|
|
Post by laughter on Feb 14, 2016 7:13:22 GMT -5
By the way, noone's ever asked this, but yeah, conscious use of double binds is a whole other animal.  |
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Feb 14, 2016 7:27:17 GMT -5
Here you belie the fact that you've never done anything remotely like practicing a koan through meditation. The practioner of the koan takes responsibility for the internal struggle as it is waged, while unconsciously posing double-binds in a forum debate projects that struggle outward onto the debate opponent. Of course both zazen and insight had by turning attention inward are potentially transformative, and the potential simply isn't comparable to the nonsense on offer in these debates. Perhaps you could take responsibility for your internal struggle instead of blaming me and believing i am being hostile. Perhaps then you will transform and uncover your own Buddha Nature as i have, and you won't have to ask admin to change something in the environment for you. Please pay attention to the words on the page: while I was drawing on past experience, I made no direct reference to any current internal struggle, and there was no reason for you to imagine otherwise. My request to admin might have seemed personal to you but as I explained here, my interest in these matters is really only about the standards of the forum as a whole, which at this point are no better than the random comments posted on youtube videos or news stories. You can deny your hostility but that just brings your absence of introspection, unconsciousness and inability to grasp objective details further into relief. The objective fact of your hostility is a matter of the words on the page. If you ask me politely, I'll be glad to document that for you.  As far as your comments and opinions about Buddha, Hakuin, Advaita and any one of a number of other religious and intellectual figures, I'm really not interested. If you would take responsibility for your hostility, regardless of what you think you've uncovered, then none of this contentious dialog would ever have happened. |
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Feb 14, 2016 7:32:16 GMT -5
You misunderstand Mr. Long Memory -- I'm not complaining, I'm having a chuckle. You know, the obvious option is just to delete the foolish things without reading them, right?  That's your way, called on your own contradictions you try to deflect it with feigned humor.. if you truly think that that is humor, then your humor is at the expense of others.. The obvious option is to give everybody a chance, each instant is an opportunity for anyone to change, even you.. and, admitting that the things were foolish is a good first step toward that change.. I never thought otherwise. .. no, sorry, I know it makes you feel better to think otherwise, but there was no feigning involved.  |
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Feb 14, 2016 7:35:55 GMT -5
now you're making excuses for having lost the debate, that you obviously can't let go of as easily as you'd hoped you could. Stick 'round as looooong as you wan't hun' ain't no skin off my nose. Does leaving a debate constitute 'losing it'? If so, fair enough. You win. Seems to me though we've simply ascertained that we have differing criteria for what we call 'a fact' when participating on this forum. Win, lose or draw, I am done now debating the double bind issue with you. (I'm still wondering about that PM you said you sent two nights ago though.....I seriously did not get it. You sure you didn't sent it to someone else and just thought is was me?........seems every time I start reading here, another lucky laffy PM recipient reveals himself  ...so perhaps you just got a couple of us mixed up...?) Yeah, that's the way our debates work in case you haven't noticed: you parse my words, I parse yours, and each reply is an effort to refute the points the other one has made. You left yours on the table, there's nothing that I have to respond to, but I've made my points in reply, so yeah, you lose. And ... so much for "goodbye for now" eh? ... like I told ya', there's always the "delete account" option if you're having too much trouble staying away. |
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Feb 14, 2016 7:50:23 GMT -5
Using this as an example... One dilemma humans experience. How to recognise things, then determine your conclusion is correct, that what you perceive is as you think it is. This is an image of a real form that exists in reality.  If you recognise it as a red square, then you are correct, and there's nothing wrong with how you perceive. But is the form a square? If you say 'yes', then you are incorrect. So that means there's now something wrong with how you perceive. How about these...  If you recognise them as 4 colored squares, then you are correct, and there's nothing wrong with how you perceive. But are the forms four separate squares? If you say 'yes', then you are incorrect. So that means there's now something wrong with how you perceive. Here's the actual single form of all those images...from two different angles. One cube, with various colored sides, and not 4 separate squares as you believed.  The point is just because you see something a certain way, and form a judgement that your conclusions based on what you perceive, is correct, does not automatically mean you are actually correct. Delving in to be more precise, the problem is not specifically in your perception, your sight, awareness, ability to observe a phenomena...but in the processing of the information received from your senses... ...and in your relative position to the phenomena, or the range of your sight\awareness. The first 5 forms, as presented, are square. The last 2 are squares with two adjoining trapezoids, at best you could say they're representations of a cube, but they're not actually a cube. I understand you're trying to make a point, but I think you could pick a clearer example for making it. If you want to play the perception game, put a 20c piece in your hand and tell me how many sides you directly experience without resorting to memory or thoughts. It's all just silly context magic. Literally.  But it gives insight into how jimmygoat likes to play his game of making peeps wrong: if they react as if he's being humorous, he pretends to be serious, and vice-versa. On one hand, he spends the whole thread complaining about how I mistake my opinions for fact, but in one particular case where I am clear on stating an opinion: I think you're lying about not getting booted off of that science board. They ran you off of there, didn't they? I think you think lots of things. ... he riffs with an insult off of the qualification. Why would someone constantly play these disingenuous games? |
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Feb 14, 2016 7:53:27 GMT -5
yeah, not gonna' bother to read that, you're welcome to try again if you want: you're welcome to twice the # of lines I used which would give you six lines total. Sorry, but 20 lines from 2 is an obvious expression of Broken Mind Multiplication Syndrome (BMMS). Reduce your multiplication factor from 10 to 4 and I'll read it, allowing you 8 lines total, which I think would be quite reasonable. Have you noticed that i don't adhere to the conditions you state i must if i want you to read my responses. I simply respond with what i choose to say, and you can read them or not. I see no rational reason to "try again" when i have already successfully responded. Seems to me that the conditions you set up, restrict you, not me. I have the freedom-capacity to read all you have to say, while it seems you don't. "If you want to follow me to freedom, be prepared to swim upstream, against the river of conditioning. Be prepared to grapple continuously with the fierce flow of negative mental currents. In time our strokes will become effortless and our sense of purpose irresistible." - Buddha "The outer conditions of a person's life will always be found to reflect their inner beliefs." - James Allen "A person is buffeted by circumstances so long as he believes himself to be the creature of outside conditions." - James Allen "The senses have been conditioned by attraction to the pleasant and aversion to the unpleasant : a person should not be ruled by them; they are obstacles in one's path." - Bhagavad Gita "When you are simply responding unconsciously to what happens around you, you tend to stay "stuck" in your current condition. This is why most people's lives never seem to change very much. They get stuck in a repeating cycle of recreating the same reality over and over by the vibration they are sending out." - Jack Canfield "Many of us have made agreements with littleness. We've agreed to settle for compressed versions of who we really are. We've settled in our relationships or our creativity, only because we let a present or past condition define our boundary. The wonder is that as we begin to make agreements with our real identity, those conditions we thought were so important have no more power than what we attached to them." - Mary Manin Morrissey "Now you are ready. Ready to make the shift from conditional love to unconditional love. You are now ready to be with yourself rather than by yourself. You have been through a "meantime" process in which you have become self-aware and self-reflective in order to make the necessary changes or shifts that will result in spiritual transformation. You are no longer in search of physical, emotional or sexual satisfaction only. You want the true, full experience of love. If this is what you are going for, this is what you will get." - Iyanla Vanzant Well, no, you're restricting yourself by writing so much that it crosses a threshold where I'm not willing to spend the time reading it, so what you've written to me, you've written in vain -- unless you just like writing for the sake of writing that is, which is analogous to talking to yourself out loud. Do you do that jimmy? Do you talk to yourself out loud? |
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Feb 14, 2016 7:55:42 GMT -5
You know nothing of "my search for truth". I am well aware of that, that's why i said... Seems to me you have left out something important on your search for truth, due to where you direct your attention. But your opinion is based on an assumption that there was a search for truth to begin with, and goes on from there to draw a conclusion about it. As you now admit that you know nothing about it to begin with, your opinion is very literally, an empty and groundless opinion. |
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Feb 14, 2016 8:00:29 GMT -5
I've already explained to you the nature of the double-bind in question in detail in what you quoted in the OP, remember? I don't see you have done such a thing. What i do see is you have already explained what you think is the nature of what you think is a DB. And yes, i easily recall you doing this...what of it, as this part of the discussion is about the element of 'conflict' within the experience of our interaction where i said, "you think you are always right."? My thoughts demonstrate how the sentence "you think you are always right" fits the objective linguistic pattern of a double-bind by illustrating the underlying lose/lose. You keep basing what you're writing to me on this disagreement about whether or not there is such an objective structure. I agree, we disagree about this. Why aren't you willing to agree to disagree with me on this point, but instead, keep the debate alive based on this single idea? I'm obviously not going to change my mind, and you're obviously not going to change yours. For the 4th time now: what does it suggest about your mental and emotional state that you refuse to agree to disagree with me on this point, despite the obvious futility of constantly renewing the debate over it? |
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Feb 14, 2016 8:11:33 GMT -5
went over this in detail on the "Problem on this forum" thread, sorry, not interested in re-hashing that again. I find it an efficient use of my time to simply not respond to something you have repeated that i have already addressed, while you seem compelled by a strong interest to express what you think of my thoughts by changing what i said into this "-- goat wall --". It's just a simple courtesy to anyone with an interest in the thread so as not to repeat the large block of text. Nope, no compulsion there at all, that's just another example of your overactive imagination creating needless hostility. Hey, "Mountain-Goat" was your name choice, remember? |
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Feb 14, 2016 8:16:14 GMT -5
You keep ignoring the fact that my inferences about the internal state of the one posing the binds is contextual to their use in an ad-homimen debate. Obviously the belief isn't "unwavering". It's evidence based. Do you understand the difference between a conclusion that's based on facts, on one hand, and one that's purely the product of opinion, on the other? It doesn't seem to me as if you do at all from what you're writing. Do you understand the difference between believing something is a fact and an actual fact. Do you understand that even though all humans have the ability to label\classify anything as a fact does not automatically make it so. Well yes, of course I understand that. Do you understand how completely facile and non-sequitur your questions were? |
|
|
|
Post by tzujanli on Feb 14, 2016 17:01:27 GMT -5
Does leaving a debate constitute 'losing it'? If so, fair enough. You win. Seems to me though we've simply ascertained that we have differing criteria for what we call 'a fact' when participating on this forum. Win, lose or draw, I am done now debating the double bind issue with you. (I'm still wondering about that PM you said you sent two nights ago though.....I seriously did not get it. You sure you didn't sent it to someone else and just thought is was me?........seems every time I start reading here, another lucky laffy PM recipient reveals himself ...so perhaps you just got a couple of us mixed up...?) Yeah, that's the way our debates work in case you haven't noticed: you parse my words, I parse yours, and each reply is an effort to refute the points the other one has made. You left yours on the table, there's nothing that I have to respond to, but I've made my points in reply, so yeah, you lose. And ... so much for "goodbye for now" eh? ... like I told ya', there's always the "delete account" option if you're having too much trouble staying away. of oneness and nonduality by the club at ST, if they can't force agreement they try to separate and exclude those that disagree.. |
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Feb 14, 2016 22:56:40 GMT -5
Finally caught up reading all the posts, YAY ! |
|
|
|
Post by hicksetta on Feb 15, 2016 13:57:32 GMT -5
"Double bind" means: Where ever you turn, you're fooked. Not moving is also not an option. What yah gonna do now?
|
|
|
|
Post by tzujanli on Feb 15, 2016 16:18:09 GMT -5
"Double Bind" creates the illusion there are only 2 answers (hence 'Double'/two), the 'bind' is self-imposed by the person being questioned.. otherwise, just answer without being controlled by the 'double', and if the answer falls into the 'bind' the questioner was astute, maybe, or lucky..
|
|
|
|
Post by hicksetta on Feb 15, 2016 16:47:05 GMT -5
Yes, some dude lately asked me to answer "a simple yes or no question" and I refused to do so. There yah go!
Annndddd...by the way, I realy appreciate the ying/yang symbol. I certainly do. That's something!
|
|
...so perhaps you just got a couple of us mixed up...?)
