|
|
Post by enigma on Feb 24, 2015 19:03:28 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... **Tuning cosmic frequency receiver and listening fervently with a still mind**  |
|
|
|
Post by enigma on Feb 24, 2015 19:06:25 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.  I know you don't. You never do. You see everything through your own victim filter. |
|
|
|
Post by silver on Feb 24, 2015 19:13:40 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. I know you don't. You never do. You see everything through your own victim filter. You're such a nag.   |
|
|
|
Post by enigma on Feb 24, 2015 19:18:43 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. If it served you, why are you so quick to dismiss such behavior as a game? The purpose is always to potentially serve you. |
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Feb 24, 2015 19:21:58 GMT -5
Appeals to commonsense and calls for a still mind in the context of a Newtonian world view stuck in the 19th century, beliefs about a 6th sense, CC awareness in deep dreamless sleep and a multi-frequency wireless internet of woodland faerie carrier pigeons are actually pretty d@mned funny.  So was that! Though my understanding of the CC experience, (and my batting average hasn't been so good lately), is that he claims that he's lucid in the dream state, and from there can have a CC experience from within the dream, which is, at the very least, creative. Well whatever.  It's the still mind, right??  |
|
|
|
Post by enigma on Feb 24, 2015 19:23:15 GMT -5
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. Me too, which offers a clue as to how stopping self referential thinking is NOT to be done. |
|
|
|
Post by enigma on Feb 24, 2015 19:25:20 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. ......What? |
|
|
|
Post by silver on Feb 24, 2015 19:25:38 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. If it served you, why are you so quick to dismiss such behavior as a game? The purpose is always to potentially serve you. It's all too much cartoonish stuff here, though in this particular 'case', heh. Do you really think it's gonna 'work' like in the cartoons where you shut the door and hold it and then boom, the other character comes flying through? It's not gonna work the same for everyone. Besides that, I think giving up is the thing to do. I thought that's kind of what you'd recommend to others in similar situations. I think it's odd to have a contest of wills when you don't believe in will. |
|
|
|
Post by enigma on Feb 24, 2015 20:56:05 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. 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. 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. |
|
|
|
Post by silver on Feb 24, 2015 21:20:29 GMT -5
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. 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. The way you color words used by others (esp those who disagree with you) and the way you almost invariably respond to them (go figure, eh), I am quite sure it is no surprise, they find eviscerating, so that they would come back somewhat in kind, in and of itself should also be no surprise, but that's why I see you as playing the victim, because you seem to feign shock or innocent surprise at the responses. |
|
|
|
Post by silver on Feb 24, 2015 21:22:05 GMT -5
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. ......What? Y'know - spirit of it lives on? Another take on the thing that moms say, "If you keep making that face, it will freeze like that." |
|
|
|
Post by enigma on Feb 24, 2015 21:27:06 GMT -5
So was that! Though my understanding of the CC experience, (and my batting average hasn't been so good lately), is that he claims that he's lucid in the dream state, and from there can have a CC experience from within the dream, which is, at the very least, creative. Well whatever. It's the still mind, right?? Still mind on steroids. |
|
|
|
Post by enigma on Feb 24, 2015 21:30:29 GMT -5
If it served you, why are you so quick to dismiss such behavior as a game? The purpose is always to potentially serve you. It's all too much cartoonish stuff here, though in this particular 'case', heh. Do you really think it's gonna 'work' like in the cartoons where you shut the door and hold it and then boom, the other character comes flying through? It's not gonna work the same for everyone. Besides that, I think giving up is the thing to do. I thought that's kind of what you'd recommend to others in similar situations. I think it's odd to have a contest of wills when you don't believe in will. Not a contest of wills either. I asked you why you dismiss it when you say it served you. |
|
|
|
Post by silver on Feb 24, 2015 21:39:09 GMT -5
It's all too much cartoonish stuff here, though in this particular 'case', heh. Do you really think it's gonna 'work' like in the cartoons where you shut the door and hold it and then boom, the other character comes flying through? It's not gonna work the same for everyone. Besides that, I think giving up is the thing to do. I thought that's kind of what you'd recommend to others in similar situations. I think it's odd to have a contest of wills when you don't believe in will. Not a contest of wills either. I asked you why you dismiss it when you say it served you. 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. |
|
|
|
Post by tzujanli on Feb 24, 2015 21:41:03 GMT -5
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. 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. Co-authors of an illusion that provides the smoke-and-mirrors escape from discussing existential matters in open honest common terms.. you focus on the messenger, and hope that maybe the clarity of the message will not be noticed.. This is a forum, your characterization of 'accosted without provocation' applies equally with the club's tactics of trying to limit discussions to the club's approved beliefs, approved use of language, and the club's tactics of ganging up on those that present information that contradicts the club's beliefs.. |
|
It's the still mind, right?? 
