|
|
Post by jay17 on Jul 2, 2016 15:35:18 GMT -5
Sorry, but I refuse to read the wallwhich simply adds weight to my theory, i see no reason for further discussion on the matter. |
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Jul 2, 2016 15:56:54 GMT -5
Sorry, but I refuse to read the wallwhich simply adds weight to my theory, i see no reason for further discussion on the matter. aw shucks I'm so disappointed.  |
|
|
|
Post by jay17 on Jul 2, 2016 20:40:09 GMT -5
what were you conveying by that, what does that signify about laughter and myself? You were pointing out to Laughter that his posts increasing in size indicated an arousal - what I would think of as a ramping up of energy. What exactly did i point out; all of his posts in the forum, or all his posts in this thread, or just his responses to me in this thread? You yourself are well known for voluminous posting, so that triple there is a play on "Pot calling the kettle black" ie you're seeing something in Laughter that - I think - is one of your own characteristics. For if i was referring to just his responses to me in this thread, then it's illogical to bring 'Pot calling the kettle black' into the equation. It would seem foolish to pull laughter up for large posts if i do so myself, so, either i am foolish or i was referring to only his responses to me in this thread. I speculate you haven't kept a keen eye on all the posts between us in the whole forum, but a painstaking scan of the last several months will clearly show i have greatly reduced my interactions with laughter many months ago. Every now and then i will reiterate why i no longer allocate a decent amount of time interacting with him, or respond to or comment on some dumba.ss thing he has said. His usual responses are either, avoid responding to such posts, or ignore the content and try to bait me to continue interacting with him by way of stating all manner of ridiculous and\or disparaging claims about my character and motives. IOW, he just wants or needs to keep these pointless convos going 'cus it seems he gets some form of jollies from them. I'm back to energy, motivation...basically I'm of the opinion that people must "get" something from their interactions here, or they wouldn't do it. That seems to me to be a given. I speculate all individuals act from some type of motivation. Why share your own experience of how you didn't have the energy to continue a discussion, then express a comparitve you theorise we must have an unlimited supply? And what do you think are our motivations for the continued interaction? You don't see an immediate connection? I don't have the energy or motivation to post. You and others appear to have both so I'm interested in why that is and what the mechanism might be. Regarding your initial post, i did not interpret any interest coming from you to know what motivates either of us. All i saw was the 'kettle:pot' judgement, and a sharing of a personal story about your energy-motivation, then a statement you think we have a lot of energy and motivation to interact as much as we do\have. Where is the energy coming from? My energy comes from me. Drama creates energy, it pulls people in. I disagree. 'Drama' is a subjective label mentally constructed by a person and attached\assigned to an experience. I strongly doubt a label, or an unlabeled interaction experience has any innate power to create anything. I reason that if the experience is judged by all to actually be a Drama, then this 'drama' has no innate power to pull people in. It may seem that an external force has power over an individual's will, that it can pull people in, but that's only due to the individual's lack of self awareness to perceive they are willfully choosing to engage with the 'drama'. There is no pulling occurring, no creation of new or more energy, there is only a decision to engage one's own already established energy toward the act of entering into the discussion that is classified\perceived as a 'drama'. I think that's why people create drama - because energy is an enjoyable sensation. Being right, winning, feeling attacked, getting allies "on side", feeling wanted/accepted these are all things that generate sufficient energy for the act of putting fingers to keys. I've heard it expressed as "feeding", but there's also the science lens - looking at Dopamine. I dare swear that some people here are motivated by pure altruism, of wanting to contribute something positive to the world. That's rare, but I assume it happens. For me, it doesn't matter if people intentionally or unintentionally create a situation that is judged as 'drama'. Two examples are, i judge laughter intentionally creates 'drama' in certain topics or with certain people, and the bizarreness of my recent conversation with sunshine was not intentional by either of us...the thing is, difficult or easy interactions do not control my behavior, i freely choose to interact, and i freely choose to cease interacting. I have a high level of inner calm regardless of the type of interaction, even when it evolves into something i do not rez with. When i judge there is no more benefit to continue, i simply opt out, and allow others to formulate and express, and hold if need be, their own opinions of the experience or my actions or statements. Saying what I think your motivations are would be pure speculation on my part. I can't imagine you telling me I'd nailed it, if I were to try. Agreed. The vast bulk of what people(myself included) say about others, is unverified speculation. But would you not seek to conduct an interaction to see what my level of honesty is. Is not one of the beautiful and interesting things about verbal communication, the opportunity for people to get to know each other. |
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Aug 4, 2016 10:07:18 GMT -5
|
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Aug 15, 2016 3:23:08 GMT -5
catchy!  .. but I'd say rather non-sequitur .. muttley don't got an intellectual bone in his body. 
|
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Aug 16, 2016 15:37:55 GMT -5
(** muttley snicker **)13 Do you get a little tasty shot of adrenaline when you suddenly recognize you get to post another snicker? Well no, but do you have any idea how revealing it is when you write something this non-seqitur that's completely unrelated to the state of mind I'm actually in? |
|
|
|
Post by anja on Aug 16, 2016 15:53:41 GMT -5
Do you get a little tasty shot of adrenaline when you suddenly recognize you get to post another snicker? Well no, but do you have any idea how revealing it is when you write something this non-seqitur that's completely unrelated to the state of mind I'm actually in? You have a constant state of mind you're in? "Okay." (Gopal) |
|
|
|
Post by figgles on Aug 16, 2016 17:25:03 GMT -5
Do you get a little tasty shot of adrenaline when you suddenly recognize you get to post another snicker? Well no, but do you have any idea how revealing it is when you write something this non-seqitur that's completely unrelated to the state of mind I'm actually in? State of mind? Don't see how I suggested any one in particular. It's more just interest or intent that would be behind a momentary shot of adrenaline when one initially sees that specific, relatively rare thing that is being collected for a particular purpose. |
|
|
|
Post by anja on Aug 16, 2016 17:37:35 GMT -5
What I'm admitting right here right now would probably get me banned from old-school and neo-advaita-vedanta, but...
...but...
...but...
...the Buddha is more fun.
There I said it!
|
|
|
|
Post by figgles on Aug 16, 2016 18:20:59 GMT -5
What I'm admitting right here right now would probably get me banned from old-school and neo-advaita-vedanta, but... ...but... ...but... ...the Buddha is more fun. There I said it! |
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Aug 17, 2016 17:21:54 GMT -5
Well no, but do you have any idea how revealing it is when you write something this non-seqitur that's completely unrelated to the state of mind I'm actually in? . It's more just interest or intent that would be behind a momentary shot of adrenaline when one initially sees that specific, relatively rare thing that is being collected for a particular purpose.  |
|
|
|
Post by figgles on Aug 17, 2016 20:30:10 GMT -5
State of mind? Don't see how I suggested any one in particular. It's more just interest or intent that would be behind a momentary shot of adrenaline when one initially sees that specific, relatively rare thing that is being collected for a particular purpose. How so? I don't get it. You were the first to speak of 'state of mind.' What state of mind did i suggest you were in? |
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Aug 17, 2016 20:55:45 GMT -5
How so? I don't get it. You were the first to speak of 'state of mind.' What state of mind did i suggest you were in? Sorry, but if you can't make the connection between an adrenaline hit and state of mind I've got no interest in trying to explain it to you.  |
|
|
|
Post by figgles on Aug 17, 2016 21:03:45 GMT -5
How so? I don't get it. You were the first to speak of 'state of mind.' What state of mind did i suggest you were in? Sorry, but if you can't make the connection between an adrenaline hit and state of mind I've got no interest in trying to explain it to you. I don't see the presence of interest as the equivalent of a particular state of mind. If so, you are arguing against being 'interested'? |
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Aug 17, 2016 21:09:08 GMT -5
Sorry, but if you can't make the connection between an adrenaline hit and state of mind I've got no interest in trying to explain it to you. I don't see the presence of interest as the equivalent of a particular state of mind. If so, you are arguing against being 'interested'? You've lost track of the thread of the dialog. The state of mind in question involved an adrenaline hit from noticing a stimuli. |
|
.. but I'd say rather non-sequitur .. muttley don't got an intellectual bone in his body. 
