--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "seventhray1" <steve.sundur@...> wrote: > > > I imagine you feel better having got that off your chest.
I don't really know, it just kind of came out. I think I write to explain things to myself first, and if others find it useful, that could be a plus. To finish something more or less coherently feels nice. All activities have a limit that one can sustain, and one either finishes them, or must abandon them. It is harder sometimes to abandon something, which indicates that there is some kind of hidden attachment to success, that is, there is a hidden fear of failure that one is attempting to avoid. Overcoming fear of failure is a principal value in the experience of freedom. > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Xenophaneros Anartaxius" > <anartaxius@> wrote: > > > > > > > > Ravi, I was just questioning how deeply we can know someone's internal > state by external cues. I do not know what Barry's internal state is. I > for one cannot figure him out, but I am not convinced that projecting my > hypotheses as an explanation of his behaviour is really to any point. > > > > Judy has a very keen intellect, but I do think she also projects her > own emotional states onto others. I *think* that, but it is an > hypothesis, because I do not *know* that. I also *think* she does not > think that she projects her internal states onto the world. But that > thought might not have any substance to it. There is always ambiguity > because what people feel and think is not necessarily what they say, nor > does their behaviour always indicate what is really going on in there. > > > > Because the mind fabricates stories to explain things, it is almost > impossible to interact with the world in a way in which we do not > project our internal states onto situations, people, things. For example > you said 'I take offence'. What does that mean? To me, if that happens > to me, that means that someone said, did something which in some measure > creates an experience of upset, or displeasure, or something like that, > which I feel 'inside'. But why did that happen? > > > > What would it be inside that results in that reaction? Normally I do > not 'take offence' at what people say and do. Things happen. That is > what happens. My internal reactions, if they are unpleasant, have to be > dealt with, but 'taking offence' is just a posturing of the ego, it is a > blind and unconscious reaction to something that happens in the world > that does not fit in with the story our mind has created about the > world. I know people that take offence at practically everything that > goes on in the world. It is a peculiar reaction. > > > > Culture may have a lot to do with this internal programmed response, > as some cultures seem to have numerous behaviour patterns that defend > the ego, such as 'saving face' in Japan. Perhaps this has evolved as a > way to socially still anger, which seems to be the ego's last defence > when it gets attacked by the world. Perhaps all of us have some kind of > emotional damage that we are unconsciously suppressing or protecting. > > > > As for Turq, Barry, I can hypothesise he has some emotional issues, > but really I am just making that up. If he has such issues, it is not up > to me to fix them, that is his journey. This is why we are all pursuing > enlightenment, to 'fix' these issues that drag our lives down. And if > there are those here who have experienced awakening, particularly not > quite complete awakening, they clearly know what they are faced with. > > > > Rather than try to analyse Barry, I tend to take what he says as a > lesson. The wide world at large is the master. It does what it does. It > provides situations we can take as lessons, or take them as attacks on > our individual level of being. Barry is a part of the world as perceived > from my point of view, so I can take what he says as a lesson or, > depending on the content and stance of it, I can take it as something > that strokes or attacks the ego, something that puffs up or cuts down > the ego, which is a more unconscious reaction. But if I do not go down > the lesson route, there will be no growth or deepening of experience; I > will simply be basking in self-importance or reacting to an affront to > my little, little self. > > > > So from my perspective, I can take Barry as an aspect of guru, of a > teacher. He is an aspect of reality. My task for myself is to deepen > enlightenment and understanding. The enlightenment game is a peculiar > kind of understanding because really there is nothing to understand, but > the game goes on nonetheless. So if I have a choice, I can assign to > Barry, or to you, or to Judy, or anyone, the aspect of guru and learn > from the interaction. If I do not have a choice, it means I am blocked > somehow, and that is something that needs looking into. > > > > I have had some pleasant, short interactions with Barry, and some > rather rough ones. I have had similar encounters with Judy. The goal, if > I wish to imagine one, is that all these interactions are like a line > drawn in empty space. One enjoys but does not react due to internal > disharmony in one's own life and being. > > > > One thing is clear, we do not win by always being right or being in > the right. > > > > We two, for example, disagree on the value of astrology. That may be > because I grew up with a rather intense interest in astronomy and > science, and to me astrology makes no sense at all. For others it seems > it is something considered very valuable, though I suspect I will always > think it is an empty discipline, and thus would always argue against it > unless to very specific evidence of its efficacy is demonstrated. But > you have said some marvellous things to others in some posts, and in > this field of spiritual development I feel you have some important > things to say. > > > > I am not sure I really have laudable intentions concerning my post > that this discussion is about. Barry was not really the subject of the > post, I was thinking in more generic terms, of which Barry was simply > the given example. How much do we really know about someone else based > on our projections of what we think is reality? > > > > For me, everything I think about is a story, a projection. 'Out > there', the world without that projection is there, but it is silent, > mysterious, it changes, it moves, but it is all the same thing. That > some aspect of that is a 'person' is a thought, a projection my mind has > made. My mind can write a novel about that moving shape, give it a name, > a history, a personality. But without the thoughts, there is no person, > just a blip in an infinite turning that goes on and on. > > > > One of the reasons I came on this forum was discussion of > enlightenment with many who are around in my life seemed to kind of dead > end. The forum provides a much vaster platform with a wider range of > experiences people have had than in my limited circle. One of the > questions that seems to be resolving in my mind is did I come on here to > say something, or did I come on here to learn something? It seems to > have turned out to be both. I think part of the process was discovering > that I had to run out of things 'I had to say' before I could actually > learn anything, or say anything really useful. > > > > The forum is most useful if our unrealities get attacked in a way that > allows us to see them as such. It is easier to notice them if someone > says something that scores a direct hit on one of our fantasies rather > than just brushing by. In this I think Barry, and Judy are of great > service, each in their own style of argumentation. Judy engages, Barry > is remote. In these two, one has the extremes, and the widest range of > potential. The rest of us are strewn about in between. Or so the story I > made up tells. > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Ravi Yogi" raviyogi@ wrote: > > > > > > I had the same thing to say. Xeno what you have to say clearly > reflects your personality and I take offense that you would project your > laudable intentions on someone as emotionally damaged as Barry. > > > > > > Judy is spot on. I was under the naive impression like you that may > be Barry can self-reflect, I got deceived by some of his "nice" posts as > well. The pattern she describes is spot on. You are seriously > underestimating Judy's skills. > > > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "whynotnow7" <whynotnow7@> > wrote: > > > > > > > > > So how do we know that > > > > > > > > > > 1. Turq was stung by recent posts? > > > > > > > > > > 2. That he was in fact, 'badly' stung, rather than just merely > stung to a lesser degree? > > > > > > > > > > 3. That he has changed his behaviour as a result? > > > > > > > > > > 4. That he is just playing nice? > > > > > > > > Its a pattern. Judy has been on forums with this guy for a long, > long time, and this is what he does. I don't see Judy closing the door > on Barry's future behavior, though she is mocking his consistency re: > returning to bastardhood. It is rhythmic, > bastard-bastard-bastard-nice-bastard-bastard-bastard-nice-bastard-bastar\ > d-bastard-nice. :-) > > > > > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Xenophaneros Anartaxius" > <anartaxius@> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Having indulged, without much success, in attempting to > characterise peoples' inner life and experience by observation of their > outer character, and on FFL, primarily by what and when they write, I > find it difficult how one can generate so much information by this > process, which would seem fraught with potential error. > > > > > > > > > > Supposedly, on a spiritual forum, we are all 'evolving' somehow, > leaving the past behind. Human memory is very fallible, and neuroscience > has been demonstrating recently that each time we remember something, we > are basically rewriting the memory, and that those memories modify each > time they are re-written - shift and change as a result of current > circumstances, so that in time the memory is often different from what > actually transpired (as perhaps could be recorded by video). So we end > up with a distorted rut in our mind about those past occurrences. > > > > > > > > > > So how do we know that > > > > > > > > > > 1. Turq was stung by recent posts? > > > > > > > > > > 2. That he was in fact, 'badly' stung, rather than just merely > stung to a lesser degree? > > > > > > > > > > 3. That he has changed his behaviour as a result? > > > > > > > > > > 4. That he is just playing nice? (even total bastards sometimes > can be naturally nice). Maybe he is just pretending to be nice; maybe he > is having a really good day. I do not know Turq, but I can imagine him > being nice, but I can't know if that or its opposite is true based on > his posts here. Posts here often play off of what someone else has > written before, and the character of that previous post might determine > the response one might dream up. > > > > > > > > > > Correlation is not causation. > > > > > > > > > > If Turq writes, as he says, just for the fun of it, I can > consider this as very possibly a 'true' statement, then coming to > conclusions about what he is feeling on that basis would seem to be > hypothesising to the nth degree. > > > > > > > > > > If Turq has even a reasonable degree of spiritual progress in > his life, even if it is stalled now for some unknown reason, the > likely-hood he would be even upset by what people say here would be > remote. > > > > > > > > > > Turq is quite good a provocation. I did an experiment. I took > one of his posts and removed all the asterisks and quotation marks, and > it read kind of academically compared to the original version. I call > these emphasises he puts in emotibombs, because they seem designed to > incite an emotional response. > > > > > > > > > > As such he is providing a means for us to notice how we react > mechanically to a given scenario, how our intellectual constructs are > tied to our emotional quirks; whether they serve us or undermine us. > Emotion, and the consequent lack of rationality that often pertains to > emotional states are subtly tied to our intellectual life. > > > > > > > > > > For example, persons with certain types of brain damage that > eliminates emotional responses to situations have a terrible time making > decisions. The connexion between our supposed rational thought and > emotion is often not noticed, and when we think we are being fully > rational, the opposite can clearly be the case. > > > > > > > > > > One might note that Turq's posts, for all their provocative > qualities, are actually rather emotionally cool, pretty much like a > crowbar mechanically being used to lift up a rock to see what is > festering under it. > > > > > > > > > > One only need read the opinions section of newspapers to > appreciate this where one's like or dislike is expressed concerning a > specific situation. Turq's post generally are not like this. (Of course > here, I may be making the mistake of inferring a person's internal state > from what they write. So to create some balance, one has to read > opinions pro and con, and that often results in no resolution of the > situation either.) There are many surmises as to Turq's inner state, > some of which I have imagined myself, but are there any incontrovertible > facts? Especially current facts, not things that happened months ago, or > years ago? > > > > > > > > > > All the posts here can have this effect of stirring our hidden > agendas, if such agendas exist, but particularly if they contain attacks > on what we think is true, or contain personal attacks. Besides having > the various spiritual illusions represented by this group, there are > also politically conservative and politically liberal persons here as > well. I find it interesting that spiritual growth does not seem to have > much effect on political polarisations, even though spiritual growth > supposedly gets us closer to truth. > > > > > > > > > > As for Turq returning to 'normal': Why should we imagine him to > have beliefs and a personality that must remain in a straight-jacket, > forever stuck in a certain mindset. It is a convenience, but lazy > intellectually to characterise people in a certain way, but perhaps that > invites the question of why we would want someone to not have an > opportunity to change, to either grow or deteriorate, as the case may > be, and gradually or even suddenly become someone we might never had > suspected before? And I mean that for everyone here. > > > > > > > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "authfriend" <jstein@> > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "whynotnow7" > <whynotnow7@> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Nice troll post, Turq. Seriously, both well-crafted to > offend > > > > > > > almost everyone, and well written in a conversational tone > to > > > > > > > draw the suckers in. Good job, lil' guy! > > > > > > > > > > > > You can always tell when Barry has been badly stung by > > > > > > a criticism: he ostentatiously makes a bunch of posts > > > > > > that attempt to exhibit the opposite of what he's just > > > > > > been criticized for. > > > > > > > > > > > > Having been pegged as a well-poisoner, his next three > > > > > > posts after the ritual troll post were upbeat and > > > > > > complimentary, one currying favor with Bob, one > > > > > > exclaiming about the new photo of Saturn, and one to > > > > > > Yifu saying how much he always enjoys Yifu's links to > > > > > > old photos and artwork, for the first and only time in > > > > > > the many months Yifu has been posting them. > > > > > > > > > > > > Let's see how quickly he returns to normal. ;-) > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
