|
|
Post by enigma on Oct 25, 2014 22:07:02 GMT -5
I figure the morphing of Figandrewism just means they're learnin sumthin in these discussions.  Well yes, but that's obviously an endless game of hide-and-go-seek.  What they are pretending about is what, of course, can never be learned.  They're learning how to be better parrots. |
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Oct 25, 2014 22:40:25 GMT -5
Well yes, but that's obviously an endless game of hide-and-go-seek. What they are pretending about is what, of course, can never be learned. They're learning how to be better parrots. Poor things.  .. leave the cage door open and they just perch there ... what gives??  |
|
|
|
Post by enigma on Oct 26, 2014 0:28:25 GMT -5
They're learning how to be better parrots. Poor things. .. leave the cage door open and they just perch there ... what gives?? |
|
|
|
Post by tzujanli on Oct 26, 2014 8:40:35 GMT -5
Sometimes the 'cage door' is open, and the prisoners only want others to join them in their prison.. freedom and liberation can be frightening to those attached to the stories that are their prison..
|
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Oct 26, 2014 9:27:06 GMT -5
Ive still got no idea what you're on about, I do know that quote didn't contradict anything we said. You can repetitively state your denial of the contradiction but it doesn't address the substance: That quote describes what you and the wigster wrote in the last MT: 100's of pages of referencing your feeling state of peace, joy and ease. Sets of ideas were then spun off based on those references. The ideas spun off were that it is the experience that informs of a state of full acceptance absent attachment, and those ideas directly contradict the quote. |
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Oct 26, 2014 12:44:08 GMT -5
This is a good example Laffy of how you read things into the words of others that just are not there. Feeling is an integral component of experience. That does not mean that I am the sum total of whatever feelings are happening at any given moment though. That's quite a leap you've taken there. If you're going to play the literalist game, then at least play it well. Where, exactly, did I state that you identify yourself as "the sum total of whatever feelings are happening at any given moment"? In your haste to show me a giraffe of mine, you've created one of your own. Not only that, but before you learned what you've learned in the past few years, you actually did write that. There is a totality of experience occurring that includes the terror as well as a certain amount of identification with the one who does not suffer. To accept the totality of experience is to include it all. And, the identification with personhood is seen precisely for what it is.... it's all still going on, but this time, with awareness, with clarity and more importantly, we're accepting, embracing and loving it all. |
|
|
|
Post by andrew on Oct 26, 2014 12:47:53 GMT -5
Ive still got no idea what you're on about, I do know that quote didn't contradict anything we said. You can repetitively state your denial of the contradiction but it doesn't address the substance: That quote describes what you and the wigster wrote in the last MT: 100's of pages of referencing your feeling state of peace, joy and ease. Sets of ideas were then spun off based on those references. The ideas spun off were that it is the experience that informs of a state of full acceptance absent attachment, and those ideas directly contradict the quote. I'm not lying when I say that I haven't got a clue what you are talking about. I do know that that quote doesn't contradict anything we said. |
|
|
|
Post by figgles on Oct 26, 2014 12:54:32 GMT -5
This is a good example Laffy of how you read things into the words of others that just are not there. Feeling is an integral component of experience. That does not mean that I am the sum total of whatever feelings are happening at any given moment though. That's quite a leap you've taken there. If you're going to play the literalist game, then at least play it well. Where, exactly, did I state that you identify yourself as "the sum total of whatever feelings are happening at any given moment"? In your haste to show me a giraffe of mine, you've created one of your own. Not only that, but before you learned what you've learned in the past few years, you actually did write that. There is a totality of experience occurring that includes the terror as well as a certain amount of identification with the one who does not suffer. To accept the totality of experience is to include it all. And, the identification with personhood is seen precisely for what it is.... it's all still going on, but this time, with awareness, with clarity and more importantly, we're accepting, embracing and loving it all. As usual Laffy...you've cherry picked my words completely out of context, and not provided links to the actual conversation. Yer a dirty player, you are.  |
|
|
|
Post by Reefs on Oct 26, 2014 20:10:30 GMT -5
If you're going to play the literalist game, then at least play it well. Where, exactly, did I state that you identify yourself as "the sum total of whatever feelings are happening at any given moment"? In your haste to show me a giraffe of mine, you've created one of your own. Not only that, but before you learned what you've learned in the past few years, you actually did write that. As usual Laffy...you've cherry picked my words completely out of context, and not provided links to the actual conversation. Yer a dirty player, you are. Just click on the date & time stamp, stupido! The date & time stamp is the link, as it has always been, like, for years. Yer a silly player, you are.   |
|
|
|
Post by Reefs on Oct 26, 2014 20:17:42 GMT -5
Well yes, but that's obviously an endless game of hide-and-go-seek. What they are pretending about is what, of course, can never be learned. They're learning how to be better parrots. Which means the absurdities continue.  |
|
|
|
Post by figgles on Oct 26, 2014 20:52:13 GMT -5
As usual Laffy...you've cherry picked my words completely out of context, and not provided links to the actual conversation. Yer a dirty player, you are. Just click on the date & time stamp, stupido! The date & time stamp is the link, as it has always been, like, for years. Yer a silly player, you are. Yeah...not sure what's going on here, but there's no link when i click on it. But did look up the conversation, and indeed, a very different conversation/context. So yes, Laffy cherry-picked to try to make his point....an act of desperation, it would seem. |
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Oct 27, 2014 5:47:38 GMT -5
That quote describes what you and the wigster wrote in the last MT: 100's of pages of referencing your feeling state of peace, joy and ease. Sets of ideas were then spun off based on those references. The ideas spun off were that it is the experience that informs of a state of full acceptance absent attachment, and those ideas directly contradict the quote.While a sense of fundamental ease is indeed the result of full acceptance/absence of attachment, simply saying so, is a far cry from advocating an ongoing experience where someone is constantly referencing feeling states for verification of 'how I'm doing in the acceptance game.' (which is what Adya was referencing in that quote). The funny thing is, that if someone were to regard feeling component of experience with that level of vigilance and concern, the feelings he/she was intent upon conjuring, would actually end up evading his/her experience......ease/well-being is a felt sense that is absent striving, vigilance, undue attention to feeling component/content of experience. Once again, you've read our description, and somehow seen a prescription. Neither Andrew, nor I are advocates of striving to morph or change feeling component through constant vigilance and control of feelings. In the first sentence you do exactly what the quote describes: you reference your feeling state ... just as you did for 100's of pages in the MT. The rest of it is just deflection based on morphing the quote, which isn't about practice or effort, just what it is we can or can't tell by our feeling states, and the point of it is that taking ownership of good feeling states is the exact same egoic doing as taking ownership of bad feeling states. But, you have made it clear, by your self-referential descriptions of your feeling states, that you are in control, via the doing of focus, of those states: Is it accurate to say that every single moment someone who is clear will be experiencing joy? I can say it will remain close by, merely a whisper away, as once we see through the whole thought/belief paradigm, there is no longer anything that can take us out of peace....and from peace, joy and bliss are as close as a deliberate focus of attention. ... and that this control, via focus, is habitual: Yes, I can create a feeling state at will through focus, but that does not mean that I apply deliberate focus to my every waking moment for the purpose of controlling my feeling states. Fact is though, that when living in the present moment becomes habitual, that focus rarely veers off to a place where negativity has any space to arise. |
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Oct 27, 2014 6:21:51 GMT -5
As usual Laffy...you've cherry picked my words completely out of context, and not provided links to the actual conversation. Yer a dirty player, you are. Well that's false but it doesn't matter anyway as pointing out your latest giraffe was just a detour of the dialog in your attempt to deflect from the fact that the ED quote in question contradicts the peace/joy/ease dogma. This is a good example Laffy of how you read things into the words of others that just are not there. You want to see that Andrew and I define ourselves (which is really the equivalent of saying, we 'limit' ourselves through identification), with feeling, when neither of us has said that. You've learned over the past few years what a statement of the form "I am so-and-so" implies, so you're often careful about that, but the facts remain that: - in the past, you did make such statements, and they concord exactly with what the quote refers to in defining yourself by positive feeling states - you actually did let that viewpoint slip a few times during the most recent M'Twaddle. ... but even that is secondary to the depth of the contradiction between what you write and the substance of the quote. The quote describes your process of constant self-reference to your feeling state. Your contradiction to what the quote conveys is systemic to the current structure of your mind. In addition to the constant feeling-state-based self-reference, you spin off ideas based on those references. Specifically, you maintain that the experience informs of a state of full acceptance absent attachment, and that, in particular, directly contradicts the quote. Everything that I've written in this post can be directly supported by your own words. Really, if you disagree with the substance of the quote, that's fine, but to try to morph-connect what you've written and what Ayda wrote is just a silly self-deception. |
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Oct 27, 2014 6:25:30 GMT -5
You can repetitively state your denial of the contradiction but it doesn't address the substance: I'm not lying when I say that I haven't got a clue what you are talking about. I do know that that quote doesn't contradict anything we said. Endless repetition of a wishful thought won't make the thought anything other than wishful thinking. |
|
|
|
Post by figgles on Oct 27, 2014 9:44:00 GMT -5
As usual Laffy...you've cherry picked my words completely out of context, and not provided links to the actual conversation. Yer a dirty player, you are. Well that's false but it doesn't matter anyway as pointing out your latest giraffe was just a detour of the dialog in your attempt to deflect from the fact that the ED quote in question contradicts the peace/joy/ease dogma. This is a good example Laffy of how you read things into the words of others that just are not there. You want to see that Andrew and I define ourselves (which is really the equivalent of saying, we 'limit' ourselves through identification), with feeling, when neither of us has said that. You've learned over the past few years what a statement of the form "I am so-and-so" implies, so you're often careful about that, but the facts remain that: - in the past, you did make such statements, and they concord exactly with what the quote refers to in defining yourself by positive feeling states - you actually did let that viewpoint slip a few times during the most recent M'Twaddle. ... but even that is secondary to the depth of the contradiction between what you write and the substance of the quote. The quote describes your process of constant self-reference to your feeling state. Your contradiction to what the quote conveys is systemic to the current structure of your mind. In addition to the constant feeling-state-based self-reference, you spin off ideas based on those references. Specifically, you maintain that the experience informs of a state of full acceptance absent attachment, and that, in particular, directly contradicts the quote. Everything that I've written in this post can be directly supported by your own words.
Really, if you disagree with the substance of the quote, that's fine, but to try to morph-connect what you've written and what Ayda wrote is just a silly self-deception.That's the thing though Laffy. I very much agree with Adya's quote and I've told you that several posts in sequence here. It is you who uses my past posts and your own very specific understanding/perception of their content, to try to morph-connect what I've written with your intent to prove contradiction on my part. It's an odd experience to converse with someone who has no interest whatsoever in finding common ground, or even coming to an understanding of my message, but who will instead, tell me what my words mean...completely ignoring my own explanation of present position. |
|
.. leave the cage door open and they just perch there ... what gives?? 
