|
|
Post by laughter on Oct 13, 2014 16:38:39 GMT -5
But andy has written that he embraces his confusion, so he has not interest in addressing that. But what if it's an un-interest? Careful! I see smoke startin' to come from the sides of the andybot! it's like when Kirk told Veeger it had made an eeeerrrrrror! |
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Oct 13, 2014 16:40:14 GMT -5
And, he could just be fu.ckin' wit ya'.  If I'm right about that, it's related to Reefs' point here. The negative interest in some of the pointers -- primarily, on the nature of the person -- results in a systemic trolling. I'd be surprised if he's just trolling. His ideas, just like Figs' ideas, all have a vector pointing to the same escape plan. It looks like he begins with a final conclusion, and then does whatever is necessary to confirm that conclusion. But since all the pointing here is at odds with the plan, the trolling just sort of happens naturally. It's not like I think that he's actually a separate volitional troll or nuhthin' |
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Oct 13, 2014 16:43:04 GMT -5
I'd be surprised if he's just trolling. His ideas, just like Figs' ideas, all have a vector pointing to the same escape plan. It looks like he begins with a final conclusion, and then does whatever is necessary to confirm that conclusion. Hehe....Come on Man! You guys gotta get your stories straight!  . ..... you're all absolutely convinced that Andrew and I are doing something 'bad' or wrong on this forum, but you've gotta get some agreement in place on specifically what that 'bad thing' is....or it starts to look like a simple case of shooting the messengers who deliver the unpalatable messages.  Disruptive dissatisfaction isn't bad or wrong. That's your giraffe. This is another attempt to paint the picture of the idea that it's only your disagreement that leads to the negative attention, but that's a dialog we've had over and over and over and it's an argument you can never win. |
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Oct 13, 2014 16:45:52 GMT -5
Or that he understands it well enough to use it to sow confusion! It's bothlessly both at neither time simultaneously! Well, maybe for himself, but I don't see him succeeding in confusing anybody else. other than figs u mean? ... well, it has happened before! ... I'll be polite and refrain from dropping names. |
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Oct 13, 2014 16:54:06 GMT -5
What's obvious from the past few days of dialog is that the disagreement is based entirely on agenda.
The contextual confusion is just as obviously deliberate. Of course it's amusing but it's a case of laughing at him rather than with him .. .. and that, serves a different agenda: the class act of andy the civil one who is mocked by the evil, cold, non-feeling fundies.  What Figs and Andy have in common is the tendency toward confirmation bias. In Figs it takes a feeling form, (feeling how she wants to feel) and for Andy it takes a thinking form. (concluding what he wants to conclude) It's a wild ride if one endeavours to follow along the tunnels as they work their way backward. Most peeps thought processes are much more straightforward. Fewer unpleasant surprises. |
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Oct 13, 2014 16:55:50 GMT -5
Or that he understands it well enough to use it to sow confusion! It's bothlessly both at neither time simultaneously! Your Avatar just made me chuckle cuz I have a red bull sitting next to my keyboard right now too. Hehe. It's an arms race I tell ya'! I'm gonna go cop me a teenth 'o meth tonight! |
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Oct 13, 2014 16:58:16 GMT -5
It's the contextual confusion of going backwards from recognizing what is an apparently separate object as a appearance. The argument goes, that since the boundary around the appearance isn't actual, then the appearance isn't actually limited. The fallacy, of course, is that it is the limitation that defines the appearance to begin with. If you look back at this: .. seems to me that figandrew cooked this up privately to try to help wigs out of the jam she got herself into during the meltdown about the acceptance dogma leading to a state of detachment from the sense of separation. By the magic of contextual confusion, the appearance of a detached problem-solver who sees rose-colored batsh!t everywhere is actually a dreamer without limit free to enjoy their perpetugasm in perfectly Understandingless Understandable Piece. Okay, same twaddle, different day. Always the same! Always!  |
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Oct 13, 2014 17:04:26 GMT -5
.. seems to me that figandrew cooked this up privately to try to help wigs out of the jam she got herself into during the meltdown about the acceptance dogma leading to a state of detachment from the sense of separation. hehe...oh yes, Laffy...how did you know?? Andrew and I have private conversations deep into the night where we brainstorm up ideas about how to circumvent jams and create get outta jail free cards for our conversations with you, out on the forum.  ..hahaha......yer funny. Do you ever think you might be taking what goes on here a tad too seriously sometimes...? Honestly, no one here cares so much that they'd engage in what you're suggesting there... If you think for one sec that I take Andy's hamsterfest -- which just happened to play into your giraffe about our supposed argument in favor of limitation -- with a gram of serious, you might wanna' check the sulfite levels in yer vino tinto. I laughed so long and hard today that I endangered my health! What would make the day purrrfect if you was to induce another paroxysm by replying with some kinda' literalist detail-oriented thingy. Just a little to the left dear ... yeah, that's right ...almost there ... Here's another hint to my subjective during these MT's hun' ... if there's a pic or a laughing emoticon in a post, it's pretty much a literal reflection of some giggles goin' on over here.  |
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Oct 13, 2014 17:09:50 GMT -5
<wiggedout> but why would that matter? joy is joy whether it's dream joy or otherwise  </wiggedout> That's why the whole yin-yanginationating discussion happened. The other end of the stick even shows up here in the discussion, but she's trained herself not to see it. yelps, it is as you pointed out ... the elephant in the room ... peeps never see it ..  .. never had an interest in psychology, so it was a bit of a shocker to discover this the hard way.  |
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Oct 13, 2014 17:12:33 GMT -5
You cheater! You just plagiarized fake Einstein! Well, as long as I get the right answer, which I obviously did, what difference does it make? ur setting a bad example for all the children that are reading this! |
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Oct 13, 2014 17:21:06 GMT -5
I can be a nice friendly chap, however, I can also lack patience and tolerance when it comes to certain viewpoints, characteristics and energies. I actually have far more tolerance for Renigter than I do those that drop in once a month just to add negativity to a conversation. If I'm speaking to you, you can basically assume that I have time for you, even if I don't agree with you. Though to be clear, there are some I don't speak to here that I do have time for...there just isn't much to say to them. ok, fare thee well then How does it feel to have bathed in the light of Christ Consciousness? |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 13, 2014 17:37:19 GMT -5
ok, fare thee well then How does it feel to have bathed in the light of Christ Consciousness?  |
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Oct 13, 2014 18:05:31 GMT -5
How does it feel to have bathed in the light of Christ Consciousness? whazzzzat?? figgy before the makeup?? EEEEEEEK!!! how'd you get that pic?? are you hacking proboards?? |
|
|
|
Post by enigma on Oct 13, 2014 18:24:43 GMT -5
That's part of the "seeing what I wanna' see rather than what's there" industry.  Yeah, just interesting that she sees only poo in her discussion partners. Have you noticed? Something not quite adding up again. Poo is what she wants to see in her debate partners. |
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Oct 13, 2014 19:15:44 GMT -5
It's the contextual confusion of going backwards from recognizing what is an apparently separate object as a appearance. The argument goes, that since the boundary around the appearance isn't actual, then the appearance isn't actually limited. The fallacy, of course, is that it is the limitation that defines the appearance to begin with. If you look back at this: .. seems to me that figandrew cooked this up privately to try to help wigs out of the jam she got herself into during the meltdown about the acceptance dogma leading to a state of detachment from the sense of separation. By the magic of contextual confusion, the appearance of a detached problem-solver who sees rose-colored batsh!t everywhere is actually a dreamer without limit free to enjoy their perpetugasm in perfectly Understandingless Understandable Piece. Okay, same twaddle, different day. Appearances themselves are not dualistic in nature. I am trying to illustrate that although the individual conceptual mind creates an illusion of duality, the collective Mind is 'non dual' in nature A lot has been said, but in a nutshell, positing duality where there is none limits our capacity to experience the unlimited (non-dual) potential of the universe beyond the individual conceptual mind. Experiencing is non-dual because the experiencer and experienced are not separate. Just as Being and Mind are not separate. Existence MAY be prior to appearances, but even if it is, it is not other to appearances. It is non-dual. The illusion is duality. It is the illusion of opposites. The illusion of a separate person (me/you). Its all the same thing. |
|
. 
