muttley
Super Duper Senior Member
Posts: 4,394
|
Post by muttley on Aug 23, 2018 19:21:18 GMT
No, it's not that I " figure", it's a simple fact of the words on the page. It's just WIBIGO: Do you really want to keep arguing over trivia like the precise meaning of "bee in your bonnet"? Is painting the portraiture of someone as having a "bee in their bonnet" a flattering scenario? Is it a compliment to tell someone "you have a "bee in your bonnet"? Is lawyering over the term an act of "manifesting truthfulness into this situation"? Now, notice how you're characterizing my intent for writing the exact same perception about you that you wrote about me, as negative? Go back and read the dialog: did I do the same when you reminded me of how I was arguing the other side of a conversation years ago? Did I ask you why you wrote it or question the sincerity of your perception or speculate that you were trying to "out me" or joke about your "inner wolf" or say you had a "bee in your bonnet"? And are you certain that the "only time I've engaged you is to point out a discrepancy"? Isn't it a self-defensive deflection to ask someone why they wrote what they wrote? And how is it a sincere question when you've essentially already expressed what you think the answer is? Now, I'm quite conscious of how I'm deflecting as I'm writing, but in this case it's definitely more of a reflection, rather than a refraction.  Good Lord, this is ridiculous. I was simply interested in hearing if/why you found it to be of some import, if in fact my view has changed. My comment to you above had a lighthearted sense of 'Aint' life unpredictable' kinda thing behind it. Whereas I still have the sense that you see some kind of 'negative' significance regarding a view that has changed from 22 months ago. You've made a federal case out of a simple question. You asserted that my view had changed from 22 months ago, and I essentially asked; "if it has, what of it"? That's yet another sentiment that simply doesn't match the words on the page, like, at all. 
Like I said, my perception that you'd flipped your position was spontaneous, and I ain't the one who made a case out of it first. At first I did one quick search to see how long ago the dialog happened. But then, after you started writing all this resistance, I looked a little deeper, and there are at least three quotes that directly contradict what you wrote the other day. It's what we used to call a "figfight". 
Did you ever agree with wren, about anything, even once over on ST? For literally, years, you supported andy's positions, but you've characterized this change as just more openness or a higher standard without indicating that anything significant has really changed in your existential outlook, understanding, or (literal dude-god forbid) "realization status". Did you used to support Tenka's objections in his arguments with E' or did you used to argue with him?
There's far more to your shift from this last year than you're reflecting on. It's like you're sort of sweeping the past under the rug. Is that an expression of self-honesty?
|
|
|
|
Post by Figgles on Aug 23, 2018 19:41:14 GMT
Good Lord, this is ridiculous. I was simply interested in hearing if/why you found it to be of some import, if in fact my view has changed. My comment to you above had a lighthearted sense of 'Aint' life unpredictable' kinda thing behind it. Whereas I still have the sense that you see some kind of 'negative' significance regarding a view that has changed from 22 months ago. You've made a federal case out of a simple question. You asserted that my view had changed from 22 months ago, and I essentially asked; "if it has, what of it"? That's yet another sentiment that simply doesn't match the words on the page, like, at all. Like I said, my perception that you'd flipped your position was spontaneous, and I ain't the one who made a case out of it first. At first I did one quick search to see how long ago the dialog happened. But then, after you started writing all this resistance, I looked a little deeper, and there are at least three quotes that directly contradict what you wrote the other day. It's what we used to call a "figfight". Did you ever agree with wren, about anything, even once over on ST? For literally, years, you supported andy's positions, but you've characterized this change as just more openness or a higher standard without indicating that anything significant has really changed in your existential outlook, understanding, or (literal dude-god forbid) "realization status". Did you used to support Tenka's objections in his arguments with E' or did you used to argue with him? There's far more to your shift from this last year than you're reflecting on. It's like you're sort of sweeping the past under the rug. Is that an expression of self-honesty?
This is simply not so. I've been very clear that in fact, my understandings have shifted....there's now greater clarity where previously I was not seeing so clear...that over the past few years, there's been an obvious shift in seeing/realization and that recently, all of that really coming into deeper focus. Surely you can see that I am speaking there or more than just being 'more open' or 'adopting a higher standard'? Here's an actual exchange between you and I that speaks to the same: |
|
|
|
Post by Figgles on Aug 23, 2018 21:25:55 GMT
& Laughter, If you're still having trouble seeing/admitting to the 'bee in your bonnet', aka 'your agenda,' it's right there in black and white; You believed I was denying a realizational shift of any sort and thus, were calling me out on the difference you perceived between what I said previously vs. what I'm saying now, for the purpose of proving that that divergence is based upon more than just being more open or adopting a higher standard.
|
|
muttley
Super Duper Senior Member
Posts: 4,394
|
Post by muttley on Aug 24, 2018 3:48:19 GMT
That's yet another sentiment that simply doesn't match the words on the page, like, at all. Like I said, my perception that you'd flipped your position was spontaneous, and I ain't the one who made a case out of it first. At first I did one quick search to see how long ago the dialog happened. But then, after you started writing all this resistance, I looked a little deeper, and there are at least three quotes that directly contradict what you wrote the other day. It's what we used to call a "figfight". Did you ever agree with wren, about anything, even once over on ST? For literally, years, you supported andy's positions, but you've characterized this change as just more openness or a higher standard without indicating that anything significant has really changed in your existential outlook, understanding, or (literal dude-god forbid) "realization status". Did you used to support Tenka's objections in his arguments with E' or did you used to argue with him? There's far more to your shift from this last year than you're reflecting on. It's like you're sort of sweeping the past under the rug. Is that an expression of self-honesty?
This is simply not so. I've been very clear that in fact, my understandings have shifted....there's now greater clarity where previously I was not seeing so clear...that over the past few years, there's been an obvious shift in seeing/realization and that recently, all of that really coming into deeper focus. Surely you can see that I am speaking there or more than just being 'more open' or 'adopting a higher standard'? Here's an actual exchange between you and I that speaks to the same: Ok, well, first of all, thanks for taking the effort to put that all in one place and making yourself emphatically clear on the issue. Ya' came through loud and clear that time. From my perspective, it was like pulling teeth, and I'll be glad to explain why, if you're curious.  |
|
muttley
Super Duper Senior Member
Posts: 4,394
|
Post by muttley on Aug 24, 2018 3:51:43 GMT
& Laughter, If you're still having trouble seeing/admitting to the 'bee in your bonnet', aka 'your agenda,' it's right there in black and white; You believed I was denying a realizational shift of any sort and thus, were calling me out on the difference you perceived between what I said previously vs. what I'm saying now, for the purpose of proving that that divergence is based upon more than just being more open or adopting a higher standard. (** straight face **)  |
|
|
|
Post by Figgles on Aug 24, 2018 4:31:27 GMT
This is simply not so. I've been very clear that in fact, my understandings have shifted....there's now greater clarity where previously I was not seeing so clear...that over the past few years, there's been an obvious shift in seeing/realization and that recently, all of that really coming into deeper focus. Surely you can see that I am speaking there or more than just being 'more open' or 'adopting a higher standard'? Here's an actual exchange between you and I that speaks to the same: Ok, well, first of all, thanks for taking the effort to put that all in one place and making yourself emphatically clear on the issue. Ya' came through loud and clear that time. From my perspective, it was like pulling teeth, and I'll be glad to explain why, if you're curious.  You didn't have to 'pull' anything.....I readily offered it up at the onset of this conversation. Your agenda blinded you. |
|
muttley
Super Duper Senior Member
Posts: 4,394
|
Post by muttley on Aug 24, 2018 6:02:29 GMT
Ok, well, first of all, thanks for taking the effort to put that all in one place and making yourself emphatically clear on the issue. Ya' came through loud and clear that time. From my perspective, it was like pulling teeth, and I'll be glad to explain why, if you're curious. You didn't have to 'pull' anything.....I readily offered it up at the onset of this conversation. Your agenda blinded you. Riiiight, you're definitely not curious. But what you are doing now is distorting the dialog. Pay attention to what you deleted from what you wrote (as opposed to what you bolded) and note that it is as I characterized: Yeah, that's another argument you were on the other side 22 months ago. That said, no doubt about it, as I shared here a ways back, there has indeed been a shift over the past while in terms of seeing, that has resulted in less compromise...a harder line as I talk about this stuff. .. and that you, denied: For literally, years, you supported andy's positions, but you've characterized this change as just more openness or a higher standard without indicating that anything significant has really changed in your existential outlook, understanding, or (literal dude-god forbid) "realization status". This is simply not so. Are you really being honest with yourself about which one of us is partially blinded here. Do you want me to go back and quote you on the point that you think your understandings haven't changed? You see, the one thing that caught my eye that led me to accept your response without further litigating it was this: there's now greater clarity where previously I was not seeing so clearThat was the first time I've read you admit that. 22 months ago, when you "weren't seeing so clear" (your words), you supported andy's ideas about an absolute context where things are all the same and no relative distinctions matter. You expressed doubt about that perception, questioned my motive for expressing it, and resorted to ad hominem in order to deflect the issue, so yeah, I got the bloody pliers to prove up the invoice for the dental work.
Interesting that you choose the word "agenda" to characterize my interest in confronting and challenging you about this. I won't deny that it can fit, but do you really think of yourself as without an "agenda" in this dialog yourself? |
|
|
|
Post by Figgles on Aug 24, 2018 15:42:07 GMT
Riiiight, you're definitely not curious. But what you are doing now is distorting the dialog. Pay attention to what you deleted from what you wrote (as opposed to what you bolded) and note that it is as I characterized: There's no distortion. You are the one who suggested that I'm denying there's been an actual shift in seeing/realizational shift. Thus, I offered up the part of the quote (specifically saying there WAS a shift in seeing) that was relevant to your assertion. Yes, I'm talking about stuff differently, because of those shifts in seeing. But, The talk after all, is only ever a pale shade of the actual realization, and the shifts in seeing I'm talking about, are not on the surface of things, going to sound hugely different, however, they have resulted in seeing some pretty important stuff (there are no bridges.....no room for compromise). That 'harder line/no room for compromise' might sound like not such a big deal, but if you read through some of my posts To Andrew and even to you, those posts speak to the importance of such. It really is the difference between continuing to believe there are bridges between experience and Truth and that some very special experiences just might be Truthy. Those who are still holding to a few sacred experiential cows in that sense, will likely say, It's no big deal to look to certain apperances/experiences for Truth, but from the other side, as someone who was to some degree doing it myself a ways back, I can now see, it's Huge. The emptiness of experiential content, has to get seen, straight across the board. Nothing survives. No bridges. No special cosmic experiences that somehow remain Truthy/of substance. You were wrong about precisely 'what' changed regarding my understandings/seeing. I corrected you. As I said, even on ST, you regularly misinterpreted the meaning of my posts. I don't think you have a particularly great grasp upon what I understood then or what I understand now as you're too busy trying to 'get me.' It's very likely I did talk about 'sameness' previously with respect to the absolute context, and yes,that's in particular is not a word I'd now choose, even though what I was seeing back then that had me using the term was indeed the same as what I see now. I'm now seeing through Andrew's posts how the word 'same' can lead to some gross misunderstandings, and/or hinge upon them. There is no context where "An apple IS an orange." In saying that, he reveals that he's seeing something more than just 'no separation' between an apple and orange. The 'sameness' I referenced back then, and even now, is in reference to 'no separation', no some apparent thing actually 'being' an other apparent thing. |
|
|
|
Post by Figgles on Aug 24, 2018 18:28:31 GMT
And your response is indicative of your refusal/fear to get honest with yourself.
You refuse to engage me because you know I challenge ideas and hypocrisy within you, that you presently have an aversion to looking at.
|
|
muttley
Super Duper Senior Member
Posts: 4,394
|
Post by muttley on Aug 24, 2018 20:56:20 GMT
Riiiight, you're definitely not curious. But what you are doing now is distorting the dialog. Pay attention to what you deleted from what you wrote (as opposed to what you bolded) and note that it is as I characterized: There's no distortion. You are the one who suggested that I'm denying there's been an actual shift in seeing/realizational shift. Thus, I offered up the part of the quote (specifically saying there WAS a shift in seeing) that was relevant to your assertion. Yes, I'm talking about stuff differently, because of those shifts in seeing. But, The talk after all, is only ever a pale shade of the actual realization, and the shifts in seeing I'm talking about, are not on the surface of things, going to sound hugely different, however, they have resulted in seeing some pretty important stuff (there are no bridges.....no room for compromise). That 'harder line/no room for compromise' might sound like not such a big deal, but if you read through some of my posts To Andrew and even to you, those posts speak to the importance of such. It really is the difference between continuing to believe there are bridges between experience and Truth and that some very special experiences just might be Truthy. Those who are still holding to a few sacred experiential cows in that sense, will likely say, It's no big deal to look to certain apperances/experiences for Truth, but from the other side, as someone who was to some degree doing it myself a ways back, I can now see, it's Huge. The emptiness of experiential content, has to get seen, straight across the board. Nothing survives. No bridges. No special cosmic experiences that somehow remain Truthy/of substance. You were wrong about precisely 'what' changed regarding my understandings/seeing. I corrected you. As I said, even on ST, you regularly misinterpreted the meaning of my posts. I don't think you have a particularly great grasp upon what I understood then or what I understand now as you're too busy trying to 'get me.' It's very likely I did talk about 'sameness' previously with respect to the absolute context, and yes,that's in particular is not a word I'd now choose, even though what I was seeing back then that had me using the term was indeed the same as what I see now. I'm now seeing through Andrew's posts how the word 'same' can lead to some gross misunderstandings, and/or hinge upon them. Oh, there most certainly was distortion on your part, and in denying that you're just using your rug-broom again. And no, I wasn't flat out "wrong" about how you've previously characterized your shift in seeing. When I challenged you about your position on satchie's idea of getting lost in the movie, you wrote this: Go back and look at the quote from ST and contrast it to how you replied to 'squatchies idea that you still might enjoy getting lost in the movie. It's a terminology/word issue. My word usage has indeed changed, the general understandings, have not. For all of your quotes to "correct" me about your shift, this was the first time that I ever read you admitting that you "weren't seeing so clear" back when you were supporting andy, tenka, satch, alfio, source, mountaingoat, silver, sunshine and a cast of other revolving characters in their constant and unending objections to E's pointing. Do you think his pointing has changed all that much since then? His distinction between experience and realization is only one facet of that. There is no context where "An apple IS an orange." In saying that, he reveals that he's seeing something more than just 'no separation' between an apple and orange. The 'sameness' I referenced back then, and even now, is in reference to 'no separation', no some apparent thing actually 'being' an other apparent thing. 22 months ago you supported andy's idea of that context to the extent of validating the "equality" of Assad and Buddha, you argued for the literal "fundamental equality" of Tolle and Manson and applauded his argument for the "sameness" of murderers and rocks. |
|
