|
Post by Ishtahota on Jun 25, 2013 21:16:59 GMT -5
Quinn We all have these abilities. The problem is that people are not willing to do the personal work to open up their abilities. My dad could shake your hand and tell you your whole life story, past, present, and the future. There are times when I am good, but as of yet I am not as good as pop. Onehandclapping Working with people over the years and seeing what life was doing to them, helped me come up with the Big Empty. As we learn and we grow and we evolve, we to define some new concepts and ideas. Right. I don't agree with the future thingy though. You might tell the future as it looks right now. But that doesn't necessarily have to be your future later. You are right. The future is not set in stone. Most of Pops friends that he would read for would create what he told them was going to happen. He tried to help warn people, but most created what he warned them about. That was the reason that he refused to read people the last few years of his life. And there are some things that are destined to happen in some people's lives.
|
|
|
Post by Reefs on Jun 25, 2013 22:10:05 GMT -5
Right. I don't agree with the future thingy though. You might tell the future as it looks right now. But that doesn't necessarily have to be your future later. You are right. The future is not set in stone. Most of Pops friends that he would read for would create what he told them was going to happen. He tried to help warn people, but most created what he warned them about. That was the reason that he refused to read people the last few years of his life. And there are some things that are destined to happen in some people's lives. I'd say even though in theory the future isn't necessarily predictable, in practice, it often is because usually folks don't change their focus significantly enough to really get different results. Some of that has probably to do with mental disposition and habit/momentum. My observation is that the mental disposition part never really changes. The habit/momentum part, however, that's where the change can happen. To me, giving warnings is an indicator of how 'evolved' or 'open' the psychic actually is. My experience is that the clearer the channel the less grave the outlook they tend to give. It also depends on the audience, of course. If people really believe in the accuracy of a psychic then to them what the psychic says becomes law. Expectation and Law of Attraction at work. What the psychic says becomes the main focal point for them and so they manifest it exactly as foretold which in the end also seems to 'prove' how accurate the psychic's predictions are. An interesting loop. What's your take on mental dispositions? Is that something you would consider as close to 'set in stone'?
|
|
|
Post by quinn on Jun 26, 2013 6:07:41 GMT -5
Quinn We all have these abilities. The problem is that people are not willing to do the personal work to open up their abilities. My dad could shake your hand and tell you your whole life story, past, present, and the future. There are times when I am good, but as of yet I am not as good as pop. I've always been interested in psychic phenomena - seeing spirit, reading people's lives, channeling, healing. But I'm not so sure I'd be willing to 'go there'. From what I've read, it's as much of a burden as it is a gift. How disorienting would it be to walk into a room and see everyone's ancestors drifting around. Even for your Dad - he shakes hands at a party and the person's life flashes in front of him. I have enough to deal with in picking up people's emotional energy. Jac O'Keeffe is a non-dual teacher (very good, btw) and talks about when, at a particular point in her spiritual work, she began to see spirit. Not just people - animals and creatures, too. At first it freaked her out, but after awhile she was able to put it into perspective. Her take was, basically, that it's just a side-effect of opening up. That it really didn't really have a lot of significance in terms of Awakening.
|
|
|
Post by Ishtahota on Jun 26, 2013 11:44:20 GMT -5
Reefs I think many people have lessons to learn and unfortunately most of us have to learn our lessons the hard way. I do not think it as much disposition as it is that people are being driven by their own sub-conscious mind.
|
|
|
Post by Reefs on Jun 28, 2013 0:14:56 GMT -5
Reefs I think many people have lessons to learn and unfortunately most of us have to learn our lessons the hard way. I do not think it as much disposition as it is that people are being driven by their own sub-conscious mind. I don't see it as "lessons to learn". That sounds like a curriculum and turns your stay on planet earth into a high school field trip. I rather see it as "need more clarifying experiences". And "learning it the hard way" to me just means that hearsay doesn't bring clarity but life experience does. Well, sub-conscious mind, in my book, would be a collection of thinking patterns. Some you've acquired and some because that's just the way you are wired (see astrology).
|
|
|
Post by ???????? ???????????? on Jun 29, 2013 14:45:55 GMT -5
I'm still not getting the signifier/signified distinction. "true lack is the structural gap between signifier/signified." Is it the same as referent/what-is-referred-to? Or is this just another way of pointing to subject/object? The structural gap is the apparent division and phenomena of a subject and object? Desire is the signifier, and it wants the signified. The potential true object of desire gets identified and then obtained and it disappoints our fantasy/expectation. Desire returns, which means that it wants another object. In most people this script plays itself out all life long.
|
|
|
Post by ???????? ???????????? on Jun 29, 2013 14:56:43 GMT -5
Perhaps the actual experience of getting what we want fails to live up to the fantasy in that the expectation is that the object provides the fulfillment while the actual experience is that the absence of desire is providing the sense. The quality of the experience is necessarily different than expected, though not necessarily less satisfying. The longer the attention is focused on the object, the less satisfying it becomes because even the sense of satisfaction is not originating from the possession of the object. I doubt this. On an intellectual level most people don't see their happiness originating from the absence of desire, but they still lose interest in the object of desire and find a new object. So this means that if pleasure is due to the absence of desire, and if we lose interest in the object of desire because of the difference you showed, then this difference must register in the unconsious (not the consious intellect). This means that the unconsious must understand that fulfillment of desire is the absence of desire, but if this were so then desire would never return! But desire does return, and this means that the unconscious does not know that desire can only be fulfilled when it is absent. The absence of desire can't be integrated into the equation of desire because it is not a thing. What does get integrated is that the thing of which we thought that it was the object of our desire is perceived to be not quite it. And because we continue desiring, we believe that there must still be an object of desire, otherwise we couldn't desire, to desire is to desire the object of desire. We don't actually ever get fulfillment and satisfaction precisely of our desire. Since desire of an as-of-yet unobtained object necessarily functions only in fantasy and this fantasy is impossible to fulfill, the fantasy must, in order to not be disappointed, continue functioning even while the object is possessed, if not then the object will simply be perceived for what it is in its neutral/meaningless/ordinary/material reality which can't possibly be the object of desire. There is a simple test to perform. Try maintaining sexual arousal during intercouse while you cancel all fantasy (both of her subjectivity and the idealization of her body) and focus purely on what is given in the material sense - all pleasure will vanish and the body will have trouble performing its duty. Then why not simply cancel the seeking for the fulfillment of desire? Because we believe that the true object of desire does exist, and the proof that the object must exist is our very desire, and that's how we continue seeking for this mysterious object. The obtained pleasure is always a "this is not quite it". This insufficiency of obtained pleasure is the force behind the return and repetition of the seeking for the object of desire and the identifying of ever new objects of desire. It is by definition so that the signified, by virtue of being exactly a non-signifier, is imagined to be situated in the realm of the real, but the real, insofar as it is not directly attainable, situates itself within our logic in the negative form of the effect, i.e. the true object of desire is unattainable, we only participate with it in the negative way by participating in the effects it has on us, namely in fantasizing about it and by experiencing the pain of not having having it, i.e. we know that it exists because we desire it, and the stronger its effect (our desire for it, and our pain of being forbidden access to it) the stronger our conviction that the true object of desire exists.
|
|
|
Post by silver on Jun 29, 2013 16:42:59 GMT -5
Perhaps the actual experience of getting what we want fails to live up to the fantasy in that the expectation is that the object provides the fulfillment while the actual experience is that the absence of desire is providing the sense. The quality of the experience is necessarily different than expected, though not necessarily less satisfying. The longer the attention is focused on the object, the less satisfying it becomes because even the sense of satisfaction is not originating from the possession of the object. I doubt this. On an intellectual level most people don't see their happiness originating from the absence of desire, but they still lose interest in the object of desire and find a new object. So this means that if pleasure is due to the absence of desire, and if we lose interest in the object of desire because of the difference you showed, then this difference must register in the unconsious (not the consious intellect). This means that the unconsious must understand that fulfillment of desire is the absence of desire, but if this were so then desire would never return! But desire does return, and this means that the unconscious does not know that desire can only be fulfilled when it is absent. The absence of desire can't be integrated into the equation of desire because it is not a thing. What does get integrated is that the thing of which we thought that it was the object of our desire is perceived to be not quite it. And because we continue desiring, we believe that there must still be an object of desire, otherwise we couldn't desire, to desire is to desire the object of desire. We don't actually ever get fulfillment and satisfaction precisely of our desire. Since desire of an as-of-yet unobtained object necessarily functions only in fantasy and this fantasy is impossible to fulfill, the fantasy must, in order to not be disappointed, continue functioning even while the object is possessed, if not then the object will simply be perceived for what it is in its neutral/meaningless/ordinary/material reality which can't possibly be the object of desire. There is a simple test to perform. Try maintaining sexual arousal during intercouse while you cancel all fantasy (both of her subjectivity and the idealization of her body) and focus purely on what is given in the material sense - all pleasure will vanish and the body will have trouble performing its duty. Then why not simply cancel the seeking for the fulfillment of desire? Because we believe that the true object of desire does exist, and the proof that the object must exist is our very desire, and that's how we continue seeking for this mysterious object. The obtained pleasure is always a "this is not quite it". This insufficiency of obtained pleasure is the force behind the return and repetition of the seeking for the object of desire and the identifying of ever new objects of desire. It is by definition so that the signified, by virtue of being exactly a non-signifier, is imagined to be situated in the realm of the real, but the real, insofar as it is not directly attainable, situates itself within our logic in the negative form of the effect, i.e. the true object of desire is unattainable, we only participate with it in the negative way by participating in the effects it has on us, namely in fantasizing about it and by experiencing the pain of not having having it, i.e. we know that it exists because we desire it, and the stronger its effect (our desire for it, and our pain of being forbidden access to it) the stronger our conviction that the true object of desire exists. Wow. I struggled with the 1st paragraph, but the rest is really amazing.
|
|
|
Post by enigma on Jun 29, 2013 21:20:27 GMT -5
Perhaps the actual experience of getting what we want fails to live up to the fantasy in that the expectation is that the object provides the fulfillment while the actual experience is that the absence of desire is providing the sense. The quality of the experience is necessarily different than expected, though not necessarily less satisfying. The longer the attention is focused on the object, the less satisfying it becomes because even the sense of satisfaction is not originating from the possession of the object. I doubt this. On an intellectual level most people don't see their happiness originating from the absence of desire, but they still lose interest in the object of desire and find a new object. So this means that if pleasure is due to the absence of desire, and if we lose interest in the object of desire because of the difference you showed, then this difference must register in the unconsious (not the consious intellect). This means that the unconsious must understand that fulfillment of desire is the absence of desire, but if this were so then desire would never return! But desire does return, and this means that the unconscious does not know that desire can only be fulfilled when it is absent. The absence of desire can't be integrated into the equation of desire because it is not a thing. What does get integrated is that the thing of which we thought that it was the object of our desire is perceived to be not quite it. And because we continue desiring, we believe that there must still be an object of desire, otherwise we couldn't desire, to desire is to desire the object of desire. We don't actually ever get fulfillment and satisfaction precisely of our desire. Since desire of an as-of-yet unobtained object necessarily functions only in fantasy and this fantasy is impossible to fulfill, the fantasy must, in order to not be disappointed, continue functioning even while the object is possessed, if not then the object will simply be perceived for what it is in its neutral/meaningless/ordinary/material reality which can't possibly be the object of desire. There is a simple test to perform. Try maintaining sexual arousal during intercouse while you cancel all fantasy (both of her subjectivity and the idealization of her body) and focus purely on what is given in the material sense - all pleasure will vanish and the body will have trouble performing its duty. Then why not simply cancel the seeking for the fulfillment of desire? Because we believe that the true object of desire does exist, and the proof that the object must exist is our very desire, and that's how we continue seeking for this mysterious object. The obtained pleasure is always a "this is not quite it". This insufficiency of obtained pleasure is the force behind the return and repetition of the seeking for the object of desire and the identifying of ever new objects of desire. It is by definition so that the signified, by virtue of being exactly a non-signifier, is imagined to be situated in the realm of the real, but the real, insofar as it is not directly attainable, situates itself within our logic in the negative form of the effect, i.e. the true object of desire is unattainable, we only participate with it in the negative way by participating in the effects it has on us, namely in fantasizing about it and by experiencing the pain of not having having it, i.e. we know that it exists because we desire it, and the stronger its effect (our desire for it, and our pain of being forbidden access to it) the stronger our conviction that the true object of desire exists. Well, it's not a destination that involves a movement, and mind only knows movement (as experience). To say what is sought is the absence of desire is to suggest that satisfaction is to be found in 'no-experience', and this is not fulfillment of desire. In fact, what is found in the absence of desire is something completely different from the satisfaction of desire. (Peace vs joy) Desire seems to be justified through the paradigm of the separate self, out of which evolves a plethora of needs, and this fundamental paradigm is rarely questioned. The only option that seems reasonable is the fulfillment of those needs. It cannot occur to mind that the desire itself is present on false pretenses. (derived from illusion) It's not that the attainment of the object of desire does not live up to the fantasy, although this may also happen. It's that the process of satisfaction is not understood. Nearly everyone sees desire and fulfillment as separate quantities, and so it seems to be a matter of dipping into the satisfaction bucket and using it to fill up the desire bucket, and then hopefully keep it from leaking out. However, dualistic experience consists of mutually defining polarities, and so those buckets are not separate. The experience of desire is what feeds the sense of fulfillment once the object of desire is obtained, but then the desire ceases and along with it the sense of fulfillment. One is left without the sense of fulfillment, but with a momentary absence of need, which is mistaken for satisfaction resulting from the attainment of the object. Mind is momentarily distracted from it's plethora of needs by the new attainment, but now there is no movement and mind begins looking for another desire to fulfill, and the cycle begins again.
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Jun 30, 2013 7:30:07 GMT -5
E, Bambi, thanks for airing this discussion.
I wanna' see more! keep going!
|
|
|
Post by Ishtahota on Jun 30, 2013 8:19:56 GMT -5
After reading some of these post I now know how my elders felt when they started working with me. I also remember people coming from other traditions that had to spend a few years being sort of deprogrammed from the things that others had taught them. It was also necessary for me to go threw a time of changing how I thought. I had to learn how to think differently. And then later on I had to learn how to let thought go all together.
I am going to start another thread that ties into this called, vibration and comprehension.
|
|
|
Post by Ishtahota on Jun 30, 2013 8:36:12 GMT -5
Our ego has a consciousness all of its own, the energy to have this consciousness comes from our life force or what some would call our soul. The ego over time gains control over our lives. The ego uses desire to stay in control of our lives. A desire is only a poor reflection of what it is that our higher self has us wanting. To fall for the desire keeps us at a lower vibration. The desire stands between us and what it is that could fulfill us. When we get to the end of our lives we feel that something is bad wrong. If we have chased all of the things that the ego has given us, we may not see what it is that we are feel , but we will fill the BIG EMPTY.
|
|
|
Post by enigma on Jun 30, 2013 9:16:17 GMT -5
Our ego has a consciousness all of its own, the energy to have this consciousness comes from our life force or what some would call our soul. The ego over time gains control over our lives. The ego uses desire to stay in control of our lives. A desire is only a poor reflection of what it is that our higher self has us wanting. To fall for the desire keeps us at a lower vibration. The desire stands between us and what it is that could fulfill us. When we get to the end of our lives we feel that something is bad wrong. If we have chased all of the things that the ego has given us, we may not see what it is that we are feel , but we will fill the BIG EMPTY. Ego is a category of thoughts that refer to a 'me'. When you stop referencing a 'me' in the thoughts, ego literally ceases to manifest in any form. It is not an entity that has consciousness and gains control over 'our' lives. The 'me' that believes it has a life to control is what ego refers to. It's not more than a belief structure, albeit a useful one at times.
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Jul 1, 2013 5:53:01 GMT -5
Are you interested in my inklings about what you might find disagreement on? Sure,but I will not express disagreement without explaining why. And even that does not mean that I Am right. After all I am from the stupid white man nations. Yes, "disagreement", in this context, doesn't implicate right or wrong in some absolute sense. To put this in a way that I think you'll get right away, the closer we get to the spirit world with our minds the more it moves away, and the less and less useful language is to us. In this sense, disagreement is really all about the sharing of perspective in an almost impossible situation rather than making someone wrong. You're starting to see some of it and my guess is that this might help you see the direction of what I predict is likely to come your way. Hope you can take it in good humor. To reiterate: welcome to the ST board friend!
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 1, 2013 8:42:08 GMT -5
I'm still not getting the signifier/signified distinction. "true lack is the structural gap between signifier/signified." Is it the same as referent/what-is-referred-to? Or is this just another way of pointing to subject/object? The structural gap is the apparent division and phenomena of a subject and object? Desire is the signifier, and it wants the signified. The potential true object of desire gets identified and then obtained and it disappoints our fantasy/expectation. Desire returns, which means that it wants another object. In most people this script plays itself out all life long. Is there a point when signifier=signified or is that a limit that is never reached?
|
|