingly wear a hazmat teflon-coated suit, and you can do no wrong, but easily and swiftly point out other peoples weaknesses - looking through Figgle's eyepiece.
fwiw, I don't subscribe to people being enemies OR friends in this world.
|
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Sept 16, 2014 14:26:21 GMT -5
Sometimes, wearin' a hazmat suit can make you look like a bunny rabbit!  |
|
|
|
Post by figgles on Sept 16, 2014 14:41:06 GMT -5
Fact is, I simply do not agree with your assessments about me. From where I sit, they are not accurate. but that said, I always think it's a good idea for folks to feel confident enough in what they are seeing to plainly say it. You are fully entitled to your own vantage point, and your own opinion, and to express it freely. As am I. If I recall correctly, You've expressed on this forum previously, that at times you've not felt that sense of freedom to just lay it all there...tell it as you see it...(I'm paraphrasing), so, in that sense, yes, I do see something different and positive about what appears to me to be a newfound directness. I wouldn't even have mentioned it if it were not something that you'd alluded to in the past here. If you stop trying to make me wrong, you might actually notice that I wasn't pointing out your weakness at all, but rather, in relation to something you alluded to in prior forum dialogues as 'a weakness', I am now pointing to , as a strength. Okay. I'm with you on the enemy bit, but don't really understand the friend part. |
|
|
|
Post by justlikeyou on Sept 16, 2014 14:46:21 GMT -5
In all seriousness, if all words are ultimately acausal how can any accusation or blame of libel be assigned to a specific anyone? It's a contextual thingy. Ultimately, nobody is responsible for anything. Yup. I get that. |
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Sept 16, 2014 14:58:33 GMT -5
If you stop trying to make me wrong, you might actually notice that Can you elucidate, precisely, what specific point Silver is "trying to make you wrong" on? "Can do no wrong" doesn't refer to a specific point. And btw, why are the quotes so messed up in your reply? Have you ever stopped to wonder why that happens to you alot? What I notice is that it's more likely to occur when the dialog is about or expresses evidence of negative emotion.  |
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Sept 16, 2014 15:08:09 GMT -5
The egoic state is an un-natural state. You don't really believe that do you? Reefs added the fine but very important distinction by way of a sort of correction already: the egoic state is not the natural state. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 16, 2014 15:12:03 GMT -5
The seeing that what's happening at face value 'is just fine,' has its roots in experiential understanding that what is, IS, & There's been a fundamental acceptance of the perfection of that which is currently appearing. Regardless, It still seems odd to me for folks to enter into conversations they are not a part of, to tell those conversing that the conversation is annoying, stupid or pointless and that they should therefore, stop conversing. |
|
|
|
Post by justlikeyou on Sept 16, 2014 15:21:41 GMT -5
In all seriousness, if all words are ultimately acausal how can any accusation or blame of libel be assigned to a specific anyone? What do peeps have to do with any ultimate? Go back and read what you called BS carefully, and you'll find the answer there. You'll also find it in what you (mistakenly) took Niz's definition of love to be. You can also find it in this quote: The function of the lawyer is to preserve a sceptical relativism in a society hell-bent for absolutes. The worse the society, the more law there will be. In Hell there will be nothing but law and due process will be meticulously observed.
Grant Gilmore... which is actually a bastardization of a much more richly textured quote by a former Supreme Court Justice that eludes me this afternoon. Where there are peeps, there will be law. Now, certainly, it takes a peep to engage with a peep in matters of law, so noone engaging in the relativity of juris prudence is above it. I wasn't calling what you wrote BS. I was calling your use of it under those circumstances BS. Preceeding my BS comment was your statement of frustration with Figgie and me saying that that was because you were making whatever you were trying to do with her much too important. Then you made the statement of acausality and presumed person-hood as justification for the kind of exploration you were conducting with her as reason for continuing to make it important, and that is what I called BS. In terms of the law, it seems to me that an enlightened judiciary would be one in which peeps are held accountable, murderers losing the right of roam freely in society etc, but also would be one compassionate enough not to assign blame or heap guilt on the pitiful, unconscious sap, which seems to me to only strengthen the idea that there is someone there who should feel guilty and remorseful and is deserving of scorn and abuse which only adds to the heavy burden of illusory person-hood they already carry. Revenge and punishment rarely enlighten anyone. Compassion and forgiveness on the other hand have precipitated many a healing. |
|
|
|
Post by stardustpilgrim on Sept 16, 2014 15:32:21 GMT -5
Your post was about Steve, my response was about Steve. No where in my post was I trying to indicate that silver needed his help OR that he would be a good candidate for helping you. I don't even know if what I wrote about Steve is correct, I'm just speculating. Steve has in the past had some good things to say about the spiritual journey (or non-journey). However, he doesn't seem to understand that just imparting information does anyone any good. You can't beat people over the head to force them to listen, all the histrionics don't help, they in fact hurt. I don't recall having ever suggested anyone on this forum would be a good teacher.sdp You did imply that Steve is a teacher who's techniques you validate. Did you not mean to do that? Ah....hummm.......no, absolutely no. When I said that a teacher can't directly act upon a student without their permission, I didn't mean in any sense Steve, Steve as teacher, that Steve is a teacher  . I wouldn't recognize anyone here as a teacher. And, I was speaking in general when I said that if one participates here on ST's one is subjecting oneself to what another might write. If anyone construed that I said Steve is a teacher, that's on them, not me. That doesn't mean Steve, and many others here, have not had some valuable things to share. sdp |
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Sept 16, 2014 15:43:29 GMT -5
What do peeps have to do with any ultimate? Go back and read what you called BS carefully, and you'll find the answer there. You'll also find it in what you (mistakenly) took Niz's definition of love to be. You can also find it in this quote: The function of the lawyer is to preserve a sceptical relativism in a society hell-bent for absolutes. The worse the society, the more law there will be. In Hell there will be nothing but law and due process will be meticulously observed.
Grant Gilmore... which is actually a bastardization of a much more richly textured quote by a former Supreme Court Justice that eludes me this afternoon. Where there are peeps, there will be law. Now, certainly, it takes a peep to engage with a peep in matters of law, so noone engaging in the relativity of juris prudence is above it. I wasn't calling what you wrote BS. I was calling your use of it under those circumstances BS. Preceeding my BS comment was your statement of frustration with Figgie and me saying that that was because you were making whatever you were trying to do with her much too important. Then you made the statement of acausality and presumed person-hood as justification for the kind of exploration you were conducting with her as reason for continuing to make it important, and that is what I called BS. Quite a complicated and involved story Rick. There is no engaging in the games people play without puttin' on a peep suit. Here again, just read your Niz quote on love.  "It ('I am', consciousness) enables me to become a person when required. Love creates its own necessities, even of becoming a person." Can you link to the specific thing I posted where I used acausality as a justification? In terms of the law, it seems to me that an enlightened judiciary would be one in which peeps are held accountable, murderers losing the right of roam freely in society etc, but also would be one compassionate enough not to assign blame or heap guilt on the pitiful, unconscious sap, which seems to me to only strengthen the idea that there is someone there who should feel guilty and remorseful and is deserving of scorn and abuse which only adds to the heavy burden of illusory person-hood they already carry. Revenge and punishment rarely enlighten anyone. Compassion and forgiveness on the other hand have precipitated many a healing. Revenge and punishment lead to suffering, and suffering has, in turn led to enlightenment. If you think that I'm heaping scorn on figgles to enlighten her, you're making up a causal story about an acausal happening, and no, you don't really understand E's comment on context, like, not even a little bit. |
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Sept 16, 2014 15:51:33 GMT -5
In terms of the law, it seems to me that an enlightened judiciary would be one in which peeps are held accountable, murderers losing the right of roam freely in society etc, but also would be one compassionate enough not to assign blame or heap guilt on the pitiful, unconscious sap, which seems to me to only strengthen the idea that there is someone there who should feel guilty and remorseful and is deserving of scorn and abuse which only adds to the heavy burden of illusory person-hood they already carry. Revenge and punishment rarely enlighten anyone. Compassion and forgiveness on the other hand have precipitated many a healing. What's interesting to note about this paragraph if it is found at all appealing, is to inquire, what is the source of the appeal? Why is it found to be attractive? "Enlightened judiciary" has nothing to do with the way the word "enlightenment" is used in other contexts here. Justice, whether fair or fowl, hard or nerfy, horrendously biased or as objective as manageable, is all about the peep and the peeps relationship to what the peep sees as not themselves. Enlightenment has nothing to do with marshmellow. |
|
. I wouldn't recognize anyone here as a teacher. And, I was speaking in general when I said that if one participates here on ST's one is subjecting oneself to what another might write.