01-03-2013, 12:00 AM
Touche!
But then the way you answered them still leaves me capable of assumption, which you made
fairly clear was "inappropriate" if I may translate the intent of the comment - or why point out
that I was assuming something? You didn't point out that I was typing on a keyboard, so i guess
that's ok or "appropriate" action.
I guess we'd have to define "assumptions" now.
So "yes" and "no" answers are less objective than the ones you implied?
Is this some battle of wills for you?
Will it injure you to say "yes, I am aware of incompleteness in the second attention."?
I mean - that's about as objective as one can get. I promise not to assume you meant "no".
I can be ultra-technical if you like.
We can go this way:
"Can you be in the second attention and be aware of incompleteness?
or completeness for that matter?
Is the second attention relative/comparative consciousness?
Can you know incompleteness without the internal dialogue, without thinking and comparison,
without a past?
And there's nothing the 1st attention can do about it.
So now what? "
Again, we have the question of your definition of the second attention!
No we don't. You can simply say yes or no. The question was YOUR definition.
I asked YOU the question. Not the other way around. When you ask me the question,
THEN it is a question of my definition.
Is this a cultural misunderstanding or something? I'm pretty sure I'm describing the way
conversation usually goes. Why are you playing the switcheroo game?
I love relatively objective conversation (I've never witnessed an objective conversation, as interested
in objectivity as i am). I am a scientist of objectivity, if you will. And one of the first prerequisites to
come close to being objective is to take things as they are without interpretation as best as possible.
So what actually happened for all to witness is me asking you your definition. It is not a question of
my definition yet.
That's fairly objective, no?
If not, I'll throw in the towel. Maybe. I'm tenacious sometimes.
If you don't want to talk, I'll completely respect that.
This is a place of communication.
Come on. Anyone able to type on the computer knows that.
For you to have to emphasize it as if I didn't know already is an attitude on your part.
Attitude = not objective, no?
Growth is experienced via objective discussion.
Honestly, this makes no sense to me. Objective:
(of a person or their judgment) Not influenced by personal feelings or opinions in considering and representing facts.
If I google or ask a hundred people how growth is experienced, how many do you think will say:
"via objective discussion"? Certainly this is your personal definition and not the objective definition.
I mean, I could ask the whole world and how many would answer that?
Are you the example of objective discussion? Cause this conversation would be going a lot
differently if you were objective as i understand the word.
If we continue this stalking dialogue of wills and wits in this fashion, can we agree to speak of
"relatively objective" instead of objectivity as if it is absolute? Do you agree or disagree
(or somewhere in the middle?) with the observer effect of quantum physics... you can't observe something
without altering it in some way which makes objectivity impossible?
Do we have to be the kids at school that have to get in a fight before they become best friends, or can we
just jump to the inevitable bromance? lol!
You're a hard nut Doktor Green.
All this foreplay is going to give me blue balls.
(Sorry - I have to do the traditional Castaneda-style absurd sexual reference to break the tension. It's in my new seers' contract.)
But then the way you answered them still leaves me capable of assumption, which you made
fairly clear was "inappropriate" if I may translate the intent of the comment - or why point out
that I was assuming something? You didn't point out that I was typing on a keyboard, so i guess
that's ok or "appropriate" action.
I guess we'd have to define "assumptions" now.
So "yes" and "no" answers are less objective than the ones you implied?
Is this some battle of wills for you?
Will it injure you to say "yes, I am aware of incompleteness in the second attention."?
I mean - that's about as objective as one can get. I promise not to assume you meant "no".
I can be ultra-technical if you like.
We can go this way:
"Can you be in the second attention and be aware of incompleteness?
or completeness for that matter?
Is the second attention relative/comparative consciousness?
Can you know incompleteness without the internal dialogue, without thinking and comparison,
without a past?
And there's nothing the 1st attention can do about it.
So now what? "
Again, we have the question of your definition of the second attention!
No we don't. You can simply say yes or no. The question was YOUR definition.
I asked YOU the question. Not the other way around. When you ask me the question,
THEN it is a question of my definition.
Is this a cultural misunderstanding or something? I'm pretty sure I'm describing the way
conversation usually goes. Why are you playing the switcheroo game?
I love relatively objective conversation (I've never witnessed an objective conversation, as interested
in objectivity as i am). I am a scientist of objectivity, if you will. And one of the first prerequisites to
come close to being objective is to take things as they are without interpretation as best as possible.
So what actually happened for all to witness is me asking you your definition. It is not a question of
my definition yet.
That's fairly objective, no?
If not, I'll throw in the towel. Maybe. I'm tenacious sometimes.
If you don't want to talk, I'll completely respect that.
This is a place of communication.
Come on. Anyone able to type on the computer knows that.
For you to have to emphasize it as if I didn't know already is an attitude on your part.
Attitude = not objective, no?
Growth is experienced via objective discussion.
Honestly, this makes no sense to me. Objective:
(of a person or their judgment) Not influenced by personal feelings or opinions in considering and representing facts.
If I google or ask a hundred people how growth is experienced, how many do you think will say:
"via objective discussion"? Certainly this is your personal definition and not the objective definition.
I mean, I could ask the whole world and how many would answer that?
Are you the example of objective discussion? Cause this conversation would be going a lot
differently if you were objective as i understand the word.
If we continue this stalking dialogue of wills and wits in this fashion, can we agree to speak of
"relatively objective" instead of objectivity as if it is absolute? Do you agree or disagree
(or somewhere in the middle?) with the observer effect of quantum physics... you can't observe something
without altering it in some way which makes objectivity impossible?
Do we have to be the kids at school that have to get in a fight before they become best friends, or can we
just jump to the inevitable bromance? lol!
You're a hard nut Doktor Green.
All this foreplay is going to give me blue balls.
(Sorry - I have to do the traditional Castaneda-style absurd sexual reference to break the tension. It's in my new seers' contract.)