Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 27, 2014 6:19:11 GMT -5
" figgles tagged you in the thread What's real and what's illusion spillover." Anybody any idea what that's supposed to mean? She's linked your name/profile into a post..
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 27, 2014 6:25:43 GMT -5
" figgles tagged you in the thread What's real and what's illusion spillover." Anybody any idea what that's supposed to mean? that figs has a Reefs idée fixe ?
|
|
|
Post by tzujanli on Dec 27, 2014 6:46:01 GMT -5
Yes, the question imbues no facile nature to the observer not looking for that quality.. there was no condescension intended or implied until you introduced it.. True that meaning is always created by the reader but the facile nature of the observation in question is undeniable. It is a fact that nonduality is a theme that recurs on the forum, and it's quite hard to miss. That difficulty is an objective fact. Is it condescending to direct a question to an individual that everyone knows the answer to? For example, would it be a condescension of me to ask you if you knew what the value of "x" was in the equation "2 + 2 = x"? There is an objective answer to those two questions, and those answers reveal the clarity of what is happening. There are also evasive answers available that would, by way of contrast, reveal the phenomena of the subjectivity trap in motion. I am aware that people try to have productive discussions and they are usually hijacked by a nonduality agenda prevalent among members that have the time and interest to overwhelm those with less time, and those with individualized understandings.. These are polarized and disparaging opinions. Is discussion that contains such opinions civil?Is a party presented with incivility obliged to maintain it? I'm not questioning the honesty of them -- in that this is how you honestly see things, but do you notice how honesty and civility eventually collide unless subjectivity is deliberately and consciously set aside? Is it possible to ever completely set aside a subjective viewpoint? the pattern you describe in Andrew's dialogues are the result of meeting the same agenda/pattern in every interaction with the most aggressively outspoken advocates of nonduality.. As andy has denied that this is going on, I'd conclude that it's going on unconsciously. Those are understandings open for discussion, until you start another mock trial.. then, the club shows up to play judge and jury to your theatrics.. yes, the forum is littered with your mock trials, so offense taken is just more theatrics.. what is missing here is your sincerity to have an OHCD..
|
|
|
Post by Reefs on Dec 27, 2014 6:46:02 GMT -5
" figgles tagged you in the thread What's real and what's illusion spillover." Anybody any idea what that's supposed to mean? that figs has a Reefs idée fixe ? Yeah, that's no secret, actually.
|
|
|
Post by Reefs on Dec 27, 2014 6:48:44 GMT -5
" figgles tagged you in the thread What's real and what's illusion spillover." Anybody any idea what that's supposed to mean? She's linked your name/profile into a post.. I think it has something to do with a messed up quote. But interesting 'coincidence' nevertheless.
|
|
|
Post by figgles on Dec 27, 2014 12:08:40 GMT -5
Why would even assume that I would 'fully accept everything AH says as indisputable truth'? It's not at all new what they teach. Do the hermetic laws ring a bell, maybe? "Assuming" would take the form of a solid assertion. You might have noticed, I asked you a question; "Do you fully accept everything AH says as indisputable truth?" It was framed in a question, because I did not merely 'assume' that I knew the answer. Pay attention to what's being written. Your interest in finding fault with me is muddying your vision.
|
|
|
Post by figgles on Dec 27, 2014 12:27:05 GMT -5
Actually I've never denied or resisted that...have said several times that that is quite possible..that I was open to that idea and have in fact inquired deeply into it.... But I have also said, if so, the resistance was escaping my awareness, and the experience somehow, if that was the case, was not one of suffering emotionally, or in any other way in spite of it, so, it was never at the forefront as being an actual issue or problem. Although, all that said, I will share that just recently there's been a new twist that likely won't play out well for you and your interest in ascribing negativity/resistance to me as the cause of my health issue. LOL! What's so funny? One can still be open to the idea that some form of resistance is playing out while also fully acknowledging that if it is, I am not at present aware of it. If resistance is not readily evident, the next best place to look is how one feels about the manifestation that is being deemed to have arisen from such...and if there is also no readily apparent resistance arising there in response, one could conclude that there really is no problem.....and I think even AH would agree that that's that's the perfect scenario from which things can evolve to their highest resolution. It's a funny thing, your tact here seems somewhat similar to a few folks in my life (LOA afficionados) who are intent upon making my health a serious issue that requires fixing, and who very much take issue with the idea that I do not regard it as a serious issue. I had one well meaning friend want to sit with me to pick apart my marriage, my relationship with kids, my childhood, all in hopes of uncovering the 'problem' that was behind my obvious resistance that had to be the cause of my physical symptoms. ...turns out, the genetic abnormality that is behind it all occurred in utero, hehe.... so now she's pushing for me to to try to dig back into past lives to find the cause. The more I tell her its a non-issue, that there is deep acceptance here of what's happening, the more perturbed she gets. Last time we visited, I asked her point blank; "Would you feel better if I were deeply emotionally upset by all this"? The question stymied her. She couldn't answer...but, the conversation shifted and she didn't bring my health up again that day.
|
|
|
Post by figgles on Dec 27, 2014 12:29:21 GMT -5
Oh, you can laugh hun', whatever gets ya' through the night ... but those debates are public record ... unlike yer secret diaries. I'd say they don't even exist. That was just a debate tactic and the result of not being able to tell fact from fiction. How on earth do you get that? hehe....As though a reference to channeling/automatic writing is ever going to win a debate.
|
|
|
Post by figgles on Dec 27, 2014 12:31:37 GMT -5
I'd say it depends upon how much "air-time" that thought gets. If it's a rather fleeting acknowledgement, that's one thing, but if it's an ongoing belief, such as "most others in the world are insane, delusional suffering puppets," that's quite another thing...the ongoing nature of a particular thought is bound to both be a reflection of a particular vibration as well as dictate what the vibration will be moving forward. Of course it doesn't. It doesn't? So, one could be absolutely mired in a thought about the heaviness and darkness of others to the point where it's the predominant thought at the forefront on an ongoing, incessant basis, and that has no bearing on vibration or visa-versa?
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Dec 27, 2014 13:38:06 GMT -5
Oh, a variation on the "What?? " game. Innovative. Aces. You see, this pattern you have of asking for a clarification and then resisting the attempts to clarify is something that I can notice without being a part of. I can step back and notice how you characterizing my attempts as "ridiculous" is an insulting characterization without feeling insulted. That's called objectivity, clarity. I'm glad you're amused, kimosabe! I didn't ask for clarification.....You're leading this shebang or shindig or whatev. I'm more than willing to follow if I can see that we're actually going somewhere. It feels like you've turned the key in the ignition, but the car won't start and it's flooded and you're pumping the gas petal and I'm just like waiting....are we there yet? Eta: Yeah, yeah, I get that....ridiculous is not insulting in my book. You've succeeded in helping me see what you mean - which I basically already knew and understood.......but when tzu or andy or me characterize your mocking, derision etc. comes about because you act like out-of-control kiddies --- now see, a little kidding is fine, but you guys go ever so far afield with it and it just devolves into perhaps an extreme state of giddiness like being high on laughing gas or something, it's too far out. This offers us another excellent example to demonstrate what the opener meant. What's written in what I'm replying to is so toxically twisted with denial of what was written previously, admission of ill intent during the dialog, and entwining of past and ongoing grievance, that there's really no touching any of it sanely, but it doesn't have to pollute my well. As far as vibe goes, it would be dishonest of me to claim that it doesn't result in a little sadness and some revulsion as well, but that's as far as it goes. What I've written now is quite condescending, yes ... but I'm always conscious of when I'm using that. What's happened over the last few years is that when people bring me fight sometimes I'll take it from them. This isn't a complaint. I'm never participating in a dialog that I don't want to participate in. Silver, the only reasonable thing that I can write to you at this point is that there are some members here who exploit and sort of feed off of your obvious intense pain, but the ones that you're complaining about aren't those. You definitely did get to a point relatively free of contention during the last substantial figandrew hiatus, and if you can think and feel back to what that was like, you might be able to notice what I'm referring to by this exploitation.
|
|
|
Post by silver on Dec 27, 2014 15:26:06 GMT -5
I'm glad you're amused, kimosabe! I didn't ask for clarification.....You're leading this shebang or shindig or whatev. I'm more than willing to follow if I can see that we're actually going somewhere. It feels like you've turned the key in the ignition, but the car won't start and it's flooded and you're pumping the gas petal and I'm just like waiting....are we there yet? Eta: Yeah, yeah, I get that....ridiculous is not insulting in my book. You've succeeded in helping me see what you mean - which I basically already knew and understood.......but when tzu or andy or me characterize your mocking, derision etc. comes about because you act like out-of-control kiddies --- now see, a little kidding is fine, but you guys go ever so far afield with it and it just devolves into perhaps an extreme state of giddiness like being high on laughing gas or something, it's too far out. This offers us another excellent example to demonstrate what the opener meant. What's written in what I'm replying to is so toxically twisted with denial of what was written previously, admission of ill intent during the dialog, and entwining of past and ongoing grievance, that there's really no touching any of it sanely, but it doesn't have to pollute my well. As far as vibe goes, it would be dishonest of me to claim that it doesn't result in a little sadness and some revulsion as well, but that's as far as it goes. What I've written now is quite condescending, yes ... but I'm always conscious of when I'm using that. What's happened over the last few years is that when people bring me fight sometimes I'll take it from them. This isn't a complaint. I'm never participating in a dialog that I don't want to participate in. Silver, the only reasonable thing that I can write to you at this point is that there are some members here who exploit and sort of feed off of your obvious intense pain, but the ones that you're complaining about aren't those. You definitely did get to a point relatively free of contention during the last substantial figandrew hiatus, and if you can think and feel back to what that was like, you might be able to notice what I'm referring to by this exploitation. I didn't see what you wrote just now as condescending in the least...this is the type of thing that surprises me the things you label as condescending coming from yourself. I don't know what to make of it, but I don't think it's all that important (one of many possible meanings of my shrugs). What your revulsion/sadness is from, I figure it's because the past is still alive and just because you shine it all on instead of addressing it/discussing it etc. is an explanation that comes rather readily. You can give that a think or not. Yes, I get the last paragraph.
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Dec 27, 2014 15:31:41 GMT -5
This offers us another excellent example to demonstrate what the opener meant. What's written in what I'm replying to is so toxically twisted with denial of what was written previously, admission of ill intent during the dialog, and entwining of past and ongoing grievance, that there's really no touching any of it sanely, but it doesn't have to pollute my well. As far as vibe goes, it would be dishonest of me to claim that it doesn't result in a little sadness and some revulsion as well, but that's as far as it goes. What I've written now is quite condescending, yes ... but I'm always conscious of when I'm using that. What's happened over the last few years is that when people bring me fight sometimes I'll take it from them. This isn't a complaint. I'm never participating in a dialog that I don't want to participate in. Silver, the only reasonable thing that I can write to you at this point is that there are some members here who exploit and sort of feed off of your obvious intense pain, but the ones that you're complaining about aren't those. You definitely did get to a point relatively free of contention during the last substantial figandrew hiatus, and if you can think and feel back to what that was like, you might be able to notice what I'm referring to by this exploitation. I didn't see what you wrote just now as condescending in the least...this is the type of thing that surprises me the things you label as condescending coming from yourself. I don't know what to make of it, but I don't think it's all that important (one of many possible meanings of my shrugs). What your revulsion/sadness is from, I figure it's because the past is still alive and just because you shine it all on instead of addressing it/discussing it etc. is an explanation that comes rather readily. You can give that a think or not. Yes, I get the last paragraph. Sorry hun', opposite day has been over for me for a long long time now.
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Dec 27, 2014 15:39:21 GMT -5
True that meaning is always created by the reader but the facile nature of the observation in question is undeniable. It is a fact that nonduality is a theme that recurs on the forum, and it's quite hard to miss. That difficulty is an objective fact. Is it condescending to direct a question to an individual that everyone knows the answer to? For example, would it be a condescension of me to ask you if you knew what the value of "x" was in the equation "2 + 2 = x"? There is an objective answer to those two questions, and those answers reveal the clarity of what is happening. There are also evasive answers available that would, by way of contrast, reveal the phenomena of the subjectivity trap in motion. These are polarized and disparaging opinions. Is discussion that contains such opinions civil?Is a party presented with incivility obliged to maintain it? I'm not questioning the honesty of them -- in that this is how you honestly see things, but do you notice how honesty and civility eventually collide unless subjectivity is deliberately and consciously set aside? Is it possible to ever completely set aside a subjective viewpoint? As andy has denied that this is going on, I'd conclude that it's going on unconsciously. Those are understandings open for discussion, until you start another mock trial.. then, the club shows up to play judge and jury to your theatrics.. yes, the forum is littered with your mock trials, so offense taken is just more theatrics.. what is missing here is your sincerity to have an OHCD.."Offense taken"? That's your giraffe -- I've not only specifically disclaimed offense but explained, in detail, how the appearance of the condescension was witnessed and not felt. Are you capable of a dialog that is free of your hiding behind this double-bind? Do you consider the underlined OHCD? What can you possibly identify in what you replied to that had any similarity in form to what's underlined? There was no insult, no mockery, no ridicule in what you replied to there. As you've abandoned OHCD in this dialog I'll simply be very frank: your abandonment of OHCD is just one more example of how your constant demand for it, as you refuse to bring it, is just a very persistent illusion with an audience of one.
|
|
|
Post by figgles on Dec 27, 2014 15:40:27 GMT -5
Silver, the only reasonable thing that I can write to you at this point is that there are some members here who exploit and sort of feed off of your obvious intense pain, but the ones that you're complaining about aren't those. You definitely did get to a point relatively free of contention during the last substantial figandrew hiatus, and if you can think and feel back to what that was like, you might be able to notice what I'm referring to by this exploitation.
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Dec 27, 2014 15:50:29 GMT -5
Silver, the only reasonable thing that I can write to you at this point is that there are some members here who exploit and sort of feed off of your obvious intense pain, but the ones that you're complaining about aren't those. You definitely did get to a point relatively free of contention during the last substantial figandrew hiatus, and if you can think and feel back to what that was like, you might be able to notice what I'm referring to by this exploitation.
Where that differs from the conversations you have with certain others here, is that with those others, there IS an interest on your part, in drama... And that that interest takes the form of the expression of hostility, mocking and derision of the other in a sideways manner, and a general divergence away from civil discourse. You cannot feel something that you are not a vibrational match to. Feeling and vibration are tightly intertwined.
|
|