|
|
Post by enigma on Aug 22, 2016 21:38:43 GMT -5
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... More silly insult. I said be creative! |
|
|
|
Post by enigma on Aug 22, 2016 21:51:00 GMT -5
You don't know what I mean by dualistic feeling? Happy/sad, peace/turmoil, love/hate? Yes I do know what you mean by that. And I say that there is no such thing as "a dualistic feeling"...like at all. Feelings are just indicators for actions, if one is not a total ..... you name it. Nothing dualistic about them.Nothing dualistic about happy/sad, peace/turmoil, love/hate? Do you know what dualistic means? |
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Aug 22, 2016 21:51:14 GMT -5
1) Yes, well, the plethora of unflattering opinions we all share of one another are, at their best, opportunities for self-reflection. This is regardless of whether they're ever corroborated or whether they're expressed publicly or privately. 2) On the receiving side, it should be easy to see that there's never any reason to buy into the ones voiced about us, and if it's not easy, well, then the opportunity is all the more acute. The flip side to this though, is that if it's clear that someone's having trouble with this, then deferring to their difficulty is the kind course of action. On the giving side, negative opinions of others or their ideas are never necessary. Although if the theme of a venue is frank adult honesty about existential ideas and structures of belief, then it's bound to occur. 3) The potential for the cycle to turn toxic is heightened by participation by those who are vulnerable to internalizing the negative personal opinions, are very vocal with their own, and who don't recognize kindness when it's extended to them. 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. Well ..  .. opportunities are always optional, no need to take'em, but ones like this tend to constantly re-present themselves until we do. Hey, you came to mind this evening on my bench, are you interested in the details? |
|
|
|
Post by enigma on Aug 22, 2016 21:52:01 GMT -5
Unconscious peeps always think the whole issue is about feeling superior. Who are you refering to, Enigma? Unconscious peeps.  |
|
|
|
Post by enigma on Aug 22, 2016 21:55:26 GMT -5
Where did I say there was something wrong about it? Please pay attention. Call it an exercise in mindfulness. Apply that advice to yourself and we're done, Enigma. Did I read something that wasn't written, or was that you? |
|
|
|
Post by enigma on Aug 22, 2016 21:59:34 GMT -5
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. If, like beauty, ugliness is in the eye of the beholder, and the judgement of ugliness is truly effortless, then the beholder probably has a lot of unconsciousness going on. #funwithlogic Flawful! |
|
|
|
Post by enigma on Aug 22, 2016 22:01:07 GMT -5
And no, the Atman (the individual soul of a human being) does NOT incarnate into the womb of a woman, into a baby, other than right before birth. And that's not an excuse for abortion to be made too easy. It's just to tell the "evil" ones that they know nothing about spirituality, "like...totally" not. Edit: How can I possibly know that this is true? Well...IF I would be some kind of god, which I'm ..."like...totally" not, I would organize it that way. That's why. More flawful logic. |
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Aug 22, 2016 22:05:30 GMT -5
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. Do you seriously perceive this as " conciliatory"??  |
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Aug 22, 2016 22:12:14 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. 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. And it seems that the biggest possible sin of all is to attempt to make light of any of it. |
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Aug 22, 2016 22:20:02 GMT -5
This is a great example of a "potential", since this "best possession" is only yours for as long as you don't pay.  ... you see, once you pay, you've lost the ability to pay ... He's talking about payment via conscious efforts. There is no practical limit, one is only limited by sleep. In the long run perhaps but the fact of the need for sleep illustrates what I was referring to quite precisely. In a wider sense it's a metaphor for losing the peep, but that doesn't involve actually using the potential, but instead, surrendering the posession. |
|
|
|
Post by enigma on Aug 22, 2016 22:23:33 GMT -5
Dismayed and frustrated is upset. Is that denigration? Is it one-upmanship? Maybe I'm trying to win a debate? Maybe I'm just pointing out how disagreeable you can get. WHAT!? I've never found quinn to be disagreeable. When she says she's not upset, just dismayed and frustrated, you don't think maybe she's being disagreeable? |
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Aug 22, 2016 22:24:35 GMT -5
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. If, like beauty, ugliness is in the eye of the beholder, and the judgement of ugliness is truly effortless, then the beholder probably has a lot of unconsciousness going on. #funwithlogic Have you been reading along with what lolz has been writing? There's no need to react to it to see it for what it is.  He's describing an abusive power dynamic. There might not be any need to describe the aesthetic flavor of it, but there's no mistaking which end of the spectrum it's on if you give it an honest reading. |
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Aug 22, 2016 22:41:55 GMT -5
Once you start writing about how smug other people are you've joined them in the one-upsmanship game, or did that fact elude you? I don't always see my nastiness, but most times it's pretty obvious and I admit it and own it. I stated that directly in the post. I said "In ourselves", that means I was not excluding myself. I was agreeing with ZD (I think that's allowed). So, honestly, I think you have projected smugness onto me. ( I will "say no more", as PM's are private). ...but think the obvious. a simple "yes, it did ellude me" would have sufficed. You've extrapolated from one-upsmanship to nasty, and no, you wrote this with an air of assumed objectivity about the psychological dynamics of others, and left no hint that you were self-aware of your one-upping those who had based their sense of self on their smugness. And in case it wasn't clear, what I wrote to you certainly applies to ZD as well. And how could I have projected smugness onto you when you're the one that wrote about it? Read that question again, did I characterize you as smug? And how about now? And how about innuendo, do you think innuendo is "nasty"?  Publish what you want from that exchange. All I was with you was blunt. Glass house much dude? .. to be clear, I'm not trying to claim the high ground you, ZD, quinn, lolz and maxy seem to think you're standing on, I'm just pointing casually to your waterlogged shoes. |
|
|
|
Post by preciocho on Aug 22, 2016 22:46:07 GMT -5
What's amusing is that you think commenting on someone's writing when you have no apparent interest in what was written is somehow not Mr. Mind. That would be amusing. Hi mr. mind.
|
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Aug 22, 2016 22:48:48 GMT -5
30 years ago I would have sneered at the idea of dream visions, 15 years ago I would have been condescendingly tolerant and 6 years ago I would have been genuinely open-minded. Experience is a wonderful teacher, and while I've never had the experience of a dream vision I've got enough ghost stories and improbable synchs to empathize, and I've also known a few peeps who are sensitive enough to have encountered them like yourself. As far as the tech description is concerned, well, one experience I do have is of finally recognizing how none of them touch what you and I really are, only what appears to us. You might not have noticed the specific expression of that recognition while it was happening but you were an integral part of the network of creatures that were involved in the process of it. We could use Swammi-G as an example of my current orientation. Now, to her, it seems like she had the experience of controlling the weather. I wouldn't question that it felt that way to her at the time, and I wouldn't call her crazy either. But I'd interpret her experience differently. I'd say that during those events she was in the midst of an experiencerless experience where movement and change is perceived but with no center to the perception. In those moments, she was the Earth, the sky and the clouds, and in a very literal experiential sense. The only subtle error I might ascribe to her description would be in that the will to make it rain was an after-the-fact conceptual overlay. That she made it rain though, I have no doubt. I didn't watch that whole swami-G vid, but I don't question the idea of a non-intellectual intelligence or the possibility to align intellect with a creative principle when coming out of identification (or to get lost in that alignment in an unconscious way hehe). Visions and dreams are certainly not a requisite to conscious alignment, but what Jung calls an acausal connecting principle embodies a force Adyashanti once spoke about, the universe wanting to wake up. Maharaj and other sages speak on this force through a seeing of degradation implicit in seeking.
Jung did an interesting analysis on the infamous scarab in the context of coincidence. Basically, a patient of his had a dream of a bizarre beetle, and during the recollection and relay of the dream, Jung walked over to his window, and found the scarab. He couldn't say whether the dream 'caused' the scarab to be there that day, so labeled synchronicity an acausal connecting principle.
Dreams and visions are information. If we start there, everything else follows.
"acausal connecting principle" .. hmmmmm, that's got some potential to it for sure. Don't the left-brainer's know a thing or two about the information that presents in physical sleep-dreams? My limited general knowledge of it is that they think it has something to do with learning and psychological housekeeping, which would color that information a certain chaotic hue. |
|
.. opportunities are always optional, no need to take'em, but ones like this tend to constantly re-present themselves until we do. 
Publish what you want from that exchange. All I was with you was blunt.
