|
|
Post by maxdprophet on Aug 25, 2016 7:02:30 GMT -5
Enigma you seem upset. But I don't believe it. For example the "not permitted" cries are unfounded (Quinn has no say in that). What would be a good faith reading of what she is saying? Obviously, I'm asking if it is permissible in her view. Obviously, I'm not suggesting she has censoring authority. You're parsing words to make me wrong and using a double bind to say I'm not conversing in good faith. I'm sure Lolly will be along shortly to explain the dynamics of your power play. What would be a good faith reading of what I said? That's fair. And to be clear, I thought the not permitted thing was ridiculous and not believable. So we are in agreement on that. In good faith: I'm hearing you say that Quinn's complaint about you labeling someone or someone's posting as 'deeply unconscious' should not be inherently problematic or representative of a power play (a la Lolly). That it's very natural that, in any group, there will be disparities or different levels of consciousness. Further, on a 'spiritual' forum such as this, with ostensible proclivities for becoming more conscious, openly labeling things as unconscious (deeply or not) should be welcomed. How's that? Am I getting everything? |
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Aug 25, 2016 7:25:21 GMT -5
Things like Samadhi and cosmic consciousness experiences can be amazingly blissful and even transformative, but there is still that which transcends experience and the person having such experiences isn't that. Can I be clear what you mean by an experience? An experience can simply mean that something is known to you. If that's how you are using the word then if there is something which transcends experience you wouldn't know about it because it would be unknown. When we have an experience, it is because we are conscious of objects which can be thoughts, emotions, sensations etc. If samadhi is a thought free state and therefore not an experience because there is no object to be known, it is nevertheless known to me otherwise I couldn't even talk about Samadhi. It's the same with deep sleep. There is no mind, therefore no experience, yet we can talk about sleep incessantly. However, we cannot say there was no awareness during sleep. It has been forgotten in the same way we cannot remember the awareness that was "attached" to a thought we had one minute ago. We remember we slept, we remember the thought we had one minute ago, but in both cases not the awareness that went with it. Yet it was the same awareness we only know now.In the sense that prec' is expressing, that awareness is what is transcendent of experience. Don't allow intellect to constrict around the idea of knowledge and there's no resulting contradiction with regard to an experience of that awareness. |
|
|
|
Post by maxdprophet on Aug 25, 2016 7:25:26 GMT -5
Give me a starting point to start reading. Lolly has written a lot on this subject so I need to know where you want to begin. I will read everything from that point to now. We can use our own interpretations of what he wrote so as not to bother him to join in (though if he does that would be welcome). On #1, the aim is to state as clearly as possible what you think the position is, the goal being that the originator of the position might say "Gee, you said that better than I could myself!" So, no presumption involved hopefully. In this case, we'll be starting with our secondary readings of what Lolly said (and others), which is suboptimal but oh well. up to you. What drew and kept my interest were your positions here and here. I read everything lolz wrote quite carefully and replied to the extent I had interest culminating here. here#1 ...Well the 'ugliness is in the eye of the beholder' comment is a riff off its beauty cousin. And to deem one ugly in an effortless way also implies that there was no conscious rationale behind the judgement, which would mean that it is unconscious. In general, do you see the logic there? This post could be labeled a puerile poke from one prone to immaturity. here#2 ...I had gotten a gist of what Lolly had written previously concerning power dynamics and communication but was not up to speed on what he had written recently. When I said "I haven't been following carefully" I was referring to not being well-read on the the entirety of what he wrote. Then I summarized the gist I had gleaned from previous writings. here#3 ...I hadn't read that til just now. Seems level-headed to me. So what is the problem? |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 25, 2016 9:10:22 GMT -5
I do realise that I Am You. Inverting the images seen in the mirror is all about emotional exploration, and the biggest loser in that process is the human heart. In my life, as best I can, I remain in touch with what's going on with me, but sometimes I lose the plot, and slip off into an obscure unconsciousness, and lose self awareness in terms of my body senses and the reactions of mind, and it doesn't take a lot to lose balance and become compelled by reactive tendencies, as opposed to being conscious of these and responding more mindfully. And when the plot returns is there any exploration of the reactive tendencies that were unearthed during those episodes? As in, inside layers of obscure unconsciousness, there is the possibility of finding a deep love for everything, that is being masked by a return to what is understood to be 'responding more mindfully.' |
|
|
|
Post by quinn on Aug 25, 2016 9:13:31 GMT -5
Helps who? Are you asking for help in understanding? Or are you schooling me in how you see mine tied together? Your wording is a little vague there. Sure. Are we now talking in generalities now? Because originally you said "But when she gets 'upset' with somebody, she can't seem to agree on anything. It may be the backlash from trying so hard to be agreeable." That isn't general. The word "may" refers to backlash. "trying so hard to be agreeable" is your assessment, specifically of me. Is it hard for you to be agreeable? Really, it's not an effort for me. There are often points of agreement in conversations, even in debates. It takes no effort on my part to see them or comment on them. You'll notice where I disagreed with you was on your insistence that your assessment of my emotional/mental state Trumps mine. Which ties neatly back to how this whole conversation started. I was suggesting that your use of the term "deeply unconscious" as a label for particular people colors how you relate. It creates an uneven playing field, where you're the conscious one in a superior position of 'knowing' than the other. This is what Lolly's talking about.This whole conversation we're having is an excellent example. I say I'm not upset (which is an agitated state), just dismayed and a bit frustrated (not agitated) and you say that's wrong, that I really am upset. I disagree with you and you say I'm being disagreeable (bad tempered, prickly, irritable) when all I've done is disagree. And now, all that morphs into "backlash from trying so hard to be agreeable". Egads. Of course, if you see me as upset that's as good as going deeply unconscious, so from that point forward we've entered the uneven playing ground. The bolded above is my point. Take it or leave it. So it's not permitted for one to be more conscious than another here? That would be an uneven playing field, and therefore would compromise whatever game you think is being played here? Or maybe you're saying that it's simply a fact that everybody has the same knowledge, understanding, clarity and pretending otherwise is just another gaming tactic? Of course how we see others 'colors how we relate to them'. Is that also not permitted? I sometimes don't have an open heart. So this is what I'm asking for you and for the forum and for myself. |
|
|
|
Post by enigma on Aug 25, 2016 9:55:01 GMT -5
Obviously, I'm asking if it is permissible in her view. Obviously, I'm not suggesting she has censoring authority. You're parsing words to make me wrong and using a double bind to say I'm not conversing in good faith. I'm sure Lolly will be along shortly to explain the dynamics of your power play. What would be a good faith reading of what I said? That's fair. And to be clear, I thought the not permitted thing was ridiculous and not believable. So we are in agreement on that. In good faith: I'm hearing you say that Quinn's complaint about you labeling someone or someone's posting as 'deeply unconscious' should not be inherently problematic or representative of a power play (a la Lolly). That it's very natural that, in any group, there will be disparities or different levels of consciousness. Further, on a 'spiritual' forum such as this, with ostensible proclivities for becoming more conscious, openly labeling things as unconscious (deeply or not) should be welcomed. How's that? Am I getting everything? Yeah, that's my position, though you omitted anything personal I said to her. From the beginning, the conversation was really about judgment, mine and hers. |
|
|
|
Post by enigma on Aug 25, 2016 10:03:58 GMT -5
That's up to you. What drew and kept my interest were your positions here and here. I read everything lolz wrote quite carefully and replied to the extent I had interest culminating here. here#1 ...Well the 'ugliness is in the eye of the beholder' comment is a riff off its beauty cousin. And to deem one ugly in an effortless way also implies that there was no conscious rationale behind the judgement, which would mean that it is unconscious. In general, do you see the logic there? This post could be labeled a puerile poke from one prone to immaturity. here#2 ...I had gotten a gist of what Lolly had written previously concerning power dynamics and communication but was not up to speed on what he had written recently. When I said "I haven't been following carefully" I was referring to not being well-read on the the entirety of what he wrote. Then I summarized the gist I had gleaned from previous writings. here#3 ...I hadn't read that til just now. Seems level-headed to me. So what is the problem? This is what I call flawful logic, resulting from too much biased analysis. My comment that it was effortless was in response to Lolly's comment that I should stop trying to make him look ugly. It doesn't imply that there was no conscious discernment or rationale involved. |
|
|
|
Post by enigma on Aug 25, 2016 10:18:42 GMT -5
So it's not permitted for one to be more conscious than another here? That would be an uneven playing field, and therefore would compromise whatever game you think is being played here? Or maybe you're saying that it's simply a fact that everybody has the same knowledge, understanding, clarity and pretending otherwise is just another gaming tactic? Of course how we see others 'colors how we relate to them'. Is that also not permitted? I sometimes don't have an open heart. So this is what I'm asking for you and for the forum and for myself. Perfect, if done with an open heart. |
|
|
|
Post by maxdprophet on Aug 25, 2016 10:19:57 GMT -5
here#1 ...Well the 'ugliness is in the eye of the beholder' comment is a riff off its beauty cousin. And to deem one ugly in an effortless way also implies that there was no conscious rationale behind the judgement, which would mean that it is unconscious. In general, do you see the logic there? This post could be labeled a puerile poke from one prone to immaturity. here#2 ...I had gotten a gist of what Lolly had written previously concerning power dynamics and communication but was not up to speed on what he had written recently. When I said "I haven't been following carefully" I was referring to not being well-read on the the entirety of what he wrote. Then I summarized the gist I had gleaned from previous writings. here#3 ...I hadn't read that til just now. Seems level-headed to me. So what is the problem? This is what I call flawful logic, resulting from too much biased analysis. My comment that it was effortless was in response to Lolly's comment that I should stop trying to make him look ugly. It doesn't imply that there was no conscious discernment or rationale involved. Doesn't conscious discernment and rationale require some amount of effort? |
|
|
|
Post by maxdprophet on Aug 25, 2016 10:21:04 GMT -5
That's fair. And to be clear, I thought the not permitted thing was ridiculous and not believable. So we are in agreement on that. In good faith: I'm hearing you say that Quinn's complaint about you labeling someone or someone's posting as 'deeply unconscious' should not be inherently problematic or representative of a power play (a la Lolly). That it's very natural that, in any group, there will be disparities or different levels of consciousness. Further, on a 'spiritual' forum such as this, with ostensible proclivities for becoming more conscious, openly labeling things as unconscious (deeply or not) should be welcomed. How's that? Am I getting everything? Yeah, that's my position, though you omitted anything personal I said to her. From the beginning, the conversation was really about judgment, mine and hers. Okay so what is your good faith reading of what she said? |
|
|
|
Post by stardustpilgrim on Aug 25, 2016 11:32:34 GMT -5
I think on the way out of the labyrinth my string broke. In any case, nevermind. So, are you trying to one-up me there? Was it derisive? Are you being smug? Do you even remember how this dialog started?  Are you willing to admit that this reveals something about (to use your turn of phrase) your "emotional self"? For someone who writes so much about an interest in the process of becoming conscious your relative interest in opportunities to actually see something going on in your mind in real time seem to me rather attenuated.  So, that's your enigma impression, you know me better than I know myself? Yes, I just recently wrote a To Whom It May Concern generic post, that what we write reveals more about ourselves, than the person we have written about. And yes, that includes me. Did you ever play Pin the Tail on the Donkey as a kid? I think you missed, try again. |
|
|
|
Post by stardustpilgrim on Aug 25, 2016 11:36:10 GMT -5
Disagreeable is sort of a cousin to waking up on the wrong side of the bed. If you said to your wife, you certainly are disagreeable today, would she know what you meant? Would you have ever said that to your ex-wife on a morning where she was agreeing with everything you said? Yawn. |
|
|
|
Post by stardustpilgrim on Aug 25, 2016 11:41:17 GMT -5
That's not what she said. She's saying, in this particular instance, I (quinn) know more about my own state, that you (E) do. And more particularly, when I say that back to you, and you still say you (E) know me (q) better than I know myself....well ((*$8 *^%%^$&*3#$(&^, or words to that effect.....not putting words in quinn's mouth.....but dude....dude... [ It's like you have never been married]....OK...sdp shutting up.... (Reading in order, can't wait to see what q said).......... Well, I think I put it more gently when I said recently that it can be useful to understand how the feminine mind and heart work together. Regardless, your comments don't reflect what she actually said, even if it may have been what she think/feels. She'll likely call you on that, which is something I know about her that she doesn't.  I don't feel the need to go back and see if you are right or if I am right. I read stuff quickly a lot of the time, most times only once. I will stick with my first impression, I welcome quinn to correct me if necessary. |
|
|
|
Post by stardustpilgrim on Aug 25, 2016 11:45:23 GMT -5
The irony is that what Quinn was ostensibly pointing out to me was my denigration of others and one upmanship. Maybe Anja was just 'mirroring' that for me....Yeah, that's it. Essentially just bumping this so it gets extra "air time". |
|
|
|
Post by quinn on Aug 25, 2016 12:16:05 GMT -5
Well, I think I put it more gently when I said recently that it can be useful to understand how the feminine mind and heart work together. Regardless, your comments don't reflect what she actually said, even if it may have been what she think/feels. She'll likely call you on that, which is something I know about her that she doesn't. I don't feel the need to go back and see if you are right or if I am right. I read stuff quickly a lot of the time, most times only once. I will stick with my first impression, I welcome quinn to correct me if necessary. You got the gist of it right, as long as you exchange !@#$%^& for "Egads".  I don't know what E's talking about that I'm unaware of. Calling out people for unflattering generalizations of females? I hope he doesn't think I don't know I do that.  I also let a lot pass. Energy conservation. |
|
Are you willing to admit that this reveals something about (to use your turn of phrase) your "emotional self"?
I also let a lot pass. Energy conservation.