|
|
Post by laughter on Aug 22, 2016 23:24:59 GMT -5
"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. I neglected to mention the acausal nature of the principle arose within the context of 'meaning'. Under the umbrella of the idea there is a universe that wants to wake up, synchronicity isn't acausal at all, which is where the compartmentalization dynamic stuff can demystify the whole deally. Well that's a very particular and special type of "cause" that I wouldn't relate to the everyday meaning, like at all, but I get the drift. It reminds me alot of the anthropic principle. And while I dig these ideas you're working with, I'm of the opinion that synchronicity is, ultimately, safe from demystification. |
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Aug 22, 2016 23:27:16 GMT -5
No, no I wouldn't, as I've never mistaken telling someone that "all you are saying is something very boring" for an offer to reconcile with them. Give me a couple of days to search the archives. o.k. I'll be holding my breath.  |
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Aug 22, 2016 23:30:35 GMT -5
And it seems that the biggest possible sin of all is to attempt to make light of any of it. That would be ideal, and we could all have a chuckle over it and carry on.  |
|
|
|
Post by runstill on Aug 22, 2016 23:33:56 GMT -5
"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. I neglected to mention the acausal nature of the principle arose within the context of 'meaning'. Under the umbrella of the idea there is a universe that wants to wake up, synchronicity isn't acausal at all, which is where the compartmentalization dynamic stuff can demystify the whole deally. What would the universe wake up to, that it is an idea ? Sincere question. |
|
|
|
Post by enigma on Aug 22, 2016 23:43:12 GMT -5
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 laughter on Aug 22, 2016 23:43:34 GMT -5
I neglected to mention the acausal nature of the principle arose within the context of 'meaning'. Under the umbrella of the idea there is a universe that wants to wake up, synchronicity isn't acausal at all, which is where the compartmentalization dynamic stuff can demystify the whole deally. What would the universe wake up to, that it is an idea ? Sincere question. Metaphors break when you step outside of them. We could say that there is a potential movement of consciousness that directly and clearly reflects the changeless and ever still awareness against which that consciousness is constantly moving, but not before we pass out barf bags first, of course.  |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 22, 2016 23:55:05 GMT -5
Give me a couple of days to search the archives. o.k. I'll be holding my breath. Trying to catch up and finding that everything has got anja written on it. |
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Aug 23, 2016 1:30:07 GMT -5
o.k. I'll be holding my breath. Trying to catch up and finding that everything has got anja written on it.  .. seek shelter! ..   |
|
|
|
Post by maxdprophet on Aug 23, 2016 9:19:03 GMT -5
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. I haven't been following carefully. My understanding was that he was just trying to point out examples in communication where there was an assertion of power over another poster. Not a bad thing in and of itself. Of course all this gets extremely subtle. The use of logic itself is powerful. (Especially in contrast to its absence.) One of the reasons I <heart> Sam Harris is that he explicitly and overtly prioritizes the use of rational, reasonable argument, often referring in a meta-way how such and such a conversation he has with others looks in that light. One can disagree with his conclusions but still admire his method. I see Lolly as attempting to underscore and shed light on that sort of thing too. |
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Aug 23, 2016 9:23:57 GMT -5
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. . My understanding was that he was just trying to point out examples in communication where there was an assertion of power over another poster. Not a bad thing in and of itself. Of course all this gets extremely subtle. The use of logic itself is powerful. (Especially in contrast to its absence.) One of the reasons I <heart> Sam Harris is that he explicitly and overtly prioritizes the use of rational, reasonable argument, often referring in a meta-way how such and such a conversation he has with others looks in that light. One can disagree with his conclusions but still admire his method. I see Lolly as attempting to underscore and shed light on that sort of thing too. Well, then, I'd invite you to go back and read it in detail, and I'm not being sarcastic in that. If, after you have read it carefully, you'd like to debate me on this point of whether or not lolly was being entirely reasonable and rational in what he wrote, I promise that I'll remain entirely reasonable, rational, and impersonal in the debate for as long as you do the same. Serious offer. |
|
|
|
Post by maxdprophet on Aug 23, 2016 9:51:00 GMT -5
I haven't been following carefully. My understanding was that he was just trying to point out examples in communication where there was an assertion of power over another poster. Not a bad thing in and of itself. Of course all this gets extremely subtle. The use of logic itself is powerful. (Especially in contrast to its absence.) One of the reasons I <heart> Sam Harris is that he explicitly and overtly prioritizes the use of rational, reasonable argument, often referring in a meta-way how such and such a conversation he has with others looks in that light. One can disagree with his conclusions but still admire his method. I see Lolly as attempting to underscore and shed light on that sort of thing too. Well, then, I'd invite you to go back and read it in detail, and I'm not being sarcastic in that. If, after you have read it carefully, you'd like to debate me on this point of whether or not lolly was being entirely reasonable and rational in what he wrote, I promise that I'll remain entirely reasonable, rational, and impersonal in the debate for as long as you do the same. Serious offer. You'd have to give me a starting point. Lolly has been opining for quite a while on communication and power dynamics. But if you're stating out front that one can opine impersonally I'd throw in the towel. I'm not in that game. Also, 'entirely' reasonable, rational? Who here can claim that? Dan Dennet likes to go by a set of rules, I forgot what they're called...(1)re-express/paraphase the other's position in a way that may exceed the clarity of their own; (2) list points of agreement; (3) mention what you have learned from their argument; (4) then rebut, criticize. You agree to those terms? I'd be interested in your take of Lolly's perspective both 1-3 and 4. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 23, 2016 10:01:36 GMT -5
Forget about mr. mind. (Mooji) I don't think Mooji said that!
Mr mind has permission from Mooji to stop pretending to be what sees mr. mind. Not sure mr. mind can handle that, but give it a go if you're up for it. Lot less effort
Mr mind is pretending to be aware of mr mind? He is talking about what observes Mr Mind (thoughts and perceptions). Thats what's amusing, imagining Mooji holds a fascination with Mr Mind. That's your projection, your thang, not his. |
|
|
|
Post by stardustpilgrim on Aug 23, 2016 12:38:22 GMT -5
WHAT!? I've never found quinn to be disagreeable. Well what the hell do you know!  Haha! Just kidding. (Thanks) But then again, I don't read every post.  |
|
|
|
Post by stardustpilgrim on Aug 23, 2016 12:41:08 GMT -5
Who are you refering to, Enigma? Unconscious peeps. Saw that coming. |
|
|
|
Post by stardustpilgrim on Aug 23, 2016 12:45:03 GMT -5
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? To be upset, dismayed and frustrated doesn't necessarily mean one has to be disagreeable. |
|
a simple "yes, it did ellude me" would have sufficed.
.. 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. 
