|
|
Post by laughter on Feb 25, 2015 12:13:42 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. Insult can be observed without the feeling of insult arising, or even perhaps with that feeling, but also a concurrent noticing of what it is that's been insulted and what the source of the insult was. This is objectivity, but someone playing the both/and identity hand is in a form of the subjectivity trap, and has no room on the stage for clarity, except for his imagination of his own. |
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Feb 25, 2015 12:16:40 GMT -5
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. What the MT's revealed to me was the nature of the pattern of thought and emotion that would constantly generate double-binds. This is amplified in the denial of the fact of the structure by the individual sourcing the pattern. |
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Feb 25, 2015 12:23:53 GMT -5
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... Nice pic and good analysis. What can be noticed also is the pattern of repeating the characterizations of the roles, and this despite clear and obvious objective evidence contrary to the notion that the bully is the bully and the victim is the victim in the specific instances complained about. That pattern, otherwise known as propaganda, embodies a very specific logical fallacy. |
|
|
|
Post by stardustpilgrim on Feb 25, 2015 12:26:00 GMT -5
Why do you bring in the word risk? The answer is very simple.........it follows the path of least resistance, like water, there is no control....it meanders....... (Oh....I get it.........am I willing to risk being homeless........  ........  )............ ha,.....ha.......... A regular theme that you present is one in which a spiritual idea is characterized as dangerous for the person. That idea is the result of not fully understanding what's being said, but I often detect no real openness to that understanding. I understand you to the extend that you can be understood. I don't know precisely what you are referring to when you say spiritual ideas can be dangerous for the person, but yes, that can be true. But not true for the person, true for a false perception one might have of oneself. This is, generally, where all suffering comes from. So, if one is really interested in the truth, one has to go through more suffering to get to no suffering. If that's what you mean, sure, I agree. But most people (not to say most people here on ST's, I don't know about that) are interested in the truth, they're interested in repairing self, meaning, eliminating the part of self that hurts. This results in laughter's double bind, you can't eliminate the suffering without eliminating self, but we don't want to eliminate self, we just want to eliminate the suffering. Again, I understand you to the extent that you can be understood. That being the case, I'm not open to 99% of what you have to say, as it has no value for me. IOW, I fully understand what's being said has no value. (If I should agree with anything you say, it would have no value . If I disagree with you, if I understand why I disagree, that, likewise, has no value).
|
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Feb 25, 2015 12:31:21 GMT -5
I've said it before - suggested it strongly a million times, the same ting won't work on everyone - and to try and make something 'work' - which you'll deny - so what's your point then, in stringing others along and doing YOUR part in aggravating people. 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. ... the frog hunts are always rife with logical fallacies.   ... it's always interesting to watch these dialogs to see who relies on emotion and innuendo and who instead sticks to logic and facts. I often find myself of course resorting to fighting fire with fire. |
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Feb 25, 2015 12:33:57 GMT -5
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. The habit of discrimination and seeing the false as false leads to clarity but that still leaves the person at a threshold as the witness. |
|
|
|
Post by stardustpilgrim on Feb 25, 2015 12:41:13 GMT -5
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. That's just disingenuous. enigma still has gopal tied up in knots over his (E's) view of reality. I'm not rewriting E's mind. I'm remembering 5 years of dialogue with him. If he doesn't want people to believe he has lost touch with reality, he should pick another way of conveying his view......... |
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Feb 25, 2015 12:48:26 GMT -5
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. That's just disingenuous. enigma still has gopal tied up in knots over his (E's) view of reality. I'm not rewriting E's mind. I'm remembering 5 years of dialogue with him. If he doesn't want people to believe he has lost touch with reality, he should pick another way of conveying his view......... There is no contradiction between observing the movement of hatred, on one hand, and how the movement is ultimately relative and with no center, on the other. To posit the contradiction is to ignore the pointer of emptiness and that willful ignorance is the re-write of E's mind. This issue of trying to map out and make logical sense of E's world view is a related but different issue. Just burn the maps 'dusty, they're only confusin' ya'.  |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 25, 2015 13:20:17 GMT -5
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. The habit of discrimination and seeing the false as false leads to clarity but that still leaves the person at a threshold as the witness. The acts of discrimination and seeing the false as false continue without the witness, even when witnessed. What discontinues are the automatic self-reference loops like "maybe if I just say one more thing in scare quotes it will exemplify the tremendous cleverness of this particular witness." And, as you say, cleverness happens. (Especially inourownminds.) |
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Feb 25, 2015 14:39:19 GMT -5
The habit of discrimination and seeing the false as false leads to clarity but that still leaves the person at a threshold as the witness. The acts of discrimination and seeing the false as false continue without the witness, even when witnessed. What discontinues are the automatic self-reference loops like "maybe if I just say one more thing in scare quotes it will exemplify the tremendous cleverness of this particular witness." And, as you say, cleverness happens. (Especially inourownminds.)  |
|
|
|
Post by silver on Feb 25, 2015 14:56:24 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. ... the frog hunts are always rife with logical fallacies. ... it's always interesting to watch these dialogs to see who relies on emotion and innuendo and who instead sticks to logic and facts. I often find myself of course resorting to fighting fire with fire. But every time you use a word like 'truth', it's always back to te drawing board - what - does - it - mean to you? Bleah. I don't rely on emotion and innuendo - I am human and I have emotions and maybe an innuendo here and there - not so much. So...does "I often find myself of course resorting to fighting fire with fire" your way of saying I'll see you in hell?  |
|
|
|
Post by silver on Feb 25, 2015 14:58:21 GMT -5
Truth? What - is - truth... (*spoken in best worst Capn Kirk-ese*)That which is true. Purposely vague, I'd wager. I said what is truth? You will spend an entire year pontificating about it.  |
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Feb 25, 2015 15:01:00 GMT -5
... the frog hunts are always rife with logical fallacies. ... it's always interesting to watch these dialogs to see who relies on emotion and innuendo and who instead sticks to logic and facts. I often find myself of course resorting to fighting fire with fire. But every time you use a word like 'truth', it's always back to te drawing board - what - does - it - mean to you? Bleah. I don't rely on emotion and innuendo - I am human and I have emotions and maybe an innuendo here and there - not so much. So...does "I often find myself of course resorting to fighting fire with fire" your way of saying I'll see you in hell? Truth is always relative, but that doesn't mean that there's no such thing as a fact, and hell is never not of your own making. |
|
|
|
Post by silver on Feb 25, 2015 15:02:58 GMT -5
But every time you use a word like 'truth', it's always back to te drawing board - what - does - it - mean to you? Bleah. I don't rely on emotion and innuendo - I am human and I have emotions and maybe an innuendo here and there - not so much. So...does "I often find myself of course resorting to fighting fire with fire" your way of saying I'll see you in hell? Truth is always relative, but that doesn't mean that there's no such thing as a fact, and hell is never not of your own making. Then why bother saying anything about 'truth' or 'Truth' when we just fill in our own meaning? It's downright meaningless. Yeah, I agree we make our own hell - and uh, we often have help - both accidental and on-purpose type 'help'. We're none of us islands. |
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Feb 25, 2015 15:11:43 GMT -5
Truth is always relative, but that doesn't mean that there's no such thing as a fact, and hell is never not of your own making. about 'truth' or 'Truth' when we just fill in our own meaning? It's downright meaningless. Yeah, I agree we make our own hell - and uh, we often have help - both accidental and on-purpose type 'help'. We're none of us islands. "Why" depends on context. It's true that your mind is forming the meaning of these words as you read them, but obviously the words aren't meaningless, or you'd have no thoughts relative to them. |
|
........ 
)............ ha,.....ha..........
