Another one bites the dust

Another interesting train of thought lost to the Fo Hammer.

Might be fun to set up a Fo Hammer counter. Every time @mark hides a thought that has more than say, 5 comments by others on it, the Fo Hammer count clicks.  

Comments


Mark de LA says
Too bad Nate can’ help but fuck up a good post with his bullshit. Someday he will find out that all he is doing is talking to himself with his selfie – narcisssus complete!null

Si says
Well there you go … sunk to the lowest low @mark. Calling my entire state of being and interaction “bullshit”. As you wish … you go for it girl! null

Si says
As I said that got hammered … I truly am happy @mark, that you and Peter are buddies in a forum where your reality is being validated in the way you desire. Everyone should seek that out and for each of us it will be a little, or a lot, different from each other.  

Seth says
mark, how can you possibly honestly believe that what Nathan is saying is bullshit to him …he seems quite honest and authentic and passionate and even consistent about them … so how can that objectively be called bullshit?   … not only that but they appear quite interesting to me. 

Wouldn’t it be more honest and feel truer even to yourself, were you to say instead,  “what Nathan is saying seems like bullshit to me” ?    That way then we out here could understand what you are really saying.  Or do you even care about writing sentences that ring true to yourself anymore?

Si says

Mark de LA says
Since you probably missed it I suggested aligning – (not 100% but in spirit – getting rid of some RWG & already, always reframing everything to his suspect ontology) with what others maybe @seth want which is a lessening of bullshit & more “honest” dialog by quoting PR’s preface rules to joining his Consciousness Dialogues Page on FB. 

The Purpose of this group:
To promote consciousness work through conscious dialogues between the participants. To share challenges and breakthroughs and support each other in becoming more conscious.

If you join, you are committing to be consistent with the purpose of the Conscious Dialogues Group. This group is not for socializing, overabundant opinionizing, or trolling. If you misuse the platform then you will be expelled.

As a result of your dialogues, if you need help that you think only Peter Ralston can resolve then please email him directly.

 

Nate refused “Then you best make it private, for I will never agree to wear a muffle like that, especially where “consciousness” is being explored.”  Tsk-tsk – I complied null

Si says
You cut out the rest I wrote which explained why that is a muzzle and how that could not be exploring consciousness because consciousness is everything, not just what is in a little box like that. If you are going to quote me, as you wish for yourself, quote all of it especially when the rest makes what is there valid. 

Si says
p.s. Much of what you @mark have been calling rwg lately I call valid exploration of consciousness itself. You seem to be invalidating it and shuffling it over to the rwg can simply because it does not validate your reality … not because it is actually rwg. Rwg should not mean “that which does not validate @mark’s ideas”. That’s why I often say you are just rwg-ing with yourself … you seem to be the only participant in being right or wrong … others are just exploring using their own ideas and beliefs.

Mark de LA says
In case you folks haven’t figured out I use fbi as digital memory mostly. I am fairly conscious of my thoughts & ideas & kibbitizing & reframing them helps little. That’s why I tried to get you folks to recognize PR’s rules in spirit rather than like a legalistic dictate & some would like. N declared the RWG gone or inactive or ???? .  It has survived a long time since Michael Hadley articulated it see thought 1722 for the history. It grew into transactional analysis with the Freudian child-peer-parent structure in the book I’m Ok – Your’re OK.  for the public.  
In the seminars & T & @seth – even here at fbi the distinction survives because it IS a distinction of human behavior – particularly selfies & selfie protection. When an entire item gets polluted with RWG “But I said this & you said that” or you should think this way etc. topic is lost & we are mired in personality bullshit ← null  On my items it is functionally worthless. It is automatic though, no matter what sweet innuendo it is cloaked in, I am guilty too & I rarely start it on my own items. null

Si says
I mostly agree with that. I especially agree that “he said she said” is rwg and that’s why I have not been writing in that vain, and even yesterday asked that it be forked off of the Ho’oponopono thought.

What I am saying is that you seem to put all things that have friction with your own ideas into the rwg can. I don’t know if MH did that or not and I don’t care enough to go analyze his treatment … I simply know that it is not true. Just because someone feels a strong desire to respond and that response is not what the other wants to hear does not make something rwg.

Mark de LA says
Unless you just can’t help yourself like a compulsion! null MH just created the distinction at the end of some group exercises as a physical metaphor demonstrating the compulsion side of it. Some say the solution is meh others say ekagrata . null 

Seth says
fair enough mark.  

incidentally thanks for noticing that  I’m Ok – Your’re OK  did in fact provide a viable model of RWG.  but it went quite beyond that to model what  was not RWG as well,  and was quite clear that RWG  was just one game of many that we play.  It even modeled gossip. 

… and, strangely enough, the model indicates how to get out of the loop.

incidentally i did miss all of that stuff about “PR’s preface rules to joining his Consciousness Dialogues Page on FB” and still cannot find it in the news here or on FB. 

Si says
Well, I can help myself and I often do @mark. The times I actually comment are something like 1 out of 10 of the times I feel the compulsion on your stuff. I have learned to tell the difference between a compulsion being out of excitement and thus right for the situation and a compulsion being out of ego and thus most likely rwg.

I won’t go so far as to say that I am always 100% in the flow (uptime etc) and thus I never do rwg … but I will say it is not often. Mostly I am simply responding with my words, from my point of view, exploring and relating … I do keep my commenting mostly to that.

From my point of view, you word things as bait for rwg, and thus I do feel the baited compulsion to respond on your stuff way more often than any other … and notice that feeling and avoid it often … only responding where it feels right because the added sensory experience of excitement is also there.

Seth says

Mark de LA says

Talking about another is just gossip! MH didn’t invent RWG nor did I’m OK Your’re OK come from MH. Both were part of the consciousness of the times going on . Hey maybe a better word than happening is (more immediate) null

that’s what’s going on.

Anyway such was what my contemplation of What’s Life yielded.

Si says
#56753 is one of those where I feel rwg baited. It has some truth (by my belief system) and also a bunch of bait to get a “you are wrong” response. I would not have (and am not) commenting on it’s content because there is not enough excitement in addition to the feeling to come back at ya on it. Here I am simply noticing, so we can see, one of the many things I would never have commented on and why I feel baited by it.

Mark de LA says
RWG is more fundamental & a feature of constructing one’s self (selfie). Structuring it with actors parent-child-peer is just more game. null

Seth says
sure RWG can be used to help construct one’s self … distinguishing it from what it is not.  but it is by no means the only way, nor it is necessarily a good way to maintain a self (← as if maintain such is of necessity).  i like feeling that i am ok, quite confident to be the tree that i am, and that you are ok too as a quite different being,  as for example an eagle who lights on my branch to rest.  same selfies … one way feels good … one does not.

Si says

Mark de LA says
Different dynamic than a selfie protecting itself when it perceives someone else held that they are wrong.  Not just a difference of opinion but language that produces the oogie implying you’re wrong (not right … etc.).
Lots of stuff in BofNK on how the selfies are constructed. Some EEK!s if you actually digest it.

Seth says
absolutely, it is a different dynamic null

Si says
Can you identify the instances in your language where you oft imply others are wrong @mark? And the places where it looks like you are baiting someone? And the other places that are worded like mirth, but would feel more like an attack to nearly anyone?

Mark de LA says
I could if I did it. OTOH, this is just RWG bait on your part. nullnull

Si says
Asking you to go deeper and see if you can identify things that will improve all our experience here is not rwg. It is simply personal, person to person, communication.

Mark de LA says
Mark de LA 2016-08-17 08:02:00 [item 21331#56736]
Too bad Nate can’ help but fuck up a good post with his bullshit. Someday he will find out that all he is doing is talking to himself with his selfie – narcisssus complete!null
Maybe it would then have been better if you had said “our language” so that you acknowledge you are also part of the problem. Use a birdie! 

Seth says
no, you have taken the parent role here, however you want to rationalize it to yourself.  and i am absolutely convinced that mark feels that you are ←  which of course is what makes the difference.

you could ask him … maybe i am wrong here. 

Mark de LA says
Seth 2016-08-17 11:15:20 [item 21331#56766]

so i am confused here … who is being parent, and who is being child today?  ← don’t answer that question

… for i could not care less.
The meh pool is full ghost riderlaughing https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vdHBsWXaHN8 smug

Si says
Well if that is what he feels then good. It appears to me he has been in the child role, for the most part, his whole life. It’s about time he took confident charge of his own reality and beingness and became the powerful and charismatic person he has the potential to be. Perhaps if he gets fed up with seeing me as his parent he will stand up and be a man. We’ll see, but I don’t see that as all bad … could be really good!  

Seth says
but the model predicts that as long as you do a P → C  transaction, he will respond with one too.  that, me thinks, is the mandatory loop that mark (and human nature) insists upon.  the only way out of that is a P → P transaction (gossip) … a C → C transaction (kids play) … or a A → A transaction (adult to adult, i’m ok, your ok) transaction.   I have experienced  this model working, even with mark, even with you, even with my wife, etc etc ...

Si says
I agree with your reasoning. I also think @mark wants to have control of this on his end, not just have it done for him by another. There is a reason he continues this same pattern over and over for his whole life. At some level of his being, he wants a different ability than he has now or he wouldn’t keep repeating the pattern. If we do things for him, as you suggest, he will cycle back into the pattern again as he always has, until he has the resource he is seeking by repeating the pattern.

So I don’t hold back. I supply what he is attracting in full. He may find the resource he is looking for and break the pattern, or he may not. But at least he has my full support in helping him find it along the way.

Seth says
okay, nathan … you are way beyond my pay grade here … i am not privvey to that kind of knowledge about mark’s being.

Si says

Mark de LA says
Conversation forked to thought 21335

Si says
I don’t know much about Mark’s being either. What I do know is how to recognize patterns and how to know if I am following excitement, or ego. That’s enough to know I am doing what is in best overall harmony or not … most of the time anyway.  

I got my own shit to shovel too, and so I do! null

Seth says