|
|
Post by maxdprophet on Aug 29, 2016 7:36:32 GMT -5
I definitely agree that I was not sensitive to its applicable implications. I was just having #funwithlogic using some of the popular concepts I've picked up around here -- effortless, conscious/unconscious. But now I'm an angry villager!  Can't wait to use my pitchfork on some monster a$$. My curiosity is also piqued with respect to Lolly's crimes. Seems like he really ruffled some feathers. And if Lolly agrees that what he said is ugly (mirroring or not) then that pretty much makes my pitchfork into a pitchspoon. Drat! BTW, I seldom see the mirroring strategery working. The receiver of the reflection needs to be open and generous for it to work cuz the reflection is almost always heavily tarnished, embellished, and exaggerated.  well, I didn't brand you a villager, but I did suggest that your view was occluded by the torch smoke. Both the lolz narrative and the mob meme are ugly, this much is true, but if you want to compare the two you have to read what he wrote. Did you seem me putting him in stripes? Did I write anything reactive to him? Dang you mean I don't get a pitchfork? I have no idea what you're talking about btw. Where was the smoke coming from again? |
|
|
|
Post by maxdprophet on Aug 29, 2016 7:38:26 GMT -5
Okay just look at the rationale. Doesn't a conscious rationale for a judgement require effort? It might if it involves deliberation, fact-finding or learning about topics relative to the judgment that you're unfamiliar with. Not all rational judgment requires this kind of effort, lots of it is conditioned. For example, if you're on a budget it's a no-brainer to pick the generics from the supermarket shelf, even though there's arithmetic involved. And not every seemingly rational choice is always the result of influences that you're conscious of. If a cop pops his cherries in your rear-view, the rational thing to do is to pull over and comply, but the connection to that complex of your body/mind that involves fear should be obvious. Yea I get what you're saying. But I was riffing on the use of 'effortlessness' we've had here with respect to meditation for example. In that case, the distinction between what is effortful and effortless becomes extremely subtle. |
|
|
|
Post by maxdprophet on Aug 29, 2016 7:44:30 GMT -5
Please elaborate. VA causes perceptual collateral damage among peaceful bystanders transforming them via mob psychology into additional marauding morons?? No, but the smoke that wafts from the torches between your field of view of the mob and myself occludes your image of me to the extent that you misread what I've written ... sorta' just like with what ya' wrote right there.  For you to characterize E's characterization of what lolz himself acknowledged was ugly with the idea of the eye of the beholder when you hadn't even read what lolz wrote, involves that same occlusion. Essentially, it's just the Occam's Razor answer as to why you'd do that.  Just so you know, the important thing I wrote was 'please elaborate.' The double questionmark sentence is supposed to be knowingly not understanding. I don't see how saying 'please elaborate' qualifies as seeing being occluded by smoke (and I still really don't know what you are referring to there.) The #funwithlogic thingy only requires reading "you're ugly" and an admission as to how that judgement was "effortless." It requires zero backstory and can be applied to anyone making that judgement. Now, as noted, in this case the target was purposely and knowingly saying ugly things, so that particular #funwithlogic is just totally moot and therefore lacking fun or relevance. For this, I am sorry. |
|
|
|
Post by maxdprophet on Aug 29, 2016 7:48:18 GMT -5
It sounds like it lacked a good faith reading on Max's part.  Only if you premise "good faith reading" on "reading". Evil frog.  I'm feeling palpable discomfort and dis-ease reading you two snickering about me like this. It's a good experience. |
|
|
|
Post by enigma on Aug 29, 2016 9:56:46 GMT -5
You're not able to give a 'good faith' reading of what I meant when I told Lolly is was effortless to make him appear ugly. Until you can, get down off your 'good faith' horse. To make that little joke all you need to read is 'you're ugly' and that that judgement was made effortlessly. Then the #funwithlogic thing follows from there. But it's a wickedly beaten old horse by this point -- apparently the target was purposely being ugly (failed mirroring perhaps), which makes the joke moot. And also there is disagreement over whether conscious rationale can be effortless. In my haughty opinion, it's not worth delving into more. But if you want me to look into your exchange with Lolly in detail give me a starting point. The comment that Lolly was being ugly was not a joke. Not even a little. You're getting your good faith readings confused. A good faith reading of my effortless comment would have revealed something completely different than what you read. A good faith reading of Lolly's original post that started this couldn't even happen because you didn't even read it. Get your own good faith house in order and maybe we can talk. |
|
|
|
Post by enigma on Aug 29, 2016 9:59:29 GMT -5
It's logical to go to the store to buy groceries. It's not logical to kill your ego and then discover that no such thing as an ego existed. I win. If folks say killing ego brings peace what's not logical about that pursuit? A good faith reading would have revealed that he's saying it's not logical to try to kill something that never existed. |
|
|
|
Post by enigma on Aug 29, 2016 10:11:58 GMT -5
No, but the smoke that wafts from the torches between your field of view of the mob and myself occludes your image of me to the extent that you misread what I've written ... sorta' just like with what ya' wrote right there. For you to characterize E's characterization of what lolz himself acknowledged was ugly with the idea of the eye of the beholder when you hadn't even read what lolz wrote, involves that same occlusion. Essentially, it's just the Occam's Razor answer as to why you'd do that. Just so you know, the important thing I wrote was 'please elaborate.' The double questionmark sentence is supposed to be knowingly not understanding. I don't see how saying 'please elaborate' qualifies as seeing being occluded by smoke (and I still really don't know what you are referring to there.) The #funwithlogic thingy only requires reading "you're ugly" and an admission as to how that judgement was "effortless." It requires zero backstory and can be applied to anyone making that judgement. Now, as noted, in this case the target was purposely and knowingly saying ugly things, so that particular #funwithlogic is just totally moot and therefore lacking fun or relevance. For this, I am sorry. There was no such admission. What was effortless was the "trying" to make him appear ugly. (As he had done that quite efficiently himself) You would have needed some of the "backstory" to understand that. |
|
|
|
Post by enigma on Aug 29, 2016 10:20:52 GMT -5
Only if you premise "good faith reading" on "reading". Evil frog. I'm feeling palpable discomfort and dis-ease reading you two snickering about me like this. It's a good experience. When I search for images about peeps in glass houses throwing stones, more often than not it's a pic of somebody in a glass house throwing a stone through his own house from the inside. Seems to me that actually misses the dynamic entirely. Wadayouthink?  |
|
|
|
Post by maxdprophet on Aug 29, 2016 10:29:58 GMT -5
Just so you know, the important thing I wrote was 'please elaborate.' The double questionmark sentence is supposed to be knowingly not understanding. I don't see how saying 'please elaborate' qualifies as seeing being occluded by smoke (and I still really don't know what you are referring to there.) The #funwithlogic thingy only requires reading "you're ugly" and an admission as to how that judgement was "effortless." It requires zero backstory and can be applied to anyone making that judgement. Now, as noted, in this case the target was purposely and knowingly saying ugly things, so that particular #funwithlogic is just totally moot and therefore lacking fun or relevance. For this, I am sorry. There was no such admission. What was effortless was the "trying" to make him appear ugly. (As he had done that quite efficiently himself) You would have needed some of the "backstory" to understand that. nah, yer just dwaddling now. |
|
|
|
Post by enigma on Aug 29, 2016 10:31:22 GMT -5
There was no such admission. What was effortless was the "trying" to make him appear ugly. (As he had done that quite efficiently himself) You would have needed some of the "backstory" to understand that. nah, yer just dwaddling now. Read the posts in question and then we'll talk. |
|
|
|
Post by maxdprophet on Aug 29, 2016 10:31:36 GMT -5
I'm feeling palpable discomfort and dis-ease reading you two snickering about me like this. It's a good experience. When I search for images about peeps in glass houses throwing stones, more often than not it's a pic of somebody in a glass house throwing a stone through his own house from the inside. Seems to me that actually misses the dynamic entirely. Wadayouthink? Methinks you're having fun in your own head. |
|
|
|
Post by maxdprophet on Aug 29, 2016 10:32:26 GMT -5
nah, yer just dwaddling now. Read the posts in question and then we'll talk. Please be specific with the posts in question. For example, where is your preferred starting point? |
|
|
|
Post by enigma on Aug 29, 2016 10:32:48 GMT -5
When I search for images about peeps in glass houses throwing stones, more often than not it's a pic of somebody in a glass house throwing a stone through his own house from the inside. Seems to me that actually misses the dynamic entirely. Wadayouthink? Methinks you're having fun in your own head. I am, but it's a serial question. |
|
|
|
Post by enigma on Aug 29, 2016 10:33:42 GMT -5
Read the posts in question and then we'll talk. Please be specific with the posts in question. For example, where is your preferred starting point? I'll defer to the Link master. |
|
|
|
Post by maxdprophet on Aug 29, 2016 10:37:21 GMT -5
If folks say killing ego brings peace what's not logical about that pursuit? A good faith reading would have revealed that he's saying it's not logical to try to kill something that never existed. okay thanks |
|
Can't wait to use my pitchfork on some monster a$$.
well, I didn't brand you a villager, but I did suggest that your view was occluded by the torch smoke. Both the lolz narrative and the mob meme are ugly, this much is true, but if you want to compare the two you have to read what he wrote. Did you seem me putting him in stripes? Did I write anything reactive to him?
