|
|
Post by tcejer on Oct 13, 2013 17:10:11 GMT -5
What a recipe for entrenched befuddlement right there; "Let's not have any consistent definitions for the purpose of clarity and genuine discussion, but make of whatever term as whim demands!" Surely a couple of Intelligent beings can do a little better than this - in the name of reason and logic? Discussion or even debate to find common ground on the meaning of a word is often very useful and sometimes even necessary ... how else can you figure out what someone means by it, right? What happens sometimes though are conversations using various terms prior to establishing that common ground. Another common source of useless conflict is a repetitive insistence on using one meaning when someone else has refused to let go of a different definition. To be clear -- I'm not discouraging any of that. There's nothing wrong with it even if I have the opinion that some of it is negative and futile, and none of it is against any rule here. It's just that as writers we have the opportunity to take responsibility for how a given term will be interpreted and as readers we have a corresponding opportunity to meet the writer where they are. Even though I sense an ungracious backhander, sincerity demands I agree with the basic tenure of the above. At the same time, I note and wonder why it appears to lack accord with the original capitulation to the most pathetic and mediocre rule imaginable? |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 13, 2013 18:15:45 GMT -5
What a recipe for entrenched befuddlement right there; "Let's not have any consistent definitions for the purpose of clarity and genuine discussion, but make of whatever term as whim demands!" Surely a couple of Intelligent beings can do a little better than this - in the name of reason and logic? Discussion or even debate to find common ground on the meaning of a word is often very useful and sometimes even necessary ... how else can you figure out what someone means by it, right? What happens sometimes though are conversations using various terms prior to establishing that common ground. Another common source of useless conflict is a repetitive insistence on using one meaning when someone else has refused to let go of a different definition. To be clear -- I'm not discouraging any of that. There's nothing wrong with it even if I have the opinion that some of it is negative and futile, and none of it is against any rule here. It's just that as writers we have the opportunity to take responsibility for how a given term will be interpreted and as readers we have a corresponding opportunity to meet the writer where they are.I think the opportunity lays in looking at the interpretation of terms as reflections of our own internal frames of reference... The internal projection makes the external perception and in turn we make the terms the truth as we see them... |
|
|
|
Post by tcejer on Oct 13, 2013 18:39:26 GMT -5
As noted in another thread, I've stopped using the word "mind" in the broad sense because there seem to be several separate functions that that word, by itself, lumps together. The intellect is the function of mind that distinguishes, defines, imagines, and manipulates images, ideas, and symbols--creating dualistic meta-realities.. Intuition is a function of mind that is capable of "knowing" things beyond the capacity of the intellect. It is a kind of direct knowing that can dive verticallly into what lies below the intellect. When the intellect is quiescent, it becomes possible to apprehend what some people here have called "the swamp."--the pre-conscious and perhaps subconscious stratum of mind which contain memories, feelings, impulses, intentions, motivations, etc. It's sort of like a dark subterranean area that underlies the crystallized distinctions that eventually emerge in the intellect. Who we are includes the whole shebang, but for most folks the intellect is dominant. This is why they feel separate from the world. Their bodies are unified with the world--indeed, are the world--but because attention is focused almost exclusively upon products of imagination, they see the trees but not the forest. Who we are pumps blood, regulates hormones, grows hair and skin, walks, talks, and imagines, and sees all of this. The seeing never changes in any way, and the seeing either sees "what is" or sees what is imagined. If attention shifts away from imagination to "what is," "what is" is eventually recognized to be all there is, and imagination is seen to be only a tiny aspect of that. Many Buddhist traditions distinguish between Big Mind, or One Mind, and small mind, but it seems clear that when they use the phrase "small mind" they are using it to refer to the intellect--a kind of floating layer of thoughts that obscures everything underlying it. Yes, the whole shebang of what is includes the intellect, the body, emotions, feelings and intuition. Lawyers have a way of covering their statements with the disclaimer "without limitation".  Although 'intuition' doesn't in fact exist, your 'whole shebang' seeks to differentiate between 'the body, emotions, feelings, intuition', and you could even add 'the planet' into this equation, yet these are all fundamentally referencing the same thing; the physical manifestation. Emotion is of course spiritual rather than physical, yet again entirely references the same physical via the sensory system - indeed within the physical. All the distinctions are potentially useful at some point Such distinctions might be potentially useful ONLY if those using the terms are completely aware of the actual distinctions, as well as the interconnection. The second part of this equation is missing in many cases, which inevitably has the effect of adding to confusion. in terms of the gnosis, as opposed to any information-based knowledge, of what we are. To illustrate what this means, it includes the end of existential questioning, which doesn't preclude an endless potential for integrating this gnosis with our ongoing experience. One of the phenomenon that I've observed, especially in the last four years on these forums, both from myself and others, is the intellect fumbling around with the question of who or what it is that would make use of the distinctions, and to what end. (** smiles **) Huh? |
|
|
|
Post by tcejer on Oct 13, 2013 18:43:53 GMT -5
Discussion or even debate to find common ground on the meaning of a word is often very useful and sometimes even necessary ... how else can you figure out what someone means by it, right? What happens sometimes though are conversations using various terms prior to establishing that common ground. Another common source of useless conflict is a repetitive insistence on using one meaning when someone else has refused to let go of a different definition. To be clear -- I'm not discouraging any of that. There's nothing wrong with it even if I have the opinion that some of it is negative and futile, and none of it is against any rule here. It's just that as writers we have the opportunity to take responsibility for how a given term will be interpreted and as readers we have a corresponding opportunity to meet the writer where they are.I think the opportunity lays in looking at the interpretation of terms as reflections of our own internal frames of reference... Are you aware of any dynamic other than your 'suggestion'? The internal projection makes the external perception and in turn we make the terms the truth as we see them... Perception is external? Really? |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 13, 2013 19:15:03 GMT -5
I think the opportunity lays in looking at the interpretation of terms as reflections of our own internal frames of reference... The internal projection makes the external perception and in turn we make the terms the truth as we see them... is external? Really? If I was aware of any dynamic other than the one I suggested, wouldn't it still fall under the dynamic I suggested? I guess perception is one of those terms that we have to dig around in the internal frame of reference for and then project it as a true perception, at least as we see it. |
|
|
|
Post by enigma on Oct 13, 2013 19:24:08 GMT -5
I don't equate mind and consciousness, so we have different definitions. I would certainly say this; for mine, due to long-term misunderstanding and confusion, we have developed way too many terms for such realities, so now struggle under many duplications and definition overlaps, and when we try to embrace all such words with slightly different definitions, simply adds unnecessary confusion to such understanding and discussion. The term 'soul' for instance, has a very simple definition, yet appears to have taken on as many mystery variations as there are folk who use it. So Enigma, what is the difference between the 'mind' and 'consciousness' - in your opinion and by your definitions? They must be reasonably close, I would've thought. I see consciousness as impersonal, while mind is always personal. I see consciousness as the foundation of all appearances, whether considered inside or outside, whereas I see mind as the cognitive function only. I'm one of those who doesn't know what 'soul' means, but if there's more than one, it's clearly illusion. |
|
|
|
Post by tcejer on Oct 13, 2013 19:33:31 GMT -5
Are you aware of any dynamic other than your 'suggestion'?Perception is external? Really? If I was aware of any dynamic other than the one I suggested, wouldn't it still fall under the dynamic I suggested? The only alternative I can see would be an objective appreciation; relating entirely to the external frame of reference, which sadly is generally according to one's assumption. But in reality the frame of reference per our default consciousness, is always subjective and therefore relates entirely to self. I guess perception is one of those terms that we have to dig around in the internal frame of reference for and then project as a true perception, at least as we see it. You're quite right that we need to dig around in our internal frame of reference if we're ever going to get close to a true perception of reality, but you can't have it both ways. If it's 'as we see it', then by definition it can't be called 'true perception'. The 'digging around' then, would be a process of weeding out the overgrown plethora of illogical inconsistencies due to our default subjectivity. |
|
|
|
Post by tcejer on Oct 13, 2013 20:11:00 GMT -5
I would certainly say this; for mine, due to long-term misunderstanding and confusion, we have developed way too many terms for such realities, so now struggle under many duplications and definition overlaps, and when we try to embrace all such words with slightly different definitions, simply adds unnecessary confusion to such understanding and discussion. The term 'soul' for instance, has a very simple definition, yet appears to have taken on as many mystery variations as there are folk who use it. So Enigma, what is the difference between the 'mind' and 'consciousness' - in your opinion and by your definitions? They must be reasonably close, I would've thought. I see consciousness as impersonal, while mind is always personal. Well that is interesting. So how would you expect the impersonal consciousness and the personal mind work together towards creating some form of unified awareness, as such? Doesn't the personal and impersonal come into conflict generally? If so, how is such conflict resolved, or perhaps you argue it lacks resolution? I see consciousness as the foundation of all appearances, whether considered inside or outside, whereas I see mind as the cognitive function only. So consciousness can also be considered 'perception' - the interpretation of reality? This would suggest 'personal', would it not? Also, isn't the interpretation of reality (perception) a cognitive function, thereby bringing it under your 'mind' definition? I'm one of those who doesn't know what 'soul' means, but if there's more than one, it's clearly illusion. For mine, the term 'soul' is very simply explained - the conjoining of the spiritual CREATOR with the physical manifestation of this authority - i.e HIS creation. Man HAS a physical presence, but *IS* THE Spiritual being - the CREATOR; in full. This is in contrast to a tree (for instance), which is also a physical manifestation of the same spiritual authority, but lacks the fullness of consciousness (perhaps your 'mind'), and therefore has no requirement as a soul. So we do NOT 'have' a soul, but while we enjoy consciousness, which indeed incorporates this very CREATOR, we 'ARE' a soul. Ancient texts clearly cover this definition, but over time great confusion has crept in - always to serve the ever-flourishing religious elite who design things to promote their grandiosity. Consider the difference between the scientist and the microscope he uses. Once we cancel out the similarities; that both have a physical presence and are required to work together to appreciate the minute, what remains is the disparity - only one of the two has consciousness, so enjoys awareness and appreciation afforded by this, and therefore *IS* a soul. |
|
|
|
Post by tzujanli on Oct 14, 2013 4:45:25 GMT -5
Greetings.. I see consciousness as impersonal, while mind is always personal. Well that is interesting. So how would you expect the impersonal consciousness and the personal mind work together towards creating some form of unified awareness, as such? Doesn't the personal and impersonal come into conflict generally? If so, how is such conflict resolved, or perhaps you argue it lacks resolution? I see consciousness as the foundation of all appearances, whether considered inside or outside, whereas I see mind as the cognitive function only. So consciousness can also be considered 'perception' - the interpretation of reality? This would suggest 'personal', would it not? Also, isn't the interpretation of reality (perception) a cognitive function, thereby bringing it under your 'mind' definition? I'm one of those who doesn't know what 'soul' means, but if there's more than one, it's clearly illusion. For mine, the term 'soul' is very simply explained - the conjoining of the spiritual CREATOR with the physical manifestation of this authority - i.e HIS creation. Man HAS a physical presence, but *IS* THE Spiritual being - the CREATOR; in full. This is in contrast to a tree (for instance), which is also a physical manifestation of the same spiritual authority, but lacks the fullness of consciousness (perhaps your 'mind'), and therefore has no requirement as a soul. So we do NOT 'have' a soul, but while we enjoy consciousness, which indeed incorporates this very CREATOR, we 'ARE' a soul. Ancient texts clearly cover this definition, but over time great confusion has crept in - always to serve the ever-flourishing religious elite who design things to promote their grandiosity. Consider the difference between the scientist and the microscope he uses. Once we cancel out the similarities; that both have a physical presence and are required to work together to appreciate the minute, what remains is the disparity - only one of the two has consciousness, so enjoys awareness and appreciation afforded by this, and therefore *IS* a soul. While you perceive my posts to be "word baggage", and i can now see why, i see your post to be filled with beliefs and attachments to those beliefs.. you are expressing your socio-religious conditioning as beliefs in a 'soul', and a 'creator', you are trying to shape what you see/experience into your conditioned socio-religious belief structure.. can you 'let that go'? Be well.. |
|
|
|
Post by tcejer on Oct 14, 2013 6:32:46 GMT -5
Greetings.. Well that is interesting. So how would you expect the impersonal consciousness and the personal mind work together towards creating some form of unified awareness, as such? Doesn't the personal and impersonal come into conflict generally? If so, how is such conflict resolved, or perhaps you argue it lacks resolution? So consciousness can also be considered 'perception' - the interpretation of reality? This would suggest 'personal', would it not? Also, isn't the interpretation of reality (perception) a cognitive function, thereby bringing it under your 'mind' definition? For mine, the term 'soul' is very simply explained - the conjoining of the spiritual CREATOR with the physical manifestation of this authority - i.e HIS creation. Man HAS a physical presence, but *IS* THE Spiritual being - the CREATOR; in full. This is in contrast to a tree (for instance), which is also a physical manifestation of the same spiritual authority, but lacks the fullness of consciousness (perhaps your 'mind'), and therefore has no requirement as a soul. So we do NOT 'have' a soul, but while we enjoy consciousness, which indeed incorporates this very CREATOR, we 'ARE' a soul. Ancient texts clearly cover this definition, but over time great confusion has crept in - always to serve the ever-flourishing religious elite who design things to promote their grandiosity. Consider the difference between the scientist and the microscope he uses. Once we cancel out the similarities; that both have a physical presence and are required to work together to appreciate the minute, what remains is the disparity - only one of the two has consciousness, so enjoys awareness and appreciation afforded by this, and therefore *IS* a soul. While you perceive my posts to be "word baggage", and i can now see why, i see your post to be filled with beliefs and attachments to those beliefs.. you are expressing your socio-religious conditioning as beliefs in a 'soul', and a 'creator', you are trying to shape what you see/experience into your conditioned socio-religious belief structure.. can you 'let that go'? Be well.. I can tell you with much candor that I would be delighted to let anything and everything you regard a 'belief' go - immediately a more authentic, logical alternative is presented to me. So please define where you see any lack of legitimacy in what you regard as the 'socio-religious conditioning/belief structure' underpinning my explanation? More essentially, as you have such clarity of understanding regarding this 'conditioned socio-religious belief structure', as well as my motivations, please at least share the name of this religion with me, as thus far I'm totally unaware of it. Finally, please present your more logical, genuine and consistent model for consideration, so I can indeed 'let go' and bond with your more authoritative lucidity. |
|
|
|
Post by tzujanli on Oct 14, 2013 21:43:21 GMT -5
Greetings.. While you perceive my posts to be "word baggage", and i can now see why, i see your post to be filled with beliefs and attachments to those beliefs.. you are expressing your socio-religious conditioning as beliefs in a 'soul', and a 'creator', you are trying to shape what you see/experience into your conditioned socio-religious belief structure.. can you 'let that go'? Be well.. I can tell you with much candor that I would be delighted to let anything and everything you regard a 'belief' go - immediately a more authentic, logical alternative is presented to me. So please define where you see any lack of legitimacy in what you regard as the 'socio-religious conditioning/belief structure' underpinning my explanation? More essentially, as you have such clarity of understanding regarding this 'conditioned socio-religious belief structure', as well as my motivations, please at least share the name of this religion with me, as thus far I'm totally unaware of it. Finally, please present your more logical, genuine and consistent model for consideration, so I can indeed 'let go' and bond with your more authoritative lucidity. If you're talking about a 'soul', you're talking about belief.. you're simply at a loss for authenticity, at a loss for the clarity that would drop attachments to your conditioned language, so you try to make your religious-belief attachments fit a new-age 'soul' definition.. the name of the religion is 'guru worship', same as any religion, abandoning your authenticity to some guru that trains you to perform for some cosmic puppeteer.. There is no " more logical, genuine and consistent model for consideration", the model is the problem.. just pay attention, unconditionally.. if you think you have the answer, let it go, and keep looking.. when you stop looking, you stagnate, when you 'think' you have the answer, you don't.. keep looking.. when you want to experience who/what you are as much as you want your next breath, you'll start letting go of the stuff that distracts you from 'you'.. you don't want it that much, you want to talk about talk, about souls, about creators, about what you want to believe rather than what is actually happening.. you're looking for an "alternative" belief, you're not yet ready to free, liberated.. i don't have a belief for you, just a way to be free of beliefs, free of knowledge, free.. Stop telling me what you 'want', tell me what you see, what you experience.. don't tell me what you're 'thinking/imagining', tell me what you actually feel.. 'soul' is what you believe, energy, Life, experience is what you feel.. let go of the conditioned script, and stop trying to fit your existence into scripts written by others.. Be well.. |
|
|
|
Post by tcejer on Oct 17, 2013 7:09:02 GMT -5
I can tell you with much candor that I would be delighted to let anything and everything you regard a 'belief' go - immediately a more authentic, logical alternative is presented to me. So please define where you see any lack of legitimacy in what you regard as the 'socio-religious conditioning/belief structure' underpinning my explanation? More essentially, as you have such clarity of understanding regarding this 'conditioned socio-religious belief structure', as well as my motivations, please at least share the name of this religion with me, as thus far I'm totally unaware of it. Finally, please present your more logical, genuine and consistent model for consideration, so I can indeed 'let go' and bond with your more authoritative lucidity. If you're talking about a 'soul', you're talking about belief.. you're simply at a loss for authenticity, at a loss for the clarity that would drop attachments to your conditioned language, so you try to make your religious-belief attachments fit a new-age 'soul' definition.. the name of the religion is 'guru worship', same as any religion, abandoning your authenticity to some guru that trains you to perform for some cosmic puppeteer.. There is no " more logical, genuine and consistent model for consideration", the model is the problem.. just pay attention, unconditionally.. if you think you have the answer, let it go, and keep looking.. when you stop looking, you stagnate, when you 'think' you have the answer, you don't.. keep looking.. when you want to experience who/what you are as much as you want your next breath, you'll start letting go of the stuff that distracts you from 'you'.. you don't want it that much, you want to talk about talk, about souls, about creators, about what you want to believe rather than what is actually happening.. you're looking for an "alternative" belief, you're not yet ready to free, liberated.. i don't have a belief for you, just a way to be free of beliefs, free of knowledge, free.. Stop telling me what you 'want', tell me what you see, what you experience.. don't tell me what you're 'thinking/imagining', tell me what you actually feel.. 'soul' is what you believe, energy, Life, experience is what you feel.. let go of the conditioned script, and stop trying to fit your existence into scripts written by others.. Be well.. So rather than answer even one of my questions, you again spin a verbose, rambling diatribe with overtones of a pompous school principal who lives to wallow in his own self grandeur and demands - over little children. Your biggest problem of course, is on a site such as this forum you're not terrifying school children with your bombastic growls and grunts. So if you'd care to re-post again in a less imperious, less pleonastic, less arrogant manner, then I'll consider responding. Otherwise do NOT expect anything more from my keyboard. |
|
|
|
Post by tzujanli on Oct 17, 2013 8:10:56 GMT -5
Greetings.. If you're talking about a 'soul', you're talking about belief.. you're simply at a loss for authenticity, at a loss for the clarity that would drop attachments to your conditioned language, so you try to make your religious-belief attachments fit a new-age 'soul' definition.. the name of the religion is 'guru worship', same as any religion, abandoning your authenticity to some guru that trains you to perform for some cosmic puppeteer.. There is no " more logical, genuine and consistent model for consideration", the model is the problem.. just pay attention, unconditionally.. if you think you have the answer, let it go, and keep looking.. when you stop looking, you stagnate, when you 'think' you have the answer, you don't.. keep looking.. when you want to experience who/what you are as much as you want your next breath, you'll start letting go of the stuff that distracts you from 'you'.. you don't want it that much, you want to talk about talk, about souls, about creators, about what you want to believe rather than what is actually happening.. you're looking for an "alternative" belief, you're not yet ready to free, liberated.. i don't have a belief for you, just a way to be free of beliefs, free of knowledge, free.. Stop telling me what you 'want', tell me what you see, what you experience.. don't tell me what you're 'thinking/imagining', tell me what you actually feel.. 'soul' is what you believe, energy, Life, experience is what you feel.. let go of the conditioned script, and stop trying to fit your existence into scripts written by others.. Be well.. So rather than answer even one of my questions, you again spin a verbose, rambling diatribe with overtones of a pompous school principal who lives to wallow in his own self grandeur and demands - over little children. Your biggest problem of course, is on a site such as this forum you're not terrifying school children with your bombastic growls and grunts. So if you'd care to re-post again in a less imperious, less pleonastic, less arrogant manner, then I'll consider responding. Otherwise do NOT expect anything more from my keyboard. I have no expectations of reasonable discussion from you, you like to parade adjectives around rather than confront your inability to grasp reality, so.. thank you for your terrified restraint, where you have nothing to offer you try to create the illusion of authority with colorful but empty retort, so scurry-off with your keyboard, now.. Be well.. |
|
|
|
Post by silence on Oct 17, 2013 9:23:22 GMT -5
Oh Tzu, you gentle creature you.
|
|
