|
Post by enigma on Aug 13, 2013 22:58:32 GMT -5
I don't "swim in mind". Mind is a translator. Were you expecting to hear my latest no-mind ideas? A translator of what, exactly? If mind is but a translator, then where do ideas come from? I'd say we're getting off track, so I'll try to answer your questions more betterer. If I point out to you that your shoe is untied, you may very well realize your shoe is untied. This doesn't imply I'm, engaging a practice any more than it implies either of us has control over something. You can call it a practice if your want, and I'm not going to scream bloody murder because I don't really care what you call it. I don't warn people away from practices, I try to point out the split mind nature of most formalized practices, as well as the self deception and distraction that are often involved. The only way I can see that as a contradiction is if somebody hears me say nobody should ever do anything that even remotely smacks of a practice, and I have never said that. Good and evil are ideas; classifications of behavior that has been judged on a relative scale. Hencely, there's no such thing as good and evil in any objective sense. However, there certainly is the personal and collective judgment of good and evil, and people certainly act in ways that are personally and collectively judged to be good and evil. Like everything else, such distinctions have a contextual validity to them such that it would be absurd to suggest that there's no difference between a kiss and a punch. To point out the subjectivity of good and evil doesn't contradict the acknowledgment of the behaviors. To make such observations is to point out the boundaries of those ideas, and such boundaries are noticed without benefit of a movement of mind. Such 'noticings' are of the same nature as realization, though I hesitate to call them realizations because of the potential confusion that could cause. The point is that noticing is transcendent to mind. If there are errors, and there surely are, it is in the conceptual translation of what is noticed, and not in the clarity of the noticing.
|
|
|
Post by enigma on Aug 13, 2013 23:05:38 GMT -5
'My spirituality' is not about seeing what in blazes is going on. Yours is. Haven't you said many times here, that that is your prime focus? Only here on the forum. It's not 'my spiritual practice' or sumthin.
|
|
|
Post by enigma on Aug 13, 2013 23:09:25 GMT -5
What parts do you see the self a sum of? ......to speak of self with a small 's', I call that 'person' and 'the person' is comprised of, Self (with a capital), body, conditioning/story, individuated unique perspective...... The degree to which the conditioning & story can be seen through and falls away is the degree to which the Self (capital S) is realized in day to day, moment to moment experience. As I see it, there's really no separating self from Self. So if we pull them apart conceptually for a moment, what would you say this Self really is?
|
|
|
Post by enigma on Aug 13, 2013 23:14:22 GMT -5
So, are you suggesting that we not be okay with the not-okayness? This is what your sentiment implies, if you think it's a 'game'. Statements like this indicate rather strongly your rigidity, your dogma (i.e., what is 'right' and what is 'wrong'). When you start getting into layered reactions like being okay with not being okay or not being okay with being okay, you're deep in the territory of insanity. I accept that I can't accept that.....unless I can't.
|
|
|
Post by enigma on Aug 13, 2013 23:15:56 GMT -5
When you start getting into layered reactions like being okay with not being okay or not being okay with being okay, you're deep in the territory of insanity. Hmm. Sounds like you're not okay with it, either. Not that there's anything wrong with that, right?
|
|
|
Post by enigma on Aug 13, 2013 23:19:22 GMT -5
If you don't want to play a game, you can not play that game, right? Or have you convinced yourself that there's a problem with that?" So, you're suggesting losing interesting in playing a game? I currently have no problem with anything. I'm not the one who's asserting that one has control over stuff like that. Non-volition does not mean you're not able to stop doing something if you want to stop doing it. To say that is not to assert that one has control.
|
|
|
Post by Beingist on Aug 14, 2013 7:38:40 GMT -5
A translator of what, exactly? If mind is but a translator, then where do ideas come from? I'd say we're getting off track, so I'll try to answer your questions more betterer. If I point out to you that your shoe is untied, you may very well realize your shoe is untied. This doesn't imply I'm, engaging a practice any more than it implies either of us has control over something. You can call it a practice if your want, and I'm not going to scream bloody murder because I don't really care what you call it. I don't warn people away from practices, I try to point out the split mind nature of most formalized practices, as well as the self deception and distraction that are often involved. The only way I can see that as a contradiction is if somebody hears me say nobody should ever do anything that even remotely smacks of a practice, and I have never said that. Good and evil are ideas; classifications of behavior that has been judged on a relative scale. Hencely, there's no such thing as good and evil in any objective sense. However, there certainly is the personal and collective judgment of good and evil, and people certainly act in ways that are personally and collectively judged to be good and evil. Like everything else, such distinctions have a contextual validity to them such that it would be absurd to suggest that there's no difference between a kiss and a punch. To point out the subjectivity of good and evil doesn't contradict the acknowledgment of the behaviors. To make such observations is to point out the boundaries of those ideas, and such boundaries are noticed without benefit of a movement of mind. Such 'noticings' are of the same nature as realization, though I hesitate to call them realizations because of the potential confusion that could cause. The point is that noticing is transcendent to mind. If there are errors, and there surely are, it is in the conceptual translation of what is noticed, and not in the clarity of the noticing. You're not getting it. Never mind. ETA: (somehow, the mental note I made earlier about you not answering questions got erased )
|
|
|
Post by Beingist on Aug 14, 2013 7:43:04 GMT -5
So, you're suggesting losing interesting in playing a game? I currently have no problem with anything. I'm not the one who's asserting that one has control over stuff like that. Non-volition does not mean you're not able to stop doing something if you want to stop doing it. To say that is not to assert that one has control. You're talking in jibberish, again. Non-volition means not wanting something, or wanting to do something (volition < uolo, to want or wish). Of course, this now gets into a definition with you (again), so I'll just drop it.
|
|
|
Post by Beingist on Aug 14, 2013 7:43:53 GMT -5
Hmm. Sounds like you're not okay with it, either. Not that there's anything wrong with that, right? Right, that's right. Nothin' wrong with that.
|
|
|
Post by Reefs on Aug 14, 2013 8:44:30 GMT -5
Non-volition does not mean you're not able to stop doing something if you want to stop doing it. To say that is not to assert that one has control. You're talking in jibberish, again. Non-volition means not wanting something, or wanting to do something (volition < uolo, to want or wish). Of course, this now gets into a definition with you (again), so I'll just drop it. Seems we've finally got to the root of your confusion: Your definition of 'volition' is clearly wrong. You may or may not be right about the origins and the original meaning of the word volition. However, this is the 21st century AD, Bengst, not the 1st century BC. I'd say it would be helpful if you would stick to the modern day definitions of words to have a meaningful conversation with modern day folks.
|
|
|
Post by Beingist on Aug 14, 2013 8:51:12 GMT -5
You're talking in jibberish, again. Non-volition means not wanting something, or wanting to do something (volition < uolo, to want or wish). Of course, this now gets into a definition with you (again), so I'll just drop it. Seems we've finally got to the root of your confusion: Your definition of 'volition' is clearly wrong. You may or may not be right about the origins and the original meaning of the word volition. However, this is the 21st century AD, Bengst, not the 1st century BC. I'd say it would be helpful if you would stick to the modern day definitions of words to have a meaningful conversation with modern day folks. 'Twasn't I who used the word 'want', but E. I understand much more than you think. Besides, I was talking about control, not volition. But E has this tendency to derail a conversation. You're just adding fuel to the boiler.
|
|
|
Post by Reefs on Aug 14, 2013 9:06:38 GMT -5
Seems we've finally got to the root of your confusion: Your definition of 'volition' is clearly wrong. You may or may not be right about the origins and the original meaning of the word volition. However, this is the 21st century AD, Bengst, not the 1st century BC. I'd say it would be helpful if you would stick to the modern day definitions of words to have a meaningful conversation with modern day folks. 'Twasn't I who used the word 'want', but E. I understand much more than you think. Volition is about choice, about (free) will. Schopenhauer said: "Man can do what he wills but he cannot will what he wills" edit: Okay, just saw your edit. * sucks back fuel * Please continue your important work. editless edit: Just saw what quote you are referring to. Are you serious?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 14, 2013 10:09:03 GMT -5
......to speak of self with a small 's', I call that 'person' and 'the person' is comprised of, Self (with a capital), body, conditioning/story, individuated unique perspective...... The degree to which the conditioning & story can be seen through and falls away is the degree to which the Self (capital S) is realized in day to day, moment to moment experience. As I see it, there's really no separating self from Self. So if we pull them apart conceptually for a moment, what would you say this Self really is? No-thing we can 'really' put our finger on. And the drive to do so, to define it conretely and pin it down and describe it in agreed upon terms, is itself an attachment based upon a need to have things all sewn up.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 14, 2013 10:17:56 GMT -5
Haven't you said many times here, that that is your prime focus? Only here on the forum. It's not 'my spiritual practice' or sumthin. "Only"?........You spend the greater part of most days here.....thus, a great part of your day is spend focused upon 'what in blazes is going on.' You seem to want to separate your interests and beliefs from 'you.' Your coming here, seemingly highly interested in pointing out 'what in blazes is going on' in others, is really about you, and what you deem to be important.
|
|
|
Post by Beingist on Aug 14, 2013 10:21:23 GMT -5
'Twasn't I who used the word 'want', but E. I understand much more than you think. Volition is about choice, about (free) will. Schopenhauer said: "Man can do what he wills but he cannot will what he wills" Sure. But, then, this is where the debate starts about there being a choice, but no chooser. So, is there volition, or not? (This is a rhetorical question, not to answer, please). Otherwise, I'm not getting into volition, again, if that's okay with you. I'm talking about control. Am I serious about what, exactly? E talks a lot about the need to do certain things like 'realizing' and 'noticing' etc. All's I'm sayin' is that it is errant to assume that one has control over that. He seems to want to take that, and talk about volition, but I'm still talking about control. If he wants to answer the question about control, great. If he wants to leapfrog to 'volition', then he fails in his communication skills.
|
|