|
Post by topology on Jun 25, 2013 15:19:53 GMT -5
You're looking at the wrong level of preferences. Who would use NLP to start a smoking habit from not being in one? The preference is to end it. What is being changed is habituation and possible priming the programming at a lower level to hedge for a more preferred outcome. When two desires compete equally, there is room to feed either one, which you choose to feed is selected by preference, your nature at that moment. I dunno about levels of preference, I'm just saying preferences can be changed. What's changing them and making that decision? What's preferring to make the change and why that change?
|
|
|
Post by andrew on Jun 25, 2013 15:44:05 GMT -5
I dunno about levels of preference, I'm just saying preferences can be changed. What's changing them and making that decision? What's preferring to make the change and why that change? It doesn't matter to me much, and I can see many different sides of the choice/no choice issue. I used to be massively 'no choice' but then I softened on the whole thing. As I see it, that we are even talking about 'choice' tells me that 'choice' is part of our experience, and that's good enough for me. Same as cause and effect. I push a button on the computer and it seems as if it makes the computer turn on.
|
|
|
Post by enigma on Jun 25, 2013 22:38:25 GMT -5
If you truly have the power of choice, then intentionally exercise that choice for a period of two weeks and do the opposite of what your default inclination would be. Check and see if that ability to choose differently is real. If you don't believe in choice than it becomes very hard to make the right one. Without choice how would it be possible to drop the tendencies that you use to separate yourself from peeps in your relationships? We do have choice, it's just limited to either Love or Separation... This is one of the ways the discussion can get off track. We start talking about volition, which becomes 'the power of choice', which becomes 'choice', which becomes 'does choice happen?' (which of course it does). The question of volition is not the same as the question of whether choices happen.
|
|
|
Post by enigma on Jun 25, 2013 22:40:51 GMT -5
We do have choice, it's just limited to either Love or Separation... Separation is always the choice. If imagining a chooser continues to be the preference, then yes, it must be.
|
|
|
Post by enigma on Jun 25, 2013 22:55:24 GMT -5
Then try it out on the decisions that won't have a huge impact on your life. When sitting at a restaurant, choose the meal that is least appetizing to you. When deciding what TV show to watch put on the least entertaining. Exercise your supposed ability to choose differently. What it will prove or not prove can only be known after the exercise is seriously attempted for a fair amount of time. My proposal, and this is taken from having done an exercise like this, is that you will quickly become irate and frustrated, short fused. Then the mind will start coming up for rationalizations for ending the experiment early. Your decisions are not exercises of choices, they are expressions of preferences. The choice is made for you and the ability to choose otherwise (acting against your preferences) causes a negative experience. You know exercising your choice to act out of accord with your innate preferences results in negative experiences and so you rationalize away the need to perform and the value of the experiment. You have no choice but to act in accord with your preferences. Your preferences are not something you have choice about. We do have the ability to change our preferences. NLP'ers do it a lot...for example they can deliberately create aversions to some things and make other stuff more compelling. Its used commonly for addictions and stuff like that. If you alter the conditioning, yes, I can let loose a lion and alter your preference for not climbing trees.
|
|
|
Post by enigma on Jun 25, 2013 22:58:16 GMT -5
I was just riffing off trf. If being a separate volitional person is the grand illusion, and "making willful choices" is the behavior, then the fact that a choice has been made already means that the belief in separation is present. So there is only choice if there is belief in separation. Only from that vantage point can a choice be made. But it's just philosophical BS for me really. BS can be fun though! The choice I'm talking about is to turn the attention away from the beingness that we are. As demonstrated by your thoughts which are quite right by the way... Are you saying that particular choice is a volitional one?
|
|
|
Post by Reefs on Jun 25, 2013 22:59:19 GMT -5
We do have the ability to change our preferences. NLP'ers do it a lot...for example they can deliberately create aversions to some things and make other stuff more compelling. Its used commonly for addictions and stuff like that. If you alter the conditioning, yes, I can let loose a lion and alter your preference for not climbing trees. But Andrew is the embodiment of Christ Consciousness, why should the lion be a threat to him? It's just Christ Consciousness eating Christ Consciousness, isn't it?
|
|
|
Post by silver on Jun 25, 2013 23:00:10 GMT -5
We do have the ability to change our preferences. NLP'ers do it a lot...for example they can deliberately create aversions to some things and make other stuff more compelling. Its used commonly for addictions and stuff like that. If you alter the conditioning, yes, I can let loose a lion and alter your preference for not climbing trees. If this is your take on NLP and the like, then Arisha was totally wrong - you don't know the first thing about it.
|
|
|
Post by Beingist on Jun 25, 2013 23:05:37 GMT -5
What determines which of those choices will be made? Desire... volition > M.L. volitio > L. uolo = "I want"
|
|
|
Post by enigma on Jun 25, 2013 23:10:27 GMT -5
I dunno about levels of preference, I'm just saying preferences can be changed. What's changing them and making that decision? What's preferring to make the change and why that change? It's our preference to change preferences, which isn't really changing preferences at all but rather just following them without choice. The illusion of being able to change preferences is the result of ignoring the new preference while focusing on the old one. Every time we prefer something new, we could declare that we volitionaly chose to change it, but of course we didn't.
|
|
|
Post by enigma on Jun 25, 2013 23:13:31 GMT -5
If you alter the conditioning, yes, I can let loose a lion and alter your preference for not climbing trees. But Andrew is the embodiment of Christ Consciousness, why should the lion be a threat to him? It's just Christ Consciousness eating Christ Consciousness, isn't it? Yes, it's a confusing ambiguous paradox but I think he's comfy with that.....unless he isn't.
|
|
|
Post by enigma on Jun 25, 2013 23:15:51 GMT -5
If you alter the conditioning, yes, I can let loose a lion and alter your preference for not climbing trees. If this is your take on NLP and the like, then Arisha was totally wrong - you don't know the first thing about it. I said all along that she was wrong about that.
|
|
|
Post by andrew on Jun 26, 2013 2:33:29 GMT -5
What's changing them and making that decision? What's preferring to make the change and why that change? It's our preference to change preferences, which isn't really changing preferences at all but rather just following them without choice. The illusion of being able to change preferences is the result of ignoring the new preference while focusing on the old one. Every time we prefer something new, we could declare that we volitionaly chose to change it, but of course we didn't. That's if there is no volition. Those that see volition are often observing an aspect of themselves that is always free from conditioning. They're not wrong in their observation, on the other hand, whether that constitutes 'volition' is debatable. I don't care much either way, the fact that the ability to make choices is present is enough.
|
|
|
Post by tzujanli on Jun 26, 2013 7:25:44 GMT -5
Greetings.. What's changing them and making that decision? What's preferring to make the change and why that change? It's our preference to change preferences, which isn't really changing preferences at all but rather just following them without choice. The illusion of being able to change preferences is the result of ignoring the new preference while focusing on the old one. Every time we prefer something new, we could declare that we volitionaly chose to change it, but of course we didn't. That logic could also be used thusly: The water only seems wet, it's not really wet.. i think most people understand that the menu is not the meal, and they understand how to 'choose' from the menu.. heck, i sometimes ask if the chef can make changes not indicated on 'the menu'.. volition is the engine of existence, of evolution, a choice outside the direction of conditioning changes the direction of evolution, physically and spiritually.. Be well..
|
|
|
Post by andrew on Jun 26, 2013 7:28:21 GMT -5
Greetings.. It's our preference to change preferences, which isn't really changing preferences at all but rather just following them without choice. The illusion of being able to change preferences is the result of ignoring the new preference while focusing on the old one. Every time we prefer something new, we could declare that we volitionaly chose to change it, but of course we didn't. That logic could also be used thusly: The water only seems wet, it's not really wet.. i think most people understand that the menu is not the meal, and they understand how to 'choose' from the menu.. heck, i sometimes ask if the chef can make changes not indicated on 'the menu'.. volition is the engine of existence, of evolution, a choice outside the direction of conditioning changes the direction of evolution, physically and spiritually.. Be well.. Liking that.
|
|