|
|
Post by silver on Feb 25, 2015 15:14:12 GMT -5
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. "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. But 2/3rds or more of the arguments (heated ones) certain peeps be spouting nebulosities when it comes to context among other tings. I wasn't the one who brought up 'truth'. |
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Feb 25, 2015 15:17:11 GMT -5
"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. But 2/3rds or more of the arguments (heated ones) certain peeps be spouting nebulosities when it comes to context among other tings. a perfect example of the strawman fallacy.  ... it's not quite a double-bind .. (** muttley snicker **)I wasn't the one who brought up 'truth'. No, the evil frog hooked your mind right good with it.  Shame on him!!  |
|
|
|
Post by silver on Feb 25, 2015 15:56:32 GMT -5
But 2/3rds or more of the arguments (heated ones) certain peeps be spouting nebulosities when it comes to context among other tings. a perfect example of the strawman fallacy. ... it's not quite a double-bind .. (** muttley snicker **)I wasn't the one who brought up 'truth'. No, the evil frog hooked your mind right good with it. Shame on him!! There's quite a list of things I don't understand HERE: witnesses truth strawmen etc. I dont know why you think the frog sorcerer hooked my mind or how or why. I have minimal interest...and even if you did explain it, I probably won't understand, so you choose whether to bother explaining or saying anything about it. Heh. |
|
|
|
Post by stardustpilgrim on Feb 25, 2015 16:50:19 GMT -5
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'.  Do you get up at a certain time weekdays and get to work on time? Or does your boss let you wander in as you please and keep your job if you take off when you please, without consequences? |
|
|
|
Post by stardustpilgrim on Feb 25, 2015 16:56:00 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. 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. I am a rock, I am an island.  ............... oops...  /not................. .................  ................... ....................  PS w/ AG.... S&G |
|
|
|
Post by stardustpilgrim on Feb 25, 2015 16:59:17 GMT -5
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. "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. There are no words, I can use, because the meaning still leaves, for you, to choose....and I couldn't stand, to have them to be abused, by you....you.....Dreams I had just last night...... The Hurt, Cat Stevens........ |
|
|
|
Post by enigma on Feb 25, 2015 19:11:11 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... Yup, that's how the drama starts, and it seems we're quite interested in that drama. Cool pic.  |
|
|
|
Post by enigma on Feb 25, 2015 19:13:35 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. How do you figure that actually works? |
|
|
|
Post by enigma on Feb 25, 2015 19:23:30 GMT -5
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. Spontaneous thoughts about the self seem to originate on unconscious levels of mind, and become conscious when they build up enough energy. |
|
|
|
Post by enigma on Feb 25, 2015 19:25:41 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. why do crusaders hunt squirrels?  I'm not allowed to see the pic of the woman, maybe cuz I'm an evil frog? |
|
|
|
Post by enigma on Feb 25, 2015 19:48:16 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. 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. A few here will assume we are playing victim whenever we mention agendas and their associated bias. Silver relentlessly 'goes there' every time, but I understand that because her perception is dominated by her own sense of being a victim. Tzu's comment that the expression of hatefullness requires a victim is interesting for the reason you mention. It seems to imply one cannot actually be hateful unless somebody feels hated, or that one can't recognize hatefullness unless he references his own feeling. If that's a common belief, it begins to explain why so many 'go there'. |
|
|
|
Post by enigma on Feb 25, 2015 20:12:48 GMT -5
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).
Wow, okay, thanks for being clear. I won't waste time for either of us in the future. |
|
|
|
Post by enigma on Feb 25, 2015 20:29:59 GMT -5
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'. Pilgrim and Gopal are both trying to perfect their respective models using logic and reason, and rejecting anything that doesn't make sense to them. Maybe the goal is to be the first peeps in history to figure it all out. |
|
|
|
Post by enigma on Feb 25, 2015 20:40:23 GMT -5
Purposely vague, I'd wager. I said what is truth? You will spend an entire year pontificating about it.  Is "truth" different than "the truth"? If so, you tell me. I'm talking about what is true. |
|
|
|
Post by enigma on Feb 25, 2015 20:43:13 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? , and hell is never not of your own making. Sackly. Either she's wanting to have another round of 'Absolute Truth' discussion, or she's decided there's no such thing as facts. |
|
... it's not quite a double-bind .. (** muttley snicker **)
Shame on him!! 
............... oops... 
................... 
