|
|
Post by figgles on Mar 31, 2017 14:55:32 GMT -5
Figgles, I saw it, even if you deleted it real fast.Have you taken it upon yourself to send the link? Yeah, sorry bout that. I posted and then right after, thought, 'why bother'?.... decided that in general, I'm not really enjoying interacting with you.... so deleted it with the intent to just stop this discourse in its entirety. |
|
|
|
Post by figgles on Mar 31, 2017 13:06:57 GMT -5
The question is not 'are they appearing', but, rather, IF they are appearing, how could they be out of range?Richard Rose actually got the ~step~ thing from Gurdjieff, what he (Rose) says is essentially correct. But figgles, he doesn't mean physically, he means "psychologically", or the ability to make a spiritual connection. You may work beside someone all your life, and even know many things about them, but that doesn't mean you have made any connection at all on a deep spiritual level. Now, some teachers can >step down< and reach people at their (students) level, but some, or maybe even most, might not/maybe not even would do so. There are "teachers" out there on every level, and one generally gravitates to a teacher for/on their level, but say not more than one step above. This is not rocket science. Yup, I get that...and I experience that quite poignantly at times here on the forum.....where with some, there is a clear, eye to eye seeing and a sense of resonance with their words, etc, etc....But, That said, if someone is showing up in my experience 'at all,' I understand their very presence in my experience as evidence of a deeper, fundamental sort of resonance....one that may not show up on the surface of things at all, but rather is evidenced by the very fact of them showing up at all. |
|
|
|
Post by figgles on Mar 31, 2017 13:00:01 GMT -5
The question is not 'are they appearing', but, rather, IF they are appearing, how could they be out of range?You wrote this in your original post: Would those who are truly out of range, be appearing in your dream? How could they be unreachable... talk to your next door neighbour. They may be working the level you are at, in which case they would understand your expression. If they are not at your level... whatever you say to them beyond conversations about shopping or Mr. Jones being on holiday - will fall on deaf ears.Figgles... you are intelligent to know that. Your line of questioning is based on a lie to Self, a MASK. You asked why I said you are lying. I will not explain it. I will do the following.. every time my b.s. detector senses a lie in you - I will not respond. In time you will develop your own lie detector and will know when what you write - is a step away from your real Self. I may sound arrogant, huh.... see if I care. You've missed my point. Yes, agreed, there are folks who seemingly understand what I'm getting at better than others (& yes...a good example happening right here...) My point is that despite the fact that some will seem to be farther or closer in terms of resonance, the very fact a particular someone is showing up at all, in this dream/experience, is in itself, seen to be significant. How does that seeing of significance translate? Well, the very fact that you and I are even conversing here, albeit with some difficulty at the moment, tells me there is a sort of energetic 'resonance' that runs fundamental, despite the communication issues happening on the surface of things. In short, although I get that whole idea of levels and how too far away means less ability to get where the other is coming from, I don't ever completely write off folks appearing in my experience as "too far up or down," from where I stand, as they very fact that they are showing up at all, speaks louder than what's happening on the surface of things. |
|
|
|
Post by figgles on Mar 31, 2017 3:02:10 GMT -5
Yup. A very good depiction of your point. I think it's fair to say that the majority of folks (male and female) that work in the sex trade, be it stripping, porn, prostitution, whatever, are to some degree 'wounded,' regardless of the reason they cite for doing so. Thus, even one who has chosen to forsake a "respectable" type of job for the purpose of making better money, can't necessarily be said to be doing so, purely by conscious choice. The forces that shape that kind of a decision more often than not, go hand in hand with deep wounds. The men I've spoken with who have no interest in the idea of paying for sex, cite the distastefulness of knowingly taking advantage of a broken spirit to get their jollies.....actually say it wouldn't be very pleasurable at all with that element present...so really, in those cases, no 'jollies' to be had. Seems the ones who are capable of doing so, either have not looked into what shapes such a decision, or they simply do not care. All humans have been damaged during the period of growing up, in many different ways, some more so than others. What one sees around is the reflection of the damage. The men in your life may not have been exposed to the 'joys' of unrestrained availability, an access to satisfying every whim one has. This is why I said to Max 'Come to Cam, and I will show you what you truly are'. Incidentally.. I came across the song above when I watched a video of a performance of ladyboys in a nightclub. The soundtrack reflects accurately the realities here, that's why they chose it to support the performance. What they are saying is that If another is not also experiencing the 'joys,' and may actually in fact be engaging from a position of "Oh my God, I actually have to go ahead and do this, even though it disgusts me," they have no interest in that kind of engagement. |
|
|
|
Post by figgles on Mar 31, 2017 2:50:44 GMT -5
That is an interesting way of looking at things, but begs the question; Would those who are truly out of range, be appearing in your dream? If something/someone is appearing, there's gotta be some sort of resonance there imo. They would be appearing, of course. You meet humans in your daily travels, right? The question is not 'are they appearing', but, rather, IF they are appearing, how could they be out of range? |
|
|
|
Post by figgles on Mar 31, 2017 2:27:01 GMT -5
When it seems as though a plan is in play or a problem is being solved, that too is just a thought/idea. All thought is actually spontaneous....if this moment is truly all that ever exists, it has to be..... it just sometimes appears as though cause/effect is involved. To see this, you just gotta shift context.  What have I said that makes you think I don't understand that? At least you see that there are different contexts (which I already mentioned, BTW) which Sach won't even admit to.  Arguing for one, seemingly, over the other. |
|
|
|
Post by figgles on Mar 30, 2017 13:40:11 GMT -5
When it seems as though a plan is in play or a problem is being solved, that too is just a thought/idea. All thought is actually spontaneous....if this moment is truly all that ever exists, it has to be..... it just sometimes appears as though cause/effect is involved. To see this, you just gotta shift context. Exactly! I don't know why Enigma suddenly enters into poor understanding mode!hehe....  It's doesn't have to be reflective of poor understanding, as what he's saying is really just a different vantage point, but I don't get why he doesn't just say that. That's always been my beef with E. He changes context, often without acknowledging that that is happening, and argues quite vehemently for that singular viewpoint/contextual seeing...when really, if he'd just acknowledge the validity of the other context, there'd actually be no argument. |
|
|
|
Post by figgles on Mar 30, 2017 12:39:35 GMT -5
What do you mean when you say 'many thoughts were premeditated'? They were ready in your subconscious level before they arrive at your conscious level? Is that what you meant? If so, then train of thoughts to the infinity is ready now? You guys are getting all cosmic on me. All I'm saying is when you think and plan and solve problems and such, those aren't spontaneous thoughts. When it seems as though a plan is in play or a problem is being solved, that too is just a thought/idea. All thought is actually spontaneous....if this moment is truly all that ever exists, it has to be..... it just sometimes appears as though cause/effect is involved. To see this, you just gotta shift context. |
|
|
|
Post by figgles on Mar 30, 2017 12:21:24 GMT -5
That's not how I understand Heart. The ruthlessness is more to it. It's ruthless from a sentimental perspective. However, he purposely kept his costume on when meeting with his sister. He judged that she wasn't interested in or prepared for ruthless/heartless connection. But no one is anyway. His sister. What keeps him from connecting with this LIFE-long mate given the resources to do it. That is what doesn't smell right. And that is where there is no Heart. Richard Rose has a good one on this. He said something to the like of 'We can only truly connect to those who are one rung below us on the level of Consciousness or one rung above us on that level. Consciousness has levels of evolution in a human. The depth and the breadth of what is seen with clarity. Leave those others until and when they are ready. And those whose level one haven't reached yet - will leave us alone too. That is an interesting way of looking at things, but begs the question; Would those who are truly out of range, be appearing in your dream? If something/someone is appearing, there's gotta be some sort of resonance there imo. |
|
|
|
Post by figgles on Mar 30, 2017 11:32:37 GMT -5
It's not an easy subject. For instance, if an adult woman decides without coercion of any kind to work as a hooker and earn much more money than she could working in a bank, would you say she is a victim? Feel the 'love'. Party girls don't get hurt Can't feel anything, when will I learn I push it down, push it down I'm the one "for a good time call" Phone's blowin' up, ringin' my doorbell I feel the love, feel the love One two three, one two three drink One two three, one two three drink One two three, one two three drink Throw em back, till I lose count I'm gonna swing from the chandelier, From the chandelier I'm gonna live like tomorrow doesn't exist Like it doesn't exist I'm gonna fly like a bird through the night, Feel my tears as they dry I'm gonna swing from the chandelier, From the chandelier And I'm holding on for dear life, Won't look down won't open my eyes Keep my glass full until morning light, 'Cause I'm just holding on for tonight Help me, I'm holding on for dear life, Won't look down won't open my eyes Keep my glass full until morning light, 'Cause I'm just holding on for tonight, on for tonight Sun is up, I'm a mess Gotta get out now, gotta run from this Here comes the shame, here comes the shame One two three, one two three drink One two three, one two three drink One two three, one two three drink Throw em back till I lose count I'm gonna swing from the chandelier, From the chandelier I'm gonna live like tomorrow doesn't exist Like it doesn't exist I'm gonna fly like a bird through the night, Feel my tears as they dry I'm gonna swing from the chandelier, From the chandelier And I'm holding on for dear life, Won't look down won't open my eyes Keep my glass full until morning light, 'Cause I'm just holding on for tonight Help me, I'm holding on for dear life, Won't look down won't open my eyes Keep my glass full until morning light, 'Cause I'm just holding on for tonight, on for tonight On for tonight 'Cause I'm just holding on for tonight Oh I'm just holding on for tonight On for tonight On for tonight 'Cause I'm just holding on for tonight 'Cause I'm just holding on for tonight Oh I'm just holding on for tonight On for tonight On for tonight Yup. A very good depiction of your point. I think it's fair to say that the majority of folks (male and female) that work in the sex trade, be it stripping, porn, prostitution, whatever, are to some degree 'wounded,' regardless of the reason they cite for doing so. Thus, even one who has chosen to forsake a "respectable" type of job for the purpose of making better money, can't necessarily be said to be doing so, purely by conscious choice. The forces that shape that kind of a decision more often than not, go hand in hand with deep wounds. The men I've spoken with who have no interest in the idea of paying for sex, cite the distastefulness of knowingly taking advantage of a broken spirit to get their jollies.....actually say it wouldn't be very pleasurable at all with that element present...so really, in those cases, no 'jollies' to be had. Seems the ones who are capable of doing so, either have not looked into what shapes such a decision, or they simply do not care. |
|
|
|
Post by figgles on Mar 29, 2017 10:26:56 GMT -5
Okay, quick google check. ''So there's nothing you can do. It's not in your hands. I don't like to use the word 'grace', because if you use the word 'grace', the grace of 'whom'?'' Though it looks like in a very early talk, he may have used it in a 'grace bestowed' kind of way, but I'm not qhite clear if it is him saying it, or if it is someone commenting on what he said. Good question. Yes. One to ask Reefs next time he's on forum. |
|
|
|
Post by figgles on Mar 28, 2017 11:14:59 GMT -5
Maybe Jed has no interest in 'mastery'. Its a different spiritual path...a path that includes values, morality and responsibility for karmic creation. Many of the arguments on the forum have been conflicts between those more drawn to seeing through illusion, and those more drawn to mastery. I'm at the point where I think its horses for courses, people cant help but be on one or the other. For you, maybe its time to just walk away from Jed, if you haven't already. Thank you for your thoughtful comment. The Paradox is that there are no values, morality or responsibility in the absolute sense...yet, there are in the human sense of existence. That only becomes seen when the true Sewlf is seen clearly. Mine seem to be a hard wired DNA part. As I said before, there is a very real human price paid for this. I guess this is part of me walking away. I am an investigator by nature, so had to investigate.But did you really 'investigate'? Seems to me you spouted off on a public forum, making some really serious accusations and insinuations, without even having a full exchange with the person in question to assess whether what you saw was really what you thought it was. As I've see with your tact with Satch, and men in general, you are a little prone to stereotyping and jumping to conclusions, based upon nothing more than surface appearances. I'm sure this "jed" fella would be thrilled to know there's a public forum thread online speaking about his 'abusive nature,' as though it were a hard fact. |
|
|
|
Post by figgles on Mar 28, 2017 11:06:03 GMT -5
Sure it does. Just gotta Get your mind off male sexuality. "Premature" means "too early." Condemnation is 'premature' when one stereotypes another and arrives at a conclusion of his guilt, before any actual evidence of such presents. & you can spin this however you like, you're angry at Jed. (& other men too, simply for the fact of being, men) It comes across loud and clear. I will talk to you only when you have something real to offer, instead of engaging your Self in lies and offering platitudes of no substance. What lies am I engaging? |
|
|
|
Post by figgles on Mar 28, 2017 10:54:53 GMT -5
I was initially all set to ban Tano, and then I read the whole thread and got a better sense of where her(?) anger is coming from. It's a hell of a situation and positions of power and privilege are being abused, no doubt about it. You know Satch, it's only defamation if it's not true. You had the opportunity to deny the accusation categorically - including this bar fine question you're ignoring - and you've come away looking like you've dodged the question; going for the legal redress route instead. Which sort of reminds me of the whole problem in the first place. The photos are not of Satch, but posted linking him to them. So that is an insinuation and I've deleted that post. I think it's been 3 years since I last deleted a member's post. Tano I'm assuming that you don't know Satch personally. You seem to be basing the whole of your "Tar Satch with the same brush as Jed" accusation on that fact that he's chosen to remain in Thailand for an extended period of time. Which is entirely circumstantial. If you've got no proof about him using prostitutes, then "innocent until proven guilty" is going to stand. Please cease and desist all further unprovable accusations. You're welcome to PM me to discuss further. Thank you Peter. All I would say is that she has no business asking me these questions in the first place which is why I didn't answer. I haven't asked her if she has ever borrowed money from someone and not paid it back. There would be no onus on her to answer it and failure to do so would not make her a cheat. Incidentally I don't even know who Jed McKenna is. Exactly. & she didn't just 'ask.' Her question was more rhetorical than actually curious......asked from a position of already assuming your guilt. |
|
|
|
Post by figgles on Mar 28, 2017 10:49:16 GMT -5
Any questions you asked were already couched in your premature condemnation of him. You've already made up your mind based upon nothing more than a stereotype. I get it that you're disappointed in this "Jed" person's behavior, but you really should think twice before you lash out in anger to whitewash every male of a certain age and ethnicity, with that same dirty brush. Your language is inaccurate. 'Premature' does not go with 'condemnation'. It goes with 'ejaculation'. I would use the expression 'prior condemnation' instead. Interesting, isn't it? The language is always used to corrupt the meaning or to suggest the meaning, which was not otherwise initially expressed. There is no anger if you talk about emotion of anger. It's just that exchanges based on Reality, rather than mental projections of Reality - are always abrasive to humans. I have no interest in continuing this exchange with you. I wish you well. Sure it does. Just gotta Get your mind off male sexuality. "Premature" means "too early." Condemnation is 'premature' when one stereotypes another and arrives at a conclusion of his guilt, before any actual evidence of such presents. & you can spin this however you like, you're angry at Jed. (& other men too, simply for the fact of being, men) It comes across loud and clear. |
|
It's doesn't have to be reflective of poor understanding, as what he's saying is really just a different vantage point, but I don't get why he doesn't just say that. 
