|
|
Post by lolly on Aug 22, 2016 6:28:59 GMT -5
1) I like that. 2) What happens is extistential 'discussions' are presented as Truth (under the notion of a pointer) and that is the production of 'knowledge' which is the power of influence, ad as power is exerted, it is resisted, so tension builds. We the fid that the 'knowers' fortify their position by claims such as the other person is in a tizz because their egoic self is threatened, ad this is where the person themselves becomes a subject of the knower's knowledge, hence a topic of discourse, and the projected location of lack, thereby further concentrating the excesses of power on the 'king' as his subject is articulated as the inverse form. If it was just a conversation, there would be no knowledge base to it, and people would be concerned with understanding what people mean by what they say rather than constructing right and wrong positions. 3) See how it starts whit 'self reflection, but ends in the subjugation of 'them'. Perhaps the interaction is not actually so unidirectional, but wrapped up in dynamics that go between, but people aren't perfect ad they might have a lot going on in life, ad who knows what's driving a person. When we talk about 'understanding'. and connoting that as some higher knowing of a spiritual kind, we have already lost the empathy which makes things mutual or shared, and instead, invoked a disparity between subject positions. In short, if the knowledge is dropped we can just say what we think, but that would dissolve the 'teacher' along with the 'student' and completely destroy the status quo. It'd probably be the end of STF discussion forums altogether! Maybe best to just go along with pointy teacher thingy, in that case. Oh please. All you are saying is, hey it's difficult being a human being communicating with another human being, so instead of just making the best of it and recognising there is no such thing as perfect communication without the unavoidable complexity of a persona who also feels, with all that entails, I'll just pull the whole thing down. That's what you come to the table with and it's very boring. Once would have been okay. "Maybe best to just get along" seems like a good plan. It seems to me that you aren't listening effectively to what I am saying, and then you put words in my mouth, so I'm leaving it off there, but I hope you can see that your post is just further accusation. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 22, 2016 6:33:37 GMT -5
Whaddya mean get along with whom? Get along with others in the forum of course. With everyone, no matter what? Okay well you have the option to ignore and not engage, or fight the good fight if I can put that in slightly Christian religious terms. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 22, 2016 6:36:30 GMT -5
Oh please. All you are saying is, hey it's difficult being a human being communicating with another human being, so instead of just making the best of it and recognising there is no such thing as perfect communication without the unavoidable complexity of a persona who also feels, with all that entails, I'll just pull the whole thing down. That's what you come to the table with and it's very boring. Once would have been okay. "Maybe best to just get along" seems like a good plan. It seems to me that you aren't listening effectively to what I am saying, and then you put words in my mouth, so I'm leaving it off there, but I hope you can see that your post is just further accusation. See, can't even be conciliatory without being accusatory. Excuse the polarity but that's a lose/lose scenario. |
|
|
|
Post by quinn on Aug 22, 2016 6:38:20 GMT -5
I don't know where you got sickening. I'm saying it's repeated for a reason and the reason is not just pitch-fork wielding. And I'm saying I agree with you. Are. We. Done?  No. Do those dots between words signify frustration? You're agreeing there's a one-upmanship culture on ST? Is that all you got from my posts? |
|
|
|
Post by anja on Aug 22, 2016 6:45:38 GMT -5
With everyone, no matter what? Okay well you have the option to ignore and not engage, or fight the good fight if I can put that in slightly Christian religious terms.If I would be a tiny little bit sensitive, which I'm not in this case, I would think you call me christian on a crusade. Just sayin'.... I think Enigma hasn't ignored me and my comments a lot lately.  |
|
|
|
Post by quinn on Aug 22, 2016 6:51:18 GMT -5
I'm not upset. Dismayed and frustrated perhaps. Why do you consider that a trap? Dismayed and frustrated is upset. Is that denigration? Is it one-upmanship? Maybe I'm trying to win a debate? Yes, it's denigration and one-upmanship. "Upset", rather than the words I preferred to use, infers unsettled, agitated. I'm settled just fine. When I describe how I feel, what in you wants to change it? One-upmanship is not about standing up for what you feel is right in a debate. Definition: the technique or practice of gaining a feeling of superiority over another person. Yes, I can get disagreeable. When I disagree. heh heh What do you think my reason for bringing this all up is? |
|
|
|
Post by lolly on Aug 22, 2016 7:12:32 GMT -5
Ok , I must've misread. Thanks for clarifying. I come to STF with a guard up. I'm absolutely convinced everyone is positioned as a teacher or a student at the outset, and people generally want the wise teacher position; not the ignorant student one. Then what people say comes across as preaching presented as The Answer, rather than a conversation. It's kinda like that Ruthless Truth place, but without the steroids. When I turn it all about and I adopt the same forms of language that hold this charade together, well, I look stupid right, it sounds kinda inane... looks ridiculous... it's laughable. For some reason it seems to go unnoticed as acceptable as normal until the wrong person starts to do it. If I banged on at Enigma about his insanity and delusions and his over-investments and what have you, persistently rendered Satch into student shoes, called 'Efigma' for a month or two, prattled on about and and giggled at them like a little b1tch pretty much incessantly... not to metion the unknown PM's ad reports to admin all used in the big coercion... and so on... and like, suddenly, BIG SURPRISE, there is an eruption, and someone tells me where to get off. To me though, it is not a surprise, because I know the game as a whole and it goes round and around in a predictable cycle. This is my last mention of the social dynamics at STF, because of two reasons, I;ve already said everything, and secondly, it's now just becoming a part of the cycle itself. Oh yea, I'm done using the strategies ad turning them back, too. They are here to stay and required to persuade people into their places. So that was just a reflecting Zen stick now? No, that was your own ugliness. I do hope you're done with it. You'll have to desist trying to make me appear ugly, because I basically only took phrasings common to STF and reappropriated them. I don't speak in those terms myself, ad I adopted them just for the sake of demonstration. They appear 'ugly' to me too. I never abuse people under the pretense of a zen stick (nor psychoanalys or call people deluded, insane etc...), and as you see, 'your ugliness' is a continuation on your part, along withyou insinuation that I'm 'infecting' Quinn and causing him/her to 'become cynical'. My first post to which you responded to as 'ugly' didn't contain you in mind, and I explained that, yet it was descriptive of the 'ugliness' of undermining, and even abusing, forum members directly, which is endemic around here on this supposedly spiritual forum, but you've continued to attempt to articulate me in a less than appealing light, so I'll leave you to it. |
|
|
|
Post by quinn on Aug 22, 2016 7:34:06 GMT -5
There can be two reasons why several people might agree on a social dynamic. One is that they're unconsciously absorbing a meme floating around the forum without question. The other is that it's true. I don't know about cynical, but I am very tired of hearing that everyone who agrees that the dynamic here is about one-upmanship is blindly running in with a torch and pitchfork. Lolly makes some interesting points. He delivers them through the lens of student-teacher. I have a different lens, but basically agree. I see it more as a conscious/unconscious dynamic. The ones who see themselves as conscious can deliver scathing critiques of the unconscious as an act of service (in waking up) but god-forbid the unconscious deliver anything even close to a critique of the conscious. Have you seen this critique over the years? It's had other names: d!ck-measuring, battle, a hammer looking for nails - all sorts of lenses basically talking about the same thing. Conscious and unconscious alike are doing the ST-Dance, so what's the difference between them? So here I am in battle-mode. It's uncomfortable for me and most of the time I'm apt to let something like this go after a few rounds. The fact that I'm not is probably why you're seeing 'becoming cynical'. The post above is disarming. There is no attack and there's a sense of questions rather than answers (although you suggest a few answers LOL). I appreciate that. Well the 'pitchfork thing is repeated as a sort of affirmation and used strategically i the discourse, so we can imagine the language flowing like a river and exerting a force, which is simply an unavoidable facet of discourse. These allisios such as 'youve grown cynical' are all part of the game. It's disempowering the voice of the accused, and thats the reason it's said. It doesn't 'converse' like the flow of the river going to endless seas, and it sets up the attack and the defensive position. I think it's pretty obvious that is what it does. People often call me cynical, but I refute it, and I know these projections are common and that other readers 'get an impression' from it. Mud sticks, as they say. Lolly is presented as some sort of disease, and not of the physical type. It's a psychological aspersion that I have something infectious to spread and instills fear that others around will contract it and be rendered nonsencical. The implication is that lolly infected whoever it is whom is said to have 'become cynical'. It's clear that lolly is the center of blame ad cause and locale ot 'the problem'. There is a lot being done in those few lines. It's by no means kind, and I'd describe it as 'an underhand insinuation'. Now I question, is this an assertion that sort of slides by, but impresses minds with self-imagery portrayed in derogatory light? These depictions don't actually represent lolly or Quinn; they're more like toilet graffiti charactures; but the assertions do serve a particular purpose, or at least, have a certain effect, and effect implies power. You notice Satch opened his two previous posts to me with you... something something something, so as to diminish the image of lolly and take the dominant position . Thats 'what it does'. I know these uses of language, and I can't communicate on such terms. Re: the "I think you've grown cynical" comment. Good point about it's aim, not at the content but at the deliverer of the content. Good ole' ad hominem in play yet again. The purpose being to dis-empower, though, how can you be sure? Aren't there other 'forces of the river' besides that? Hard to know what's going on in people's heads, but this whole Teams/Gangs thing that gets brought up so much on ST may be a clue. If someone seems to be on one 'side' then acts like the other side, to say "oh, you're just being disagreeable" or "you've grown cynical" is a way to settle one's own dissonance. That's more how I saw it, anyway (in this particular case). Appreciate your insights on some of the subtleties of language.  |
|
|
|
Post by maxdprophet on Aug 22, 2016 8:19:53 GMT -5
Yea I doubt Socrates waxed on much about Intelligence, Oneness, Infinite Potential yada yada. I'm pretty sure Socrates waxed on about just about everything. He was a philosopher.  But that was in service to his greatest contribution: deconstructing folks' preconceptions. Can't get much teenier of a greasy spot than "I know that I don't know." |
|
|
|
Post by maxdprophet on Aug 22, 2016 8:25:09 GMT -5
That's funny cuz I saw it as completely compatible with your interpretation. Her interpretation was "he knows the ones who don't know". Perhaps you will interpret that for me? Welp, actually it was: "He said that he knows the ones who don't know. Hence, I know I don't know." IOW, 'I know that I don't know' is expressed publicly to provide contrast to a prevailing pretense. Your interp works on it's own too; when stated publicly, it's certainly to make a statement about the misconceptions of others as well. y'know? No problem. |
|
|
|
Post by anja on Aug 22, 2016 8:56:46 GMT -5
I'm pretty sure Socrates waxed on about just about everything. He was a philosopher. But that was in service to his greatest contribution: deconstructing folks' preconceptions. Can't get much teenier of a greasy spot than "I know that I don't know.""I know that I don't know", is a paradox. If you know that you don't know, then you know at least that you don't know and then, by that, you know nothing, but that you do know. "The paradox is the last sparkle of a rotten mind." (said Settembrini to Naphta in Der Zauberberg by Thomas Mann...freely translated by me...) |
|
|
|
Post by maxdprophet on Aug 22, 2016 9:07:35 GMT -5
But that was in service to his greatest contribution: deconstructing folks' preconceptions. Can't get much teenier of a greasy spot than "I know that I don't know.""I know that I don't know", is a paradox. If you know that you don't know, then you know at least that you don't know and then, by that, you know nothing, but that you do know. "The paradox is the last sparkle of a rotten mind." (said Settembrini to Naphta in Der Zauberberg by Thomas Mann...freely translated by me...) He said it that way to ensure that weak comediens could one-up with 'I don't know that I don't know.' Like Zen, paradoxisms are a sort of pun. They aren't actually paradoxical, just using the same term/homonym with embedded different meanings. Know-1 is a teeny set of knowledge which excludes all other stuff included in know-2. |
|
|
|
Post by anja on Aug 22, 2016 9:13:45 GMT -5
"I know that I don't know", is a paradox. If you know that you don't know, then you know at least that you don't know and then, by that, you know nothing, but that you do know. "The paradox is the last sparkle of a rotten mind." (said Settembrini to Naphta in Der Zauberberg by Thomas Mann...freely translated by me...) He said it that way to ensure that weak comediens could one-up with 'I don't know that I don't know.' Like Zen, paradoxisms are a sort of pun. They aren't actually paradoxical, just using the same term/homonym with embedded different meanings. Know-1 is a teeny set of knowledge which excludes all other stuff included in know-2. Whaaaat?!? |
|
|
|
Post by maxdprophet on Aug 22, 2016 9:19:22 GMT -5
Well the 'pitchfork thing is repeated as a sort of affirmation and used strategically i the discourse, so we can imagine the language flowing like a river and exerting a force, which is simply an unavoidable facet of discourse. These allisios such as 'youve grown cynical' are all part of the game. It's disempowering the voice of the accused, and thats the reason it's said. It doesn't 'converse' like the flow of the river going to endless seas, and it sets up the attack and the defensive position. I think it's pretty obvious that is what it does. People often call me cynical, but I refute it, and I know these projections are common and that other readers 'get an impression' from it. Mud sticks, as they say. Lolly is presented as some sort of disease, and not of the physical type. It's a psychological aspersion that I have something infectious to spread and instills fear that others around will contract it and be rendered nonsencical. The implication is that lolly infected whoever it is whom is said to have 'become cynical'. It's clear that lolly is the center of blame ad cause and locale ot 'the problem'. There is a lot being done in those few lines. It's by no means kind, and I'd describe it as 'an underhand insinuation'. Now I question, is this an assertion that sort of slides by, but impresses minds with self-imagery portrayed in derogatory light? These depictions don't actually represent lolly or Quinn; they're more like toilet graffiti charactures; but the assertions do serve a particular purpose, or at least, have a certain effect, and effect implies power. You notice Satch opened his two previous posts to me with you... something something something, so as to diminish the image of lolly and take the dominant position . Thats 'what it does'. I know these uses of language, and I can't communicate on such terms. Re: the "I think you've grown cynical" comment. Good point about it's aim, not at the content but at the deliverer of the content. Good ole' ad hominem in play yet again. The purpose being to dis-empower, though, how can you be sure? Aren't there other 'forces of the river' besides that? Hard to know what's going on in people's heads, but this whole Teams/Gangs thing that gets brought up so much on ST may be a clue. If someone seems to be on one 'side' then acts like the other side, to say "oh, you're just being disagreeable" or "you've grown cynical" is a way to settle one's own dissonance. That's more how I saw it, anyway (in this particular case). Appreciate your insights on some of the subtleties of language. I'm guessing the communication dynamics are fueled by deeply ingrained personality patterns more than conscious concerns about power distribution. Perhaps when an accusation is put on the table suggesting that one of those patterns is consciously intended there is a natural rebuff from the accused. Moi?? The rebuff can be either defense or offense or all of the above. Rinse,repeat. From personal experience, in the early stages of getting to know a friend, I am fascinated by their winning communication strategies. But after a while, I see through it and then the real relationship begins (or not). Cynicism would be too strong of a word for that inflection in the maturing process. |
|
|
|
Post by enigma on Aug 22, 2016 9:48:13 GMT -5
And I'm saying I agree with you. Are. We. Done? No. Do those dots between words signify frustration? You're agreeing there's a one-upmanship culture on ST? Is that all you got from my posts?Yeah, pretty much. |
|
