Enjoy the forum.

[Ramasta9]

51 minutes ago, Carl-Richard said:

Why you arguing about his arguing?

I wasn't arguing at all? I grew up with a family of violence, arguments and believe me, if you went through what i went through every single day, you would probably feel the same as I do about any arguments, and try your best to minimize any unnecessary clash or harm on one another.

@Hojo I guess I been through hell and back far too many times, so i try my best to keep it equally as peaceful as it is truthful.

[Ramasta9]

Words reveal the mind, actions reveal the heart. 

[Hojo]

@Ramasta9You can be peaceful and argue. If you can be peaceful and argue you are beyond ego. You are letting the body do what it wants. When it stops being peaceful it means you are in ego. Arguing and peace does not have to be separate things or mean separate things. If it stops being peaceful and you get angry it means your ego is being hit and Im doing what I am doing properly. Where does anger come from in an argument? 

I wont lie it happens to me but I understand when it happens the person is doing me a favour. If someone does it to me I often just stop replying and reflect. Its either that or I think the person is too stupid to continue.

Edited yesterday at 06:47 AM by Hojo

[Carl-Richard]

21 minutes ago, Ramasta9 said:

I wasn't arguing at all? I grew up with a family of violence, arguments and believe me, if you went through what i went through every single day, you would probably feel the same as I do about any arguments, and try your best to minimize any unnecessary clash or harm on one another.

I'm a privileged white boy. The only violence I did to myself.

But this is argumentation. Prove me wrong

 

Quote

argue

/ˈɑːɡjuː/

verb

1.

give reasons or cite evidence in support of an idea, action, or theory, typically with the aim of persuading others to share one's view.

"sociologists argue that inequalities in industrial societies are being reduced"

2.

exchange or express diverging or opposite views, typically in a heated or angry way.

"the two men started arguing in a local pub"

(Google search)

You're probably more in favor of the second definition.

Edited yesterday at 06:59 AM by Carl-Richard

[Ramasta9]

4 minutes ago, Hojo said:

@Ramasta9You can be peaceful and argue. If you can be peaceful and argue you are beyond ego. You are letting the body do what it wants. When it stops being peaceful it means you are in ego. Arguing and peace does not have to be separate things or mean separate things. If it stops being peaceful and you get angry it means your ego is being hit and Im doing what I am doing properly. Where does anger come from in an argument? 

I wont lie it happens to me but I understand when it happens the person is doing me a favour. If someone does it to me I often just stop replying and reflect. Its either that or I think the person is too stupid to continue.

I don't know if i agree with that, maybe you can debate and have a negotiation and healthy exchange, but definitely not argue when you are in peaceful state. I think we have two completely different understandings of what an argument actually is. How can you be at peace and feed tension?

When i am feeling more peaceful it feels impossible to argue, raise ones voice, shout, and continue to partake in such back and forth battles, is all ego-play. I simply smile and remain silent if i notice such energies, especially when I am feeling peaceful, calm, relaxed and content. If you can see the candy making the child throw more tantrums, why feed it more? 

I think you are just sharing common spiritual knowledge you've picked up but its not really landing well because I don't feel you speak from wisdom and embodiment of such teachings yourself. There seems to be a lack of solidify or substance behind your words which I notice all over the forum, like your always ranting and never integrating deeper truths. Maybe this is something you can reflect upon?

I see this all the time on this forum with many users, especially the non-dualists battle masters lately.

Support and advice turns into a threat and its war ! Maybe this whole forum needs a good sageging  

 

 

[Ramasta9]

52 minutes ago, Carl-Richard said:

I'm a privileged white boy. The only violence I did to myself.

But this is argumentation. Prove me wrong

 

(Google search)

You're probably more in favor of the second definition.

I personally feel the English language is quite twisted and all over the place that has far too multiple words that can be used interchangeably, which i personally do not agree with cause it creates confusion and misunderstandings. In my native tongue we have a unique word for every single thing and never two of the same words overlap, as far as I know.

When i read "argument" I see conflict, tension, escalation, friction, emotional charge ect... Sure you could be so "academically correct", but I also see that as a type of ego-play to always be right. Like people who correct others spelling mistakes when they referred to someone as "your" instead of you're", when obviously both parties knew exactly the type one was referring too. It almost makes you look more stupid than intelligent when you make those minor corrections that are not always truly needed.

I know you were probably just playing around, but I feel we both knew the type of argument i was referring too based on the context.

 

[Miguel1]

6 hours ago, integration journey said:

From the title I first thought someone is leaving again😂

Same 

[Carl-Richard]

@Ramasta9 You can argue from a place of hurt, or suffering, or you can argue from a place of engagement, involvement. Arguing in the former is a shit throwing session. The latter is a sharing and mutual exploration.

I'm academically brain damaged, so when I see "argument", I see "position". The emotional tone is supposed to be neutral. "The argument for x position is such and such and the evidence is in decent to moderate support of it".

My brother said once (sort of misogynistically when taken generally and obviously not my position, but it was in response to a certain context) "women can't argue without being calm and not taking it seriously, they think it's a big deal to express disagreement". He expressed that exact distinction between exploration, openness, sharing, vs being hurt, avoidance of painful emotions.

[Natasha Tori Maru]

42 minutes ago, Carl-Richard said:

I'm academically brain damaged, so when I see "argument", I see "position". The emotional tone is supposed to be neutral. "The argument for x position is such and such and the evidence is in decent to moderate support of it".

Fucken LOL. Jesus Lord, the sides are in ORBIT 

Academic conditioning might be a more neutral term - as I would consider myself conditioned by construction. Everything to me is a negotiation where I have to break bad news, argue a clean, unbiased case, and then work out a new plan. It feels like a form of argument with time and money behind it - which I suppose can be even more charged; an evil soup of ego, time & money investments. Both parties have to walk away happy - as any one stakeholder has the ability to halt everything; client refuses to pay, builder refuses to build, architect won't issue change orders, engineers won't troubleshoot. Everyone has equal power. Responsibility is the cincher. At least in my feild we are all working toward the same goal; build the fucken thing and pass go, collect $200.

And that really makes the difference doesn't it? We argue, discuss and negotiate in construction because there is a unified goal.

On these forums - the goal is totally unknown.

Each party brings in their loaded terms.

Someone might want to understand another - or help. Someone else might want to win at all costs.

Someone else might want to just point out what is wrong with no overall goal. Totally aimless, monkey mind shit-flinging.

53 minutes ago, Carl-Richard said:

My brother said once (sort of misogynistically when taken generally and obviously not my position, but it was in response to a certain context) "women can't argue without being calm and not taking it seriously, they think it's a big deal to express disagreement". He expressed that exact distinction between exploration, openness, sharing, vs being hurt, avoidance of painful emotions.

In general, I agree. Feminine energy wants harmony, high agreeableness. I deviate from that as a woman. Usually results in the 'cold' label. Or combative. Mostly because I do not fit the above stereotype. It also harkens back to women craving and prioritizing safety - and argument or disagreement compromises that. Women are about safety as top priority. Regardless of if the threat is REAL - it can be perceived in a disagreement. I do not generally feel unsafe; probably a function of experience and high innate resilience.

I will say though - I do not argue and really PUSH a point unless I am aiming for a good outcome. Sometimes I push too much before I realize its a hopeless game - pick your battles.

[Hojo]

@Ramasta9Ego is the tension you feel in an argument. Whether you speak peacefully or argue the same thing is happening , nothing. There is no tension 1 cm outside your skull.  You speak of ego battles, claiming this forum needs saging is an ego battle. Its a projection.

If you feel tension while I speak with you, you should thank me instead of slandering me.

If you are playing skyrim and a character in skyrim starts to argue with your character and you get upset you are insane. The same thing applies here. You speak of ego while having no idea.

If the character disagrees with your character you can reply with any you want, are you angry when your character replies with anger? Are you upset when your characters theories get challenged? Do you feel tension when your character gets in an argument? Then you are in ego and projecting.

Thats why you constantly project insults onto people when you speak with them and they disagree, like we need to be saged, because we have demons.

Its not egoic to reply the way you want.

Infact changing the way you reply or act based on characters in skyrim is the exact opposite of what you want to be doing. That means you arent even playing your character, you are playing your character the way someone else wants you to play your character.

The war is happening in your mind. You are blaming me for your insanity.

Edited 20 hours ago by Hojo

[Human Mint]

Don't take what I said as a chore, but as a quest. It's about finding new ways of deriving satisfaction.

[Ramasta9]

12 hours ago, Hojo said:

@Ramasta9Ego is the tension you feel in an argument. Whether you speak peacefully or argue the same thing is happening , nothing. There is no tension 1 cm outside your skull.  You speak of ego battles, claiming this forum needs saging is an ego battle. Its a projection.

If you feel tension while I speak with you, you should thank me instead of slandering me.

If you are playing skyrim and a character in skyrim starts to argue with your character and you get upset you are insane. The same thing applies here. You speak of ego while having no idea.

If the character disagrees with your character you can reply with any you want, are you angry when your character replies with anger? Are you upset when your characters theories get challenged? Do you feel tension when your character gets in an argument? Then you are in ego and projecting.

Thats why you constantly project insults onto people when you speak with them and they disagree, like we need to be saged, because we have demons.

Its not egoic to reply the way you want.

Infact changing the way you reply or act based on characters in skyrim is the exact opposite of what you want to be doing. That means you arent even playing your character, you are playing your character the way someone else wants you to play your character.

The war is happening in your mind. You are blaming me for your insanity.

You can feel/sense tension in others, doesn't always mean its coming from you. Everything emits a specific vibration, you can sense/feel that.

You can disagree and be peaceful, but you cannot be angry, tense, agitated ect... and be peaceful at the same time, that's totally contradictory.

I am aware of how the ego plays, you are deviating from the main point. You first added a few words, then you kept adding more to your comment and continue to talk about ego and projection, mirror mirror on the wall?  You continue to repeat the obvious my friend, which is why I feel you haven't actually integrated or embodied what you say, otherwise there would be no need to repeat the same stuff over and over again. 

I feel the words you often share on this forum are more you to hear than anyone else. 

 

 

[Hojo]

@Ramasta9 How did I deviate? You keep claiming deviation so you can boost your ego but never say how.

Maybe I'll do it to you so you can see how dumb it is.

You keep deviating from the topic, it is very clear to me that you haven't integrated your spiritual knowledge.

You said that twice with no explanation. How condescending. Everytime you speak to people its either condescending or spiritual ego sunshine and rainbows.

Edited 6 hours ago by Hojo

[Natasha Tori Maru]

22 hours ago, Hojo said:

@Natasha Tori Maru And? I do it when it contradicts what they previously said. Thats what I said I do. I listen to the whole then bring up contradictions. Thats where the real person is hiding. The words they say dont matter, the contradictions matter.

Your claim was you do not build context - you contradicted yourself.

Quote

When I talk to people I dont listen to the context I listen to the whole and look for contradictions. 

'Listening to the whole' is building context around a user.

[Hojo]

@Natasha Tori Maru

If a user in a forum says something in a post then says something contradictive in another post is is context or content contradictive

It is primarily content contradictive, but the discrepancy is identified through context.

Content Contradiction: Refers to the specific, factual mismatch between the two statements (e.g., saying "I love cats" in one post and "I hate cats" in another).

Context: This is the "lens" you use to spot the inconsistency. Without the context of the first post, the second post wouldn't appear contradictory on its own.

In short: The content is what disagrees; the context is how you know.

What makes it context contradictive

A contradiction becomes context contradictive when the meaning of a statement changes based on the surrounding circumstances, timing, or setting, rather than just the words used.

It typically happens due to:

Situational Shifts: Saying "the heater is too hot" in the winter but "the heater is too hot" when it's already 90°F outside. The content is the same, but the context makes the second statement illogical.

Temporal Changes: Making a claim at 10:00 AM that is rendered false by an event at 10:05 AM.

Audience/Platform: Providing one "truth" to a professional group and a different "truth" to a casual one.

In your forum example, if the user changed their mind because new information was posted in the thread, it is a contextual evolution; if they simply stated two opposite facts as if both were true simultaneously, it remains a content contradiction.

 

If I ask them and they say they haven't changed their mind what does that mean

If they claim they haven't changed their mind despite the mismatch, it usually means one of three things:

Logical Inconsistency: They are holding two mutually exclusive beliefs at once (cognitive dissonance).

Semantic Misunderstanding: They define the terms in their statements differently than you do; in their mind, the two points don't actually overlap.

Gaslighting/Dishonesty: They are intentionally denying the contradiction to avoid "losing" an argument or being proven wrong.

Essentially, if the content is objectively opposite and the context (their stance) hasn't moved, the user is being illogical.

Is that content contradictive then?

Yes. If the facts or claims remain opposite and the user insists their stance hasn't changed, it is a content contradiction.

Because the "internal context" (their opinion) is supposedly stable, the only thing left is the mismatch in what they actually said. This usually points to a logical fallacy or a falsehood.

 

 

TlDR

If the user holds positions i deem contradictive, without remeding the fallacy, context flies out the window.

I am actually trying to nullify contextual stuff via my contentual logic.

The opposite of what you are claiming. I read every persons messages and create a profile of them then ask for contradictions in the content not the context.

Edited 2 hours ago by Hojo

[Natasha Tori Maru]

@Hojo you just described building context! Hahaha 

That's a lot of mental gymnastics to get out of fucking up your statements.

I understand what you mean, but this is ALSO ego from you!

Edited 1 hour ago by Natasha Tori Maru

[Hojo]

@Natasha Tori MaruNo its viewing content as a whole. Context dosent matter to me.

content is what you say, and context is the situation in which you say it

The context ( a different post on the forum) dosent matter thats why I can re post what someone says in one post to another and it not be context oriented. Its not creating context its nullifying context.

Edited 1 hour ago by Hojo