|
|
Post by enigma on Oct 12, 2014 21:16:04 GMT -5
Do you mean to say what is prior is undivided and absolute? Do you mean to say that what appears is the illusion of twoness!?  hehe yes! Well, why didn't you say so?!  |
|
|
|
Post by Reefs on Oct 12, 2014 21:18:18 GMT -5
I have no doubt at all that the names we go by affect the way we are on the forum, and yes, it is linked to self-image. To call oneself 'Laughter' is quite a statement. It is saying 'I laugh a lot' 'I think laughter is good' and 'I like to laugh'. Like I said, I see self-images such as these as far more illustrative of (the illusion of) duality, than feelings are. You have been on enough forums to know that if someone comes on the forum with the name 'kindness' or 'light and love' or 'loveloads' or 'muchjoy'...then there is a self-image at play. As there is with 'Enigma'. Yes, I've found screen names to be very useful in predicting the focus and behavior of a poster. It's also true that peeps often reveal something about themselves through than name that they aren't conscious of themselves. You can expect a Laughter peep to be interested in humor, and an Enigma/Arcanum peep to be interested in mystery/WIBIGO. You might expect a Phroggy peep to be a bit silly.  I might expect an Andrew peep to take life a bit too seriously, actually. |
|
|
|
Post by enigma on Oct 12, 2014 21:20:26 GMT -5
As soon as you start talking about relationship between parts, you're waist deep in duality. (I hear the more you struggle, the further down you sink.) definitely not talking about parts. If you agree that there is an experiencer and experienced, or perceived and perceived...then we are talking about a 'relationship', but the only adequate way to describe this relationship is to say non-separate or non-two. The experiencer/perceiver is not the SAME as what is experienced/perceived, but equally, the perceiver/experiencer are not actually separate from what is experienced/perceived. The rational thinking mind cannot grasp this, which is why we can only point to the true nature of the 'relationship' with words like non-separate and non-two. There isn't some ungraspable actuality there that you have to wiggle your finger at vaguely. In the context of relationships, there are parts relating. In the context of no parts, there is no relationship. Make up your mind what context you want to wallow in. |
|
|
|
Post by enigma on Oct 12, 2014 21:26:54 GMT -5
figandrew probably think that the constant reference to the fact that they don't have experiential reference for these dialogs is just arrogant dismissal, and before I started participating in these discussions, and was just reading them, I found it both odd and unnecessary when either side resorted to that. But when you're actually in these discussions though, that's really what it comes down do, and they never fail to prove up this same point repetitively. It's not possible to directly state the truth but it's really obvious when a falsity is mistaken for it.  What always comes through in what they write is a sort of incredulous "what, is that all there is?" What is telling is that they try to convey what cannot be conveyed. TPTPAU is beyond understanding and still they try to understand it and even establish a causal relationship to positive mind states. By doing so, they are trying to turn what is false into something real. Which shows once again that they don't know what is real and what is false. That's the thang. They've got that which passes understanding all sewn up, and they don't understand why they can't get us to understand how understandable it is. |
|
|
|
Post by Reefs on Oct 12, 2014 21:27:01 GMT -5
That would decrease the drama potential enormously. But that's obviously not wanted. Because, as you've noticed, even after several clarifications, they still go with the most dramatic distortion. The goal is drama creation, not mutual understanding. Seems like the goal is to make us seem as foolish (and wrong) as possible. Either way, understanding doesn't seem to be on the agenda anywhere. Understanding is listed somewhere in the fine print under 'side effects'. |
|
|
|
Post by enigma on Oct 12, 2014 21:33:56 GMT -5
figglekid (on the phone): "uhm, mom, I got in an accident"  figgles (on scene) "oh! look at the pretty flower!" Honestly, who wouldn't love such a parent? You've just crashed her car and the only comment from her is about flowers. What Figgles sees when she gets to the scene of the accident:  |
|
|
|
Post by Reefs on Oct 12, 2014 21:38:01 GMT -5
Yes. My guess is that at around that time she had a glimpse, a shift. Discussions back then felt much more authentic, fresh and alive. That authenticity and freshness is somehow lost now. Probably because what she tells us now is just a distant memory and not her here and now experience anymore. The freshness and aliveness is gone. Discussions have become utterly predictable. I wonder to what extent Figs just followed Andy down that one ended stick bunny hole, and now she can't see her way back out. It's similar to what happens to religions. If what is taught is just a distant memory, the road leads to fundamentalism and confusion. On one hand she insists that being has a positive quality that can be felt, on the other hand she can't even answer the question if she exists at all. So she can tell you how her existence feels, but she cannot tell you if she exists at all. It's loco. What spirituality can do to people is amazing.  |
|
|
|
Post by enigma on Oct 12, 2014 21:40:00 GMT -5
Yes, I've found screen names to be very useful in predicting the focus and behavior of a poster. It's also true that peeps often reveal something about themselves through than name that they aren't conscious of themselves. You can expect a Laughter peep to be interested in humor, and an Enigma/Arcanum peep to be interested in mystery/WIBIGO. You might expect a Phroggy peep to be a bit silly. I might expect an Andrew peep to take life a bit too seriously, actually. Some peeps get upset when you forget their name or don't pronounce it properly. They use every opportunity to promote themselves. |
|
|
|
Post by enigma on Oct 12, 2014 21:41:33 GMT -5
Seems like the goal is to make us seem as foolish (and wrong) as possible. Either way, understanding doesn't seem to be on the agenda anywhere. Understanding is listed somewhere in the fine print under 'side effects'. Side effects to actively avoided whenever possible. |
|
|
|
Post by enigma on Oct 12, 2014 21:45:53 GMT -5
I wonder to what extent Figs just followed Andy down that one ended stick bunny hole, and now she can't see her way back out. It's similar to what happens to religions. If what is taught is just a distant memory, the road leads to fundamentalism and confusion. On one hand she insists that being has a positive quality that can be felt, on the other hand she can't even answer the question if she exists at all. So she can tell you how her existence feels, but she cannot tell you if she exists at all. It's loco. What spirituality can do to people is amazing. She couldn't see how knowing whether or not she exists could make her feel better, so she has no interest. |
|
|
|
Post by Reefs on Oct 12, 2014 21:49:09 GMT -5
I'd say you are genuinely lashing out. Me too. She invented a mythological 'condition' for you so that she could pretend to be genuinely curious about it while spitting at you. On which mountain did she think that would work? Wasn't she wagging her moralistic finger all the time admonishing us that discussing diverging view points need not turn into nastiness? |
|
|
|
Post by Reefs on Oct 12, 2014 21:50:41 GMT -5
Yes, just look at all the effort she puts into re-defining words to get rid of any negative connotations such as 'sadness with underlying well-being'... The fight is on 24/7! Self delusion is hard work. It's actually a fight, with life.  |
|
|
|
Post by Reefs on Oct 12, 2014 21:54:02 GMT -5
We haven't arrived at any specific number yet, have we?  We would have to know what kind of dancing we're talkin bout. Well, let's assume a wild chiggy-wiggy around the obvious. What do your calculations say? |
|
|
|
Post by Reefs on Oct 12, 2014 22:02:37 GMT -5
Figsy says, she fully agrees with you: She even understands that your advice won't go over so well. This might be a good time for her to take a break and go do sumthin else for a while. Right, work is beckoning. |
|
|
|
Post by Reefs on Oct 12, 2014 22:10:00 GMT -5
Remember this quote from 2012 where she said that at one point she concluded that she'll never get to the end of this seeing thru illusions business, that this could go on forever. So she basically stopped at half circle and went back embracing the personal delusions again. And that she called coming full circle. In reality, she has never seen the other half of the circle. Right, we've talked before about her carrying her baggage back down the mountain instead of tossing it over the side. Andy has done something similar with his tool box. They both need to go back to the mountain and toss it all off like they should have done the first time. I suspect that the no-mountain experience F is talking about was just one of her lucid dreams. |
|
