|
|
Post by laughter on Aug 20, 2016 21:02:16 GMT -5
"Too much study" of what? Are you paying attention, like, at all? hmmmm ..  .. what do ya' think the magic 8-ball would report?? |
|
|
|
Post by enigma on Aug 20, 2016 21:05:03 GMT -5
I don't doubt that you've had some powerful spiritual experiences, but those experiences come and go, and they are not realization. Yes, the peace that you experience in meditation is the same dualistic peace everybody experiences. "The same dualistic peace"? Whaaaaaaaaaat??? Please 'splain dat to I and I? You don't know what I mean by dualistic feeling? Happy/sad, peace/turmoil, love/hate? |
|
|
|
Post by enigma on Aug 20, 2016 21:11:27 GMT -5
I don't doubt that you've had some powerful spiritual experiences, but those experiences come and go, and they are not realization. Yes, the peace that you experience in meditation is the same dualistic peace everybody experiences. I don't meditate. Haven't done so for years. Ramana said the purpose of practice was to end practice. Well, it's ended. He didn't say the purpose of practice is to find something or accomplish something. He said it is to end practice. And yet you struggle with me when I encourage the same for others. What he describes is a practice, the goal of which is an absence, and yet you struggle with me about that too. |
|
|
|
Post by preciocho on Aug 20, 2016 21:17:34 GMT -5
But you want to postpone the diabetes until they're at least 18 when they have to get their own health insurance so every month or so give them some M-80's so they get up off the couch and go outside for an hour or two. Check!
|
|
|
|
Post by preciocho on Aug 20, 2016 21:20:18 GMT -5
This is why I recommend Grand Theft Auto and Call of Duty (these are video games) to all my kids. Desensitizes them to not just death but all sorts of horrible things. These are the most disgusting two sentenses I have read on a forum ever, comming from a guy who just lost his wife and child (off and on and off and on...), but pretending to be some sort of a care-taker. I (symbolically) PUKE! Well now we set the bar. I'm sure I could beat those two by month's end  |
|
|
|
Post by enigma on Aug 20, 2016 21:20:44 GMT -5
You were talking about unlovely descriptions, not hate. Can there be unlovely descriptions of murderous thoughts? In fact, can there be a lovely description of them? No, you were talking about unlovely descriptions. Do you think I would have questioned the idea of meeting the person with love? Well, that got thoroughly muddled. The conversation started with you saying "I saw it in myself for many years, and I see it in others right here all the time. Those who are deeply unconscious, of course, don't have a clue about it." My questioning was about someone being deeply unconscious, which sounds like a label attached to a person. Satch suggested that this 'person' is deemed inferior to you. I agreed. No need to call in the lawyer - nothing was explicitly stated by you. I suppose you'll call it projection, but I often hear you "meeting the person" with derision.The main thing I was looking to discuss, though, was that I don't think there's such a thing as a deeply unconscious person. In a given situation where we're relating with someone, there can be unconscious stuff going on. Sometimes a lot, sometimes a little. It's the action that reflects unconsciousness. It's not an aspect of the 'person'. I don't know what it is. It doesn't seem to have anything to do with me. |
|
|
|
Post by lolly on Aug 20, 2016 21:32:55 GMT -5
To describe it as 'established' misrepresents the arbitrary notion you obviously have as factual knowledge of my persona. Such a declaration was not disclosed by me about myself; its merely a concoction and I' assume you have use for such an image. The reality is, that's got nothing to do with me whatsoever. The use is actually implied by the discursive strategy of your post. If first 'establishes' that I have issues so as to diminish me personally in order to render what I say as invalid. After sufficiently portraying me as irrational due to issues, you proceed to promote the student teacher relationship even though I made no mention of it. My post about casting Tenka as a subject in lack and likely far too invested (which again is a concoction, and by no means 'established') for one reason or the other, compelled you to fortify the student teacher paradigm. Furthermore, your post, as a response to mine, implicilty positions Tenka as the student figure, and Efigma as teach, but I don't recall Tenka ever consenting, agreeing, or giving permission to participating in that sort of relationship. His didn't get to declare himself 'student' and is being forcefully positioned by those who desire the position of teacher. And, it's you who's doing it. If you don't like what I'm saying, just consider me a teacher and this little lecture to be a 'zen stick'. It's not so much fun when you're coercively positioned as student boy and gettin' the zen stick up ya, is it? Lastly, just because I understand the power inherent to relational dynamics, and others don't seem to understand it quite so well, and indeed, have 'too much invested' that impels them to deny it, and also to portray me with issues to make me seem irrational, in no way implies, let alone establishes, I have authority issues. Fact is, I don't, I understand authority. Peter is an authority who could ban my a$$ for saying a$$, and I have no issue. I'm glad he put his foot down when the rabble here was a downer to my awesome vibe... and for a moment or two there, I felt real spiritual. The point is, well there's two... Firstly the image a wise teacher/student is an imaginary positioning of self images (which are established in the symbolic status quo), which doesn't occur to me because I have no use for that sort of relational dynamic. Secondly, there is no justification at all for making Tenka or anyone else a subject to be discussed. The reason for doing so is to define ones own self image in contrast the that which they project, hence the projected image is the inverted figure of the projector. Trouble is, it can't be stopped because the very fabric of the social structure of the forum is a student teacher status quo. Opps, almost forgot to say. In all fairness, if whats good for goose is good for gander, we've 'established' you have a teacher complex and enforce it with a 'zen stick'... Such a declaration was not disclosed by me about myself; its merely a concoction and I' assume you have use for such an image. The reality is, that's got nothing to do with me whatsoever. You're starting to get it, student boy. |
|
|
|
Post by lolly on Aug 20, 2016 21:34:16 GMT -5
To describe it as 'established' misrepresents the arbitrary notion you obviously have as factual knowledge of my persona. Such a declaration was not disclosed by me about myself; its merely a concoction and I' assume you have use for such an image. The reality is, that's got nothing to do with me whatsoever. The use is actually implied by the discursive strategy of your post. If first 'establishes' that I have issues so as to diminish me personally in order to render what I say as invalid. After sufficiently portraying me as irrational due to issues, you proceed to promote the student teacher relationship even though I made no mention of it. My post about casting Tenka as a subject in lack and likely far too invested (which again is a concoction, and by no means 'established') for one reason or the other, compelled you to fortify the student teacher paradigm. Furthermore, your post, as a response to mine, implicilty positions Tenka as the student figure, and Efigma as teach, but I don't recall Tenka ever consenting, agreeing, or giving permission to participating in that sort of relationship. His didn't get to declare himself 'student' and is being forcefully positioned by those who desire the position of teacher. And, it's you who's doing it. If you don't like what I'm saying, just consider me a teacher and this little lecture to be a 'zen stick'. It's not so much fun when you're coercively positioned as student boy and gettin' the zen stick up ya, is it? Lastly, just because I understand the power inherent to relational dynamics, and others don't seem to understand it quite so well, and indeed, have 'too much invested' that impels them to deny it, and also to portray me with issues to make me seem irrational, in no way implies, let alone establishes, I have authority issues. Fact is, I don't, I understand authority. Peter is an authority who could ban my a$$ for saying a$$, and I have no issue. I'm glad he put his foot down when the rabble here was a downer to my awesome vibe... and for a moment or two there, I felt real spiritual. The point is, well there's two... Firstly the image a wise teacher/student is an imaginary positioning of self images (which are established in the symbolic status quo), which doesn't occur to me because I have no use for that sort of relational dynamic. Secondly, there is no justification at all for making Tenka or anyone else a subject to be discussed. The reason for doing so is to define ones own self image in contrast the that which they project, hence the projected image is the inverted figure of the projector. Trouble is, it can't be stopped because the very fabric of the social structure of the forum is a student teacher status quo. Opps, almost forgot to say. In all fairness, if whats good for goose is good for gander, we've 'established' you have a teacher complex and enforce it with a 'zen stick'... this has all been confirmed? What exactly do you wonder about? |
|
|
|
Post by enigma on Aug 20, 2016 21:34:30 GMT -5
Well, that got thoroughly muddled. The conversation started with you saying "I saw it in myself for many years, and I see it in others right here all the time. Those who are deeply unconscious, of course, don't have a clue about it." My questioning was about someone being deeply unconscious, which sounds like a label attached to a person. Satch suggested that this 'person' is deemed inferior to you. I agreed. No need to call in the lawyer - nothing was explicitly stated by you. I suppose you'll call it projection, but I often hear you "meeting the person" with derision. The main thing I was looking to discuss, though, was that I don't think there's such a thing as a deeply unconscious person. In a given situation where we're relating with someone, there can be unconscious stuff going on. Sometimes a lot, sometimes a little. It's the action that reflects unconsciousness. It's not an aspect of the 'person'. I have to agree with enigma on this, most people are deeply unconscious. Not to see this means....well....that one has not seen themselves as deeply unconscious. Of course this must necessarily mean one is still unconscious, I don't see any way of getting around this. .....But quinn...doesn't this go back to our last conversation? ...isn't there a contradiction between that and this? But then ATST a person conscious (E?) knows not to disparage others. But then again most people around here think becoming conscious is once and done, but it's not (at least in the beginning). One can get a taste of it, and then ~get ordinary again~. But then you can remember ~what it was like~ and then know ~you are no longer there~. If one is ~no longer there~ then one is no longer conscious, period. And if one does not recognize this, then they are all the more unconscious. Maybe if yous guys tried to define 'disparage' you would see how subjective the term is. |
|
|
|
Post by lolly on Aug 20, 2016 21:51:24 GMT -5
That wpuld the the imagined lolly in your mind hahahha. No such words were mentioned my post, and you are the 'anyone' who mentioned it. I was just pointing out the insanity of Efigma's delusions teehee. If any of the eight of us who were a part of this dialog in one way or another were innocent of the positioning dynamic you've called out there might be a valid point to the calling, but none of us are so there isn't. :) It started with 'Efigma' making a subject out of Tenka, and then Satch asserted the teachy preachy position in the same regard. If people think that's reasonable, then they ain't my kinda people. You claim there's no positioning, so I assume you're caught up in the STF 'delusion' as well'. Very 'likely you have too much invested in it', Laffy. |
|
|
|
Post by quinn on Aug 20, 2016 22:01:15 GMT -5
Well, that got thoroughly muddled. The conversation started with you saying "I saw it in myself for many years, and I see it in others right here all the time. Those who are deeply unconscious, of course, don't have a clue about it." My questioning was about someone being deeply unconscious, which sounds like a label attached to a person. Satch suggested that this 'person' is deemed inferior to you. I agreed. No need to call in the lawyer - nothing was explicitly stated by you. I suppose you'll call it projection, but I often hear you "meeting the person" with derision.The main thing I was looking to discuss, though, was that I don't think there's such a thing as a deeply unconscious person. In a given situation where we're relating with someone, there can be unconscious stuff going on. Sometimes a lot, sometimes a little. It's the action that reflects unconsciousness. It's not an aspect of the 'person'. I don't know what it is. It doesn't seem to have anything to do with me. Your second sentence renders the first one insincere. What happened to the deeply-unconscious-person discussion? |
|
|
|
Post by quinn on Aug 20, 2016 22:07:10 GMT -5
I have to agree with enigma on this, most people are deeply unconscious. Not to see this means....well....that one has not seen themselves as deeply unconscious. Of course this must necessarily mean one is still unconscious, I don't see any way of getting around this. .....But quinn...doesn't this go back to our last conversation? ...isn't there a contradiction between that and this? But then ATST a person conscious (E?) knows not to disparage others. But then again most people around here think becoming conscious is once and done, but it's not (at least in the beginning). One can get a taste of it, and then ~get ordinary again~. But then you can remember ~what it was like~ and then know ~you are no longer there~. If one is ~no longer there~ then one is no longer conscious, period. And if one does not recognize this, then they are all the more unconscious. Maybe if yous guys tried to define 'disparage' you would see how subjective the term is. Of course it's subjective. Doesn't mean it's not true. |
|
|
|
Post by enigma on Aug 20, 2016 22:07:18 GMT -5
I have to agree with enigma on this, most people are deeply unconscious. Not to see this means....well....that one has not seen themselves as deeply unconscious. Of course this must necessarily mean one is still unconscious, I don't see any way of getting around this. .....But quinn...doesn't this go back to our last conversation? ...isn't there a contradiction between that and this? But then ATST a person conscious (E?) knows not to disparage others. But then again most people around here think becoming conscious is once and done, but it's not (at least in the beginning). One can get a taste of it, and then ~get ordinary again~. But then you can remember ~what it was like~ and then know ~you are no longer there~. If one is ~no longer there~ then one is no longer conscious, period. And if one does not recognize this, then they are all the more unconscious. "No, nobody is or all are! Don't think youself as being "above" the regular crowd, Stardust, just because you read some stuff and now believe in some dominant/submissive kind of pig-poo, invented by your brand of "truth" as being better(erer) than anybody elses poo-poo." - (Some dude who brought the ennagramm to westerers) Unconscious peeps always think the whole issue is about feeling superior. |
|
|
|
Post by figgles on Aug 20, 2016 22:11:59 GMT -5
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 20, 2016 22:17:21 GMT -5
If any of the eight of us who were a part of this dialog in one way or another were innocent of the positioning dynamic you've called out there might be a valid point to the calling, but none of us are so there isn't.  It started with 'Efigma' making a subject out of Tenka, and then Satch asserted the teachy preachy position in the same regard. If people think that's reasonable, then they ain't my kinda people. You claim there's no positioning, so I assume you're caught up in the STF 'delusion' as well'. Very 'likely you have too much invested in it', Laffy. Are there no circumstance in which you would accept the position as a student or do you see an inherent oppressiveness in any teacher student relationship. |
|
