|
Post by andrew on Jul 20, 2013 10:27:45 GMT -5
Niz talks about freedom FROM, usually freedom from the person and identification and such. Cutiepie usually talks about freedom TO DO, freedom to romp and play with ideas and such. Yes that was the whole focus of yesterdays conversation between andy and laffy. It's really obvious that this is all ground Andy's been over many times. What you'll notice is that his replies to me started sounding like pre-canned snippets generated from an anti-RT algorithm. Your conversation with Andy has been going on longer so I'm curious -- was his focus always on the defense of the personal? By constantly referencing the length of time he's been interested in the topic and sometimes hopping context to the impersonal he implies that there was a time when he had your position. Was there any actual evidence of this? On this forum very little. On spiritual forums where there was much less non-duality, I offered a lot more non-dual pointers. But I would also say that I was at least waist deep in non-duality for a while.
|
|
|
Post by serpentqueen on Jul 20, 2013 10:28:12 GMT -5
P.G. encourages people to tell a better story, to improve one's experience. This can work, and work rather well.
Nonduality encourages people to drop the story altogether.
That is the difference.
"You" are not a story. When you drop the story of "you," you are liberated. You can be anything you want to be at any given moment and whatever that is can change. Cognitive dissonance disappears. Maybe in one situation you are villain, in another situation you are hero. And that's okay, it's not inconsistent, because you are not locked in by a story that you are one or the other, or striving to be one or the other.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 20, 2013 10:28:34 GMT -5
Stop horking up loogies on my windshield, boy. I know where you buy your cone pone from... :DGood one, art. He knows where he can stick his magic squeegee...
|
|
|
Post by Reefs on Jul 20, 2013 10:28:39 GMT -5
You're gibbering. I see no problem, it seems you want something more complicated than what I am offering. Don't want anything, actually. He's playing that same game with you, too.
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Jul 20, 2013 10:28:44 GMT -5
Oh magic squeegee on the wall! Clean the mirror bright and tall! Look the truth between the eyes then tell me all those sweet sweet lies! Stop horking up loogies on my windshield, boy. I know where you buy your cone pone from... I'll hock my loogies where I damned well please Liberace. You really are a witless wonder man ... you got anything besides threats and a tough-guy act in that quiver today?
|
|
|
Post by Beingist on Jul 20, 2013 10:29:05 GMT -5
Whatever his response, SQ, don't let him fool you (he is an admitted mindf*cker, remember)--to A, 'Mind' is all there is. To A, if 'Mind' were an ocean, there would be no terra firma. That's Andrew, to me--no terra firma. No, to me, the most accurate thing to say would be 'life is all that is' or 'existence is all that is'. Word play. It's all still 'Mind' to you, A, whether you realize it, or not, which is why you capitalize it. It's why you practically orgasm with the singular quote from Niz that it's "all a play of ideas". It's why you go round and round with this play with E. Not that there's anything inherently 'wrong' with any of that. Indeed, life, existence (or whatever you want to call it) does its thing, regardless of what you think about it.
|
|
|
Post by andrew on Jul 20, 2013 10:30:23 GMT -5
No, to me, the most accurate thing to say would be 'life is all that is' or 'existence is all that is'. This is conceptual objectification. Idealized unity. Integration leaves a line between that integrated and that not integrated. Oneness is not Oneness. Capital letters or quotes are not some magic escape hatch from the inherent limit of language. To say that life is all that is doesn't necessarily mean that there is no essential quality TO life. I resonate with the idea that there is.
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Jul 20, 2013 10:30:27 GMT -5
P.G. encourages people to tell a better story, to improve one's experience. This can work, and work rather well. Nonduality encourages people to drop the story altogether. That is the difference. "You" are not a story. When you drop the story of "you," you are liberated. You can be anything you want to be at any given moment and whatever that is can change. Cognitive dissonance disappears. Maybe in one situation you are villain, in another situation you are hero. And that's okay, it's not inconsistent, because you are not locked in by a story that you are one or the other, or striving to be one or the other. Yup.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 20, 2013 10:30:44 GMT -5
Stop horking up loogies on my windshield, boy. I know where you buy your cone pone from... I'll hock my loogies where I darned well please Liberace. You really are a witless wonder man ... you got anything besides threats and a tough-guy act in that quiver today? Have you ever contemplated stickin' a sock in your piehole?
|
|
|
Post by Reefs on Jul 20, 2013 10:31:03 GMT -5
This is yet another Andy-pattern ... turn a neutral conceptual discussion into an I/You-based exploration. He does that only when he's challenged.
|
|
|
Post by Beingist on Jul 20, 2013 10:32:25 GMT -5
I don't figure that. Of course you can, you just aren't. There's no problem with that. There is a problem with your supposin's that I'm this or I'm that or I'm interested in this or I'm not interested in that. You present your pet theories as fact. That IS my problem with you. You're a big fat troublemaker. {I should add: "Isn't that right, Marie?" *snicker*} E's .. fat?
|
|
|
Post by andrew on Jul 20, 2013 10:33:46 GMT -5
I am 'freedom TO' (not 'freedom to 'do'), but 'freedom TO' includes the potential of 'free from', in the same way that pure flexibility includes the potential to be inflexible. Saying 'Yes' to Life includes the potential to say 'Yes' to saying 'No'. Life is all inclusive, so to put 'free from' first is separation. Its a rejection of Life. Freedom to has absolutely nothing to do with freedom from. The most unconscious person on the planet can have freedom to. That's just a matter of conditioning. That's correct that the most unconscious person on the planet has the freedom to. That's because freedom Is. In 'freedom to' there is the freedom to say no, to reject at times, to exclude at times. But the 'freedom to' remains primary. 'Freedom from' as primary is separation.
|
|
|
Post by silver on Jul 20, 2013 10:34:11 GMT -5
There is a problem with your supposin's that I'm this or I'm that or I'm interested in this or I'm not interested in that. You present your pet theories as fact. That IS my problem with you. You're a big fat troublemaker. {I should add: "Isn't that right, Marie?" *snicker*} E's .. fat? Oh, David. It's a phrase - from younger years? Remember? Uh...I don't suppose you do, since you can't remember things that happened 3 seconds ago, LoL. J/K
|
|
|
Post by andrew on Jul 20, 2013 10:35:43 GMT -5
P.G. encourages people to tell a better story, to improve one's experience. This can work, and work rather well. Nonduality encourages people to drop the story altogether. That is the difference. "You" are not a story. When you drop the story of "you," you are liberated. You can be anything you want to be at any given moment and whatever that is can change. Cognitive dissonance disappears. Maybe in one situation you are villain, in another situation you are hero. And that's okay, it's not inconsistent, because you are not locked in by a story that you are one or the other, or striving to be one or the other. 'improve the story' and 'drop the story' reflects the 2 different approaches well. Still pointing to the same thing though.
|
|
|
Post by Reefs on Jul 20, 2013 10:35:48 GMT -5
I still haven't got a bleddy clue what 'the thinker' is. If I was going to speak of 'the thinker', I would say that I am the thinker, the feeler, the experiencer, the sensor, the relater, the crap talker..... This is the "both/and" ontology. That's Tzu's ontology btw. 'Both/and' is a compromise. Niz says compromise shows lack of earnestness.
|
|