|
|
Post by justlikeyou on Feb 25, 2015 20:44:37 GMT -5
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'. Outright hate isn't the only thing make can make another feel hated. Relentless teasing, for example, can feel as hurtful as hate to the sensitive one. It's perceived as mean and hateful and it elicits hate in return. Not giving someone their space when they've had enough and don't know what else to do to make you stop (not necessarily on a forum) can just as easily turn into hate because it feels like deliberate torture to that one precisely because the other does not stop and it seems deliberate. There are a number of things that can elicit hate other than outright hate |
|
|
|
Post by enigma on Feb 25, 2015 20:45:51 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. 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. The idea that truth is relative doesn't mean you get to fill in your own meaning. |
|
|
|
Post by enigma on Feb 25, 2015 20:48:34 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. I wasn't the one who brought up 'truth'. I wasn't either. I said 'the truth'. Do you know the difference between the truth and a lie? |
|
|
|
Post by enigma on Feb 25, 2015 20:50:16 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!!  Some minds will nibble on dang near anything. |
|
|
|
Post by enigma on Feb 25, 2015 20:57:53 GMT -5
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'. Outright hate isn't the only thing make can make another feel hated. Relentless teasing, for example, can feel as hurtful as hate to the sensitive one. It's perceived as mean and hateful and it elicits hate in return. Not giving someone their space when they've had enough and don't know what else to do to make you stop (not necessarily on a forum) can just as easily turn into hate because it feels like deliberate torture to that one precisely because the other does not stop and it seems deliberate. There are a number of things that can elicit hate other than outright hate Sure. |
|
|
|
Post by silver on Feb 25, 2015 21:07:51 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. The idea that truth is relative doesn't mean you get to fill in your own meaning. Well then...if you don't explain what it means to you this time around, then you shouldn't even mention 'truth' because it always changes when you and some others use the word. You know it just adds to the confusion of peeps who, in good faith have been trying to understand the things you say. |
|
|
|
Post by silver on Feb 25, 2015 21:09:54 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. I wasn't the one who brought up 'truth'. I wasn't either. I said 'the truth'. Do you know the difference between the truth and a lie? YOu did in this part of the conversation. Yeah but it seems you don't care whether you are being truthful or not, but then again, it doesn't hold any real meaning as far as I can tell...but I know what you mean....sort of. |
|
|
|
Post by silver on Feb 25, 2015 21:11:38 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. I am a rock, I am an island.  ............... oops...  /not................. .................  ................... ....................  PS w/ AG.... S&G What does the PS part mean? |
|
|
|
Post by tzujanli on Feb 25, 2015 21:58:58 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 No, what you're trying say, is that you don't like it when your friends can't support their own beliefs, so you you feel like you need to help them express their dislike for those that don't agree with them/you.. but, when you try to say it, you think it sounds better when create illusions about the messenger to make the messenger appear in a negative perspective.. why don't you address the subject, 'still mind'? |
|
|
|
Post by tzujanli on Feb 25, 2015 22:12:09 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. The glaring contradiction is that your 'hateful' comment requires your belief in others that can hate, and a you that chooses to feel that you are hated.. if there is no one that can choose otherwise, your 'hateful' reference is purely self-serving.. there is nothing hateful in my posts to you, that's an illusion you need to perpetrate and it reveals the 'you' at the core of its expression.. |
|
|
|
Post by tzujanli on Feb 25, 2015 22:22:24 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... By the nonduality advocate's account, there's no 'you' that can be 'hurt'.. any claim of 'hurt' collapses the nonduality belief structure, revealing a 'you' that can be hurt/hate.. There is no 'hurt', there's information that you want people to think makes you hurt, but it's just information.. you use 'hurt' to manipulate attention away from the information that you don't like, like the contradictions in the nonduality belief system.. |
|
|
|
Post by tzujanli on Feb 25, 2015 22:38:11 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..
Let go of your beliefs, still your mind, and look. There's a reason you've been projecting that onto others relentlessly for years. You are your own best, favorite teacher.Then it's not oneness.. i don't imagine " a sophisticated communication network", essence is experienced through the experience/relationship/communing with/as 'That which is'.. a communing that permeates isness, but.. you're not open to that kind of liberation, you still need the conflict that attachment brings.. |
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Feb 25, 2015 23:42:26 GMT -5
That's a perfect example of the strawman fallacy. ... it's not quite a double-bind .. (** muttley snicker **)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.  ... wait, you don't understand " truth"??  |
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Feb 25, 2015 23:44:20 GMT -5
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? What's that got to do with the dialog? Seems like a complete non sequitur to me. |
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Feb 25, 2015 23:50:48 GMT -5
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'. The positive effects of witnessing and detachment can be taken to the extreme of seeing only what one wants to see. The irony is that the detached witness is objective -- not in the sense of an external objective reality, but in that what one was previously blind to has the potential to be illuminated. If one lives the fallacy that they are the individual creator of their internal mental and emotional landscape then there can be no objectivity. |
|
... it's not quite a double-bind .. (** muttley snicker **)
Shame on him!! 
............... oops... 
................... 
