|
Post by silver on Aug 26, 2013 12:26:16 GMT -5
The important thing is not to discover what is truly real, we don't actually care about that anyway, not if we have to die in a couple of years anyhow. The important thing is to fully identify with the most pleasurable belief, namely the belief that we are all these superlatives, i.e. eternal, divine etc. The problem is that we are not so easily fooled. The challenge is how to manipulate the unconscious. I'm confused. Is it the unconscious or the subconscious? Why and how?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 26, 2013 12:26:30 GMT -5
Just read this on Braying Jack Cass' FB page:
reminded me of the neighborhood.
Here's another:
|
|
|
Post by zendancer on Aug 26, 2013 12:30:02 GMT -5
haha, he's staff and he doesn't know every little thing. Yes, it's pretty amazing how much I don't know.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 26, 2013 12:34:41 GMT -5
There's that wiggly one again! BLAM! BLAM! BLAM! I keep thinking I've shot it but it seems to slip through a big hole in my neti neti again. Right, as an idea it just keeps swimming around. It's more subtle than that and requires something other than your 12 gauge. Aren't you further back than anything that appears in front of you? As the one to whom all appearances appear, can you be one of those appearances? You don't have to figure it out. It's already obvious. You just have to look and see. How could you ever know how "far back" something went? The only way you'll know if you remain despite appearances is after the body/mind is dead. Oh, unless you have a Realization. When I 'look and see' I mostly note a lot of change happening. And no, this does not necessarily mean that to note change there must be changelessness. There can be just a sea of relative change, for example. But the point is, even it seems like there is changelessness, it is just supposition/belief-making to call it eternal, limitless, yada yada. I don't see how eternity can be known beyond conjecture/belief.
|
|
|
Post by ???????? ???????????? on Aug 26, 2013 12:35:04 GMT -5
The important thing is not to discover what is truly real, we don't actually care about that anyway, not if we have to die in a couple of years anyhow. The important thing is to fully identify with the most pleasurable belief, namely the belief that we are all these superlatives, i.e. eternal, divine etc. The problem is that we are not so easily fooled. The challenge is how to manipulate the unconscious. I'm confused. Is it the unconscious or the subconscious? Why and how? Freud's system is based on the conscious, preconsicous and unconscious. There is no subconsicous. "Subconscious" is only used in pop psychology by people who don't know what they are talking about.
|
|
|
Post by silver on Aug 26, 2013 12:43:15 GMT -5
I'm confused. Is it the unconscious or the subconscious? Why and how? Freud's system is based on the conscious, preconsicous and unconscious. There is no subconsicous. "Subconscious" is only used in pop psychology by people who don't know what they are talking about. Oh really? (not being funny) I thought unconscious was when someone hits you in the back of the head with a crowbar or you faint. I never even heard of preconscious. How do you define preconscious or is that some other flaky thing Freud thunk up?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 26, 2013 12:53:48 GMT -5
Freud's system is based on the conscious, preconsicous and unconscious. There is no subconsicous. "Subconscious" is only used in pop psychology by people who don't know what they are talking about. Oh really? (not being funny) I thought unconscious was when someone hits you in the back of the head with a crowbar or you faint. I never even heard of preconscious. How do you define preconscious or is that some other flaky thing Freud thunk up? One example of preconscious thinking would be memory-based judgements on someone. Say, for example, some loopy scientist pushed a flaky theory of psychological development involving a child's desire to posess her father's penis. Or maybe a theory about how the son was ultimately in jealous combat for the mother's attention with his father. Then, despite considerable contributions that scientist may have had, for example, coining the concept of consciousness, whenever that scientist's name is uttered all sorts of pre-judgements arise immediately and drown out any real appreciation for what is being said. The preconscious is like a farm team for current thinking or consciousness.
|
|
|
Post by ???????? ???????????? on Aug 26, 2013 12:55:14 GMT -5
Freud's system is based on the conscious, preconsicous and unconscious. There is no subconsicous. "Subconscious" is only used in pop psychology by people who don't know what they are talking about. Oh really? (not being funny) I thought unconscious was when someone hits you in the back of the head with a crowbar or you faint. I never even heard of preconscious. How do you define preconscious or is that some other flaky thing Freud thunk up? Ya really. Nothing flaky about it. Ask wikipedia.
|
|
|
Post by silver on Aug 26, 2013 13:02:14 GMT -5
Oh really? (not being funny) I thought unconscious was when someone hits you in the back of the head with a crowbar or you faint. I never even heard of preconscious. How do you define preconscious or is that some other flaky thing Freud thunk up? One example of preconscious thinking would be memory-based judgements on someone. Say, for example, some loopy scientist pushed a flaky theory of psychological development involving a child's desire to posess her father's penis. Or maybe a theory about how the son was ultimately in jealous combat for the mother's attention with his father. Then, despite considerable contributions that scientist may have had, for example, coining the concept of consciousness, whenever that scientist's name is uttered all sorts of pre-judgements arise immediately and drown out any real appreciation for what is being said. The preconscious is like a farm team for current thinking or consciousness. Ah, yes. Thank you.
|
|
|
Post by silver on Aug 26, 2013 13:03:01 GMT -5
Oh really? (not being funny) I thought unconscious was when someone hits you in the back of the head with a crowbar or you faint. I never even heard of preconscious. How do you define preconscious or is that some other flaky thing Freud thunk up? Ya really. Nothing flaky about it. Ask wikipedia. I'll check it out, then.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 26, 2013 13:06:29 GMT -5
The illusion that drives the seeking of happiness over unhappiness has to be seen through. That doesn't stop the pleasure/pain cycle, which is just life happening, but it will remove the struggle of identifying with pleasurable beliefs and manipulating the unconscious. Yeah, like I said, the important thing is to fully identify with the most pleasurable belief, even if the belief is about seeing through whatever you're talking about. Maybe Realization is just a type of surrender. A different paradigm of beliefs wells up and gets fleshed out with stories and nuanced understandings. Maybe some experiences are reinterpreted as supporting those beliefs. Then, at some point the straw breaks the camel's back and there is a surrender of one set of beliefs -- materialism, for example -- for the new set of beliefs. That's called Realization. And there can be great disorientation while the new set of beliefs is fully integrated into one's day to day life. Naturally communities are sought which share this sense, as more heads are better than one and more nuances and stories and practical considerations can be shared. Born again. Then if one has the chops -- a little bit of charisma, a little bit of articulateness, perhaps unusual eyes and an accent -- one can start on the satsang circuit.
|
|
|
Post by ???????? ???????????? on Aug 26, 2013 13:09:02 GMT -5
Oh really? (not being funny) I thought unconscious was when someone hits you in the back of the head with a crowbar or you faint. I never even heard of preconscious. How do you define preconscious or is that some other flaky thing Freud thunk up? Say, for example, some loopy scientist pushed a flaky theory of psychological development involving a child's desire to posess her father's penis. It's "phallus". Its psychological function is not as a biological organ but instead as a signifier for the desire of the (m)Other, to us men it represents that which she lacks and wants. That's why we are so obsessed with the phallus and without it life is not worth living. Read Lacan for more. There is one impressive scene at the end of "I spit on your grave" where the heroine has her rapist constrained. He can't move, he is completely defenseless against her, totally impotent. Still he insults her, spits on her, laughs at her. Then she cuts off his díck. And instantly he is broken. He was totally ready to die, but he was not ready to be castrated. For him it was worse than death.
|
|
|
Post by enigma on Aug 26, 2013 13:34:10 GMT -5
The illusion that drives the seeking of happiness over unhappiness has to be seen through. That doesn't stop the pleasure/pain cycle, which is just life happening, but it will remove the struggle of identifying with pleasurable beliefs and manipulating the unconscious. Yeah, like I said, the important thing is to fully identify with the most pleasurable belief, even if the belief is about seeing through whatever you're talking about. Seeing through the belief that one can find more happiness than unhappiness is not pleasurable, but it's the truth.
|
|
|
Post by enigma on Aug 26, 2013 13:46:46 GMT -5
haha, he's staff and he doesn't know every little thing. Yes, it's pretty amazing how much I don't know. I'm not even amazed cuz I don't know how much I don't know.
|
|
|
Post by enigma on Aug 26, 2013 14:05:14 GMT -5
Right, as an idea it just keeps swimming around. It's more subtle than that and requires something other than your 12 gauge. Aren't you further back than anything that appears in front of you? As the one to whom all appearances appear, can you be one of those appearances? You don't have to figure it out. It's already obvious. You just have to look and see. How could you ever know how "far back" something went? The only way you'll know if you remain despite appearances is after the body/mind is dead. Oh, unless you have a Realization. You mean how far back YOU go? Because everything else is in front of you. Then where did this idea of the changeless come from? In a sea of nothing but relative change, there is no concept of change or changeless. It would not be part of your paradigm. Likewise, if you float in a sea of time in which you know nothing but that flow, why would the notion of timelessness or time ever occur? What could it possibly mean? What does the fish know about water or waterlessness?
|
|