[FairfieldLife] Re: Is reactivity the most unevolved human characteristic?
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Ann" wrote: > Thanks for taking the time to re-answer this. I was originally asking the Almighty Barry for his feedback but I appreciate yours. Let's see if I can make any sense of it and, in turn, offer something that appeals to your sensibility. > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Xenophaneros Anartaxius" wrote: >>> *What overriding character trait must a button pusher possess in order to want to push people's buttons? >> They must have a human nervous system, but 'character trait' is an attempt to create a definition for a certain kind of behaviour. > "Character trait" is simply describing or attributing a characteristic of someone's actions to something else. You can play the objective, disassociated party all you want Xeno, but bottom line, different people have different characters and different traits that go along with those characters. We are not some nebulous, miasma floating around in some indefinable goo. We have edges and colours and definition. On some level we are not just some abstract Absolute; a part of us actually exists and functions and has substance. On some level we are precisely abstract absolute. I do not know what overriding character trait is associated with button pushing. Anybody can push a button. I stand by what I said that when someone behaves in a particular way, we give a character trait as a definition for that behaviour, we say things like 'this is an aggressive individual', or 'he or she is pushy'. >> In the US, Democrats push Republican buttons and vice versa. You could reverse the argument and ask what character trait does a button pushee have that allows them to get their buttons pushed? Among these would be a characteristic that one possess a system of belief that does not accurately represent reality. When a discrepancy in this conglomerate of beliefs is pointed out, the button gets pushed. There are also non-conceptual buttons, such as being tickled if you are ticklish. I think the main characteristic falls on we who get our buttons pushed. By blaming someone else, we don't have to clean our own house. > Come o. You are human, are you not? I mean, I think you are but you don't act human at least half of the time. You speak in complete abstractions. These abstractions, in turn, end up being meaningless because they aren't actually focused or therefore relevant... [Xeno as alien] Sh... don't tell Nabby. > ...You also seem to believe that if someone reacts or even interacts with another that somehow this indicates that their buttons have been pushed. This is simply not so. Just because some people can be odiously assholish doesn't mean they have pushed buttons. It means they probably prompted someone to call them on their lying or their misrepresentation or their shortsightedness. There are those who exist to try and piss others off as if this is somehow a worthy cause. I guess I need a definition of "button" from you because it seems like you are perceiving anyone who takes exception to lies or rudeness is somehow to blame for something. Take a look at your last sentence in the paragraph above. If you like ice cream and get some and enjoy it, there are buttons being pushed. I think there are always going to be buttons. Stimulus response. I really do not restrict button pushing to what Barry does here on FFL. If you are arguing with me over a point here, it means some button got pushed. But not in a malicious sense. It is a continuum more or less. We are discussing certain stimulus responses that have certain characteristics, and to which you but not I seem to also want to characterise as having motivations of a personal nature. I was not talking about blame, that is the person who is at the butt of button pushing is to blame. It was more in the line of 'judge not lest ye be judged'. This is something that can be interpreted on many levels, so I have to explain that. On one level, one could pretend one is not bothered by certain behaviour, while nonetheless being bothered. One could adopt a stance that one is intellectually neutral toward, but the deeper emotional level may not be so neutral, even if the intellect manages to be fairly balanced. One of the effects of spiritual discipline is that eventually, if you have enough time, the mind begins to appreciate and understand activity on a wider scale of operation - seeing the universe as a kind of mechanism that functions on a scale of overriding laws, and that the stance of an individual will is not seen as being real. In that case you cannot see people as being in any way responsible for their actions. That is the meaning when, for example, Jesus is reputed to have said 'Forgive them for they know not what they do.' It is like you do not see individuals doing things, you see physics, chemistry, and biology doing things. In this state, if you want to curse something for 'bad behaviour', and you have a religious bent, then you have to curse god dire
[FairfieldLife] Re: Is reactivity the most unevolved human characteristic?
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "authfriend" wrote: > > Ann, I wish I had written this incisive analysis. You > have done the impossible: You have actually managed to > nail Jell-O to the wall. > > Deep bow. > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Ann" awoelflebater@ wrote: > > > > Thanks for taking the time to re-answer this. I was originally asking the Almighty Barry for his feedback but I appreciate yours. Let's see if I can make any sense of it and, in turn, offer something that appeals to your sensibility. > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Xenophaneros Anartaxius" wrote: > > > > > > ---awoelflebater wrote (July 27): > > > > > > > Teacher, teacher, my hand is up, pick me. > > > > > > > *What can you say about the button pushers of the world? > > > > > > Probably not much. Because the human nervous system responds to situations in a stimulus response pattern, basically all our activity revolves around button pushing. You are just codifying certain types of stimulus response that functions at a more mentally conceptual level and which you interpret as annoying. > > > > You see, here is the most important point. Barry has only pushed my "buttons" once. That is when he was foaming at the mouth about "stupid cunts". Other than that he only imagines he pushes my buttons. I have very sticky buttons that are not only tricky to find but trickier to actually depress. So all this time he claims he is pushing buttons but I am sorry to have to admit to him that this is not so. I don't ever take Barry personally nor do I take him seriously therefore I am immune to him. But, as with anyone, if he becomes a big enough asshole I will call him on it because that is what I do. > > > > > > > *What motivates them? > > > > > > Don't know. Desire is pretty spontaneous, it wells up inside and then takes form. Motivation is a post hoc attempt to explain this particularly defined annoying behaviour. There could be many explanations. Perhaps a person wants attention; or just wants to see what happens; or maybe is unaware to a large extent of how what they do affects others. > > > > You may be right. Whatever it is, it is an indicator of something. I imagine that if people get off pushing, or imagining they are pushing, the buttons of others that it is just a form of sadism. It is also a clue that this person thinks they can control and that other people are controllable. This, in turn, makes me think button pushers are bullies or have been bullied. > > > > > > > *What overriding character trait must a button pusher possess in order to want to push people's buttons? > > > > > > They must have a human nervous system, but 'character trait' is an attempt to create a definition for a certain kind of behaviour. > > > > "Character trait" is simply describing or attributing a characteristic of someone's actions to something else. You can play the objective, disassociated party all you want Xeno, but bottom line, different people have different characters and different traits that go along with those characters. We are not some nebulous, miasma floating around in some indefinable goo. We have edges and colours and definition. On some level we are not just some abstract Absolute; a part of us actually exists and functions and has substance. > > > > >In the US, Democrats push Republican buttons and vice versa. You could reverse the argument and ask what character trait does a button pushee have that allows them to get their buttons pushed? Among these would be a characteristic that one possess a system of belief that does not accurately represent reality. When a discrepancy in this conglomerate of beliefs is pointed out, the button gets pushed. There are also non-conceptual buttons, such as being tickled if you are ticklish. I think the main characteristic falls on we who get our buttons pushed. By blaming someone else, we don't have to clean our own house. > > > > Come o. You are human, are you not? I mean, I think you are but you don't act human at least half of the time. You speak in complete abstractions. These abstractions, in turn, end up being meaningless because they aren't actually focused or therefore relevant. You also seem to believe that if someone reacts or even interacts with another that somehow this indicates that their buttons have been pushed. This is simply not so. Just because some people can be odiously assholish doesn't mean they have pushed buttons. It means they probably prompted someone to call them on their lying or their misrepresentation or their shortsightedness. There are those who exist to try and piss others off as if this is somehow a worthy cause. I guess I need a definition of "button" from you because it seems like you are perceiving anyone who takes exception to lies or rudeness is somehow to blame for something. Take a look at your last sentence in the paragraph above. > > > > > > Button pushing does get out of hand in human civilisation. War is the best exa
[FairfieldLife] Re: Is reactivity the most unevolved human characteristic?
Ann, I wish I had written this incisive analysis. You have done the impossible: You have actually managed to nail Jell-O to the wall. Deep bow. --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Ann" wrote: > > Thanks for taking the time to re-answer this. I was originally asking the > Almighty Barry for his feedback but I appreciate yours. Let's see if I can > make any sense of it and, in turn, offer something that appeals to your > sensibility. > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Xenophaneros Anartaxius" > wrote: > > > > ---awoelflebater wrote (July 27): > > > > > Teacher, teacher, my hand is up, pick me. > > > > > *What can you say about the button pushers of the world? > > > > Probably not much. Because the human nervous system responds to situations > > in a stimulus response pattern, basically all our activity revolves around > > button pushing. You are just codifying certain types of stimulus response > > that functions at a more mentally conceptual level and which you interpret > > as annoying. > > You see, here is the most important point. Barry has only pushed my "buttons" > once. That is when he was foaming at the mouth about "stupid cunts". Other > than that he only imagines he pushes my buttons. I have very sticky buttons > that are not only tricky to find but trickier to actually depress. So all > this time he claims he is pushing buttons but I am sorry to have to admit to > him that this is not so. I don't ever take Barry personally nor do I take him > seriously therefore I am immune to him. But, as with anyone, if he becomes a > big enough asshole I will call him on it because that is what I do. > > > > > *What motivates them? > > > > Don't know. Desire is pretty spontaneous, it wells up inside and then takes > > form. Motivation is a post hoc attempt to explain this particularly defined > > annoying behaviour. There could be many explanations. Perhaps a person > > wants attention; or just wants to see what happens; or maybe is unaware to > > a large extent of how what they do affects others. > > You may be right. Whatever it is, it is an indicator of something. I imagine > that if people get off pushing, or imagining they are pushing, the buttons of > others that it is just a form of sadism. It is also a clue that this person > thinks they can control and that other people are controllable. This, in > turn, makes me think button pushers are bullies or have been bullied. > > > > > *What overriding character trait must a button pusher possess in order to > > > want to push people's buttons? > > > > They must have a human nervous system, but 'character trait' is an attempt > > to create a definition for a certain kind of behaviour. > > "Character trait" is simply describing or attributing a characteristic of > someone's actions to something else. You can play the objective, > disassociated party all you want Xeno, but bottom line, different people have > different characters and different traits that go along with those > characters. We are not some nebulous, miasma floating around in some > indefinable goo. We have edges and colours and definition. On some level we > are not just some abstract Absolute; a part of us actually exists and > functions and has substance. > > >In the US, Democrats push Republican buttons and vice versa. You could > reverse the argument and ask what character trait does a button pushee have > that allows them to get their buttons pushed? Among these would be a > characteristic that one possess a system of belief that does not accurately > represent reality. When a discrepancy in this conglomerate of beliefs is > pointed out, the button gets pushed. There are also non-conceptual buttons, > such as being tickled if you are ticklish. I think the main characteristic > falls on we who get our buttons pushed. By blaming someone else, we don't > have to clean our own house. > > Come o. You are human, are you not? I mean, I think you are but you don't > act human at least half of the time. You speak in complete abstractions. > These abstractions, in turn, end up being meaningless because they aren't > actually focused or therefore relevant. You also seem to believe that if > someone reacts or even interacts with another that somehow this indicates > that their buttons have been pushed. This is simply not so. Just because some > people can be odiously assholish doesn't mean they have pushed buttons. It > means they probably prompted someone to call them on their lying or their > misrepresentation or their shortsightedness. There are those who exist to try > and piss others off as if this is somehow a worthy cause. I guess I need a > definition of "button" from you because it seems like you are perceiving > anyone who takes exception to lies or rudeness is somehow to blame for > something. Take a look at your last sentence in the paragraph above. > > > > Button pushing does get out of hand in human civili
[FairfieldLife] Re: Is reactivity the most unevolved human characteristic?
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "authfriend" wrote: > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Ann" wrote: > > > > > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "authfriend" wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "authfriend" wrote: > > > > > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Xenophaneros Anartaxius" > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > ---awoelflebater wrote (July 27): > > > > > > > > > > > Teacher, teacher, my hand is up, pick me. > > > > > > > > > > > *What can you say about the button pushers of the world? > > > > > > > > > > Probably not much. > > > > > > > > Right you are. > > > > > > > > But then, she wasn't asking you. > > > > > > Opsie-Judy. She *was* asking you. > > > > > > Not sure why, though. > > > > No, I was asking Barry whose post I was responding to. At > > least, I thought I was...! > > You were originally, but then Xeno had a comment, > and you asked him if he'd respond to your questions, > since Barry obviously wasn't going to. Good thing someone knows what is going on here. Thanks authfriend. We know that Barry doesn't respond because he's too busy paying for his coffee and croissant by washing dishes. It's hard to find the time to come up with cogent posts when you're elbow deep in French dishwater. >
[FairfieldLife] Re: Is reactivity the most unevolved human characteristic?
Thanks for taking the time to re-answer this. I was originally asking the Almighty Barry for his feedback but I appreciate yours. Let's see if I can make any sense of it and, in turn, offer something that appeals to your sensibility. --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Xenophaneros Anartaxius" wrote: > > ---awoelflebater wrote (July 27): > > > Teacher, teacher, my hand is up, pick me. > > > *What can you say about the button pushers of the world? > > Probably not much. Because the human nervous system responds to situations in > a stimulus response pattern, basically all our activity revolves around > button pushing. You are just codifying certain types of stimulus response > that functions at a more mentally conceptual level and which you interpret as > annoying. You see, here is the most important point. Barry has only pushed my "buttons" once. That is when he was foaming at the mouth about "stupid cunts". Other than that he only imagines he pushes my buttons. I have very sticky buttons that are not only tricky to find but trickier to actually depress. So all this time he claims he is pushing buttons but I am sorry to have to admit to him that this is not so. I don't ever take Barry personally nor do I take him seriously therefore I am immune to him. But, as with anyone, if he becomes a big enough asshole I will call him on it because that is what I do. > > > *What motivates them? > > Don't know. Desire is pretty spontaneous, it wells up inside and then takes > form. Motivation is a post hoc attempt to explain this particularly defined > annoying behaviour. There could be many explanations. Perhaps a person wants > attention; or just wants to see what happens; or maybe is unaware to a large > extent of how what they do affects others. You may be right. Whatever it is, it is an indicator of something. I imagine that if people get off pushing, or imagining they are pushing, the buttons of others that it is just a form of sadism. It is also a clue that this person thinks they can control and that other people are controllable. This, in turn, makes me think button pushers are bullies or have been bullied. > > > *What overriding character trait must a button pusher possess in order to > > want to push people's buttons? > > They must have a human nervous system, but 'character trait' is an attempt to > create a definition for a certain kind of behaviour. "Character trait" is simply describing or attributing a characteristic of someone's actions to something else. You can play the objective, disassociated party all you want Xeno, but bottom line, different people have different characters and different traits that go along with those characters. We are not some nebulous, miasma floating around in some indefinable goo. We have edges and colours and definition. On some level we are not just some abstract Absolute; a part of us actually exists and functions and has substance. >In the US, Democrats push Republican buttons and vice versa. You could >reverse the argument and ask what character trait does a button pushee have >that allows them to get their buttons pushed? Among these would be a >characteristic that one possess a system of belief that does not accurately >represent reality. When a discrepancy in this conglomerate of beliefs is >pointed out, the button gets pushed. There are also non-conceptual buttons, >such as being tickled if you are ticklish. I think the main characteristic >falls on we who get our buttons pushed. By blaming someone else, we don't >have to clean our own house. Come o. You are human, are you not? I mean, I think you are but you don't act human at least half of the time. You speak in complete abstractions. These abstractions, in turn, end up being meaningless because they aren't actually focused or therefore relevant. You also seem to believe that if someone reacts or even interacts with another that somehow this indicates that their buttons have been pushed. This is simply not so. Just because some people can be odiously assholish doesn't mean they have pushed buttons. It means they probably prompted someone to call them on their lying or their misrepresentation or their shortsightedness. There are those who exist to try and piss others off as if this is somehow a worthy cause. I guess I need a definition of "button" from you because it seems like you are perceiving anyone who takes exception to lies or rudeness is somehow to blame for something. Take a look at your last sentence in the paragraph above. > > Button pushing does get out of hand in human civilisation. War is the best > example. The divergence in conceptual thinking is so great, the only way to > eliminate it is to remove one or both sides of the equation. Look at what > happened recently in Egypt. I would venture to say that the escalation toward war would be best described as something other than "button pushing". There has to be a fa
[FairfieldLife] Re: Is reactivity the most unevolved human characteristic?
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Ann" wrote: > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "authfriend" wrote: > > > > > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "authfriend" wrote: > > > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Xenophaneros Anartaxius" > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > ---awoelflebater wrote (July 27): > > > > > > > > > Teacher, teacher, my hand is up, pick me. > > > > > > > > > *What can you say about the button pushers of the world? > > > > > > > > Probably not much. > > > > > > Right you are. > > > > > > But then, she wasn't asking you. > > > > Opsie-Judy. She *was* asking you. > > > > Not sure why, though. > > No, I was asking Barry whose post I was responding to. At > least, I thought I was...! You were originally, but then Xeno had a comment, and you asked him if he'd respond to your questions, since Barry obviously wasn't going to.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Is reactivity the most unevolved human characteristic?
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "authfriend" wrote: > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "authfriend" wrote: > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Xenophaneros Anartaxius" > > wrote: > > > > > > ---awoelflebater wrote (July 27): > > > > > > > Teacher, teacher, my hand is up, pick me. > > > > > > > *What can you say about the button pushers of the world? > > > > > > Probably not much. > > > > Right you are. > > > > But then, she wasn't asking you. > > Opsie-Judy. She *was* asking you. > > Not sure why, though. No, I was asking Barry whose post I was responding to. At least, I thought I was...! >
[FairfieldLife] Re: Is reactivity the most unevolved human characteristic?
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "authfriend" wrote: > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "authfriend" wrote: > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Xenophaneros Anartaxius" > > wrote: > > > > > > ---awoelflebater wrote (July 27): > > > > > > > Teacher, teacher, my hand is up, pick me. > > > > > > > *What can you say about the button pushers of the world? > > > > > > Probably not much. > > > > Right you are. > > > > But then, she wasn't asking you. > > Opsie-Judy. She *was* asking you. > > Not sure why, though. > Neither am I. The first round of answers I made she felt was totally off the mark. This one probably was too.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Is reactivity the most unevolved human characteristic?
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "authfriend" wrote: > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Xenophaneros Anartaxius" > wrote: > > > > ---awoelflebater wrote (July 27): > > > > > Teacher, teacher, my hand is up, pick me. > > > > > *What can you say about the button pushers of the world? > > > > Probably not much. > > Right you are. > > But then, she wasn't asking you. Opsie-Judy. She *was* asking you. Not sure why, though.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Is reactivity the most unevolved human characteristic?
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Xenophaneros Anartaxius" wrote: > > ---awoelflebater wrote (July 27): > > > Teacher, teacher, my hand is up, pick me. > > > *What can you say about the button pushers of the world? > > Probably not much. Right you are. But then, she wasn't asking you.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Is reactivity the most unevolved human characteristic?
---awoelflebater wrote (July 27): > Teacher, teacher, my hand is up, pick me. > *What can you say about the button pushers of the world? Probably not much. Because the human nervous system responds to situations in a stimulus response pattern, basically all our activity revolves around button pushing. You are just codifying certain types of stimulus response that functions at a more mentally conceptual level and which you interpret as annoying. > *What motivates them? Don't know. Desire is pretty spontaneous, it wells up inside and then takes form. Motivation is a post hoc attempt to explain this particularly defined annoying behaviour. There could be many explanations. Perhaps a person wants attention; or just wants to see what happens; or maybe is unaware to a large extent of how what they do affects others. > *What overriding character trait must a button pusher possess in order to > want to push people's buttons? They must have a human nervous system, but 'character trait' is an attempt to create a definition for a certain kind of behaviour. In the US, Democrats push Republican buttons and vice versa. You could reverse the argument and ask what character trait does a button pushee have that allows them to get their buttons pushed? Among these would be a characteristic that one possess a system of belief that does not accurately represent reality. When a discrepancy in this conglomerate of beliefs is pointed out, the button gets pushed. There are also non-conceptual buttons, such as being tickled if you are ticklish. I think the main characteristic falls on we who get our buttons pushed. By blaming someone else, we don't have to clean our own house. Button pushing does get out of hand in human civilisation. War is the best example. The divergence in conceptual thinking is so great, the only way to eliminate it is to remove one or both sides of the equation. Look at what happened recently in Egypt. > *Does a button pusher ever admit to themselves that perhaps what they call > button pushing is merely an unsavoury character trait possessed by the button > pusher that others take a disliking to? Maybe they do and maybe they do not. But by putting the onus on another person, you do not see that it takes two to tango. > *Is this 'reaction' ever valid or warranted by the pushees? First of all it happens. What happens and how the pushee responds and evaluates, and how the pushee feels their response is warranted or valid depends on their internal world view. The button pusher probably does not share that world view, and in their mind, the stimulus is both warranted and valid. > *And finally teacher, what does is say about a person who sits by and allows > others to throw shit around the room and not get up and at least leave or, > better still, confront the shit thrower? Some of us are our brother's keeper, and some of us are not. It is a fluid social situation. This situation does not exist if the stimulus response is restricted to just the two - the button pusher, and the person with buttons. The people closest to you, like family, probably know more about how to push your buttons than anyone. When there is a group, battle lines may be drawn. It tends to happen here on FFL. The tendency to defend another may be a function of how defenseless a button pushee is in relation to those who push. When I was in middle school, there was a retarded kid who would get flack from the bully types. I felt a tendency to get between them and at the very least not make fun of the kid, which is actually difficult at that age - peer pressure and all. I think the family of that boy wanted him to go to school in as normal an environment as possible, or perhaps could not afford a special school. It must have been some kind of special dispensation, because the boy could not perform at the grade level he had been placed in. Even if we fail, the onus is on us to be a strong as possible in the face of adversity. If worse comes to worse, you just have to kill the bastard(s) or die yourself. (Sometimes they are bitches.)
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Is reactivity the most unevolved human characteristic?
On Fri, Jul 26, 2013 at 9:20 PM, Ann wrote: > ** > > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Xenophaneros Anartaxius" > wrote: > > > > > > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Ann" wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, turquoiseb wrote: > > > > > > > > Buddhists, like neo- and pseudo-Hindus, often get tangled up in > issues > > > > or questions that are *all in their heads* -- questions without > answers, > > > > essentially ways to waste time and waste one's life pondering things > > > > they'll never know the answers to. Some of these silly > > > > ponderings/discussions/arguments have to do with "What is the worst > of > > > > the afflictive emotions or traits?" I've always thought that even > > > > conceiving of arguing about such a thing is too much like Catholics > > > > arguing about "What is the deadliest of the mortal sins?" for me to > be > > > > interested in, so I've never really indulged in such discussions. But > > > > just for fun, tonight I will. > > > > > > > > Some of these stuck-in-their-heads Buddhists think that anger and > hatred > > > > are the most afflictive of the afflictive emotions/traits. Others -- > > > > especially the ones who are trying to be or pretending to be > celibate -- > > > > actually think that *romantic love* is the lowest-vibe, because it > can > > > > lure people "off the path." But both of these groups seem to agree > that > > > > anyone who consistently displays the emotion or trait they deem > "worst" > > > > is low-vibe, "not very evolved." > > > > > > > > My view is much more pragmatic, and simple. If there is an emotion, > > > > action, or trait that indicates "not very evolved" to me, it's > > > > reactivity itself. > > > > > > > > If someone -- anyone -- can push your buttons and get you to react to > > > > them, over something -- anything -- then they OWN your ass, and you > > > > aren't *nearly* as "spiritual" or "evolved" as you think you are. > > > > > > > > It really doesn't *matter* in my opinion what the "trigger" for the > > > > reactivity is. It could be someone calling you a name, or saying > > > > something about you that you feel is not true, or calling into > question > > > > the "image" you've labored long and hard to project. None of this > shit > > > > matters a damn, so if you *believe* that it matters, enough to > *react* > > > > to the provocation and feel that you have to "defend yourself" or > lash > > > > out at the person who did this, IMO you're still way down there on > the > > > > evolutionary scale with the slugs and the cockroaches. > > > > > > > > Only an ego -- and a strongly entrenched and established one -- can > > > > react that way, especially consistently. So if you think of > "evolved" as > > > > being synonymous with having less ego, then reactivity of this type > > > > should be considered synonymous with being "unevolved." > > > > > > > > That's my theory, anyway. Tonight. At 9:00 p.m., as I'm about to go > out > > > > on the town in Paris. I may have a different theory later on. But if > you > > > > find *that* offensive and unevolved, I hope you'll forgive me if I > don't > > > > react. :-) > > > > > > Teacher, teacher, my hand is up, pick me. What can you say about the > button pushers of the world? What motivates them? What overriding character > trait must a button pusher possess in order to want to push people's > buttons? Does a button pusher ever admit to themselves that perhaps what > they call button pushing is merely an unsavoury character trait possessed > by the button pusher that others take a disliking to? Is this 'reaction' > ever valid or warranted by the pushees? And finally teacher, what does is > say about a person who sits by and allows others to throw shit around the > room and not get up and at least leave or, better still, confront the shit > thrower? > > > > > Reactivity might be a good criterion for spiritual progress, at least in > 'normal' people. For example, a sociopath may not react at all to certain > emotional cues thrown at them; they are free as the wind while the more > empathetically inclined are like fish on a hook in the same situation. My > own experience is that meditation results in less reactivity. Doesn't > eliminate it. There is no guarantee that at some point something will hook > you. > > > > Most people don't realise they have been hooked, that they have a button > pushed. They don't know they have these buttons. Becoming aware that one > has them is a good start. This forum is a place where everyone, one would > think, would be aware of this process of button pushing. When the button is > pushed, the awareness contracts and being becomes identified with what goes > on in the mind, and that becomes, for that moment, one's reality. It is a > conditioned response. It is perfectly natural and mechanical, but also > extremely annoying because we lose awareness of our essential nature when > it happens. > > Now maybe you can
[FairfieldLife] Re: Is reactivity the most unevolved human characteristic?
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Xenophaneros Anartaxius" wrote: > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Ann" wrote: > > > > > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, turquoiseb wrote: > > > > > > Buddhists, like neo- and pseudo-Hindus, often get tangled up in issues > > > or questions that are *all in their heads* -- questions without answers, > > > essentially ways to waste time and waste one's life pondering things > > > they'll never know the answers to. Some of these silly > > > ponderings/discussions/arguments have to do with "What is the worst of > > > the afflictive emotions or traits?" I've always thought that even > > > conceiving of arguing about such a thing is too much like Catholics > > > arguing about "What is the deadliest of the mortal sins?" for me to be > > > interested in, so I've never really indulged in such discussions. But > > > just for fun, tonight I will. > > > > > > Some of these stuck-in-their-heads Buddhists think that anger and hatred > > > are the most afflictive of the afflictive emotions/traits. Others -- > > > especially the ones who are trying to be or pretending to be celibate -- > > > actually think that *romantic love* is the lowest-vibe, because it can > > > lure people "off the path." But both of these groups seem to agree that > > > anyone who consistently displays the emotion or trait they deem "worst" > > > is low-vibe, "not very evolved." > > > > > > My view is much more pragmatic, and simple. If there is an emotion, > > > action, or trait that indicates "not very evolved" to me, it's > > > reactivity itself. > > > > > > If someone -- anyone -- can push your buttons and get you to react to > > > them, over something -- anything -- then they OWN your ass, and you > > > aren't *nearly* as "spiritual" or "evolved" as you think you are. > > > > > > It really doesn't *matter* in my opinion what the "trigger" for the > > > reactivity is. It could be someone calling you a name, or saying > > > something about you that you feel is not true, or calling into question > > > the "image" you've labored long and hard to project. None of this shit > > > matters a damn, so if you *believe* that it matters, enough to *react* > > > to the provocation and feel that you have to "defend yourself" or lash > > > out at the person who did this, IMO you're still way down there on the > > > evolutionary scale with the slugs and the cockroaches. > > > > > > Only an ego -- and a strongly entrenched and established one -- can > > > react that way, especially consistently. So if you think of "evolved" as > > > being synonymous with having less ego, then reactivity of this type > > > should be considered synonymous with being "unevolved." > > > > > > That's my theory, anyway. Tonight. At 9:00 p.m., as I'm about to go out > > > on the town in Paris. I may have a different theory later on. But if you > > > find *that* offensive and unevolved, I hope you'll forgive me if I don't > > > react. :-) > > > > Teacher, teacher, my hand is up, pick me. What can you say about the button > > pushers of the world? What motivates them? What overriding character trait > > must a button pusher possess in order to want to push people's buttons? > > Does a button pusher ever admit to themselves that perhaps what they call > > button pushing is merely an unsavoury character trait possessed by the > > button pusher that others take a disliking to? Is this 'reaction' ever > > valid or warranted by the pushees? And finally teacher, what does is say > > about a person who sits by and allows others to throw shit around the room > > and not get up and at least leave or, better still, confront the shit > > thrower? > > > Reactivity might be a good criterion for spiritual progress, at least in > 'normal' people. For example, a sociopath may not react at all to certain > emotional cues thrown at them; they are free as the wind while the more > empathetically inclined are like fish on a hook in the same situation. My own > experience is that meditation results in less reactivity. Doesn't eliminate > it. There is no guarantee that at some point something will hook you. > > Most people don't realise they have been hooked, that they have a button > pushed. They don't know they have these buttons. Becoming aware that one has > them is a good start. This forum is a place where everyone, one would think, > would be aware of this process of button pushing. When the button is pushed, > the awareness contracts and being becomes identified with what goes on in the > mind, and that becomes, for that moment, one's reality. It is a conditioned > response. It is perfectly natural and mechanical, but also extremely annoying > because we lose awareness of our essential nature when it happens. Now maybe you can answer my questions above Teacher Xeno. Barry is not only incapable of answering them he will use the usual excuse for why he won't answer them but those excuses will not
[FairfieldLife] Re: Is reactivity the most unevolved human characteristic?
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Ann" wrote: > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, turquoiseb wrote: > > > > Buddhists, like neo- and pseudo-Hindus, often get tangled up in issues > > or questions that are *all in their heads* -- questions without answers, > > essentially ways to waste time and waste one's life pondering things > > they'll never know the answers to. Some of these silly > > ponderings/discussions/arguments have to do with "What is the worst of > > the afflictive emotions or traits?" I've always thought that even > > conceiving of arguing about such a thing is too much like Catholics > > arguing about "What is the deadliest of the mortal sins?" for me to be > > interested in, so I've never really indulged in such discussions. But > > just for fun, tonight I will. > > > > Some of these stuck-in-their-heads Buddhists think that anger and hatred > > are the most afflictive of the afflictive emotions/traits. Others -- > > especially the ones who are trying to be or pretending to be celibate -- > > actually think that *romantic love* is the lowest-vibe, because it can > > lure people "off the path." But both of these groups seem to agree that > > anyone who consistently displays the emotion or trait they deem "worst" > > is low-vibe, "not very evolved." > > > > My view is much more pragmatic, and simple. If there is an emotion, > > action, or trait that indicates "not very evolved" to me, it's > > reactivity itself. > > > > If someone -- anyone -- can push your buttons and get you to react to > > them, over something -- anything -- then they OWN your ass, and you > > aren't *nearly* as "spiritual" or "evolved" as you think you are. > > > > It really doesn't *matter* in my opinion what the "trigger" for the > > reactivity is. It could be someone calling you a name, or saying > > something about you that you feel is not true, or calling into question > > the "image" you've labored long and hard to project. None of this shit > > matters a damn, so if you *believe* that it matters, enough to *react* > > to the provocation and feel that you have to "defend yourself" or lash > > out at the person who did this, IMO you're still way down there on the > > evolutionary scale with the slugs and the cockroaches. > > > > Only an ego -- and a strongly entrenched and established one -- can > > react that way, especially consistently. So if you think of "evolved" as > > being synonymous with having less ego, then reactivity of this type > > should be considered synonymous with being "unevolved." > > > > That's my theory, anyway. Tonight. At 9:00 p.m., as I'm about to go out > > on the town in Paris. I may have a different theory later on. But if you > > find *that* offensive and unevolved, I hope you'll forgive me if I don't > > react. :-) > > Teacher, teacher, my hand is up, pick me. What can you say about the button > pushers of the world? What motivates them? What overriding character trait > must a button pusher possess in order to want to push people's buttons? Does > a button pusher ever admit to themselves that perhaps what they call button > pushing is merely an unsavoury character trait possessed by the button pusher > that others take a disliking to? Is this 'reaction' ever valid or warranted > by the pushees? And finally teacher, what does is say about a person who sits > by and allows others to throw shit around the room and not get up and at > least leave or, better still, confront the shit thrower? > Reactivity might be a good criterion for spiritual progress, at least in 'normal' people. For example, a sociopath may not react at all to certain emotional cues thrown at them; they are free as the wind while the more empathetically inclined are like fish on a hook in the same situation. My own experience is that meditation results in less reactivity. Doesn't eliminate it. There is no guarantee that at some point something will hook you. Most people don't realise they have been hooked, that they have a button pushed. They don't know they have these buttons. Becoming aware that one has them is a good start. This forum is a place where everyone, one would think, would be aware of this process of button pushing. When the button is pushed, the awareness contracts and being becomes identified with what goes on in the mind, and that becomes, for that moment, one's reality. It is a conditioned response. It is perfectly natural and mechanical, but also extremely annoying because we lose awareness of our essential nature when it happens.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Is reactivity the most unevolved human characteristic?
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, turquoiseb wrote: > > Buddhists, like neo- and pseudo-Hindus, often get tangled up in issues > or questions that are *all in their heads* -- questions without answers, > essentially ways to waste time and waste one's life pondering things > they'll never know the answers to. Some of these silly > ponderings/discussions/arguments have to do with "What is the worst of > the afflictive emotions or traits?" I've always thought that even > conceiving of arguing about such a thing is too much like Catholics > arguing about "What is the deadliest of the mortal sins?" for me to be > interested in, so I've never really indulged in such discussions. But > just for fun, tonight I will. > > Some of these stuck-in-their-heads Buddhists think that anger and hatred > are the most afflictive of the afflictive emotions/traits. Others -- > especially the ones who are trying to be or pretending to be celibate -- > actually think that *romantic love* is the lowest-vibe, because it can > lure people "off the path." But both of these groups seem to agree that > anyone who consistently displays the emotion or trait they deem "worst" > is low-vibe, "not very evolved." > > My view is much more pragmatic, and simple. If there is an emotion, > action, or trait that indicates "not very evolved" to me, it's > reactivity itself. > > If someone -- anyone -- can push your buttons and get you to react to > them, over something -- anything -- then they OWN your ass, and you > aren't *nearly* as "spiritual" or "evolved" as you think you are. > > It really doesn't *matter* in my opinion what the "trigger" for the > reactivity is. It could be someone calling you a name, or saying > something about you that you feel is not true, or calling into question > the "image" you've labored long and hard to project. None of this shit > matters a damn, so if you *believe* that it matters, enough to *react* > to the provocation and feel that you have to "defend yourself" or lash > out at the person who did this, IMO you're still way down there on the > evolutionary scale with the slugs and the cockroaches. > > Only an ego -- and a strongly entrenched and established one -- can > react that way, especially consistently. So if you think of "evolved" as > being synonymous with having less ego, then reactivity of this type > should be considered synonymous with being "unevolved." > > That's my theory, anyway. Tonight. At 9:00 p.m., as I'm about to go out > on the town in Paris. I may have a different theory later on. But if you > find *that* offensive and unevolved, I hope you'll forgive me if I don't > react. :-) Teacher, teacher, my hand is up, pick me. What can you say about the button pushers of the world? What motivates them? What overriding character trait must a button pusher possess in order to want to push people's buttons? Does a button pusher ever admit to themselves that perhaps what they call button pushing is merely an unsavoury character trait possessed by the button pusher that others take a disliking to? Is this 'reaction' ever valid or warranted by the pushees? And finally teacher, what does is say about a person who sits by and allows others to throw shit around the room and not get up and at least leave or, better still, confront the shit thrower? >
[FairfieldLife] Re: Is reactivity the most unevolved human characteristic?
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, turquoiseb wrote: (snip) > If someone -- anyone -- can push your buttons and get you > to react to them, over something -- anything -- then they > OWN your ass, and you aren't *nearly* as "spiritual" or > "evolved" as you think you are. Awful lot of people here own shares in your ass, Barry.
