|
|
Post by laughter on Aug 25, 2016 20:33:48 GMT -5
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? Conscious discernment isn't always rational. In fact, the rational function of mind will obscure what you're not conscious of. In the converse, yes, of course peeps express conditioned responses reflexively (so that they don't feel like an effort), and in some cases rational examination of that conditioning can be enlightening. |
|
|
|
Post by enigma on Aug 25, 2016 20:35:44 GMT -5
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. sdp drops jaw.....or rather, jaw drops. What is it you don't understand about that simple scenario? |
|
|
|
Post by enigma on Aug 25, 2016 20:39:38 GMT -5
First she mistakenly thought I may be asking her for help or that I was teaching her. Then she mistakenly thought that I was shifting to generalities, and proceeded to show that my previous comments were personal. Then she mistakenly thought I was was saying it's hard for me to be agreeable. Then she mistakenly concluded that I was insisting my a$$essment of her emotional state trumps hers. Then she expressed her concern about labeling and level playing fields and positioning oneself as superior. (referring to me) There is a subtext to all of that, and I don't know if that's the 'good faith' reading you are looking for or not. There is a literal interpretation and then there is my perception of WIBIGO. Then I'll have to go back and read what you wrote, because I read you as saying exactly that. Yes, please do.  |
|
|
|
Post by enigma on Aug 25, 2016 20:42:07 GMT -5
My point was that your "impression" was not "what she said". You don't really need her to confirm or deny that, just read what she said. I'll read what you said. (She already replied to me, earlier post). Read what SHE said. Not where she agreed with your interpretation, but rather where she said it. |
|
|
|
Post by enigma on Aug 25, 2016 20:50:35 GMT -5
Oh, that was another one of my jokes, all of which have been going over like lead balloons lately. Thank God for open mike night. I need the practice.  Is that your best D Trump impression? It's not that hard if you're more interested in the truth than in making me wrong. The issue we were discussing was the straw man about me saying I knew her better than she knows herself, so I saw an opportunity to make a joke about it, and included a smiley just to be sure i wasn't misinterpreted again. What sense would it make for me to confirm her misunderstanding in the midst of denying it? |
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Aug 25, 2016 20:53:52 GMT -5
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. Ahh yes, more derision, mockery and one-ups-manship. Does this mean, specifically, that you're including yourself as someone being pushed around by this unseen emotional self that you're saying "I" to in the form of the derision, mockery and one-ups-manship that you continue to reply to me with? |
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Aug 25, 2016 20:58:45 GMT -5
Would you have ever said that to your ex-wife on a morning where she was agreeing with everything you said? Yawn.  Seein' red much 'dusty? |
|
|
|
Post by enigma on Aug 25, 2016 21:07:50 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? Depends on what you mean by problem. I follow the logic but I don't buy the premise, and it also isn't really applicable to the text that it was in response to. This 2nd point about applicability being a narrow legalistic one, but important in this instance because of how it changes the meaning of that text and radically so. I don't think you're sensitive to how what you wrote did that and I'll be glad to explain exactly what I mean by it but only if you express interest. I didn't respond to it that way, this much is true, I took it seriously. My interest was in the idea that the ugliness of what lolz portrayed was in the eye of the beholder. I'm not and haven't yet neglected the factor of subjectivity, but my interest has been on the possible objective consensus on this point. I'm pretty sure that lolz would agree that what he was portraying was ugly, and all you have to do to make the leap to calling lolz ugly from there is to put yourself in the shoes of the one so portrayed by what lolz wrote. But in order to hang with me in that dialog you'd really have to read this latest version of the portrayal, as it's definitely ratcheted up a few notches from the one's you say you've read previously. Now you see, I don't see a problem in any of this, all the way around the table, and I think I already made that clear in terms of what I wrote to lolz directly. In fact, he did say it looked ugly to him too, though that was while he was claiming to be mirroring or non-zen sticking or something. I don't buy the mirroring and so I don't differentiate between the words and the attitude of the speaker of them. Mostly, there's too much history to say those words aren't an expression of his evolving attitude. |
|
|
|
Post by enigma on Aug 25, 2016 21:20:48 GMT -5
This is what I call flawful logic, resulting from too much biased analysis. My comment that it was effortless was i n 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. Yes, it's a subtle change in what was exchanged between you and lolz but it's one with a chasm of meaning. maxy's link between "no conscious rationale" and "unconsciousness" is an interesting one that could fuel many pages of deep thoughts and debate, and to his credit he did equivocate the connection with effortlessness by the idea of implication. I know it's evil frogish of me but I just see it as more angry villager activity. Put simply, I didn't have to try to make him look ugly as his words accomplished that quite well by themselves. |
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Aug 25, 2016 21:37:04 GMT -5
Yes, it's a subtle change in what was exchanged between you and lolz but it's one with a chasm of meaning. maxy's link between "no conscious rationale" and "unconsciousness" is an interesting one that could fuel many pages of deep thoughts and debate, and to his credit he did equivocate the connection with effortlessness by the idea of implication. I know it's evil frogish of me but I just see it as more angry villager activity. Put simply, I didn't have to try to make him look ugly as his words accomplished that quite well by themselves. well I'll do you a nasty-clown one better and opine that the absurd idea that his ugliness was in the eye of the beholder is a product of all that torch-smoke.  |
|
|
|
Post by enigma on Aug 25, 2016 22:10:30 GMT -5
I know it's evil frogish of me but I just see it as more angry villager activity. Put simply, I didn't have to try to make him look ugly as his words accomplished that quite well by themselves. well I'll do you a nasty-clown one better and opine that the absurd idea that his ugliness was in the eye of the beholder is a product of all that torch-smoke. Wow, what a nasty clown you are. Yes, it's taking a cliche a step too far. Before we start using it in a logical equation we should say there is a subjective component to beauty and ugliness, just as there is to many many other perceptions. |
|
|
|
Post by preciocho on Aug 25, 2016 22:30:39 GMT -5
Yea the seeker isn't interested in being conscious of the dynamics of seeking. Yes, but that's like baking a cake and leaving out the sugar. Becoming conscious for the seeker if the seeker is a cake is like realizing the icing on the cake isn't chocolate but, oh, well, I'll censor myself. |
|
|
|
Post by stardustpilgrim on Aug 26, 2016 0:47:18 GMT -5
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. Ahh yes, more derision, mockery and one-ups-manship. Does this mean, specifically, that you're including yourself as someone being pushed around by this unseen emotional self that you're saying "I" to in the form of the derision, mockery and one-ups-manship that you continue to reply to me with? Of course (I already owned that if you didn't notice. But that's no excuse). |
|
|
|
Post by stardustpilgrim on Aug 26, 2016 0:48:50 GMT -5
Yes, but that's like baking a cake and leaving out the sugar. Becoming conscious for the seeker if the seeker is a cake is like realizing the icing on the cake isn't chocolate but, oh, well, I'll censor myself. Yes. |
|
|
|
Post by stardustpilgrim on Aug 26, 2016 0:56:21 GMT -5
Some if somebody "delivers" you some bad energy, if you (anybody) can't "retaliate", that is, give back as one is given to, then that's what causes suffering? I don't think so. Ego suffers, yes, but ego is always going to find something to suffer about. While in the midst of suffering, one can find the place/space where there is suffering yet not-suffering. And yes, that "place" burns karma. There is an exquisite joy when whatever life brings, it can't *u** with you. Oh, when you say "don't preform actions" you mean don't retaliate? If so, I'll simply disagree that this burns karma, which likely comes down to how I see karma as opposed to how you see it. I don't see karma as punishment for bad behavior such that sucking it up and taking whatcha got comin will change anything. Is that how you see karma or am I way off base? I see karma as the need to resolve ignorance for one's own peace of mind. This requires clarity, which often comes in the form of challenging experiences. However, it doesn't have to, as clarity is not tied to experience. And actually neither clarity nor ignorance is tied to action. Action is irrelevant in those terms, as action is simply an expression of what one is being, and what one is being is what must change for karma to 'burn'. Not retaliating is a result, not a cause. Last paragraph, after last comma, correct. |
|
Are you willing to admit that this reveals something about (to use your turn of phrase) your "emotional self"?
Seein' red much 'dusty? 
