Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 10, 2013 14:00:45 GMT -5
Awesome post B. Re: the bolded; I'd add to that by saying that seeing the nature of perception itself mostly takes care of that. When the subjective nature of perception is seen, how could we ever get stuck in believing in or defending any of 'em? Hmm. Can't really say if I've seen the nature of perception itself. Not sure what that even means, actually. But, I'd have to agree that if that can be done, the transcendence part would likely take care of itself, and if you've been able to do that, g'donya, as they say down unda. Seeing the nature of perception is really just seeing that perceptions are subjective and very dependent upon any beliefs/attachments in play. While I may argue for my perceptions here, at the same time, I'm well aware that they are in fact MY perceptions and thus, may not be representative or what is 'actually' the case. Seeing perceptions for what they are results in an absence of attachment to proving that what we're seeing, is the absolute truth. ie; we don't get emotionally bent outta shape just because there's a lack of consensus regarding what we see and what another sees.
|
|
|
Post by Beingist on Aug 10, 2013 14:13:23 GMT -5
Hmm. Can't really say if I've seen the nature of perception itself. Not sure what that even means, actually. But, I'd have to agree that if that can be done, the transcendence part would likely take care of itself, and if you've been able to do that, g'donya, as they say down unda. Seeing the nature of perception is really just seeing that perceptions are subjective and very dependent upon any beliefs/attachments in play. While I may argue for my perceptions here, at the same time, I'm well aware that they are in fact MY perceptions and thus, may not be representative or what is 'actually' the case. Seeing perceptions for what they are results in an absence of attachment to proving that what we're seeing, is the absolute truth. ie; we don't get emotionally bent outta shape just because there's a lack of consensus regarding what we see and what another sees. Yeah, I'm working on that, m'self. But okay, so, 'seeing the nature of perception'--would you say that such is comparable to E's 'noticing'? Seems that way.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 10, 2013 14:31:47 GMT -5
Seeing the nature of perception is really just seeing that perceptions are subjective and very dependent upon any beliefs/attachments in play. While I may argue for my perceptions here, at the same time, I'm well aware that they are in fact MY perceptions and thus, may not be representative or what is 'actually' the case. Seeing perceptions for what they are results in an absence of attachment to proving that what we're seeing, is the absolute truth. ie; we don't get emotionally bent outta shape just because there's a lack of consensus regarding what we see and what another sees. Yeah, I'm working on that, m'self. But okay, so, 'seeing the nature of perception'--would you say that such is comparable to E's 'noticing'? Seems that way. I'd say that 'noticing' is at the helm of seeing the nature of perceptions, as it's at the helm of seeing all sorts of things that may at first, not be so obvious.
|
|
|
Post by silence on Aug 10, 2013 15:42:34 GMT -5
speaking as a casual observer only ... your being "a drunk" is obviously a joke, although such "jokes' are not merely for humor purposes, but also have the capacity to lead to other worthwhile things to look at same goes for the beer drinking and other assorted Bengst related "jokes" but of course ... this is just my speculation Yanno, I can't help but find it incredibly curious that anyone would find my beer consumption even jokeworthy. I have A beer (two tops) about every six months, at best. In fact, a friend mentioned just last week how he had to get some beer he bought out of my refrigerator 'before it went bad'. He obviously knows I won't drink it before its expiration date. Seriously, I have a bigger self-concern with Kool-Aid, not beer (and by that, I mean real Kool-Aid, which is loaded with sugar, not the metaphoric Kool-Aid). **preparing self for the Kool-Aid jokes**
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Aug 10, 2013 21:29:27 GMT -5
What you say about how we characterize those that we correspond with is true of course and pretty much inevitable -- "coming empty" is just a game. Yeah, I can see this. Probably why I continue to hang around. It's kinda fun to watch, sometimes. Like 'Jeopardy!'. Good point, however given the definitions of both 'opposition' and 'conflict', I'd have to say that yes, all opposition is conflict. Not that there's anything inherently 'wrong' with conflict. This is the key. On one hand, you've got 'OHMYGOD, CONFLICT!!! ', and then there are discussions like this, in which case one or all parties are willing to see conflict for what it is, and not be bothered by it. I think Figs' attitude is emblematic of that, actually. figs is a skilled debating partner so far and has only resorted to insult once ... here again, so far. I'd invite you to reconsider this distinction, and I'm not tied to the specific vocabulary so feel free to choose the words -- the bottom line that I'm attempting to convey with the distinction is opposition in which there is a flow of information back-and-forth one one hand, and then the mindless drivel of conflict simply for the sake of lashing out on the other. For example, I'll advance the (potentially conceited) characterization of our conversation here as an instance of opposition while my conversations with verby over the last month have been obvious conflict -- like I said, if you don't think those two words apply to the pattern then choose two others. Well, you seem to use the terms 'silent' and 'isolation' here, as if they're bad things (not unlike 'conflict', as above). As long as one is okay with their own opposition to a given position, there's no law that say that they have to voice it. All depends on the moment, no? Yes of course no need to voice it. The only negative connotation that I intended, if it could be interpreted as such, is that the potential for the transcendence that you referenced is only there in the context of engagement ... thinking about that now, I'd have to say that you're right. We can learn and change our viewpoint by simply observing the conversation and not participating in it.
|
|
|
Post by Reefs on Aug 10, 2013 21:56:42 GMT -5
That's not at all what I meant by "I sat on it." There was no question of keeping PM's private or sharing them until Reefs breached that line himself by referring to private, personal things about myself that I shared in PM"s in his efforts to show me up to be not what I present myself to be. The things he shared, had zero relevance to this forum......involved my personal life. AT that point it just kind of seemed like 'why not'. The stuff I was sharing was directly related to assertions he was making on this forum....contradicted it. Dear Faye Schindelka, Are you serious? Link or giraffe? That lie has been exposed 2 months ago already. You just made that up. You even admitted it when you couldn't provide a link. And you still run with that story anyway? That makes what you are doing here look rather 'nasty and mean spirited' (to borrow your words). It's pure trolling. Seems what you've said 2 months ago about me was really just about you. I'm going to modify it slightly: My advice would be to take the content of any conversations you have with him me with a grain of salt. In my estimation, he is I am so attached to his my own views being 'correct' that he I become s incensed when others don't concur with them.... He'll I'll readily engage in manipulation in an effort to secure the agreement that will help him me to feel that sense of being right. He's I'm filled to the brim with need. And here's something from your website:
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 10, 2013 22:02:28 GMT -5
That's not at all what I meant by "I sat on it." There was no question of keeping PM's private or sharing them until Reefs breached that line himself by referring to private, personal things about myself that I shared in PM"s in his efforts to show me up to be not what I present myself to be. The things he shared, had zero relevance to this forum......involved my personal life. AT that point it just kind of seemed like 'why not'. The stuff I was sharing was directly related to assertions he was making on this forum....contradicted it. Dear Faye Schindelka, Are you serious? Link or giraffe? That lie has been exposed 2 months ago already. You just made that up. You even admitted it when you couldn't provide a link. And you still run with that story anyway? That makes what you are doing here look rather 'nasty and mean spirited' (to borrow your words). It's pure trolling. Seems what you've said 2 months ago about me was really just about you. I'm going to modify it slightly: My advice would be to take the content of any conversations you have with him me with a grain of salt. In my estimation, he is I am so attached to his my own views being 'correct' that he I become s incensed when others don't concur with them.... He'll I'll readily engage in manipulation in an effort to secure the agreement that will help him me to feel that sense of being right. He's I'm filled to the brim with need. And here's something from your website: Are you upset about something, reefs?
|
|
|
Post by enigma on Aug 11, 2013 3:13:25 GMT -5
Speaking for myself, of course, there's the perceived anger (and thus the 'Bengst Bear' label affectionately coined by Reefs and/or E). I use the term 'perceived' here deliberately, as most of us here are responding to our perceptions. Which brings up Figs' point in the OP, and I think it's a valid one--we respond to what we perceive. If we perceive a snake, then we respond as we would to a snake. If we perceive manipulation, we respond as we would to a manipulator. If we perceive someone as benevolent, we respond with benevolence. The trick, I think, is to transcend our reliance on our own perception. Such is 'judging by appearances'. This is very much to the point. It seems like I'm always addressing the apparent difference between what is perceived and what is there. Conversation with certain others becomes impossible precisely because of those differences, and it even sometimes results in my inability to even understand what is being said, as the perceptual world from which one is speaking is entirely foreign to me. Significant errors in this perceived world are the cause of conflict and suffering, and this is the illusion that is referred to, so it's important. It sounds like you (B) aren't liking the idea of conscious vs unconscious so much, but there's an important point to be made in relation to this topic. It's not enough to see the nature of perception if one is not perceiving clearly. It won't work to allow misperception to go uncorrected and then somehow ignore the emotional reactions from that misperception. How is one going to not rely on one's own perception as though there is something else to rely on? It's necessary to correct it, and in my parlance this means becoming fully conscious. To be conscious of denial and projection puts an end to both. To be aware that a bias is a personal bias removes the bias from the perceptual filter. To relax personal motivations allows one to 'come empty', which just means to see the other for what the other is instead of how we imagine them to be as viewed through our distorted lens of fear and need. Noticing is the means by which one may become conscious, and sincerity is the motivation to notice.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 11, 2013 8:41:51 GMT -5
That's not at all what I meant by "I sat on it." There was no question of keeping PM's private or sharing them until Reefs breached that line himself by referring to private, personal things about myself that I shared in PM"s in his efforts to show me up to be not what I present myself to be. The things he shared, had zero relevance to this forum......involved my personal life. AT that point it just kind of seemed like 'why not'. The stuff I was sharing was directly related to assertions he was making on this forum....contradicted it. Dear Faye Schindelka, Are you serious? Link or giraffe? That lie has been exposed 2 months ago already. You just made that up. You even admitted it when you couldn't provide a link. And you still run with that story anyway? That makes what you are doing here look rather 'nasty and mean spirited' (to borrow your words). It's pure trolling. Seems what you've said 2 months ago about me was really just about you. I'm going to modify it slightly: My advice would be to take the content of any conversations you have with him me with a grain of salt. In my estimation, he is I am so attached to his my own views being 'correct' that he I become s incensed when others don't concur with them.... He'll I'll readily engage in manipulation in an effort to secure the agreement that will help him me to feel that sense of being right. He's I'm filled to the brim with need. And here's something from your website: psssst Hey reefs... F*ck You!
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 11, 2013 9:52:25 GMT -5
psssst Hey reefs... F*ck You! you sure your own charted course is working? its never too late to change course ya know. jes saying...
|
|
|
Post by Beingist on Aug 11, 2013 11:24:16 GMT -5
Speaking for myself, of course, there's the perceived anger (and thus the 'Bengst Bear' label affectionately coined by Reefs and/or E). I use the term 'perceived' here deliberately, as most of us here are responding to our perceptions. Which brings up Figs' point in the OP, and I think it's a valid one--we respond to what we perceive. If we perceive a snake, then we respond as we would to a snake. If we perceive manipulation, we respond as we would to a manipulator. If we perceive someone as benevolent, we respond with benevolence. The trick, I think, is to transcend our reliance on our own perception. Such is 'judging by appearances'. This is very much to the point. It seems like I'm always addressing the apparent difference between what is perceived and what is there. Conversation with certain others becomes impossible precisely because of those differences, and it even sometimes results in my inability to even understand what is being said, as the perceptual world from which one is speaking is entirely foreign to me. Significant errors in this perceived world are the cause of conflict and suffering, and this is the illusion that is referred to, so it's important. I'm disagreeing with this. That you assume that conversation is impossible under any circumstances is telling. I'd have to say that you would be correct--that one cannot 'see' the 'nature of perception' if one is not perceiving clearly. But, isn't this like the mind trying to fix the mind? Ain't happenin'. Like Andrew, it is beginning to become clearer to me that 'it's ALL mind', to you, which would explain why you speak in circles as you do, and why so many of your posts are in dialogue with Andrew. Nothing wrong with that, of course, but may be the reason why you have so much difficulty communicating with others, here. In any event, the above makes sense, if all there is is the mental faculties (i.e., perception). I think that seeing the 'nature of perception' (not my term, remember, so I'm still working with it) happens from the same vantage point as that that 'sees the other for what the other is'. That which 'notices' is the same as that which 'sees the nature of perception'. Right, but again, 'to become fully conscious' is a mental thing, in your understanding. In mine, one does not 'become conscious' on the flip of a switch. To me, it's not something one can control. Besides, are we not already conscious? Under the first and common definition of 'conscious', were we not all conscious, we wouldn't even be able to type on a keyboard (unless, perhaps, we 'unconscious' ones typing in our sleep ). That whole 'conscious/unconscious' and 'noticing' thing has become your dogma, E, no less than the Catholic doctrine on transubstantiation. It also reeks of cause/effect. I could go on, but I'm sure it's pointless to do so, as I'm not trying to convince you of anything, here.
|
|
|
Post by Beingist on Aug 11, 2013 11:25:41 GMT -5
Yanno, I can't help but find it incredibly curious that anyone would find my beer consumption even jokeworthy. I have A beer (two tops) about every six months, at best. In fact, a friend mentioned just last week how he had to get some beer he bought out of my refrigerator 'before it went bad'. He obviously knows I won't drink it before its expiration date. Seriously, I have a bigger self-concern with Kool-Aid, not beer (and by that, I mean real Kool-Aid, which is loaded with sugar, not the metaphoric Kool-Aid). **preparing self for the Kool-Aid jokes**
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 11, 2013 11:42:06 GMT -5
This is very much to the point. It seems like I'm always addressing the apparent difference between what is perceived and what is there. Conversation with certain others becomes impossible precisely because of those differences, and it even sometimes results in my inability to even understand what is being said, as the perceptual world from which one is speaking is entirely foreign to me. Significant errors in this perceived world are the cause of conflict and suffering, and this is the illusion that is referred to, so it's important. I agree that 'perceptions' are indeed at the root of most of the conflict here, however, there's an definite escalation of the conflict when one (such as yourself), figures his perceptions are always correct and clear, while others are not. We're interacting through written word on a forum. Do you really believe that it's possible to perceive with 100% accuracy/clarity, such things as another's level of sincerity, delusion, clarity, etc? Inherent in seeing the nature of perception is an understanding that I may never know with certainty whether or not I am 'actually' perceiving clearly. That's the thing with perceptions.....they're very, very convincing. believing I can absolutely perceive clearly, sans any kind of a filter, is in my estimation, evidence that I'm not seeing clearly. The greatest clarity one can have is to see that there may be no such things as 'absolute clarity.' now....this is edging into the territory of your discussions with Andrew. IN my experience, there is great freedom in that seeing. There's no longer anything to 'cling' to. We're free floating....without 'need' to know with certainty that what we're seeing is the absolute truth the matter. Doesn't mean we don't strive for the clearest seeing possible though...but there's just an underlying understanding that we'll never know for sure if what we're seeing is in fact, crystal clear 'truth'. I guess you could say, it just stops 'mattering'. Why must there be something to 'rely' on? Understanding that perceptions may or may not be clear, itself pretty much takes care of 'emotional reactions' from any possible misperceptions. Surely if I understand that something negative I'm seeing in another, may just be due to my own murky lens, I'm not going to get all emotionally bent out of shape over it. And right here E, is where we diverge. This is where I see you as being stuck. The very idea that somehow we CAN know with absolute certainty that what we're seeing in another is actually what is 'true' is a big, fat, stinky, 'ol Giraffe. That belief of yours,that you are fully conscious and thus, when you see hatefulness, of a lack of sincerity, or even clarity in another, you are absolutely and undeniably correct, is what anchors you. If you believe you are seeing with crystal clarity, there is no room for the possibility of being wrong. And....what leads to some seeing arrogance in your position. The belief that we have done, or are doing all these things though, (being conscious of denial & projection, releasing bias, relaxing personal motivations, etc.) can be very compelling, so compelling in fact, that some will insist they are coming empty and perceiving through absolute clarity, when they are not. AS I see it, it's far better to strive for being as conscious as possible, but part of that 'being conscious' involves an awareness that ALL perceptions, to some degree, involve a filter of sorts....that seeing the inner workings of another on a forum with absolute clarity, just may not be possible.
|
|
|
Post by silence on Aug 11, 2013 12:01:59 GMT -5
This is very much to the point. It seems like I'm always addressing the apparent difference between what is perceived and what is there. Conversation with certain others becomes impossible precisely because of those differences, and it even sometimes results in my inability to even understand what is being said, as the perceptual world from which one is speaking is entirely foreign to me. Significant errors in this perceived world are the cause of conflict and suffering, and this is the illusion that is referred to, so it's important. I'm disagreeing with this. That you assume that conversation is impossible under any circumstances is telling. I'd have to say that you would be correct--that one cannot 'see' the 'nature of perception' if one is not perceiving clearly. But, isn't this like the mind trying to fix the mind? Ain't happenin'. Like Andrew, it is beginning to become clearer to me that 'it's ALL mind', to you, which would explain why you speak in circles as you do, and why so many of your posts are in dialogue with Andrew. Nothing wrong with that, of course, but may be the reason why you have so much difficulty communicating with others, here. In any event, the above makes sense, if all there is is the mental faculties (i.e., perception). I think that seeing the 'nature of perception' (not my term, remember, so I'm still working with it) happens from the same vantage point as that that 'sees the other for what the other is'. That which 'notices' is the same as that which 'sees the nature of perception'. Right, but again, 'to become fully conscious' is a mental thing, in your understanding. In mine, one does not 'become conscious' on the flip of a switch. To me, it's not something one can control. Besides, are we not already conscious? Under the first and common definition of 'conscious', were we not all conscious, we wouldn't even be able to type on a keyboard (unless, perhaps, we 'unconscious' ones typing in our sleep ). That whole 'conscious/unconscious' and 'noticing' thing has become your dogma, E, no less than the Catholic doctrine on transubstantiation. It also reeks of cause/effect. I could go on, but I'm sure it's pointless to do so, as I'm not trying to convince you of anything, here. Conscious in the context it's discussed here I'd say is in relation to how much suppression and self regulation is going on. In other words, in the absence of this suppression, one's subconscious can not remain a hidden, highly influential factor of one's perceptions and behavior. This is why the true goal of therapy whether one knows it or not is not to actively dig into one's psyche but rather to gain the confidence to stop habitually stuffing it down. Transparency and non-reactivity is the natural result of being willing to turn towards anything and everything.
|
|
|
Post by silver on Aug 11, 2013 12:12:23 GMT -5
This is very much to the point. It seems like I'm always addressing the apparent difference between what is perceived and what is there. Conversation with certain others becomes impossible precisely because of those differences, and it even sometimes results in my inability to even understand what is being said, as the perceptual world from which one is speaking is entirely foreign to me. Significant errors in this perceived world are the cause of conflict and suffering, and this is the illusion that is referred to, so it's important. ... there's an definite escalation of the conflict when one... figures his perceptions are always correct and clear, while others are not. We're interacting through written word on a forum. Do you really believe that it's possible to perceive with 100% accuracy/clarity, such things as another's level of sincerity, delusion, clarity, etc? Inherent in seeing the nature of perception is an understanding that I may never know with certainty whether or not I am 'actually' perceiving clearly. That's the thing with perceptions.....they're very, very convincing. believing I can absolutely perceive clearly, sans any kind of a filter, is in my estimation, evidence that I'm not seeing clearly. The greatest clarity one can have is to see that there may be no such things as 'absolute clarity.' ... there is great freedom in that seeing. There's no longer anything to 'cling' to. We're free floating....without 'need' to know with certainty that what we're seeing is the absolute truth the matter. Doesn't mean we don't strive for the clearest seeing possible though...but there's just an underlying understanding that we'll never know for sure... I guess you could say, it just stops 'mattering'.Why must there be something to 'rely' on?... ... That belief of yours,that you are fully conscious and thus, when you see hatefulness, of a lack of sincerity, or even clarity in another, you are absolutely and undeniably correct, is what anchors you. If you believe you are seeing with crystal clarity, there is no room for the possibility of being wrong. ... ... AS I see it, it's far better to strive for being as conscious as possible, but part of that 'being conscious' involves an awareness that ALL perceptions, to some degree, involve a filter of sorts....that seeing the inner workings of another on a forum with absolute clarity, just may not be possible. Nicely stated, figs. My faves in purple.
|
|