It is not a joking matter. I am scared of you. But also I am here because I love you. You can react to this however you wish.
If it is all so trivial, why won’t he just tell me his name? Finished.
Why is the thinking mechanism’s movement “one of continuity”? Must thought be continuous? If so, why? Can it not maintain itself without “constant activity”?
It never stops to observe its own nature
Can a mechanism observe its own nature?
A mechanism can monitor its operation to see that it is operating as it is designed to operate, and though you could call that “observing”, would that be the correct word to use in this conversation?
His given name is in his profile - Juan E - but he is not the one claiming anonymity (with respect to names) to be a sign of humility; nor is he the one refusing to disclose that he is not someone many of us know from previous years on Kinfonet. I used the word “trivial” because if you really were Paul Dimmock you would probably admit that hiding behind a mask of anonymity when you really are Paul Dimmock would be absurd at this point.
I don’t care about people being anonymous - many people posting here are anonymous - but when it becomes central to their identity, as seems to be happening here, I think it’s worth at least questioning. Being anonymous oughtn’t to be license for wanton misunderstanding, or to create some kind of mystique about being anonymous.
Btw, if you are Paul Dimmock (I still don’t believe you are, but if you are) then I understand there may be reasons why you wish to remain anonymous in spite of what has been said (perhaps for reasons of shyness, or because anonymity gives a certain freedom in inquiry).
If this is the case then, while I personally find it weird to maintain anonymity now it has been raised as an issue, I want you - Paul Dimmock (if this is who you are) - to know that I am absolutely not anti-Paul Dimmock. I have no antipathy towards him/you.
Anonymity is not the same as calling oneself anonymous or hiding behind a false name.
Anonymity is not a personal trait; the wish to remain anonymous is something different from anonymity. Shall we explore this? The wish to remain anonymous may be fear-based. And the ‘fraggle’ persona scares me. These things are all connected.
Maybe this is a generational thing, but having watched the children’s show Fraggle Rock growing up I know that Juan E’s profile picture is Boober Fraggle, who is a bit of a pessimist but not a bad character!
Puppet Wiki (there is such a thing!) has this to say about Boober Fraggle:
According to Boober Fraggle, there are only two things certain in this world: death and laundry. Boober is terrified by the former and fascinated by the latter…
According to Boober, anything that can go wrong surely will; when it does, it will inevitably happen to him… But Boober’s negative attitude has a big plus – he can see real trouble coming a mile away, a useful attribute in a land of eternal optimists.
Boober’s two joys in life are doing the Fraggle laundry and cooking.
I also know that Juan E has an interest in Nagarjuna and Madhyamaka Buddhism, and for Madhyamakas sharing criticism is part and parcel of thew way inquiry takes place. This may explain why he may come across as a little acerbic (though I’m probably projecting things based on my friendship with other Buddhists).
Btw, my favourite piece of Fraggle wisdom is from another Fraggle called Gobo:
Everything is important. Either that or nothing is
1 Like
It is real in the sense that it carries on long after death: Buddha, Jesus, Tutankhamun, Cleopatra, Cromwell, Gandhi, etc.
No, it has nothing to do with that. The moment he comes in, he immediately has strong images about me and we are then left spending hours on that nonsense. I have no image of him or her. But his images of me are hurting me. For I am nothing but the relationship I have with him.
It is just like with someone I met at Brockwood a few years ago. We had never met one another before and yet his first words to me were, ‘You are a serious person!’ What followed was a disaster! But, fortunately, when we met again a few months later, it was all forgotten. Now we have great fun together!
Maybe you are just being rhetorical, but how can a person who feels afraid and hurt by another be said not to have an image of that person? The hurt is an image, the fear is an image.
The ordinary explanation for this situation is that Fraggle has an image (or series of images) about Anon, and Anon has an image (or series of images) about Fraggle. Those images may be distorted (images are always subtle distortions), or they may contain an element of fact. But an image is still an image and not the truth.
So doesn’t it make better sense to think of this situation in terms of the images involved in relationship? We have images of each other, and we have images of ourselves, and these images are not truth. We have a relationship of images.
It is not rhetorical. I don’t have any images of him or her. But he reacts to certain words that I write or say - ‘love’, ‘friends’ and ‘strangers’, as specific examples - and from those reactions he relates to me. Otherwise, I am nothing to him. Does this make sense? I am nothing but the relationship I have with him or you or anyone else; and when this relationship is founded on words, there are bound to be difficulties. These difficulties are not insurmountable. Once we are aware of them they soon fade away. In the meantime fear, hurt and conflict is real enough, if we are sensitive to it.
I doubt anyone here has no images of anyone. If you don’t form images of other people, you’re free and wasting your time here.
It’s not a waste of time when you too don’t form any images. It is something quite marvellous. For then we are both free to spend our time here without all of the other nonsense that passes for communication. The images fade away as we spot them. Did you notice how you are doing it yourself with the image you hold of what it might mean to be free? Spotting and dropping the image as it arises is the very beginning of freedom, which is right here and now.
For someone who presumes to be more adroit at conversation than those of us here, you come across as someone who conveys extreme egocentricity, someone starving for attention who will say anything to get it.
Yes, that’s what you see. Everyone else here will see something slightly different. The question is if it is possible to be aware immediately of these images we have of each other, to drop them and to move on. Either we choose to go back and attempt to correct our crude attempts at communication, explain things, adapt the language, clarify our definitions, try to establish a better foundation or basis for enquiry etc., or we move on right now without any of that game. The first choice is merely a continuation of the old; the second choice isn’t really a choice at all because it is something we have never done before. Do you see the difference? The first choice is about providing the other person with an improved image of ourselves and continuing to communicate from that better place. Or no images are necessary at all.
We said the same thing earlier on: Can we relate to one another from a state of being nothing? Good Vibrations - #5 by Anon
We know it’s possible to “be aware immediately of these images”, but “to drop them and move on”, is wishful thinking. Some would say greedy. It’s enough to be aware of them and understand why one has them. There are things we need to know about each other, things we’d like to believe about each other, and we need to know the difference. We can’t just condemn images and decide we must be free of them.
Either we choose to go back and attempt to correct our crude attempts at communication, explain things, adapt the language, clarify our definitions, try to establish a better foundation or basis for enquiry etc., or we move on right now without any of that game.
If you don’t like this game you shouldn’t be where it’s being played. Start your own game or take your gamelessness to those who might appreciate it? Why remain with those you have superseded?
Do you see the difference? The first choice is about providing the other person with an improved image of ourselves and continuing to communicate from that better place. Or no images are necessary at all.
I see what you’re saying and though I don’t believe you’re beyond image forming, it’s what you believe that matters. So why not take your thoughts to an appreciative audience and leave us to the game you have no further use of?
Then let’s think about it and work it out. What do we need to know about each other? I am not sure there is anything at all we need to know. I am starting from that basis, of not being sure about it. Our own names are hidden here; we haven’t even got that knowledge to start from. It doesn’t stop us from looking at the world, talking to one another, asking questions, contemplating the nature of things and even looking at what K said about it. How do you feel about it?
My image of you as someone with a pathological need for attention prevents me from doing anything more than urging you to get professional help.
Any image one holds about another is only ever about oneself. This is an indisputable fact. As I said, we can go into it, look at it and think it out together; the offer remains. But there is a big difference between interacting with someone from a distance and meeting them in person. There are too many variables here in such a limited forum to allow us to gain a clear perspective of the other people with whom we are communicating. So it is only with those whom we have met in person, and have established something much more real, that this question of images starts to make more sense and become something very different from a theoretical approach. Such people exist who are interested in all this, who are keen to experiment, who are not scared of the flame of transformation.
So a ‘pathological need for attention’ is actually a good way to put it. It is a cry for help and a cry of help at the same time, no doubt about it - a time to break through. Professionals, however, can be of no help at all. This requires amateurs in the true sense of that word: those who do it for love.
Not always. It may be projection or it may be an accurate observation.
Are you aware of your tendency to be absolutist and defensive?
As I said, we can go into it, look at it and think it out together.
As I said, you need help.
So it is only with those whom we have met in person, and have established something much more real, that this question of images starts to make more sense and become something very different from a theoretical approach. Such people exist who are interested in all this, who are keen to experiment, who are not scared of the flame of transformation.
And yet you prefer to do what we’re doing here rather than to meet people in person. You’ve been doing this for years. Why do you persist? It’s as if you’re trapped in a cage and begging anyone who can hear you to release you from your chosen trap. Are you too proud to talk to a therapist?
Professionals, however, can be of no help at all. This requires amateurs in the true sense of that word: those who do it for love.
You love the drama of your chosen predicament more than anything.