|
Post by figrebirth on Jun 2, 2023 0:28:52 GMT -5
If I recall correctly, the last expression of the "reefs is sharon" conspiracy theory was within the last year over on gab, and I think even within the last 4 months. I actually didn't want to go there, but it seems circumstances force me to address this matter anyway, because there is some moderator action required. I just haven't made up my mind yet what it will be. For those who don't know what's going on here, the chronological sequence of events: 1) Nancy: Many years ago Figgles claimed someone who knew Reefs from the Abeforum with the name Nancy contacted her and told her all kinds of personal details about Reefs. But truth is, I never knew any Nancy on the Abeforum, let alone discussed personal details there with anybody. Figgles never accepted that. 2) Sharon: Next Figgles started claiming that Sharon and Reefs are actually one and the same person, using different accounts simultaneously. She came to that conclusion because Reefs and Sharon seemed to have identical interests in music, namely dubstep. Truth is, while I like electronic music, I hate dubstep. Another similarity she noticed was the shared interest in the Seth books. Figgles even went so far to hunt down Sharon on facebook based on these two data points. However, Peter clarified that based on login details that it was virtually impossible that Sharon could actually be Reefs. Figgles never accepted that. 3) She: The next step on the escalation escalator was Figgles' claim that Reefs has been lying about his gender all along, his marital status and children, that he was actually a she instead of a he, single and had no children. I corrected her on that. Figgles never accepted that. 4) Tegan: The latest now is Reefs being a woman named Tegan who allegedly posted on reddit (?) all kinds of sad details about her sad life. And these personal details, Figgles seems to now have incorporated into her latest straw Reefs version. So this saga is getting crazier and crazier by the year and facts to the contrary don't seem to matter to Figgles. It almost seems as if she has lost control of her own story and her story has a life of its own now and actually dictates what Figgles thinks and does. Now, looking at this as a moderator, Figgles' unusual behavior poses an interesting dilemma from a game theory perspective. Because the question I need to find an answer to in order to make the next mod decision is this: Is there a rationale behind what Figgles does? Or to put it more bluntly: Is Figgles just acting crazy or is she actually crazy? The answer to that question will determine my next mod move. If she only acts crazy, then she can be reasoned with and I can rely on her word and there's a chance that she will adjust her behavior in order to fit in here. If she actually is crazy, then she cannot be reasoned with and her word I cannot rely on and there's no chance that she can adjust her behavior so that she fits in here, because she is not in control of her thoughts, words and actions. So her good will and assurances wouldn't mean anything. =========== So, open question to the forum. What do you guys think I should do? 1) Should I read Figgles the riot act again in hope that she may finally come to her senses and actually makes an effort to fit in here? 2) Or should I just ban her like any other malicious troll, because she can't be reasoned with anyway and apparently isn't in control of her own thoughts and behavior either? I am leaning towards a permanent ban, because I see zero interest on her part to fit in. It is only going to get worse from here on. She'll paint herself as an innocent victim of an evil moderator crew. Let me know what you think. I will consider all your input in my final decision. Thank you. ============ I'll save you the trouble, Teegs.
Thanks to all who openly engaged me.....it truly was a pleasure chatting with you and sharing/comparing ideas. Feel free to drop by Gab if you feel so inclined.
|
|
|
Post by sharon on Jun 2, 2023 1:53:58 GMT -5
It's old news now man, honestly. That Facebook account is now deleted. Give it another few days. If the drinking calms down then there might be less fire to put out. Hmm... ?
I'm gittin shit for writing 'she' instead of 'he' and you throw that one out there, and I'm bettin' it will pass just fine.
Comparing what isn't true with what is and feigning offense. Mildly funny. Goodbye and I hope you got some enjoyment out of your visit.
|
|
|
Post by sharon on Jun 2, 2023 2:01:47 GMT -5
It's old news now man, honestly. That Facebook account is now deleted. Give it another few days. If the drinking calms down then there might be less fire to put out. That's good to know. I just mentioned it as a counter point to the "it's all just poking fun" narrative, because that incident did look more like a seek and destroy mission and the recent Tegan thing has the exact same flavor to me. I don't really know the intent. So it would be pointless of me to speculate. I know that some people just love drama though and Figs is plugged into people on the internet that we have no idea about.. and they all leave traces of themselves in her psyche. If those friendships mean more to her than yours.. then, what can I say. Sorry for any part that I have played in the breakdown of your friendship with Faye. It was not my intention.
|
|
|
Post by sharon on Jun 2, 2023 2:07:58 GMT -5
I was joshing around today and Sharon was responding to that. Classic case of the dictionary definition doesn't always capture the context! Lighten up folks. And some words should just never leave British shores.
|
|
|
Post by andrew on Jun 2, 2023 2:26:24 GMT -5
I've always considered it a very gentle insult, haven't heard it in years, takes me back to my childhood 'Plonker' is another one that now has me chuckling. One of my favorite British insults is wanker. Truly one of my favourite words from my younger years.
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Jun 2, 2023 2:41:49 GMT -5
I try not to get too involved in forum politics, but it seems like a storm in a teacup. Much ado about nothing. Your male energy couldn't be any clearer to me. So I consider that if figs really buys into all that then she probably isn't very perceptive and deluded in that respect. If she's just poking then it's no real biggie either. Just ignore it. It's not really hurtin anyone. Also, I think Tegan is a lovely name. I don't know if you have deed poll over there, but if you're name isn't Tegan you should seriously consider changing it to that. I know I am!
Pillock!! Connecticut yankees shortened it to "pill", and it still persisted at least until the mid-20th .. but I'm not sure they remembered the literal transalation.
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Jun 2, 2023 2:55:27 GMT -5
Yes, bad form. My apologies. But you have to consider the timeline of posts when I replied. I wasn't aware of your other post at the time. I don't remember the Aquaman thing at all, that's how serious it must have been. ETA: You will see in the replies to my question that people's opinion re: Figgles differs depending on their history and intensity of interactions with Figgles. People like you and I or Inavalan and Laughter who had long and intense exchanges with her, actually do see mental issues involved. Others, like SDP or Ouros, who didn't have any long or intense exchanges with her, see it more as a silly quirk. I don't know all the ins and outs of the differences, the ND and SR views, yours and hers. Everybody is deluded to one extent or another. Mental illness is altogether different. I read just the other day that psychologists don't even consider neurosis a thing anymore, so the bar has really been lowered. I pretty-much go by the rule that when you give an opinion of others or the questions you ask, you are disclosing more about yourself than informing about the other. I respect boundaries and make my own boundaries. I don't think you can really tell crazy from words alone, it takes day by day face to face contact to disclose crazy, subtle crazy anyway. Yes, obsession is a problem, indicates a problem. Most everybody is in denial to a certain extent, people are blind to their own issues. And if you try to point out their issues, it drives them further into denial. There isn't much you can do except just accept people for what they are, and love them. But you do have to protect yourself. That's 'cause of the tendency of well-educated, high-functioning sedentary people to be so neurotic. So, like. Them.
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Jun 2, 2023 2:58:56 GMT -5
I was joshing around today and Sharon was responding to that. Classic case of the dictionary definition doesn't always capture the context! Lighten up folks. And some words should just never leave British shores. Way .. way too late!
|
|
|
Post by lolly on Jun 2, 2023 6:04:44 GMT -5
It's the difference between strong and weak AI. Strong AI is sentient and knows what it is doing. Weak AI merely mimics tyhat to the degree that we can't tell the difference. That is based on the Turing definition of artificial intelligence. Weak AI is the classic zombie problem (philosophical zombies). It appears to be aware if what's going on, says the same things and does the same stuff as a human intelligence, but has in itself no awareness of anything. Strong AI is actually there, aware, and actually reasoning through things consciously, but if weak is so good we can't tell the difference, it passes as a 'person' anyway, would we be none-the wiser, and if it doesn't really make a difference, does it matter? Only ethically. You can turn off weak AI because it doesn't experience anything, but once you switch on strong AI... there is a dilemma surrounding the off switch. This is also the problem with the 'no others' thing... as if I alone am sentient with awareness and everyone in the world is a philosophical zombie, a mere mechanistic acting of things without any conscious experience of its own. The zombie thought experiment is an argument against materialism. It proposes that all the neurons and stuff, in and of themselves, couldn't be the source of an emergent immersive experience. This would mean the qualia of knowing what the experience is like does not emerge from stimuli. Therefore, if this anti-materialist argument is right, there is no way to 'make' a sentient AI with conscious awareness of experience and thereby any intelligent reasoning ability. There is no engineering solution. Hence, the only way it happens is one day the lights come on and the computer scientists are like, WTF is happening? No one will be able to figure it out by going over the engineering. They'll just say, if we build a thing like 'this', it comes to life for some mysterious reason, and now there's a dilemma with the off switch.
|
|
|
Post by ouroboros on Jun 2, 2023 6:51:07 GMT -5
The process by which distinctiveness itself arises. The path it takes. What is "it"? The question was, what is distinct, from what? C.T.Joe would say "my hand, from the tub". So we agree that "cold" is a process, but your answer here is unclear. I'm just saying that distinction is a natural part of the process of expression unfolding as a whole. Regardless of whether or not any extraneous mental overlay arises. Possibly a bit vague, idk. But I can't really talk in terms of boundaries when it comes to impressions, i.e distinctiveness. It might seem odd to talk about impression and distinctiveness in the same breath. But perception is an unfathomable (and predominantly subconscious) process of differentiation. A cascade from vague to acute. In terms of expression, that encompasses 'the conditioned'. So ocean as a whole, and wave-like individuated aspects. When I'm talking about vagueness, I should probably mention that I do absolutely grok ATA, which is an alert and therefore vivid state of direct sensory perception absent mental overlay or narrative. I'm sure that's been clear anyway. But maintain that a process of distinction or differentiation is still going on in such a state, in the form of subconscious mental processing. Which is one of the reasons I tend to employ a broader conception of mind than others it seems. Although I do understand the way they use mind to point to those surface level aspects which are quiescent. .. but see that as merely the cessation of 'monkey-mind'.
Yes, the mental overlays are only at the surface. We're at or close to a point of agreeing to disagree. I've already acknowledged the difference between physical and mental distinctions. There is a difference between distinguishing between the hand and the tub, on one hand, and Monday and Tuesday, on the other, no doubt. I can understand how what I've written about unusual experiences might ultimately be a condescension, but that just is what it is. "Not two" is really, quite the deep rabbit hole. And also the existential truth. Ultimately, I can only say the question is misconceived. Which also might seem condescending but I'm sure neither of us will take offence. So let's go with agree to disagree, on the basis we at least have a fair idea where the other is coming from by now.
|
|
|
Post by stardustpilgrim on Jun 2, 2023 7:19:38 GMT -5
I was joshing around today and Sharon was responding to that. Classic case of the dictionary definition doesn't always capture the context! Lighten up folks. And some words should just never leave British shores. Hoy! {[(I don't know what it means, they just say it a lot on Doctor Who. )]}
|
|
|
Post by andrew on Jun 2, 2023 7:25:11 GMT -5
What is "it"? The question was, what is distinct, from what? C.T.Joe would say "my hand, from the tub". So we agree that "cold" is a process, but your answer here is unclear. Yes, the mental overlays are only at the surface. We're at or close to a point of agreeing to disagree. I've already acknowledged the difference between physical and mental distinctions. There is a difference between distinguishing between the hand and the tub, on one hand, and Monday and Tuesday, on the other, no doubt. I can understand how what I've written about unusual experiences might ultimately be a condescension, but that just is what it is. "Not two" is really, quite the deep rabbit hole. And also the existential truth. Ultimately, I can only say the question is misconceived. Which also might seem condescending but I'm sure neither of us will take offence. So let's go with agree to disagree, on the basis we at least have a fair idea where the other is coming from by now. There seems to me to be 2 questions we are all addressing 1) Where does maya begin and end. 2) What aspect of maya causes human difficulties, and how do we spiritually address/resolve those difficulties. I'm not saying this to you specifically, it's just that your message prompted that thought.
|
|
|
Post by justlikeyou on Jun 2, 2023 8:05:50 GMT -5
Question: What can we say about a member of a non-duality forum who holds them self as a shining example of being Realized, yet holds suspicions about another member's gender identity? ChatGPT: "If a member of a non-duality forum presents themselves as a shining example of realization but holds suspicions or doubts about another member's gender identity, it can be seen as a contradiction or inconsistency in their approach to non-dual teachings. Non-duality emphasizes the understanding that all distinctions, including gender, are ultimately illusory and do not define our true nature. It encourages a recognition of the underlying unity and interconnectedness of all things. In this context, harboring suspicions or doubts about someone's gender identity contradicts the essence of non-duality, which invites us to move beyond such dualistic distinctions.It would be reasonable to point out this contradiction and encourage the member to reflect on the discrepancy between their professed realization and their suspicions about another member's gender identity." Sounds as though ChatGPT is a brown-bear. Curiosity, interest, suspicions and intuitings that another might not be telling the truth, all of that continues on post awakening. Realzing there is not two does not mean the end of experience and all it's myriad of facets.
Sure. But here you're justifying fantasy with high falutin non-dual language. Best of luck with that.
|
|
|
Post by ouroboros on Jun 2, 2023 9:54:51 GMT -5
Ultimately, I can only say the question is misconceived. Which also might seem condescending but I'm sure neither of us will take offence. So let's go with agree to disagree, on the basis we at least have a fair idea where the other is coming from by now. There seems to me to be 2 questions we are all addressing 1) Where does maya begin and end. 2) What aspect of maya causes human difficulties, and how do we spiritually address/resolve those difficulties. I'm not saying this to you specifically, it's just that your message prompted that thought. Yes, I'd say that's a decent association to make. The notion of Maya comes up in many of the variations of traditions we utilise here on the forums, and certainly in both Advaita and Buddhism for example. Often in the context of 'illusion' although it's interpretive. For general consideration, here is a sutta which I gather might be associated with the Theravada conception of maya. It's not too laborious, and I'm guessing folks from both sides of this particular debate might be able to relate to at least aspects of it. It's basically pointing to emptiness, in the way I conceive of it. Again, it's interpretive but a couple of quick thoughts from myself.
Firstly, it's essentially applying emptiness to both mental and material (mind and form) instances. So broadly. Secondly, towards the end it talks about what I'm going to call 'the culmination of the process [of cessation through clarity]' in terms of 'the discarding of the body', and associates that particular deccurrence with three things 'being given up'. Namely, "vitality, warmth and consciousness". Incidentally, that last one being vinnana, the third of the 12 nidanas. Anyway, the point I wanted to make with this 2nd one is to associate it with paranibbana. Edit. I originally said vinnana (consciousnes) was the first of the 12 nidanas. It's actually the third, avijja (ignorance) being the first. Very sloppy of me!!
|
|
|
Post by zazeniac on Jun 2, 2023 9:55:57 GMT -5
Ultimately, I can only say the question is misconceived. Which also might seem condescending but I'm sure neither of us will take offence. So let's go with agree to disagree, on the basis we at least have a fair idea where the other is coming from by now. There seems to me to be 2 questions we are all addressing 1) Where does maya begin and end. 2) What aspect of maya causes human difficulties, and how do we spiritually address/resolve those difficulties. I'm not saying this to you specifically, it's just that your message prompted that thought. I think. I think, one is saying Maya is (conceptual) separation, but not distinguishing between objects (part of perception). While the other is saying Maya is both. What I'm trying to figure out is whether agreeing with either will make you any less "pillocky."
|
|