|
|
Post by anja on Aug 22, 2016 9:50:28 GMT -5
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.  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. Does that mean, kinda sorta, that it's not done consciously but merely some unconscious pattern play out, and therfore it's not "evil" but just somehow done unconsciously, and therfore not thaaaaaaaaaat bad but just a bit unconscious?  ?? |
|
|
|
Post by enigma on Aug 22, 2016 10:06:52 GMT -5
Dismayed and frustrated is upset. Is that denigration? Is it one-upmanship? Maybe I'm trying to win a debate? "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? That's precisely the attitude and energy Lolly brings to the forum, and rather than revealing the mechanics of conflict from a position of superiority, as intended, it's the fundamental source of the conflict in question. The Lolly position is that nobody ever says anything true, that it's all about manipulation tactics to gain control. Somebody says you're upset. You say, Oh no, I'm dismayed and frustrated. Somebody points out to you that they are the same and you label that as denigrating one-upmanship. I shouldn't have to point out to you that you're being argumentative, cynical and judgmental, and that you are the perpetrator that you're currently trying to chase down. |
|
|
|
Post by anja on Aug 22, 2016 10:08:03 GMT -5
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?I don't agree. |
|
|
|
Post by maxdprophet on Aug 22, 2016 10:10:04 GMT -5
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. Does that mean, kinda sorta, that it's not done consciously but merely some unconscious pattern play out, and therfore it's not "evil" but just somehow done unconsciously, and therfore not thaaaaaaaaaat bad but just a bit unconscious? ?? The evil/bad characterization/judgement is perhaps a 'deeply ingrained pattern'/unconscious. Yes, I think unconscious patterns -- when recognized that way -- take a bit of the edge off. |
|
|
|
Post by anja on Aug 22, 2016 10:13:17 GMT -5
The evil/bad characterization/judgement is perhaps a 'deeply ingrained pattern'/unconscious. Yes, I think unconscious patterns -- when recognized that way -- take a bit of the edge off. I see. Got your point. But I think it's not what really happens here. Nevertheless, once some statements here have been called "malicious". Not by me, of course. |
|
|
|
Post by enigma on Aug 22, 2016 10:27:07 GMT -5
So that was just a reflecting Zen stick now? No, that was your own ugliness. I do hope you're done with it. , 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. Trust me, it's effortless. From your own perspective, you criticize the use of the zen stick while making use of it yourself (as you describe above) and then deny you are doing so while you're doing it. It's similar to 'I'm not upset, I'm dismayed and frustrated'. I've been watching this forum at least as intensely as you have, and for much longer. Attitudes definitely are infectious. They embold, incite and push people's buttons. It's a manipulative tactic that works very well and provides the source material for discussions of mass insanity and angry pitchfork wielding villagers. |
|
|
|
Post by anja on Aug 22, 2016 10:28:43 GMT -5
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. Trust me, it's effortless. From your own perspective, you criticize the use of the zen stick while making use of it yourself (as you describe above) and then deny you are doing so while you're doing it. It's similar to 'I'm not upset, I'm dismayed and frustrated'. I've been watching this forum at least as intensely as you have, and for much longer. Attitudes definitely are infectious. They embold, incite and push people's buttons. It's a manipulative tactic that works very well and provides the source material for discussions of mass insanity and angry pitchfork wielding villagers. Your agenda shows again, Enigma. "Big time"..... |
|
|
|
Post by quinn on Aug 22, 2016 10:50:08 GMT -5
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. Yes, I suppose so. The focus here seems to be on the unconscious, though. That kind of thing is best explored gently. If the accusation suggests the pattern is unconscious, it still gets rebuffed. Key word being: accusation, imo. Yes. Marriage is a lot like that too. |
|
|
|
Post by quinn on Aug 22, 2016 10:50:32 GMT -5
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. *sigh* |
|
|
|
Post by quinn on Aug 22, 2016 11:25:05 GMT -5
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? That's precisely the attitude and energy Lolly brings to the forum, and rather than revealing the mechanics of conflict from a position of superiority, as intended, it's the fundamental source of the conflict in question. The Lolly position is that nobody ever says anything true, that it's all about manipulation tactics to gain control. You asked me if I thought what you said was denigration and one-upmanship. I said yes. Why are you talking about Lolly? Why are you talking about me? This is about you. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 22, 2016 11:47:08 GMT -5
In this meaning and use of the word, isn't the "sage" created by acknowledgement? Personally, I welcome the acknowelegement of sages and don't have much interest in openly contradicting that acknowledgement, even when I might not share the same opinion. I also don't have any issue with the opposite of a negative acknowledgement. But shouldn't we expect the dynamic on a lightly moderated public forum to be, at the very least, unpredictable with respect to that acknowledgment? Personally, I see a place for and potential value in this other, less-than-reverential dynamic. I also agree with your assessment that there's some good potential lessons to be learned from the way that dynamic has gone sideways on this forum. But while it might be slipping inexorably toward chaos, it seems to me that the rest of the web is far, far ahead of us on that count. And I just straight-up disagree on the question of cuteness. When THIS manifests emotionally, it's not always unconsciously. Not all of us heard THIS for the first time from the dry, clear and calm voice of a sage. Some of us first heard THIS in the voice of a musician, a storyteller a poet or a comedian. Not all of us were called to attention by scripture. Some of us first saw THIS on the lines of a skyline or a work of art or felt THIS on the curves of a lovers body. Well on sages, and considering I've been a bit lacking on the substantive end around here, I wanted to give a note about Mooji. I became interested in the idea of self reflective telemetry and the spirit world. What's exactly is going on in the sleep state? Well anyway, Mooji came to me in a vision a couple weeks ago. I was in somewhat of a bind, and he gave me an indicator of an open avenue for value adding expression.
In the vision, he told me I have two angels with me, one of which was a little girl in the barrio, although perhaps it might point closer to say a light energy behind her. He specifically said, 'You're going to talk to her'.
I woke up, and said, well that ain't gonna happen cuz I ain't talking to her. Another wacky vision. But in the meantime started writing on collective engine stuff and before I know it a couple weeks pass and I find myself in this girls house. I only ended up there because Yadira fled in the interim, and was sleeping there.
Nevertheless, I found myself in the middle of a conversation with the little girl about Yadira and I, and at that exact moment saw the open avenue. Then just today I watched a Mooji vid, and saw either the "Ohm" or whatever that squiggly line is next to a picture of Maharshi, and in my room there is a giant painting of the planets and a circular object in the middle with the same symbol (someone else put the painting here, not me).
Anyway, it was at that point when a channel opened to talk about what exactly an angel is, and how the light of consciousness reflects back to itself through pockets of darkness. The Self took form as Mooji in a dream. You'd probably like the tech analysis but I think angels and demons are really interesting stuff, and that ultimately speaking there was a subconscious logical sequence where my mind was already two steps ahead of itself but couldn't get 'there' (which ironically is always 'here') without first working through some emotional blockages. Then we can contextualize a universal mind and the potential for networking through creatures.
Heh, a vision of Mooji that takes the attention deeper into Mr Mind is amusing and an oxymoron. |
|
|
|
Post by anja on Aug 22, 2016 12:00:11 GMT -5
Suggests who/what? And why... ...do
you
assume
passion
was
lacking?I don't talk neo-advaita drivel. That been said in case you haven't noticed yet. Yes, that was the implication. Outrageousness does not substitute for passion. And no, I don't refer to spirituality. Lolly's passion is not spiritual, it's social. So is yours. Yes. That's true. Are you talking to yourself again? And I "don't refer to spirituality" either, Enigma. And yes, my passion is "not spiritual", but merely "social", just like Lollys. Somethin' wrong with dat? |
|
|
|
Post by anja on Aug 22, 2016 12:03:11 GMT -5
"Too much study" of what? Are you paying attention, like, at all? Well....seems as if, Enigma. And you? |
|
|
|
Post by anja on Aug 22, 2016 12:05:22 GMT -5
Right. I'm indeed no "spiritual scholar". But I'm not sure you aren't one. So now I'm being 'accused' of being a potential spiritual scholar? That's pretty funny.  Pleased to be able to make you laugh... I'm not a "spiritual scholar" either. Now we have something in common, it seem. |
|
|
|
Post by anja on Aug 22, 2016 12:07:36 GMT -5
The sentense must read: No idea what I'm talking about. Then it would sound kinda okay...hey...for me...tscha see... ....no panda, no nanda, nix ananda... See? No passion? Just flat, silly insult. Put some feeling into your hatred. Be creative. Let your indignation arise like a vengeful warrior. Projection at its finest, Enigma. Well done... |
|
