Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 24, 2015 11:00:25 GMT -5
Now you begin the 'hateful' painting, quite the artist.. No, i didn't describe Mikio as my "best" teacher, but it suited your agenda to claim so.. he was 'one of the best' considering his ability for non-verbal conveyance of understanding, he was a 'part of the whole'.. By your beliefs, the so-called 'spitting' would be causeless, and as such unable to be 'hateful', but.. again, your actions speak clearer than your words and the illusions you try to spin.. So he was one of your best teachers instead of your best teacher, or your favorite teacher? What difference does it make in this discussion beyond the opportunity for you to spit at me again and accuse me of spinning illusions and furthering agendas? Just because you are not the cause does not mean you are not being hateful. What it does mean is that you are not to blame. cause and effect....and typical blindness..unable to see your own nose due to hateful projections based on fervent attachment to beliefs..denying responsibility for your own hatefulness under the guise of attachment to beliefs in the absence of self...let go, still mind, allow the frequencies of cosmic consciousness inform you of the actuality of the happening... |
|
|
|
Post by silver on Feb 24, 2015 11:14:24 GMT -5
Now you begin the 'hateful' painting, quite the artist.. No, i didn't describe Mikio as my "best" teacher, but it suited your agenda to claim so.. he was 'one of the best' considering his ability for non-verbal conveyance of understanding, he was a 'part of the whole'.. By your beliefs, the so-called 'spitting' would be causeless, and as such unable to be 'hateful', but.. again, your actions speak clearer than your words and the illusions you try to spin.. So he was one of your best teachers instead of your best teacher, or your favorite teacher? What difference does it make in this discussion beyond the opportunity for you to spit at me again and accuse me of spinning illusions and furthering agendas? Just because you are not the cause does not mean you are not being hateful. What it does mean is that you are not to blame. For someone with such a 'philosophy', you sure do see a lot of hating and spitting...I thought you were untouchable...uninjurable, so now you're painting your own self repeatedly as a victim here. I don't get it, frog daddy.  |
|
|
|
Post by stardustpilgrim on Feb 24, 2015 11:16:27 GMT -5
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 24, 2015 11:38:35 GMT -5
So he was one of your best teachers instead of your best teacher, or your favorite teacher? What difference does it make in this discussion beyond the opportunity for you to spit at me again and accuse me of spinning illusions and furthering agendas? Just because you are not the cause does not mean you are not being hateful. What it does mean is that you are not to blame. For someone with such a 'philosophy', you sure do see a lot of hating and spitting...I thought you were untouchable...uninjurable, so now you're painting your own self repeatedly as a victim here. I don't get it, frog daddy. Silver just take a moment here. Look at what you wrote: 1. reference to his 'philosophy' -- you underlined "you are not being hateful." I'm assuming that is the philosophy you are referring to. You did not underline 'you are not to blame.' 2. "you sure do see a lot of hating and spitting" 3. "I thought you were untouchable...uninjurable" 4. "now you're painting your own self repeatedly as a victim here" 5. "I don't get it." How do you think he might reply? Hint: his 'philosophy' is that there is no one there that is actually being hateful, there is no one to blame (1). Yet it is possible to talk about behaviors as represented in the forum posts (2). In other words, behavior can be discussed -- sometimes in a beneficial way -- without a requirement that there is someone there, an individual, responsible for the behavior. I don't know where (3) is from, but it is consistent in some ways with (1), though he would assuredly say ouch if someone caused harm. Do you understand how it is possible for someone to say Ouch when harmed and also hold (1)? (4), in my estimation, is what you perceive to be a contradiction because you think that if someone says a behavior is abusive, for example, and the target of the abuse is that someone, then they are a painting themselves as a victim. But it's possible to discuss the behavior itself, without claiming that there is a bully or a victim, and simultaneously be free to say Ouch if harmed. (5) is a good place to start from -- and from there, ask a question trying to clarify what you see as a contradiction. IMO. |
|
|
|
Post by silver on Feb 24, 2015 11:48:20 GMT -5
For someone with such a 'philosophy', you sure do see a lot of hating and spitting...I thought you were untouchable...uninjurable, so now you're painting your own self repeatedly as a victim here. I don't get it, frog daddy. Silver just take a moment here. Look at what you wrote: 1. reference to his 'philosophy' -- you underlined "you are not being hateful." I'm assuming that is the philosophy you are referring to. You did not underline 'you are not to blame.' 2. "you sure do see a lot of hating and spitting" 3. "I thought you were untouchable...uninjurable" 4. "now you're painting your own self repeatedly as a victim here" 5. "I don't get it." How do you think he might reply? Hint: his 'philosophy' is that there is no one there that is actually being hateful, there is no one to blame (1). Yet it is possible to talk about behaviors as represented in the forum posts (2). In other words, behavior can be discussed -- sometimes in a beneficial way -- without a requirement that there is someone there, an individual, responsible for the behavior. I don't know where (3) is from, but it is consistent in some ways with (1), though he would assuredly say ouch if someone caused harm. Do you understand how it is possible for someone to say Ouch when harmed and also hold (1)? (4) is what you perceive to be a contradiction because you think that if someone says Ouch they are a painting themselves as a victim. (5) is a good place to start from -- and from there, ask a question trying to clarify what you see as a contradiction. IMO. R U kidding me? After all the jazz I had to go through a long time ago - which I don't complain about at all any longer. If, as is continued ad nauseum, there is no person to be hurt - isn't that the schpiel they used on me? I don't mind because it ended up serving me. This is just a silly game of tag that will never end and I'm not 'blaming' the one side, to be honest. And honestly, no one HAS to reply, either. That's one of the big parts I don't get, if Tzu keeps saying stuff, the frog & co. can ignore that stuff, as an alternative. That's what I'm doing - talking about it (behaviors). 'Our' worlds are just chock-full of options, but force of some god-awful habits cause us to just use one that we tend to fall back on. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 24, 2015 11:56:49 GMT -5
Silver just take a moment here. Look at what you wrote: 1. reference to his 'philosophy' -- you underlined "you are not being hateful." I'm assuming that is the philosophy you are referring to. You did not underline 'you are not to blame.' 2. "you sure do see a lot of hating and spitting" 3. "I thought you were untouchable...uninjurable" 4. "now you're painting your own self repeatedly as a victim here" 5. "I don't get it." How do you think he might reply? Hint: his 'philosophy' is that there is no one there that is actually being hateful, there is no one to blame (1). Yet it is possible to talk about behaviors as represented in the forum posts (2). In other words, behavior can be discussed -- sometimes in a beneficial way -- without a requirement that there is someone there, an individual, responsible for the behavior. I don't know where (3) is from, but it is consistent in some ways with (1), though he would assuredly say ouch if someone caused harm. Do you understand how it is possible for someone to say Ouch when harmed and also hold (1)? (4) is what you perceive to be a contradiction because you think that if someone says Ouch they are a painting themselves as a victim. (5) is a good place to start from -- and from there, ask a question trying to clarify what you see as a contradiction. IMO. R U kidding me? After all the jazz I had to go through a long time ago - which I don't complain about at all any longer. If, as is continued ad nauseum, there is no person to be hurt - isn't that the schpiel they used on me? I don't mind because it ended up serving me. This is just a silly game of tag that will never end and I'm not 'blaming' the one side, to be honest. And honestly, no one HAS to reply, either. That's one of the big parts I don't get, if Tzu keeps saying stuff, the frog & co. can ignore that stuff, as an alternative. That's what I'm doing - talking about it (behaviors). 'Our' worlds are just chock-full of options, but force of some god-awful habits cause us to just use one that we tend to fall back on. No I'm not kidding. Also I edited but it zinged in after your reply. Methinks it wouldn't have affected your reply any differently, anyhoo. You are talking about behaviours, yes, and other things. I was just trying to see if you could take a moment to understand E's perspective. It doesn't seem like it. I don't know what you mean by "'Our' worlds are just chock-full of options, but force of some god-awful habits cause us to just use one that we tend to fall back on." Can you say it an another way and be very specific about what you are referring to -- I need all the help I can get. And thank you for your patience in this regard. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 24, 2015 12:06:49 GMT -5
Your go-to reasons for dismissing scientific experimentation are unconvincing. What do you mean by 'direct communication'? What 'frequencies' are you referring to? And there's no need to get all defensive just because Portto mused about the implications regarding free will. There actually was no mention of free will in the article. And remember, you are free to simultaneously find something interesting while also being skeptical of it, just FYI. Portto brought this up because of the still mind discussion, which is very interesting, IMO. How might a scientist define still mind, for example? What is measurable in that state? One could argue, for example, that free will is a process that is either conscious or unconscious. If abstract logical computation can happen unconsciously, why not decisions involving 'free will'? Yes, good questions. I just posted above a link to an article showing that much of our 'will' is automated. 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. |
|
|
|
Post by silver on Feb 24, 2015 12:18:12 GMT -5
R U kidding me? After all the jazz I had to go through a long time ago - which I don't complain about at all any longer. If, as is continued ad nauseum, there is no person to be hurt - isn't that the schpiel they used on me? I don't mind because it ended up serving me. This is just a silly game of tag that will never end and I'm not 'blaming' the one side, to be honest. And honestly, no one HAS to reply, either. That's one of the big parts I don't get, if Tzu keeps saying stuff, the frog & co. can ignore that stuff, as an alternative. That's what I'm doing - talking about it (behaviors). 'Our' worlds are just chock-full of options, but force of some god-awful habits cause us to just use one that we tend to fall back on. No I'm not kidding. Also I edited but it zinged in after your reply. Methinks it wouldn't have affected your reply any differently, anyhoo. You are talking about behaviours, yes, and other things. I was just trying to see if you could take a moment to understand E's perspective. It doesn't seem like it. I don't know what you mean by "'Our' worlds are just chock-full of options, but force of some god-awful habits cause us to just use one that we tend to fall back on." Can you say it an another way and be very specific about what you are referring to -- I need all the help I can get. And thank you for your patience in this regard. Why would you say it doesn't seem like I'd take a moment to understand E's perspective? It seems rather simple and straight forward - everyday stuff. You're saying that you think I'm set in my ways (too), okay. It's hard not to notice that it seems like watching an eternal tennis match - the ball goes back and forth with nothing really changing - it's just a silly game both have chosen to play. If I didn't know better, it appears that in light of both parties going unconscious from time to time, the same game can go on even after they're dead and gone. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 24, 2015 13:01:30 GMT -5
No I'm not kidding. Also I edited but it zinged in after your reply. Methinks it wouldn't have affected your reply any differently, anyhoo. You are talking about behaviours, yes, and other things. I was just trying to see if you could take a moment to understand E's perspective. It doesn't seem like it. I don't know what you mean by "'Our' worlds are just chock-full of options, but force of some god-awful habits cause us to just use one that we tend to fall back on." Can you say it an another way and be very specific about what you are referring to -- I need all the help I can get. And thank you for your patience in this regard. Why would you say it doesn't seem like I'd take a moment to understand E's perspective? It seems rather simple and straight forward - everyday stuff. You're saying that you think I'm set in my ways (too), okay. It's hard not to notice that it seems like watching an eternal tennis match - the ball goes back and forth with nothing really changing - it's just a silly game both have chosen to play. If I didn't know better, it appears that in light of both parties going unconscious from time to time, the same game can go on even after they're dead and gone. Hi Silver, I think you tried to clarify what you meant about the 'our' worlds thing there. Eternal Ping Pong match and such. Unfortunately, I don't think it's a game though. There seems to be a blinding bitterness in the mix. IMO, the apparent bitterness is just a stand-in for something else, less apparent. But I don't know what that is. There is a faint hope that things like that come to light in such discussions. That bitterness is sourced way back and I don't see any easing of it. Note: I didn't say anything about a way you were set in. You said "I don't get it." That's enough. But maybe you thought you were just being rhetorical -- as in here's a contradiction, explain that to me. I tried to juxtapose some of the things you said to shed some light on why there might not be a contradiction. You understand the no self 'philosophy' but still think Enigma is painting himself as a victim. The latter is the issue, IMO. Not a problem. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 24, 2015 13:32:06 GMT -5
Hi Portto, yeah, if there is no individual I, and therefore there is no another, all desire to think about another is absent. Yep, the world is a lot more interesting and a lot less scary if we don't create the individual! Hi Portto, thanks for your reply. If you had a choice, would you rather always live in a lot more interesting, less scary world, IOW other than what you are? Or would you like to be what you are? |
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Feb 24, 2015 14:33:27 GMT -5
So he was one of your best teachers instead of your best teacher, or your favorite teacher? What difference does it make in this discussion beyond the opportunity for you to spit at me again and accuse me of spinning illusions and furthering agendas? Just because you are not the cause does not mean you are not being hateful. What it does mean is that you are not to blame. cause and effect....and typical blindness..unable to see your own nose due to hateful projections based on fervent attachment to beliefs..denying responsibility for your own hatefulness under the guise of attachment to beliefs in the absence of self...let go, still mind, allow the frequencies of cosmic consciousness inform you of the actuality of the happening... Greetings, By an understanding that isn't a belief in the principle of self-organization, by expressing the clarity of what is happening free of dogmatic attachment and letting go by your own free will, you have bullied your way to a new toaster! ... this months club password is "Van". (shhhhhh! doans tell noone else!!)Bee well |
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Feb 24, 2015 14:40:12 GMT -5
For someone with such a 'philosophy', you sure do see a lot of hating and spitting...I thought you were untouchable...uninjurable, so now you're painting your own self repeatedly as a victim here. I don't get it, frog daddy. Silver just take a moment here. Look at what you wrote: 1. reference to his 'philosophy' -- you underlined "you are not being hateful." I'm assuming that is the philosophy you are referring to. You did not underline 'you are not to blame.' 2. "you sure do see a lot of hating and spitting" 3. "I thought you were untouchable...uninjurable" 4. "now you're painting your own self repeatedly as a victim here" 5. "I don't get it." How do you think he might reply? Hint: his 'philosophy' is that there is no one there that is actually being hateful, there is no one to blame (1). Yet it is possible to talk about behaviors as represented in the forum posts (2). In other words, behavior can be discussed -- sometimes in a beneficial way -- without a requirement that there is someone there, an individual, responsible for the behavior. I don't know where (3) is from, but it is consistent in some ways with (1), though he would assuredly say ouch if someone caused harm. Do you understand how it is possible for someone to say Ouch when harmed and also hold (1)? (4), in my estimation, is what you perceive to be a contradiction because you think that if someone says a behavior is abusive, for example, and the target of the abuse is that someone, then they are a painting themselves as a victim. But it's possible to discuss the behavior itself, without claiming that there is a bully or a victim, and simultaneously be free to say Ouch if harmed. (5) is a good place to start from -- and from there, ask a question trying to clarify what you see as a contradiction. IMO. (3) comes from an insight about our sense of being and how that relates to personal injury. It's easy to see in the case of such mild injury as insult on an internet forum, 'cause the injury can only ever really be to the card-board cut-out that we project with our content. It's a very common insight, one I know you have, but I can understand how you might not have connected the dots this time.  |
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Feb 24, 2015 14:48:49 GMT -5
Now you begin the 'hateful' painting, quite the artist.. No, i didn't describe Mikio as my "best" teacher, but it suited your agenda to claim so.. he was 'one of the best' considering his ability for non-verbal conveyance of understanding, he was a 'part of the whole'.. By your beliefs, the so-called 'spitting' would be causeless, and as such unable to be 'hateful', but.. again, your actions speak clearer than your words and the illusions you try to spin.. So he was one of your best teachers instead of your best teacher, or your favorite teacher? What difference does it make in this discussion beyond the opportunity for you to spit at me again and accuse me of spinning illusions and furthering agendas? Just because you are not the cause does not mean you are not being hateful. What it does mean is that you are not to blame. 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. |
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Feb 24, 2015 14:57:52 GMT -5
After all the jazz I had to go through a long time ago - which I don't complain about at all any longer.  |
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Feb 24, 2015 15:00:41 GMT -5
You are talking about behaviours, yes, and other things. There is still mind in the endless discussion about behavior.  |
|
