|
|
Post by quinn on May 16, 2017 13:18:59 GMT -5
I stop by to take a peek at the forum every once in a while. This time, my first look was at "A Spiritual Life" thread, which I enjoyed immensely. There was mention of a new sheriff in town, so I came here. I'm thrilled with the new policies. The difference in tone is obvious, at least on the two threads I've read. I've wallowed in some of the now-prohibited practices in the past, but I'll keep an eye out (internal eye, that is) to hopefully catch it before you have to. Thanks, Reefs. And good to see all you reprobates!  I've tried to stop in but been so lost in the posts and unable to read any of it. Today I was inspired to check back in. Glad I did. Hi Reefs, Quinn, Enigma, Zendancer and all...I may be back. :-) Hey ho! Good to see you Esponja! There must be some sort of bat call going out.  |
|
|
|
Post by zendancer on May 16, 2017 16:21:30 GMT -5
I stop by to take a peek at the forum every once in a while. This time, my first look was at "A Spiritual Life" thread, which I enjoyed immensely. There was mention of a new sheriff in town, so I came here. I'm thrilled with the new policies. The difference in tone is obvious, at least on the two threads I've read. I've wallowed in some of the now-prohibited practices in the past, but I'll keep an eye out (internal eye, that is) to hopefully catch it before you have to. Thanks, Reefs. And good to see all you reprobates! I've tried to stop in but been so lost in the posts and unable to read any of it. Today I was inspired to check back in. Glad I did. Hi Reefs, Quinn, Enigma, Zendancer and all...I may be back. :-) Hi Esponja: Long time no see. Welcome back. |
|
|
|
Post by esponja on May 16, 2017 16:55:50 GMT -5
I've tried to stop in but been so lost in the posts and unable to read any of it. Today I was inspired to check back in. Glad I did. Hi Reefs, Quinn, Enigma, Zendancer and all...I may be back. :-) Don't feel like you have to keep up with anything. Just write when moved to do so. Thanks and hi. Some posts are pretty long. It can get quite tricky to read through if you're not there from the start. |
|
|
|
Post by Reefs on May 17, 2017 3:52:03 GMT -5
I've tried to stop in but been so lost in the posts and unable to read any of it. Today I was inspired to check back in. Glad I did. Hi Reefs, Quinn, Enigma, Zendancer and all...I may be back. :-) Hey Spongey! Welcome back! |
|
|
|
Post by Reefs on May 17, 2017 4:43:11 GMT -5
Hey ho! Good to see you Esponja! There must be some sort of bat call going out. Well, we are officially in phase 2 now. |
|
|
|
Post by quinn on May 17, 2017 6:26:43 GMT -5
Hey ho! Good to see you Esponja! There must be some sort of bat call going out. Well, we are officially in phase 2 now. ?? |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 17, 2017 9:43:49 GMT -5
Well, we are officially in phase 2 now. ?? phase 2 is just a vibrational harmonic thingy... but be sure to stick around for phase 3... that's when people work without self interest, and leave no trace  |
|
|
|
Post by Reefs on May 18, 2017 1:32:24 GMT -5
phase 2 is just a vibrational harmonic thingy... but be sure to stick around for phase 3... that's when people work without self interest, and leave no trace Correct. Phase 1 was the transition phase. |
|
|
|
Post by lolly on May 19, 2017 19:48:18 GMT -5
|
|
|
|
Post by laughter on May 21, 2017 21:52:59 GMT -5
All, the issue of quoting from private messages (PM) came up. Private messages are called 'private' for a reason. So before you post any content from PM or email conversations please ask for permission first. Content from PM or email that is posted without permission will be deleted. If both parties agree to publish content from a PM or email conversation, that's fine. R Would this extend to publication of a PM made on this forum in a different venue? For example, let's say someone posted spiritualteachers forum PM content on their facebook page, clearly identifying the context as an st forum PM? |
|
|
|
Post by Reefs on May 22, 2017 0:00:45 GMT -5
All, the issue of quoting from private messages (PM) came up. Private messages are called 'private' for a reason. So before you post any content from PM or email conversations please ask for permission first. Content from PM or email that is posted without permission will be deleted. If both parties agree to publish content from a PM or email conversation, that's fine. R Would this extend to publication of a PM made on this forum in a different venue? For example, let's say someone posted spiritualteachers forum PM content on their facebook page, clearly identifying the context as an st forum PM? I don't see why it should. |
|
|
|
Post by laughter on May 22, 2017 8:11:43 GMT -5
Would this extend to publication of a PM made on this forum in a different venue? For example, let's say someone posted spiritualteachers forum PM content on their facebook page, clearly identifying the context as an st forum PM? I don't see why it should. ok, well I do, but thanks for the clarification. |
|
|
|
Post by Reefs on Mar 7, 2018 21:16:40 GMT -5
I see how it's possible to see subatomic particles as alive in some way because they are active expressions of Consciousness, though it pretty much assassinates the term 'alive'. But the terms 'conscious' and 'intelligent' clearly don't apply to electrons. A rock is not conscious and intelligent as we define those terms. But again, I think that's the precise point at which contexts are being mixed. When we say a rock isn't conscious, intelligent, alive....we mean it in the same way that we mean an AI bot isn't conscious, intelligent, alive. It's a valid distinction to make, and a valid conversation. But the broader context is that all things have a consciousness, intelligence, aliveness....whether it is an electron, a rock, or a human. Hence Intelligence is intelligent, Consciousness is conscious, Awareness is aware, Aliveness is alive.See, in your perspective, if a rock/paperclip has no consciousness but a human does, then the reason has to be physical/biological structure, and then we are problematically associating consciousness directly with biology. Talking in the small context I don't have a problem with this, but it has to be situated within the broader context in which it is known that all things have consciousness. This then resolves the issue of associating consciousness with biology (in the small context). - again, this is why I have said the question of whether something has consciousness is only ever a question to be asked in the small context, which isn't the spiritually relevant one. @ Andrew & Enigma (and to all other members), I am going to share an observation with you guys. You (A&E) both have been away from the forum and we didn't have any 'he said she said' issues here for quite a while. Suddenly you both came back and immediately we had the old 'he said she said' problem again. So it was kinda obvious that one of you guys or both of you guys must be the source of it. I've been watching this carefully and here's what I've found out: You (A) have to pay attention to Enigma's definitions. You go with the dictionary meanings as most others here. Enigma doesn't. But he doesn't tell you that right from the beginning. So either you find out that he has very unusual definitions for very common terms or you get sucked into a 'he said she said' conversation where after a while you usually don't even know anymore what you've actually been discussing. (At the moment, I am leaning towards E being the actual source of the confusion) So my suggestion to everyone posting here, get clear about your definitions right at the beginning of a conversation and you'll save yourself and others a lot of time, unnecessary trouble and frustration. If someone doesn't have clear definitions, point that out. If they can't give you clear definitions or don't use them consistently, point that out. If they still can't get their act together, give them the benefit of the doubt and offer to agree to disagree. If they decline that offer, disengage. That's the only way we get rid of this 'he said she said' nonsense and keep this a high quality forum. This is just meant as a general suggestion, not a new rule. No one will get banned for engaging in 'he said she said' stuff. But if it is taking over an entire thread (as happened here), I'm going to point that out from now on. R |
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Mar 7, 2018 21:42:25 GMT -5
But again, I think that's the precise point at which contexts are being mixed. When we say a rock isn't conscious, intelligent, alive....we mean it in the same way that we mean an AI bot isn't conscious, intelligent, alive. It's a valid distinction to make, and a valid conversation. But the broader context is that all things have a consciousness, intelligence, aliveness....whether it is an electron, a rock, or a human. Hence Intelligence is intelligent, Consciousness is conscious, Awareness is aware, Aliveness is alive.See, in your perspective, if a rock/paperclip has no consciousness but a human does, then the reason has to be physical/biological structure, and then we are problematically associating consciousness directly with biology. Talking in the small context I don't have a problem with this, but it has to be situated within the broader context in which it is known that all things have consciousness. This then resolves the issue of associating consciousness with biology (in the small context). - again, this is why I have said the question of whether something has consciousness is only ever a question to be asked in the small context, which isn't the spiritually relevant one. @ Andrew & Enigma (and to all other members), I am going to share an observation with you guys. You (A&E) both have been away from the forum and we didn't have any 'he said she said' issues here for quite a while. Suddenly you both came back and immediately we had the old 'he said she said' problem again. So it was kinda obvious that one of you guys or both of you guys must be the source of it. I've been watching this carefully and here's what I've found out: You (A) have to pay attention to Enigma's definitions. You go with the dictionary meanings as most others here. Enigma doesn't. But he doesn't tell you that right from the beginning. So either you find out that he has very unusual definitions for very common terms or you get sucked into a 'he said she said' conversation where after a while you usually don't even know anymore what you've actually been discussing. (At the moment, I am leaning towards E being the actual source of the confusion) So my suggestion to everyone posting here, get clear about your definitions right at the beginning of a conversation and you'll save yourself and others a lot of time, unnecessary trouble and frustration. If someone doesn't have clear definitions, point that out. If they can't give you clear definitions or don't use them consistently, point that out. If they still can't get their act together, give them the benefit of the doubt and offer to agree to disagree. If they decline that offer, disengage. That's the only way we get rid of this 'he said she said' nonsense and keep this a high quality forum. This is just meant as a general suggestion, not a new rule. No one will get banned for engaging in 'he said she said' stuff. But if it is taking over an entire thread (as happened here), I'm going to point that out from now on. R In flagrant disregard of Poloniuses advice, I disagree that E' is the only source of the confusion in their dialog, but will stop there unless anyone is really all that interested in it and even then ...  |
|
|
|
Post by Reefs on Mar 7, 2018 22:11:57 GMT -5
In flagrant disregard of Poloniuses advice, I disagree that E' is the only source of the confusion in their dialog, but will stop there unless anyone is really all that interested in it and even then ... If you think that this is about finger pointing then you've missed the point. My only concern here is the content to noise ratio. And we've got a lot of noise recently. So it's already a mess. And I am not going to sort that out. I know how that ends. It can only get messier. Peter can assure you that. So I rather focus on the road ahead. And I don't think it's too much to ask. (see, I didn't even mention E or A) |
|
