|
|
Post by laughter on Feb 25, 2015 23:52:37 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'.  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 laughter on Feb 25, 2015 23:54:07 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. Sackly. Either she's wanting to have another round of 'Absolute Truth' discussion, or she's decided there's no such thing as facts. That's nothin' new and likely rezzes with quite a few of the onlookers.  |
|
|
|
Post by enigma on Feb 26, 2015 0:09:25 GMT -5
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. Every once in a while, somebody tries to understand the things I say, and when that happens, I try very hard to be clear, but it doesn't happen very often. Right now, you're spinning with your confusion about some metaphysical or spiritual Truth, and it really has nothing to do with anything I've been saying, and I'm not really too interested. |
|
|
|
Post by enigma on Feb 26, 2015 0:11:07 GMT -5
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. How do you figgr? |
|
|
|
Post by enigma on Feb 26, 2015 0:15:53 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. 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.. Of course not.  |
|
|
|
Post by enigma on Feb 26, 2015 0:19:29 GMT -5
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.. It reveals a belief structure in a 'you'.  |
|
|
|
Post by silver on Feb 26, 2015 0:20:55 GMT -5
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"??  Don't give me that. You have your own blind spots as well. I don't understand 'truth' the way it and other words are slung around here because some change it at will and yeah I've been 'informed' about 'context', recently as well. There's no way an average person - intellect/intelligence - can follow what is all too often, expounded on around here. It's just heavy duty pushing words around - vast heaps of 'em. |
|
|
|
Post by enigma on Feb 26, 2015 0:22:34 GMT -5
Oneness doesn't work through a network of multi-frequency communication. This is an example of what I was saying to Pilgrim about believing illusions and then deriving nonsense conclusions from them. Since you believe in oneness and separation, you have to imagine a sophisticated communication network so that all the separate parts can act as a one.
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. .. 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.. Cuz how else could the oneness do it's oneness thing, right? |
|
|
|
Post by silver on Feb 26, 2015 0:24:10 GMT -5
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. Every once in a while, somebody tries to understand the things I say, and when that happens, I try very hard to be clear, but it doesn't happen very often. Right now, you're spinning with your confusion about some metaphysical or spiritual Truth, and it really has nothing to do with anything I've been saying, and I'm not really too interested. .............................................. well crap - I dunno what happened here, but it's there^ ^ ^ No, I'm NOT spinning my wheels because I've experienced the alterations in certain pet words n phrases, so I don't stress myself out like I used to, and I think whatever it is you're trying to say much of the time, is you spinning your wheels and enjoying the sound of your own 'voice'. And, no I'm NOT attempting to figure out what you mean THIS time when you say the word 'truth'. I'm not even going there.  |
|
|
|
Post by enigma on Feb 26, 2015 0:26:18 GMT -5
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. As I say, he's very often coming from the perspective of how dangerous it would be for the person to follow any of these ideas. In this case, the map that guides him through his daily routine. |
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Feb 26, 2015 0:29:51 GMT -5
Don't give me that. You have your own blind spots as well. Give you what? "Blind spots"? What did I write in this dialog that would have you write that? Have I accused you of having a "blind spot"? I don't understand 'truth' t he way it and other words are slung around here because some change it at will and yeah I've been 'informed' about 'context', recently as well. There's no way an average person - intellect/intelligence - can follow what is all too often, expounded on around here. It's just heavy duty pushing words around - vast heaps of 'em. The underlined is an example of a straw man. You're making a set of disparaging conclusions without any basis, and that's simply no ground for a reasonable, sane dialog. |
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Feb 26, 2015 0:32:30 GMT -5
What's that got to do with the dialog? Seems like a complete non sequitur to me. As I say, he's very often coming from the perspective of how dangerous it would be for the person to follow any of these ideas. In this case, the map that guides him through his daily routine. History is so rife with examples of how the attempt to embody an ideal leads inevitably to the creation of the opposite that you'd think the point wouldn't be so controversial for someone as well read as 'dusty. |
|
|
|
Post by silver on Feb 26, 2015 0:33:50 GMT -5
Don't give me that. You have your own blind spots as well. Give you what? "Blind spots"? What did I write in this dialog that would have you write that? Have I accused you of having a "blind spot"? I don't understand 'truth' t he way it and other words are slung around here because some change it at will and yeah I've been 'informed' about 'context', recently as well. There's no way an average person - intellect/intelligence - can follow what is all too often, expounded on around here. It's just heavy duty pushing words around - vast heaps of 'em. The underlined is an example of a straw man. You're making a set of disparaging conclusions without any basis, and that's simply no ground for a reasonable, sane dialog. It's normal for any and all to have their own blind spots, many of which are rather common. You can't deny that 'vast heaps' of words are shoveled around with your own brand of hamster cage rage. |
|
|
|
Post by silver on Feb 26, 2015 0:35:13 GMT -5
As I say, he's very often coming from the perspective of how dangerous it would be for the person to follow any of these ideas. In this case, the map that guides him through his daily routine. History is so rife with examples of how the attempt to embody an ideal leads inevitably to the creation of the opposite that you'd think the point wouldn't be so controversial for someone as well read as 'dusty. Perhaps both of you are reading some emotions into his posts that aren't there. |
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Feb 26, 2015 0:38:06 GMT -5
Give you what? "Blind spots"? What did I write in this dialog that would have you write that? Have I accused you of having a "blind spot"? The underlined is an example of a straw man. You're making a set of disparaging conclusions without any basis, and that's simply no ground for a reasonable, sane dialog. It's normal for any and all to have their own blind spots, many of which are rather common. You can't deny that 'vast heaps' of words are shoveled around with your own brand of hamster cage rage. Ahhh yes the variation on the "what?? game" -- the retreat into generality, a Silver classic. So the answer to the question of "give you what?" seems to be that your "don't give me that" was referring to something you imagined and that your reference to "blind spots" was a complete non sequitur. The rest is just obvious trollin' hun'. Do you have a Dr.'s visit scheduled soon or somethin'? |
|
