|
Post by tzujanli on Jul 8, 2013 6:05:51 GMT -5
Greetings.. Greetings.. Hi SQ: I understand mind as the interface between Whole consciousness, and each individuated 'part' of consciousness, as such it acts like a window between the private individuated 'part' of consciousness with its private 'mindscape', that mindscape is like layers of veils, beliefs and knowings, that distort the view/perception through the 'window'.. your interpretation of 'bubble' has a good feel to it, but bubbles come and go with no traces left behind.. it is my understanding that the mindscapes are stored in consciousness as intact and precise energetic echoes of the original, a Cosmic Memory, accessible through when someone's mind is so still that the individuated 'interface'/barrier falls away and the individuated perspective establishes coherence with the Whole.. in this understanding, the energetic signature that is the individuated being resonates with other 'memories', people/places/events, having similar energetic signatures, allowing for clarity to reveal ever greater interactions with the Cosmic Whole, either through stored memories or as what is actually happening, now.. Anyway, thanks for reading.. i suspect there will be the disciples of Niz that analyze and spin this account of my understanding to create the favorite 'Tzu' illusion, we'll see.. Be well.. This sounds to me like a clever way to rationalize that somehow something about us is individual, special, and permanent. Why would you think these individuated parts need to leave any traces behind? Or to collect stored memories? Do you think there's some grand purpose? If so, what is it? Okay maybe you don't know. But what if there's not a purpose, or a purpose, but not any purpose requiring collection of memories? I think you said something about the known exploring the unknown, that's fine but why would there have to be any storing of the discoveries? Is that a human way of looking at things, since our minds tend to collect memories? Memories are required to navigate a time-based reality. If there was no time, just here/now, then no reason to store anything. The 'parts' don't 'need' to leave traces behind, no more than you 'need' to leave footprints.. as i understand it, no 'truth' claimed, it just happens.. Purpose? Evolution.. "Storing of the discoveries", is what happens as human knowledge advances its own self-discovery.. we don't fear sailing off the edge of the earth anymore, because we discovered there is no 'edge'.. "as below, so above", same with the non-local version of the 'part', the Whole.. it expands its awareness based on prior experiences, just like the 'parts' do.. You call it 'rationalization', i call it my current understanding that satisfies the most variables of which i am aware and which maintains consistency within the known parameters of existence.. no truth claimed, i understand this is a theoretical work in progress.. Be well..
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Jul 8, 2013 8:13:21 GMT -5
Greetings.. This sounds to me like a clever way to rationalize that somehow something about us is individual, special, and permanent. Why would you think these individuated parts need to leave any traces behind? Or to collect stored memories? Do you think there's some grand purpose? If so, what is it? Okay maybe you don't know. But what if there's not a purpose, or a purpose, but not any purpose requiring collection of memories? I think you said something about the known exploring the unknown, that's fine but why would there have to be any storing of the discoveries? Is that a human way of looking at things, since our minds tend to collect memories? Memories are required to navigate a time-based reality. If there was no time, just here/now, then no reason to store anything. The 'parts' don't 'need' to leave traces behind, no more than you 'need' to leave footprints.. as i understand it, no 'truth' claimed, it just happens.. Purpose? Evolution.. "Storing of the discoveries", is what happens as human knowledge advances its own self-discovery.. we don't fear sailing off the edge of the earth anymore, because we discovered there is no 'edge'.. "as below, so above", same with the non-local version of the 'part', the Whole.. it expands its awareness based on prior experiences, just like the 'parts' do.. You call it 'rationalization', i call it my current understanding that satisfies the most variables of which i am aware and which maintains consistency within the known parameters of existence.. no truth claimed, i understand this is a theoretical work in progress..Be well.. Stop theorizing, turn attention away from the thinking mind, and simply be.
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Jul 8, 2013 8:47:33 GMT -5
I'm not saying Tzu is wrong here... he might be right, for all I know. Maybe he sees something I have yet to see. The question is very sincere on my part. Especially since I had an eerily similar conversation today with my daughters. And you know me, Top, when something syncs for me, I pay double attention. Ritual hazing for you, and I was pledging to become a member of the extra-literalist club.
|
|
|
Post by serpentqueen on Jul 8, 2013 8:55:43 GMT -5
Ritual hazing for you, and I was pledging to become a member of the extra-literalist club. Awesome - thanks!
|
|
|
Post by topology on Jul 8, 2013 9:42:44 GMT -5
Greetings.. The 'parts' don't 'need' to leave traces behind, no more than you 'need' to leave footprints.. as i understand it, no 'truth' claimed, it just happens.. Purpose? Evolution.. "Storing of the discoveries", is what happens as human knowledge advances its own self-discovery.. we don't fear sailing off the edge of the earth anymore, because we discovered there is no 'edge'.. "as below, so above", same with the non-local version of the 'part', the Whole.. it expands its awareness based on prior experiences, just like the 'parts' do.. You call it 'rationalization', i call it my current understanding that satisfies the most variables of which i am aware and which maintains consistency within the known parameters of existence.. no truth claimed, i understand this is a theoretical work in progress..Be well.. Stop theorizing, turn attention away from the thinking mind, and simply be. I wonder if he's realized that this is an admission of not taking his own advice... He wants to keep a working theory around. If he is unwilling to examine and challenge the underpinning assumptions then that indicates he is attached to the theory and cannot let it go.
|
|
|
Post by serpentqueen on Jul 8, 2013 9:52:50 GMT -5
Greetings.. This sounds to me like a clever way to rationalize that somehow something about us is individual, special, and permanent. Why would you think these individuated parts need to leave any traces behind? Or to collect stored memories? Do you think there's some grand purpose? If so, what is it? Okay maybe you don't know. But what if there's not a purpose, or a purpose, but not any purpose requiring collection of memories? I think you said something about the known exploring the unknown, that's fine but why would there have to be any storing of the discoveries? Is that a human way of looking at things, since our minds tend to collect memories? Memories are required to navigate a time-based reality. If there was no time, just here/now, then no reason to store anything. The 'parts' don't 'need' to leave traces behind, no more than you 'need' to leave footprints.. as i understand it, no 'truth' claimed, it just happens.. Purpose? Evolution.. "Storing of the discoveries", is what happens as human knowledge advances its own self-discovery.. we don't fear sailing off the edge of the earth anymore, because we discovered there is no 'edge'.. "as below, so above", same with the non-local version of the 'part', the Whole.. it expands its awareness based on prior experiences, just like the 'parts' do.. You call it 'rationalization', i call it my current understanding that satisfies the most variables of which i am aware and which maintains consistency within the known parameters of existence.. no truth claimed, i understand this is a theoretical work in progress.. Be well.. If these parts do not need to leave traces behind, then bubbles are just as good as footprints, no? I chose bubbles deliberately - I was thinking about multiverse theory, which my daughter brought up. She proposed that we each are our own individual universe of consciousness - "just like multiverse bubbles." And intuitively, I've always figured consciousness is just like that - a bubble which reflects everything, but its own self. Yes, things do happen all the time. A planet of organisms could evolve to perfection (whatever that may be) and the sun could go supernova and wipe them all out in an instant. An entire universe could evolve only for the bubble it is in to burst, wiping it all out in a blink of an eye (some of the theories are saying this happens quite often - disturbingly often). It seems to me there is just as much chaos as there is evolution. There is also just as much de-evolution. Chaos, de-evolution are "what is" just as surely as evolution. And of course if we're going to talk about evolution, we need to come up with a creation story, as this all must've started somewhere. And what need or purpose would an eternal infinite timeless Whole whatchamacalllit possibly have for evolution? What need would it have to "become" anything, when it's already everything? Why define this "evolution" in terms of human progress? Yes we have cool technologies and we're pretty smart creatures but we're certainly dumb enough to be destroying the planet. Maybe we are not the ideal example of evolution. Maybe dolphins are. Maybe the micro-organisms in our gut or the parasites in our brain are. Maybe humans, with our complex brains, are the evolutionary dead end. The reason I suggested it may be a clever rationalization is that when I ponder all this myself, I see that it's all a story I want to believe in, because I want to remain individual, separate, and somehow permanent/immortal. I want the comfort of believing that some part of me (my DNA, my memories, my achievements) live on after death.. or at least until the sun goes supernova. Unless we get off this planet before then. Or, okay... maybe we have souls and they reincarnate. Well isn't reincarnation just another way of wanting to hold on to a sense of separate self, and of specialness, even after death? Yes, it sure seems like it to me. This is a long ramble but where I'm at these days is inclined to believe there is a purpose, but it may be very simple. Hard to put into words but it may be more like... existence has no choice but to exist. The nothing can't live without the something. The individuated part arises automatically from the whole part. It just "is" - because it can't be otherwise. I'll have to work on the expression of it, but that's what I see, and it seems to make a lot more sense, it's all pretty elegant, and also downright brilliant in its simplicity.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 8, 2013 9:54:30 GMT -5
Is this a conclusion or an experience or both or something other? Hi Max, In order to witness anything you would have to be there prior to the event in order to witness it. Can you observe a sunrise if you are not there before it rises? If you have a first memory, say of your mother changing your diaper or something, wouldn't you have had to have been there prior to the event so that you could witness and remember it? Well it makes sense what you are saying. But it could be that there is nothing prior to anything. There's just stuff happening and to say that there is something aware of something happening is moot. 'Witnessing' or 'being aware of stuff' is just an integral part of stuff happening. And this is just one possible explanation.
|
|
|
Post by serpentqueen on Jul 8, 2013 9:59:07 GMT -5
Stop theorizing, turn attention away from the thinking mind, and simply be. I wonder if he's realized that this is an admission of not taking his own advice... He wants to keep a working theory around. If he is unwilling to examine and challenge the underpinning assumptions then that indicates he is attached to the theory and cannot let it go. I don't see what you're seeing. I often have a working theory or model or -- yes, belief -- that I play around with and test. I can hold on to such a belief for a very long time, or a very short time. The difference (and I think Tzu said this himself on this thread) is that I know it is just that. I know it is just a belief. And that it can be dropped at any time, if I find it to be "false," or rather, to simply not be working for me any longer.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 8, 2013 10:02:54 GMT -5
Is this a conclusion or an experience or both or something other? In the question you ask above, it seems like a conclusion. Might be right about that, I have no clue. But I can think of an alternative explanation for the phenomena which is not the same conclusion. For example, it might be that awareness is mythical. The fact of memory necessitates cognition of that memory. Another way of saying it: If a memory is like a little movie of some past event, there is no movie without light. No light no movie. This does not mean that the light is always on. Enigma gets around this question by saying it's a realization. To me that sounds like extra special knowledge is gained. But I have no realization to compare it to, so that's just how it sounds to me. It reminds me of when you ask how someone learned of God and they say the Bible. And you say okay what's the Bible and they say God's Word. And then you ask who says? and they say The Bible. "The word "awareness" is misleading. Awareness is not a divided state; there are not two states -- awareness and something else. There are not two things. It is not that you are aware of something. Awareness is simply the action of the brain. The idea that you can USE awareness to bring about some happier state of affairs, some sort of transformation, or God knows what, is, for me, absurd. Awareness cannot be used to bring about a change in yourself or the world around you." -UG Yea, so what could possibly prior to something else?
|
|
|
Post by justlikeyou on Jul 8, 2013 10:11:58 GMT -5
Hi Max, In order to witness anything you would have to be there prior to the event in order to witness it. Can you observe a sunrise if you are not there before it rises? If you have a first memory, say of your mother changing your diaper or something, wouldn't you have had to have been there prior to the event so that you could witness and remember it? Well it makes sense what you are saying. But it could be that there is nothing prior to anything. There's just stuff happening and to say that there is something aware of something happening is moot. 'Witnessing' or 'being aware of stuff' is just an integral part of stuff happening. And this is just one possible explanation. Yes, a possible explanation. I can only share with you how it is I see it.
|
|
|
Post by topology on Jul 8, 2013 10:21:20 GMT -5
I wonder if he's realized that this is an admission of not taking his own advice... He wants to keep a working theory around. If he is unwilling to examine and challenge the underpinning assumptions then that indicates he is attached to the theory and cannot let it go. I don't see what you're seeing. I often have a working theory or model or -- yes, belief -- that I play around with and test. I can hold on to such a belief for a very long time, or a very short time. The difference (and I think Tzu said this himself on this thread) is that I know it is just that. I know it is just a belief. And that it can be dropped at any time, if I find it to be "false," or rather, to simply not be working for me any longer. If it can be dropped at any time then spend some time looking at the world with no operating theory. Take a break from the theories and see if the desire to have or play around with theory isn't just an addiction to the mind having content.
|
|
|
Post by serpentqueen on Jul 8, 2013 10:45:05 GMT -5
I don't see what you're seeing. I often have a working theory or model or -- yes, belief -- that I play around with and test. I can hold on to such a belief for a very long time, or a very short time. The difference (and I think Tzu said this himself on this thread) is that I know it is just that. I know it is just a belief. And that it can be dropped at any time, if I find it to be "false," or rather, to simply not be working for me any longer. If it can be dropped at any time then spend some time looking at the world with no operating theory. Take a break from the theories and see if the desire to have or play around with theory isn't just an addiction to the mind having content. That's what I'm doing lately, but it is apparent that this mind enjoys playing around with theories. And that is a part of my current "what is." I no longer like to think in terms of addiction. Example: is it more helpful to consider an alcoholic (or drug addict or smoker) is addicted (miring oneself in a perpetual victim story), or is it more helpful to consider that sometimes a person drinks/smokes too much, and sometimes they do not. I would say the latter is far more helpful.
|
|
|
Post by justlikeyou on Jul 8, 2013 10:51:02 GMT -5
I no longer like to think in terms of addiction. Example: is it more helpful to consider an alcoholic (or drug addict or smoker) is addicted (miring oneself in a perpetual victim story), or is it more helpful to consider that sometimes a person drinks/smokes too much, and sometimes they do not. I would say the latter is far more helpful. None of that would be a problem as long as there is a take it or leave it attitude. If you are compelled by some desire and can't say no, that is a different story.
|
|
|
Post by serpentqueen on Jul 8, 2013 11:01:46 GMT -5
I no longer like to think in terms of addiction. Example: is it more helpful to consider an alcoholic (or drug addict or smoker) is addicted (miring oneself in a perpetual victim story), or is it more helpful to consider that sometimes a person drinks/smokes too much, and sometimes they do not. I would say the latter is far more helpful. None of that would be a problem as long as there is a take it or leave it attitude. If you are compelled by some desire and can't say no, that is a different story. I would say Life itself is the ultimate addiction then. It is compelled to pop up again no matter what.
|
|
|
Post by topology on Jul 8, 2013 11:44:44 GMT -5
If it can be dropped at any time then spend some time looking at the world with no operating theory. Take a break from the theories and see if the desire to have or play around with theory isn't just an addiction to the mind having content. That's what I'm doing lately, but it is apparent that this mind enjoys playing around with theories. And that is a part of my current "what is." I no longer like to think in terms of addiction. Example: is it more helpful to consider an alcoholic (or drug addict or smoker) is addicted (miring oneself in a perpetual victim story), or is it more helpful to consider that sometimes a person drinks/smokes too much, and sometimes they do not. I would say the latter is far more helpful. If you were to cease all theorizing by interrupting the thoughts when they occur, challenging it, and letting it go, would you experience any kind of withdrawal symptoms? Grief? Loss? Frustration? Irritation?
|
|