|
|
Post by enigma on Feb 25, 2015 11:04:04 GMT -5
I wonder what goes on in his still mind, beyond the relentless focus of finding fault with virtually everything I say or don't say. I see him react that way to pretty much everyone who questions him, so really it's not just about evil frogs. its challenging to converse with someone who's so argumentative, and with beliefs that are set in stone And a big part of his argument is that others won't let go of their beliefs and engage in open honest civil conversation. I've said before that virtually everything he says here is a projection, which makes him his own bestest, favoritest teacher. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 25, 2015 11:04:20 GMT -5
By your own beliefs, there is no 'you' that 'can be' hateful.. that's where your action speak clearer than your words.. 'hateful' requires a victim with self-inflicted wounds, since there is no blame and no one that can choose otherwise, it's all one.. There is nobody to blame because there is no 'you' at the core of the hateful expression. The expression of hatefullness does not require a victim with wounds. There is no blame because there is no one that can choose otherwise. There's no contradiction. That's clearly stated. It's tricky because a hurtful expression can hurt. And so there may be an expression of being hurt. It's seamless -- like a drop falling into water and a resulting small splash.  But then the act of hurtfulness is assigned to a bully and the expression of being hurt is assigned to the victim. Secondary designations, but essential to the drama story. And what complicates things beyond that are times when there are preconceptions about bullies being hurtful and victims being hurt. Even the slightest glimmer of a suggestion of a possibility of an interpretation triggers the drama story. food fer thought: notice the resulting splash in the ripple is itself sending out a whole array of other drops... |
|
|
|
Post by enigma on Feb 25, 2015 11:05:55 GMT -5
By your own beliefs, there is no 'you' that 'can be' hateful.. that's where your action speak clearer than your words.. 'hateful' requires a victim with self-inflicted wounds, since there is no blame and no one that can choose otherwise, it's all one.. Precisely, if enigma himself doesn't operate from his own view of how the world works, how much use is his view? Where is the contradiction? |
|
|
|
Post by enigma on Feb 25, 2015 11:09:01 GMT -5
Kinda sad, E.. you say it's all oneness, but when someone explains how oneness works, you don't understand and call it fantasy.. Bingo ditto. So you also believe there's a fairy frequency network to make all the separate parts work as oneness? |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 25, 2015 11:12:06 GMT -5
I read that study as about habit, which is something I find compelling. Enigma thinks habit is just elaborate mind games, which could be true too -- there can be no goal pursuit outside of awareness, for example, just pretend play that that is going on. I think unconscious triggers are the how of 'spontaneous' self-referential thinking. Me too, which offers a clue as to how stopping self referential thinking is NOT to be done. I've heard someone say that present-awareness or howeveryouwannacallit acts as a solvent. This is how I understand ATA as well -- eventually the triggers no longer have their effect. And so self-referential thinking no longer happens. |
|
|
|
Post by enigma on Feb 25, 2015 11:16:08 GMT -5
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~?~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Co-authors of an illusion that provides the smoke-and-mirrors escape from discussing existential matters in open honest common terms.. you focus on the messenger, and hope that maybe the clarity of the message will not be noticed.. This is a forum, your characterization of 'accosted without provocation' applies equally with the club's tactics of trying to limit discussions to the club's approved beliefs, approved use of language, and the club's tactics of ganging up on those that present information that contradicts the club's beliefs.. Tzu could have written this almost verbatim last year.. or the year before that.. or the year before that.. (and probably did) if those beliefs aren't set in stone, why can't he let it go? (something else he says repeatedly) He draws a sharp line between his ideas, which he sees as still minded clarity, and the ideas of others, which he sees as false beliefs. |
|
|
|
Post by enigma on Feb 25, 2015 11:22:36 GMT -5
Tzu could have written this almost verbatim last year.. or the year before that.. or the year before that.. (and probably did) if those beliefs aren't set in stone, why can't he let it go? (something else he says repeatedly) Ya know.........I hated Star Wars VI, The Return of the Jedi. ......I thought Darth Vader turning to good, away from the Dark side of the Force, was a bunch of hooey. But after about 20 years when we got the beginning of the story with I, II and III then Star Wars VI made sense and I liked it. Originally, the prophecy of the One coming to balance the Force seemed like a sort of Messianic prophecy. We didn't figure that it took the Dark Force and the bad guy Darth Vader, to balance the Force. There's probably just some balancing going on, here. ........and maybe we don't really know who's the good guy and who's the bad guy (who will have been the bad guy) until the trilogy of the trilogy will be (is) complete. Whatever........... But I just see enigma as granite and Tzu as sandstone.........(IT[their]O) Really? As in soft, malleable, ever changing, easily worn away?  |
|
|
|
Post by enigma on Feb 25, 2015 11:23:38 GMT -5
In the end, the truth is the only thing that does work. It's not my job to make it work. Is the truth aggravating? Not my problem. Truth? What - is - truth... (*spoken in best worst Capn Kirk-ese*)That which is true. |
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Feb 25, 2015 11:46:55 GMT -5
I read that study as about habit, which is something I find compelling. Enigma thinks habit is just elaborate mind games, which could be true too -- there can be no goal pursuit outside of awareness, for example, just pretend play that that is going on. I think unconscious triggers are the how of 'spontaneous' self-referential thinking. Me too, which offers a clue as to how stopping self referential thinking is NOT to be done. Starboard ... the mind splinter shouting "stop! still your mind!" is not something that one is unconscious of, like, at all. They're just very often unconscious of the fact of the split. This of course implicates the informing of mind in a way that might be expressed by the fact that a "sincere seeker" is an oxymoron. |
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Feb 25, 2015 11:49:07 GMT -5
What in the blazes is going on with confronting the spitting is often obscure to a third party who hasn't experienced being the constant target of it. That you are a target is an objective fact discernible by the count of the number of times you've been accosted without provocation. There's very obviously an intense and unbalanced interest in dialog -- in that it's unrequited -- on the part of one of the two parties involved. It's definitely a very clear case of cyber stalking. I wonder what goes on in his still mind, beyond the relentless focus of finding fault with virtually everything I say or don't say. I see him react that way to pretty much everyone who questions him, so really it's not just about evil frogs. why do crusaders hunt squirrels?   |
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Feb 25, 2015 11:50:19 GMT -5
Well whatever.  It's the still mind, right??  Still mind on steroids. Well, whatever, it's still mind.  |
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Feb 25, 2015 11:58:32 GMT -5
I wonder what goes on in his still mind, beyond the relentless focus of finding fault with virtually everything I say or don't say. I see him react that way to pretty much everyone who questions him, so really it's not just about evil frogs. its challenging to converse with someone who's so argumentative, and with beliefs that are set in stone Especially when they're constantly chanting a mantra about how you're lost in minding based on your beliefs (... that they kant identify ..  ) ... and any idea they take to be true is just an "understanding". |
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Feb 25, 2015 12:01:46 GMT -5
What in the blazes is going on with confronting the spitting is often obscure to a third party who hasn't experienced being the constant target of it. That you are a target is an objective fact discernible by the count of the number of times you've been accosted without provocation. There's very obviously an intense and unbalanced interest in dialog -- in that it's unrequited -- on the part of one of the two parties involved. It's definitely a very clear case of cyber stalking. Two pots calling one kettle black. No, actually, that's demonstrably untrue. ... the same demonstration is available for E' by way of the archive. It's very clear who wants the dialog here, and it ain't us. |
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Feb 25, 2015 12:05:39 GMT -5
By your own beliefs, there is no 'you' that 'can be' hateful.. that's where your action speak clearer than your words.. 'hateful' requires a victim with self-inflicted wounds, since there is no blame and no one that can choose otherwise, it's all one.. Precisely, if enigma himself doesn't operate from his own view of how the world works, how much use is his view? No, that's your misconception of his view of how the world works. Obviously, where there are peeps, there's stuff like hate.  Peeps are an appearance just like a brick wall is an appearance. Just because you disagree with the notion of the nature of an appearance doesn't give you license to re-write the contents of E's mind. |
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Feb 25, 2015 12:08:48 GMT -5
Kinda sad, E.. you say it's all oneness, but when someone explains how oneness works, you don't understand and call it fantasy.. Bingo ditto.  |
|
It's the still mind, right?? 