|
Post by someNOTHING! on Aug 11, 2013 20:06:29 GMT -5
I'm sure your charted course isn't working. Find another project. "I'd prefer not to deal with this issue at all, it's like shearing a pig, too much squeaking, too little wool" - Vladimir Putin T. Waits: Lost In The HarbourOver here the ladies all want sweet perfume But there's never a rose And over there the roses are frightened to bloom So they never can grow And over here they need wool For weaving their baby's new clothes But nobody has any wool And the sheep are all lost in the harbour Lost in the harbour And over here they want diamonds to wear But there aren't any here And over there everyone's hiding their tears But they're crying inside And the wall won't come down Till they're no longer afraid of themselves And if you don't believe me ask yourselves And then I can come down to the harbour Down to the harbour And then I will fill the ocean back up with my tears I still have a couple more years And then I can come back to the harbour Down to the harbour
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 11, 2013 20:12:29 GMT -5
Yeah, I see what you're saying. & Sure, everything I'm pointing to here, 'appears' to me, in this moment, to be valid.....there is indeed a certain level of 'trust ' and confidence re: the validity of my perceptions, however, underneath that is still an underlying awareness that perceptions by their very nature, may be distorted, even when they 'seem' not to be. It doesn't mean that I go around second guessing myself every moment, but it's just more that I don't get overly attached to what I'm seeing in the sense that it would affect me emotionally to encounter a lack of consensus...or in that I could ever become driven to seek 'the truth of the matter' or anything like that. There was a time though, where I'd say I was somewhat attached to the idea of 'figuring out what in the blazes was going on'....like 'really' going , and looking back, there's no doubt I was attached to the idea of seeing what was true. Now, There's just a comparison of perceptions and perspectives happening, and the openness to the idea that I may not be seeing the other here through a crystal clear lens, prevents me from assuming that my perceptions are absolutely true. The result is, there is no attachment to knowing that I'm 'actually' seeing what in the blazes is going on....now, that does not mean though, that I don't aim in that direction. There's just a seeing that while I can aim for the highest contextual truth or clarity, it's quite possible I'll fall short and miss my mark, but being that there's no attachment, that's perfectly okay. It stops mattering in the sense that we're no longer 'driven' towards 'figuring out what in blazes is going on.' The sense of importance of delineating the 'truth' of any matter has diminished. While I can and do still strive for clarity (no...not a doing, more just 'being' conscious...or, as conscious as possible), this happens with the underlying understanding/awareness that I cannot know with certainty whether what I'm seeing is 'the truth' or not. This results in an easy attitude towards the whole idea of 'truth'......a relaxing of any previous sense of being 'driven' towards 'truth.' Fair enough...I was thinking you meant something different with the word 'rely.' Yes, despite the fact that I am aware that my perceptions may be occurring through a filter that is not as clear as it seems, I do quite confidently 'rely' on them anyway. Well, actually, it 'might' mean just that. Seeing and accepting the fallibility of perceptions, means also accepting the possibility that we may go unconscious at times or misperceive. Well...you seem to be saying here that it's possible to be so fully conscious that we can be certain we are not misperceiving. I assume you're speaking from personal experience? If so, then it would appear that you believe that if it 'seems' to you that you are conscious and seeing with crystal clarity, then by Jove, you absolutely ARE. Okay...now you're getting psychic on me. Off forum, I am actually working on a whole serious with the idea of a show in mind. And I"m saying, how do you know for certain that you are not only imagining/believing you are conscious? isn't the nature of being unconscious all about being certain that something is, that actually isn't?
|
|
|
Post by someNOTHING! on Aug 11, 2013 20:31:44 GMT -5
There's just a seeing that while I can aim for the highest contextual truth or clarity, it's quite possible I'll fall short and miss my mark, but being that there's no attachment, that's perfectly okay. Metaphorically speaking, if you're missing the mark in the psychological suicide game, you either haven't loaded the pistol, you haven't pulled the trigger, or you haven't found the self you're attempting to kill. But yeah, maybe the context shuffle game is more fun/meaningful, so that's where the interest lies. But that ain't making the self any more real, so the meaning and/or expression of truth or clarity gets wonky in tight spots.
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Aug 11, 2013 21:19:48 GMT -5
Do you think that painting will sell in her next gallery showing? Don't know nuthin' about art prices! ... my guess is that self-portraits of the masters are quite valuable though.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 11, 2013 21:30:24 GMT -5
There's just a seeing that while I can aim for the highest contextual truth or clarity, it's quite possible I'll fall short and miss my mark, but being that there's no attachment, that's perfectly okay. Metaphorically speaking, if you're missing the mark in the psychological suicide game, you either haven't loaded the pistol, you haven't pulled the trigger, or you haven't found the self you're attempting to kill. But yeah, maybe the context shuffle game is more fun/meaningful, so that's where the interest lies. But that ain't making the self any more real, so the meaning and/or expression of truth or clarity gets wonky in tight spots. sorry SomeNOthing, I don't see the relevance between the part of my post there you quoted and what you say above...not sure if you understood what I was getting at, or not, of if Im just misunderstanding your point. When I'm talking about 'missing' the mark, I'm referring to having absolute clarity...of seeing things crystal-clear, unobstructed by any filter whatsoever. And actually, the falling away of the need to 'know' I've hit that mark, only happens when there is no longer attachment to an identity and story line (story of self)....I'd say that attachment to the personal story and a falling away of the 'drive' to seek 'truth' go hand in hand. And re: 'the context shuffle game' being more fun or meaningful...? HOw does that tie in to that bit of my post that you quoted? Can you explain further?
|
|
|
Post by Beingist on Aug 11, 2013 21:58:51 GMT -5
I'm disagreeing with this. That you assume that conversation is impossible under any circumstances is telling. *Please quote where I said "any circumstances". You didn't say it, you imply it. 'Impossible' implies impossible under any circumstances. If it didn't, then you would have specified what circumstances it applied to. I don't find 'trying to fix the mind happening'. Please note the word, 'like', and the question mark. You are saying that one can't perceive the nature of perception if one isn't perceiving clearly, so one must correct misperception. So, I'll ask again--is this not like mind trying to fix mind? I'll clarify--covering the same topic, repetitively, and in a way that only leads the discussion to the point where it began. So, do you assume or conclude that because all that is happening is mind, then mind is all there is? Otherwise, no deep sleep experiences for me, currently, but I don't know what that has to do with anything. Only metaphorically. What is the proverbial switch for 'coming empty'? Where is the 'realization button'? Where the 'noticing' lever? *Did I say anything about control?[/quote] How do you 'correct misperception' without assuming control? How do you 'come empty' without assuming control?
|
|
|
Post by enigma on Aug 11, 2013 22:26:16 GMT -5
Yeah, I see what you're saying. & Sure, everything I'm pointing to here, 'appears' to me, in this moment, to be valid.....there is indeed a certain level of 'trust ' and confidence re: the validity of my perceptions, however, underneath that is still an underlying awareness that perceptions by their very nature, may be distorted, even when they 'seem' not to be. It doesn't mean that I go around second guessing myself every moment, but it's just more that I don't get overly attached to what I'm seeing in the sense that it would affect me emotionally to encounter a lack of consensus...or in that I could ever become driven to seek 'the truth of the matter' or anything like that. There was a time though, where I'd say I was somewhat attached to the idea of 'figuring out what in the blazes was going on'....like 'really' going , and looking back, there's no doubt I was attached to the idea of seeing what was true. Now, There's just a comparison of perceptions and perspectives happening, and the openness to the idea that I may not be seeing the other here through a crystal clear lens, prevents me from assuming that my perceptions are absolutely true. The result is, there is no attachment to knowing that I'm 'actually' seeing what in the blazes is going on....now, that does not mean though, that I don't aim in that direction. There's just a seeing that while I can aim for the highest contextual truth or clarity, it's quite possible I'll fall short and miss my mark, but being that there's no attachment, that's perfectly okay. It stops mattering in the sense that we're no longer 'driven' towards 'figuring out what in blazes is going on.' The sense of importance of delineating the 'truth' of any matter has diminished. While I can and do still strive for clarity (no...not a doing, more just 'being' conscious...or, as conscious as possible), this happens with the underlying understanding/awareness that I cannot know with certainty whether what I'm seeing is 'the truth' or not. This results in an easy attitude towards the whole idea of 'truth'......a relaxing of any previous sense of being 'driven' towards 'truth.' Fair enough...I was thinking you meant something different with the word 'rely.' Yes, despite the fact that I am aware that my perceptions may be occurring through a filter that is not as clear as it seems, I do quite confidently 'rely' on them anyway. Well, actually, it 'might' mean just that. Seeing and accepting the fallibility of perceptions, means also accepting the possibility that we may go unconscious at times or misperceive. Well...you seem to be saying here that it's possible to be so fully conscious that we can be certain we are not misperceiving. I assume you're speaking from personal experience? If so, then it would appear that you believe that if it 'seems' to you that you are conscious and seeing with crystal clarity, then by Jove, you absolutely ARE. Okay...now you're getting psychic on me. Off forum, I am actually working on a whole serious with the idea of a show in mind. And I"m saying, how do you know for certain that you are not only imagining/believing you are conscious? isn't the nature of being unconscious all about being certain that something is, that actually isn't? To me, here's the elephant in the room with us: We're all aware to some extent that there is a perceptual filter. We might notice that this filtering process manifests as various 'pulls', kinda like little strings that are all attached to what we conceive of as the self. IOW, every distortion in the perception is a direct result of a bias formed by a belief in the self, and these distortions are meant to protect the self in some way, however subtle. As long as this belief in the self remains, you are right that there is no way to know whether or not there is a bias, but when this belief is no more, it's clear there is no locus for those strings anymore. This doesn't mean that one always has perfect understanding or that personal knowledge doesn't limit clarity about what's going on, and so I have agreed with you that nobody is omniscient, but it does mean one is not lying to oneself or to others. My perception may be in error, but it's my belief that this is what Billy was saying: "To thine own self be true, and it must follow, as the night the day, thou canst not then be false to any man."
|
|
|
Post by enigma on Aug 11, 2013 22:43:20 GMT -5
There's just a seeing that while I can aim for the highest contextual truth or clarity, it's quite possible I'll fall short and miss my mark, but being that there's no attachment, that's perfectly okay. Metaphorically speaking, if you're missing the mark in the psychological suicide game, you either haven't loaded the pistol, you haven't pulled the trigger, or you haven't found the self you're attempting to kill. But yeah, maybe the context shuffle game is more fun/meaningful, so that's where the interest lies. But that ain't making the self any more real, so the meaning and/or expression of truth or clarity gets wonky in tight spots. Zackly. Instead of cutting the root, we hang pretty ornaments on the dead branches, and it becomes a game of being okay with the not-okayness.
|
|
|
Post by someNOTHING! on Aug 11, 2013 22:46:33 GMT -5
Metaphorically speaking, if you're missing the mark in the psychological suicide game, you either haven't loaded the pistol, you haven't pulled the trigger, or you haven't found the self you're attempting to kill. But yeah, maybe the context shuffle game is more fun/meaningful, so that's where the interest lies. But that ain't making the self any more real, so the meaning and/or expression of truth or clarity gets wonky in tight spots. sorry SomeNOthing, I don't see the relevance between the part of my post there you quoted and what you say above...not sure if you understood what I was getting at, or not, of if Im just misunderstanding your point. When I'm talking about 'missing' the mark, I'm referring to having absolute clarity...of seeing things crystal-clear, unobstructed by any filter whatsoever. And actually, the falling away of the need to 'know' I've hit that mark, only happens when there is no longer attachment to an identity and story line (story of self)....I'd say that attachment to the personal story and a falling away of the 'drive' to seek 'truth' go hand in hand. And re: 'the context shuffle game' being more fun or meaningful...? HOw does that tie in to that bit of my post that you quoted? Can you explain further? No problem. Based on your ongoing discussions here, you're not actually interested. I shouldn't have said anything in the first place; pretty busy these days!
|
|
|
Post by enigma on Aug 11, 2013 22:56:50 GMT -5
*Please quote where I said "any circumstances". You didn't say it, you imply it. 'Impossible' implies impossible under any circumstances. If it didn't, then you would have specified what circumstances it applied to. I don't find 'trying to fix the mind happening'. Please note the word, 'like', and the question mark. You are saying that one can't perceive the nature of perception if one isn't perceiving clearly, so one must correct misperception. So, I'll ask again--is this not like mind trying to fix mind? I'll clarify--covering the same topic, repetitively, and in a way that only leads the discussion to the point where it began. So, do you assume or conclude that because all that is happening is mind, then mind is all there is? Otherwise, no deep sleep experiences for me, currently, but I don't know what that has to do with anything. Only metaphorically. What is the proverbial switch for 'coming empty'? Where is the 'realization button'? Where the 'noticing' lever? *Did I say anything about control? How do you 'correct misperception' without assuming control? How do you 'come empty' without assuming control? I never intended to create a practice for becoming conscious or coming empty or correcting misperception or realization or anything else. I also have not said that mind is all there is.
|
|
|
Post by someNOTHING! on Aug 11, 2013 23:03:20 GMT -5
Metaphorically speaking, if you're missing the mark in the psychological suicide game, you either haven't loaded the pistol, you haven't pulled the trigger, or you haven't found the self you're attempting to kill. But yeah, maybe the context shuffle game is more fun/meaningful, so that's where the interest lies. But that ain't making the self any more real, so the meaning and/or expression of truth or clarity gets wonky in tight spots. Zackly. Instead of cutting the root, we hang pretty ornaments on the dead branches, and it becomes a game of being okay with the not-okayness. Seems to be where the logic goes around here quite often.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 11, 2013 23:13:42 GMT -5
To me, here's the elephant in the room with us: We're all aware to some extent that there is a perceptual filter. We might notice that this filtering process manifests as various 'pulls', kinda like little strings that are all attached to what we conceive of as the self. IOW, every distortion in the perception is a direct result of a bias formed by a belief in the self, and these distortions are meant to protect the self in some way, however subtle. As long as this belief in the self remains, you are right that there is no way to know whether or not there is a bias, but when this belief is no more, it's clear there is no locus for those strings anymore. First of all, I've always felt that was a misnomer; "Belief" in self....what does that mean exactly? AS I see it, It's not so much that a 'self' is ever believed in per se, but rather that there is attachment to a story....and that story is identified with wholly, as what defines 'me.' I guess we could say that one can believe that they are their story, but does that really equal a 'belief' in self? I dunno...I've always seen the self or 'the person' more as the sum of parts than an actual 'thing' unto it's own.....probably why I've never resonated wholly with the, 'there is no person' business. Just because there is no longer any attachment to a particular identity or story, does that necessarily mean that perception is absolutely crystal clear...sans filter, sans all 'bias'? I dunno. That theory hinges upon a belief that bias has no other basis than conditioning. It seems that perception requires individuation (two, vs. one) and thus, inherent in my perception and your perception, is uniqueness. That 'uniqueness' is a filter or lens or bias. Do you ever entertain the possibility that it really is all subjective.... That there is no 'absolute' reality of which to see only one 'true' actual way? If you're the only one, and every one and every thing YOU perceive is a reflection, then the whole idea of 'seeing clearly' or 'without filter' kind of goes out the window. ...just some ideas to throw into the mix here.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 11, 2013 23:16:27 GMT -5
sorry SomeNOthing, I don't see the relevance between the part of my post there you quoted and what you say above...not sure if you understood what I was getting at, or not, of if Im just misunderstanding your point. When I'm talking about 'missing' the mark, I'm referring to having absolute clarity...of seeing things crystal-clear, unobstructed by any filter whatsoever. And actually, the falling away of the need to 'know' I've hit that mark, only happens when there is no longer attachment to an identity and story line (story of self)....I'd say that attachment to the personal story and a falling away of the 'drive' to seek 'truth' go hand in hand. And re: 'the context shuffle game' being more fun or meaningful...? HOw does that tie in to that bit of my post that you quoted? Can you explain further? No problem. Based on your ongoing discussions here, you're not actually interested. I shouldn't have said anything in the first place; pretty busy these days! .....That was a pretty sh*tty reply to a genuine request for clarification.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 11, 2013 23:25:29 GMT -5
Metaphorically speaking, if you're missing the mark in the psychological suicide game, you either haven't loaded the pistol, you haven't pulled the trigger, or you haven't found the self you're attempting to kill. But yeah, maybe the context shuffle game is more fun/meaningful, so that's where the interest lies. But that ain't making the self any more real, so the meaning and/or expression of truth or clarity gets wonky in tight spots. Zackly. Instead of cutting the root, we hang pretty ornaments on the dead branches, and it becomes a game of being okay with the not-okayness. It's not about 'being okay with not-okayness.' There is simply no longer any sense of something being 'not-okay.' There's no pretending or imagining involved. There's simply been a falling away of the sense of importance surrounding seeing what is true. I think from the vantage point of one whose spirituality, presently is all about seeing what in blazes is going on, the idea of releasing that drive to see what is true, would seem like turning back around into full-out delusion. And, it's not that at all I'm talking about...It's a transcendence of that focus upon seeing what is true...a falling away of that drive or draw towards needing to know with certainty that I am seeing, sans bias, sans filter.
|
|
|
Post by Beingist on Aug 11, 2013 23:26:57 GMT -5
You didn't say it, you imply it. 'Impossible' implies impossible under any circumstances. If it didn't, then you would have specified what circumstances it applied to. I don't find 'trying to fix the mind happening'. Please note the word, 'like', and the question mark. You are saying that one can't perceive the nature of perception if one isn't perceiving clearly, so one must correct misperception. So, I'll ask again--is this not like mind trying to fix mind? I'll clarify--covering the same topic, repetitively, and in a way that only leads the discussion to the point where it began. So, do you assume or conclude that because all that is happening is mind, then mind is all there is? Otherwise, no deep sleep experiences for me, currently, but I don't know what that has to do with anything. Only metaphorically. What is the proverbial switch for 'coming empty'? Where is the 'realization button'? Where the 'noticing' lever? *Did I say anything about control? How do you 'correct misperception' without assuming control? How do you 'come empty' without assuming control? I never intended to create a practice for becoming conscious or coming empty or correcting misperception or realization or anything else. I also have not said that mind is all there is. True. But, this is what makes what you do say (and also what you do here) often contradictory. You have indeed never said that 'mind is all there is', yet you still swim in it, especially in conversations with Andrew; you have indeed never prescribed any practice, per se, but yet you continue to go on about 'noticing' and 'realizing' and 'correcting perception'; you have indeed never said that 'good' and 'evil' exist, but you have said that people do 'good' and 'evil' things. This is all, of course, mind 'happening', or the 'movement' of mind, as you have put it, and as an observation on my part, no less subject to the same errors of perception as anything else. But, then, so are the observations you have made about people being or going 'unconscious'. If you can see the 'nature of perception' (the current topic), with the perceptual clarity that you say it takes to do so, would you still make such observations?
|
|