|
|
Post by billfromtexas on Sept 1, 2016 17:15:04 GMT -5
|
|
|
|
Post by zin on Sept 1, 2016 19:09:39 GMT -5
Thanks for that! The part from 5:08 onwards frequently comes to my mind (from having heard it somewhere) but I didn't know to which piece it belonged : ) |
|
|
|
Post by wei sa on Sept 1, 2016 22:36:01 GMT -5
What do you want me to do with this, Visa? Since you stated you're not too interested in having a dialog with me, I refuse to respond, if you're not explizitly tell me you want me to respond to this post of yours.
Nothing really - I just felt obliged to reply to those couple of points, but otherwise it seems that we've pretty much said everything we wanted about these issues for now and the dialogue is naturally coming to an end. But you asked for some clarification, so: Wait a second - the problem is not style, but content. Posting several off-topic posts in a row about some stand-up comedians to a thread about a spiritual teacher or some concept of nondualism or whatever unrelated topic is a problem with content. Being abusive, hateful or insulting is a problem with content. Are you saying there, Visa, that posting what you consider off-topic posts is considered a problem with content, just like being abusive, hateful or insulting is a problem with content, and that Anja/me/Bill's "off-topic" posts are seen as "being abusive, hateful or insulting" therfore? No, those off-topic posts are not automatically abusive, hateful or insulting - these are two different issues. BUT both O-T posts and insulting posts have a similar effect of derailing or de-focusing threads. On many threads people are trying to focus quite sincerely on self-enquiry (or asking or giving guidance on it), and its a shame if the threads lose momentum because someone wants to hijack them for their personal gratification. I'm a bit surprised by this question. It's less insulting (than calling you as a person a díckhead) because you are not your actions/behaviour. You are also not your opinions, ideas or beliefs. So in general it's considered much less problematic to attack behaviour/opinions/ideas/beliefs than the person. (Of course most members here acknowledge that we're not fundamentally that "person" either, but most of us still can't snap out of that identification and so it sticks.) Sometimes people are very attached to some of their beliefs, so when someone attacks their belief, they feel that they are being personally attacked (this happens here sometimes) - but this is not really true. Almost everyone sometimes engages in "díckhead-behaviour", (i.e. "being a díck"), and IMO it can (and perhaps should) be pointed out, but that's still different than labelling the whole person as a "díckhead". Clearly some people here (most importantly moderators) think that you have been engaging in inappropriate behaviour too frequently, and hence the ban. No, I would still try to focus on the behaviour and try to avoid labelling you as a person like that. |
|
|
|
Post by Peter on Sept 2, 2016 3:40:18 GMT -5
Anja / Bill this forum exists for spiritual discussion. Please limit yourself to 3 off-topic (eg music / nonsense) posts per day. I've given the same restriction to other members before now who got into a thing of posting funny pictures.
Thanks,
Peter
|
|
|
|
Post by billfromtexas on Sept 2, 2016 6:04:39 GMT -5
What do you want me to do with this, Visa? Since you stated you're not too interested in having a dialog with me, I refuse to respond, if you're not explizitly tell me you want me to respond to this post of yours.
Nothing really - I just felt obliged to reply to those couple of points, but otherwise it seems that we've pretty much said everything we wanted about these issues for now and the dialogue is naturally coming to an end. But you asked for some clarification, so: Are you saying there, Visa, that posting what you consider off-topic posts is considered a problem with content, just like being abusive, hateful or insulting is a problem with content, and that Anja/me/Bill's "off-topic" posts are seen as "being abusive, hateful or insulting" therfore? No, those off-topic posts are not automatically abusive, hateful or insulting - these are two different issues. BUT both O-T posts and insulting posts have a similar effect of derailing or de-focusing threads. On many threads people are trying to focus quite sincerely on self-enquiry (or asking or giving guidance on it), and its a shame if the threads lose momentum because someone wants to hijack them for their personal gratification. I'm a bit surprised by this question. It's less insulting (than calling you as a person a díckhead) because you are not your actions/behaviour. You are also not your opinions, ideas or beliefs. So in general it's considered much less problematic to attack behaviour/opinions/ideas/beliefs than the person. (Of course most members here acknowledge that we're not fundamentally that "person" either, but most of us still can't snap out of that identification and so it sticks.) Sometimes people are very attached to some of their beliefs, so when someone attacks their belief, they feel that they are being personally attacked (this happens here sometimes) - but this is not really true. Almost everyone sometimes engages in "díckhead-behaviour", (i.e. "being a díck"), and IMO it can (and perhaps should) be pointed out, but that's still different than labelling the whole person as a "díckhead". Clearly some people here (most importantly moderators) think that you have been engaging in inappropriate behaviour too frequently, and hence the ban. No, I would still try to focus on the behaviour and try to avoid labelling you as a person like that.So, since you focused on my behaviour rather than my personality (or person) by calling my behaviour "d!ckhead-behaviour" but not calling me a "d!ckhead", then the question arises: Who and/or what is engaging in such "d!ckhead-behaviour" then? Who and/or what is responsible, is the actor of such "d!ckhead-behaviour" if it's not done by a "d!ckhead"? IOW, Who and/or what is the doer? |
|
|
|
Post by billfromtexas on Sept 2, 2016 6:31:16 GMT -5
Anja / Bill this forum exists for spiritual discussion. Please limit yourself to 3 off-topic (eg music / nonsense) posts per day. I've give the same restriction to other members before now who got into a thing of posting funny pictures. Thanks, Peter Thank you, Peter, for allowing me to post a little bit of off-topic stuff here. I have a question: If I don't post my 3 off-topic posts today and save them and then post 6 off-topic posts tomorrow, would that be okay? Or do I have to spend my 3 off-topic posts everyday otherwise they are lost, they can not be saved? Just imagine me not posting something off-topic for a week....ennen...boom!....21 in one day.... See yah... A. |
|
|
|
Post by Peter on Sept 2, 2016 7:57:48 GMT -5
My son also always looks at all the angles.
No. You cannot carry your off-topic post limit between days. Neither can you claim "before and after midnight in my time zone" so as to post 6. The limit is 3 per 24 hour period. It is an upper limit. You are in no way required or encouraged to post ANY off topic posts.
|
|
|
|
Post by stardustpilgrim on Sept 2, 2016 11:42:02 GMT -5
Stardustpilgrim, I would be interested in talking about what you think Gurdijeff's core teaching was. I think it was the enneagram. But not merely as a personality-typology for group-therapie. The ennegram, IMNHO is a means for evaluating and developing all nine types in one self and it also can be used for all kinds of other stuff to understand it better. I read many books on the enneagram by different authors a few years ago but non of them really seem to get it properly nailed what it actually is. How to use that tool in a way that is more than just an archetypology. For example: How are colours related to the enneagram? I once draw a 12-part colour-circle and into it the enneagram. Interested in a discussion about that? No, it's not the enneagram. The enneagram (which Gurdjieff did make public, was previously hidden) got morphed into the nine personality types, this did not come from Gurdjieff. (There are essence-types, but not personality types, and the nine are not essence types either. I think the "personality types" originated from Oscar Ichazo and Claudio Naranjo, and exploded from there). The enneagram is a symbol of the relationship between the two fundamental laws of the universe, the law of seven (or the law of octaves) and the law of three. Divide a circle into nine equal segments, creating nine points, number them. Divide seven into one, you get the repeating numbers, 1-4-2-8-5-7. Start at one and connect those points and end at one. Then connect the remaining numbers (of 1-9), 3-6-9, and you will form a triangle, and that's the enneagram. Gurdjieff said all objective knowledge could be placed into the enneagram. The core teaching is about how to become conscious, everything goes back to that. Many things that are written refer back to this, but actual interior practices are not written down. (There are somewhat-very-few-exceptions-to-this, but you can't really recognize the exceptions unless you already know the practices). Gurdjieff said he wrote the books to preserve the theory (and the philosophy), [not the practices]. If you want to discuss this (further), start an appropriate thread. |
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Sept 2, 2016 13:14:34 GMT -5
|
|
|
|
Post by wei sa on Sept 3, 2016 2:05:38 GMT -5
So, since you focused on my behaviour rather than my personality (or person) by calling my behaviour "d!ckhead-behaviour" but not calling me a "d!ckhead", then the question arises: Who and/or what is engaging in such "d!ckhead-behaviour" then? Who and/or what is responsible, is the actor of such "d!ckhead-behaviour" if it's not done by a "d!ckhead"? IOW, Who and/or what is the doer? Yeah, this self-inquiry angle is always available. I don't think it would bear much fruit for me personally to subject these particular questions for intellectual/conceptual rumination at this point, but others' mileage may vary... |
|
|
|
Post by wei sa on Sept 3, 2016 2:11:49 GMT -5
If you want to discuss this (further), start an appropriate thread. I don't think this is necessarily a very good suggestion. Anja is banned, and usually the appropriate course of action after that is to refrain from posting on said forum altogether, rather than continuing to post with a different account. Now, after being banned, Anja/B-from-T has only been posting on this thread, and it seems that people so far haven't had a big issue with her keeping an "office" here. But continuing to post on other threads as nothing had happened would likely change that. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 3, 2016 2:16:27 GMT -5
So, since you focused on my behaviour rather than my personality (or person) by calling my behaviour "d!ckhead-behaviour" but not calling me a "d!ckhead", then the question arises: Who and/or what is engaging in such "d!ckhead-behaviour" then? Who and/or what is responsible, is the actor of such "d!ckhead-behaviour" if it's not done by a "d!ckhead"? IOW, Who and/or what is the doer? . I don't think it would bear much fruit for me personally to subject these particular questions for intellectual/conceptual rumination at this point, but others' mileage may vary... The question will always have the potential, to open the ears of the buddha to a vacancy of continuity. Though in a setting such as this, it may have been more beneficial for the writer to have totally eaten the question first. |
|
|
|
Post by billfromtexas on Sept 3, 2016 5:01:48 GMT -5
If you want to discuss this (further), start an appropriate thread. I don't think this is necessarily a very good suggestion. Anja is banned, and usually the appropriate course of action after that is to refrain from posting on said forum altogether, rather than continuing to post with a different account. Now, after being banned, Anja/B-from-T has only been posting on this thread, and it seems that people so far haven't had a big issue with her keeping an "office" here. But continuing to post on other threads as nothing had happened would likely change that. For a relatively new member you seem to care a lot for what can/could be called forum-hygiene, Visa. I wonder how comes you feel in charge for that. You sound a lot like Zendancer here. Just sayin'.... Yeah, I'm not commenting in other threads because I don't feel the need and the duty to do so any longer. IOW, I'm pretty much done...doing the dance down there...  |
|
|
|
Post by billfromtexas on Sept 3, 2016 5:11:01 GMT -5
(A dialog between....guess who?...this could be a koan of some sort, maybe...)
"Billy Idol, eh?"
"Nietzsche, eh?"
"The bible, eh?"
"Who and/or what is the doer? Eh!?"
"Shiva/Nataraj dances on a baby, eh?!?!"
"Isn't he?"
"No. He, Shiva in the form of Nataraj (the cosmic dancer), is dancing on a dwarf, a demon called Apasmarapurusha, the embodiement of faithlessness, a symbol of ignorance and mere worldlyness."
"I see."
"And Nataraj's foot, that is above the dwarf, represents his divine mercy."
"Okay."
|
|
|
|
Post by wei sa on Sept 3, 2016 5:15:40 GMT -5
I don't think this is necessarily a very good suggestion. Anja is banned, and usually the appropriate course of action after that is to refrain from posting on said forum altogether, rather than continuing to post with a different account. Now, after being banned, Anja/B-from-T has only been posting on this thread, and it seems that people so far haven't had a big issue with her keeping an "office" here. But continuing to post on other threads as nothing had happened would likely change that. For a relatively new member you seem to care a lot for what can/could be called forum-hygiene, Visa. I wonder how comes you feel in charge for that. Huh - where did I say I feel I'm in charge of that? I just said I don't think it's a very good suggestion. If it seems that I do care more about forum hygiene than the next guy, it might be because I'm a relatively new member - I find great value in this forum and unlike perhaps some older members I haven't already exhausted all the avenues for discussion that seem important to me. |
|
