|
page 72
Jun 30, 2014 6:29:25 GMT -5
Post by quinn on Jun 30, 2014 6:29:25 GMT -5
Yeah, probably because it's an area I'm not clear about. What I'm trying to say is I'm not convinced that mind isn't involved all the way through. I experience the difference between philosophizing or logic-ing my way to a conclusion and realizing that something I took as real is, in actuality, a thought about something. The difference between the experience of these two things is huge. But I'm not convinced that they are not both mind processes. (I don't know if that makes any more sense!) It would likely be accurate to say that the intellect is involved in the first but not the second. Mind is involved with both. Mind can be talked about in such a way to overstretch everything or it can be discussed as merely the movement of thought. No matter how you want to look at it, one is transformative while the other is fragile and memory dependent. Needing to know where mind is and isn't is a sideshow that will take you into a never ending maze. To really see what it means to look with what you might call your inner eye is often enough to silence the intellect. There's a lot of potential there that often gets passed over as attention gets drawn into new feeling states. That rings true. Good to be reminded that the thought-machine is always and ever going to keep churning up thoughts (of course) and ambiguous questions make the best material to keep the wheels churning.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
page 72
Jun 30, 2014 8:28:48 GMT -5
Post by Deleted on Jun 30, 2014 8:28:48 GMT -5
Yes, but that's the point. Replacing the idea of volition with the idea of non-volition just changes things on a superficial level. Right. It keeps the separate personal music going. Since when is non-volition more than an absence of volition?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
page 72
Jun 30, 2014 8:36:38 GMT -5
Post by Deleted on Jun 30, 2014 8:36:38 GMT -5
In that timeless instant of seeing/experiencing with the clarity of a still mind's awareness it is realized that neither volition, nor non-volition, nor absence of volition are valid topics for discussion, those topics are the distortions.. realizing that clarity resolves the conflicts, the realized experiencer advocates the clarity not amateurish psychotherapy.. Perhaps I'm addled with amateurish psychotherapy, but I'll just point out that there are only a few hours of difference between the above still mind clarity awareness and the one below: Volition is observable with a still mind's awareness So it must be that sill mind clarity awareness can observe the happening of volition while simultaneously observing the happening of it not being a valid topic for discussion. And nonetheless proceed to discuss it.
|
|
|
Post by zendancer on Jun 30, 2014 8:46:33 GMT -5
In that timeless instant of seeing/experiencing with the clarity of a still mind's awareness it is realized that neither volition, nor non-volition, nor absence of volition are valid topics for discussion, those topics are the distortions.. realizing that clarity resolves the conflicts, the realized experiencer advocates the clarity not amateurish psychotherapy.. If volition is being interjected into discussions where it needn't be and the question brought up under false pretenses, I'd be inclined to agree with you. On the other hand, whether we overtly label it volition or simply talk about how people struggle to control their lives, I'd say it's an extremely valid topic in relation to spirituality and life at large. For that reason, ZenDancer reveals more clarity than the dream-weavers and the story-tellers.. ZD offers practical processes that can result in an experiencer's clarity, processes with account for the experiencer's completeness, 'part AND whole', body, mind, and spirit.. It's rather surprising you mention ZD by name. ZD of all people talks about answers to existential questions and goes on lengthy story telling. Guilty as charged, your honor! I love telling stories, and I also love listening to the stories of other people, both of which I find highly entertaining. As for the issue regarding answers to existential questions, I suspect that this is either a semantic issue or a difference in personality types. Some people, such as this body/mind, seem to have dramatic realizations that inform mind and are always highly surprising. Other people apparently don't have such stunning realizations. Perhaps some thinkers, such as this body/mind, get more deeply attached to various ideas, so that realizations, when they occur, have a much greater effect. Who knows and who cares? It is what it is. It may also be that some body/minds, particularly thinkers (a la the Meiers Briggs test), have questions that are more specifically conceived than other people. Who knows and who cares? It is what it is. I only know that the idea of a serious question dissolving or disappearing is laughable from my perspective. Some of my earliest existential questions were, 1. Is there a God? 2. How did life appear in a lifeless inorganic universe? 3. What is the meaning of life? 4. What is a subatomic particle, really? 5. What could explain the observer paradox in every field of science? Later, I got interested in Zen koans because they also deal with existential issues but cannot be resolved by the intellect. As a result of contemplation, I found the answers to all of the hundreds of questions that interested me, and ALL of the answers were simple and concrete. Yes, most existential questions, after realization, are seen to have been based upon incorrect assumptions, but that doesn't mean that the questions were meaningless nor that such questions have no answers. There are about 1800 formal Zen koans, and those people who have penetrated them independently agree upon the answers. This is why they are used as a testing mechanism in the Zen tradition. Although I have found Zen koans interesting, and although I have penetrated quite a few of them, I have never considered them as important as the kinds of koans that appear in ordinary life or the kinds of existential questions that arise from questioning the nature of reality. FWIW, I was always more interested in finding answers to my own existential questions than questions posed by Zen people. There are several informal koans used by Zen teachers to illustrate that there are simple obvious answers to all such questions. The answers do not come from the intellect, and reasoning or thinking is useless for finding them. We could say that the answers come from the body, or from the cosmos, or from intuition, or from some faculty of mind that is deeper than thought, but the answers are clearly obvious when they appear. I suppose someone might question, "Is there a God?" and eventually give up on finding an answer, or lose interest in the question, but that seems like a pale substitute for discovering the truth directly. Anyone who comes "face-to-face" with what the word "God" points to will never again be the same, and s/he will have a completely different understanding of reality afterwards. Is the question misconceived? Well, of course, because until one encounters the truth, one only has ideas about "a big daddy in the sky who created the universe," and the truth is so far beyond that idea that one can only laugh at such a limited conception. AAR, the good news is that people who want to find answers to existential questions can do so via contemplation, but the answers will not be like anything that one might have imagined beforehand. Each of us is intimately connected to the cosmos (indeed, we ARE the cosmos), and when the intellect is quiescent, our "downlink" to Reality (the "Supreme Ordering Intelligence?") is more likely to illumine us concerning the nature of what's going on. Most of us live in a cartoon-like world projected by the intellect while all around us the vastness of the ineffable silently awaits its discovery.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
page 72
Jun 30, 2014 8:49:15 GMT -5
Post by Deleted on Jun 30, 2014 8:49:15 GMT -5
Rick Archer interviewed Darryl Anka recently, the channeler for Bashar, the target of many snarks by yours truly directed at Andrew. Anyway, I liked him. So I listened to a bit of Bashar this morning. I still don't like the alien -- he reminds me of my woodshop instructor from Junior High School, only jacked on Mt. Dew or something. Anyhoo, one of the main themes he constantly reiterated is following your "highest joy" ("bliss" for the Joseph Campbell crowd) -- I like that message, BTW FWIW. He also gave a number of predictions. But of course he qualified the predictions by saying that the mere mention of a prediction can alter the outcomes so that the prediction will never take place. Got that base covered! And with the follow your highest joy thing, if we all do that, it spreads like wildfire and outcomes change yada yada. Bashar is a big free willer. By admitting that there is a choice at all -- that outcomes are dependent on choice and that one choice can be made and not another despite conditioning -- isn't this an admittance of some sort of factor that is outside of the deterministic universe? Maybe it's not volition/free will, maybe it's something else, but there is some sort of factor that enters in on whether choice A or choice B is settled on. Bashar just doesn't ring true to me. According to wikipedia, Daryl was/is a special effects guy in Hollywood who (surprise!) also worked on Star Trek. Bashar looks like a big show to me. Me too. But Anka's definition of 'channeling' is no different than just creatively expressing without personal inhibition -- IOW, everyone does it or has done it, probably (coloring with crayons, playing music, dancing...). So Bashar is the character that he expresses with (along with his side career of special effects). I doubt he's maliciously making it up, just as I doubt folks claiming to have been abducted by aliens are knowingly fabricating a story. The message I've heard so far is not much more than you find anywhere else in the self-help/new age aisle. The main message being 'follow your bliss.'
|
|
|
page 72
Jun 30, 2014 8:53:32 GMT -5
Post by Reefs on Jun 30, 2014 8:53:32 GMT -5
Well, that was my the point. The misconception stays alive. I think we're all talking about different things here. Yeah, you're right - the cartoon is basically creating a situation where turning to Page 72 is predetermined, 'proving' that it's true. Which is a misconception (for the sake of a joke). What Max and I got into a discussion about was the point before an action is taken. If I chose rum raisin ice cream, it's because of a conglomeration of thoughts, physiology, etc etc. Whether or not I have worked out for myself the question of volition/no volition, it doesn't matter - I'm still going to choose rum raisin (I'm still going to turn to Page 72). It's just another way of interpreting the cartoon. It's how I read it at first, but on re-read, your and Enigma's interpretation is probably what was meant. And then we have a third interpretation - Laughter's - that says the cartoon means choices are not predetermined unless there's opinion involved (assuming I'm correctly interpreting what he said). Pretty good work for one cartoon! Keep in mind that the question of volition is tied to the separate volitional person issue which has to do with (existential) suffering. As long as you haven't seen thru the separate volitional person issue, you can work out the question of volition in whatever way you like in your mind, it will have no practical consequences in regard to existential suffering. But as soon as you've seen thru the separate volitional person issue, the question of volition and whole bunch of other existential brain teasers lose their basis altogether and cease to exist. And suddenly the word 'freedom' gets a whole new meaning.
|
|
|
page 72
Jun 30, 2014 9:05:28 GMT -5
Post by Reefs on Jun 30, 2014 9:05:28 GMT -5
Yes, seeing through the illusion (not working out the question) becomes part of the conditioning. It may not change what page you turn to, but it will influence other perceptions and choices. Agreed. Back to something else, though. Your differentiation between working out the question and seeing through the illusion...In this case the question is, Is volition actually true?. So, as Max said, you "look openly". Looking openly is what I call working on the question, and it involves the mind. I don't see how you can look at a concept without using mind. "Seeing through the illusion" (any illusion, actually) would be the end of that looking. Why would that not be called working out the question? The question of volition can be 'put to rest' very easily by investigating how decisions happen and where your thoughts come from.
|
|
|
page 72
Jun 30, 2014 9:12:43 GMT -5
Post by Reefs on Jun 30, 2014 9:12:43 GMT -5
Agreed. Back to something else, though. Your differentiation between working out the question and seeing through the illusion... In this case the question is, Is volition actually true?. So, as Max said, you "look openly". Looking openly is what I call working on the question, and it involves the mind. I don't see how you can look at a concept without using mind. "Seeing through the illusion" (any illusion, actually) would be the end of that looking. Why would that not be called working out the question? I think before one commits time and energy towards answering a question like "is volition true" or "is the universe deterministic?", one should ask first "what difference would the answer make?" And if there is no difference, then why bother with the question?Did you choose to have that question or did that question just appear out of nowhere? To assume that folks would deliberately choose to torture themselves with existential questions is absurd.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
page 72
Jun 30, 2014 9:21:57 GMT -5
Post by Deleted on Jun 30, 2014 9:21:57 GMT -5
I think before one commits time and energy towards answering a question like "is volition true" or "is the universe deterministic?", one should ask first "what difference would the answer make?" And if there is no difference, then why bother with the question?Did you choose to have that question or did that question just appear out of nowhere? To assume that folks would deliberately choose to torture themselves with existential questions is absurd. The way I understood the question that Top proposed is a way of determining whether an existential question is one that holds any weight to the one asking it. If it is just an idle curiosity where the answers one way or the other won't be that much of a big deal, then maybe it's not worth it anyhoo. In my case, I know that volition/free will is a subject that keeps coming up here, and I have been idly curious about it, so I looked to see if there were any interesting cartoons that addressed the subject. I posted a few. And a discussion has ensued. But it's not causing me any suffering. More like entertainment because I don't really care which way it goes, as per Top's question. I'm guessing Top saw that I didn't have a whole lot of eggs in that basket.
|
|
|
page 72
Jun 30, 2014 9:28:06 GMT -5
Post by Reefs on Jun 30, 2014 9:28:06 GMT -5
I think before one commits time and energy towards answering a question like "is volition true" or "is the universe deterministic?", one should ask first "what difference would the answer make?" And if there is no difference, then why bother with the question? Well, I don't think there's no difference. Like I said earlier, there is an impact on the blame game. Among others. How would you know the impact until the question is looked at and resolved (or disappears, if you prefer)? Right. Blame is blame. If you believe in free will, you may have some kind of sense of personal freedom but also the burden of responsibility and finding a purpose. If you don't believe in free will, you may lose the burden of responsibility and finding a purpose but you also lose your sense of personal freedom. That's why I say, as soon as you have seen thru the separate volitional person issue (and therefore also thru the volition issue) the term 'freedom' gets a whole new meaning.
|
|
|
page 72
Jun 30, 2014 9:31:46 GMT -5
Post by Reefs on Jun 30, 2014 9:31:46 GMT -5
Well, I don't think there's no difference. Like I said earlier, there is an impact on the blame game. Among others. How would you know the impact until the question is looked at and resolved (or disappears, if you prefer)? Decisions were being made prior to entertaining the question. If deciding the question impacts how you relate to people, then I would put forward that your relationship is mitigated through a philosophic disposition. If through entertaining the question you took the time to look closer at what is actually going on, great! But entertaining the question isn't the only motivation to look closer. If you are engaged and looking at a situation directly, does the question even arise? Is someone who believes in volition going to tell a gay person that they are gay through choice? Is someone who believes in determinism going to deny that choosing happens and that there is some tension and unpredictability in deciding between two evenly desired (or not desired) options? The question of "blame" to me is a whole separate issue and deals with whether or not you believe rehabilitation is possible or worth the time and energy. It also deals with the question of ethical/moral responsibility. Regardless of volition or no volition, the person who lies, cheats, steals, murders is going to get a negative response from society because it is accepted in both cases that the person is responsible for their actions, even when they can't help themselves. Whether that result in purely punitive measures or primarily rehabilitative measures stems from a different issue than volition. But in the present moment, I don't see how deciding the question has any impact on how decisions are actually made. It's easy to come to a deterministic conclusion. But volition will still feel real nevertheless. That's the dilemma of trying to work it out. It will drive you nuts.
|
|
|
page 72
Jun 30, 2014 9:36:07 GMT -5
Post by Reefs on Jun 30, 2014 9:36:07 GMT -5
Agreed. Back to something else, though. Your differentiation between working out the question and seeing through the illusion... In this case the question is, Is volition actually true?. So, as Max said, you "look openly". Looking openly is what I call working on the question, and it involves the mind. I don't see how you can look at a concept without using mind. "Seeing through the illusion" (any illusion, actually) would be the end of that looking. Why would that not be called working out the question? I don't know that looking openly in a process involving mind means realizing the truth of non-volition. If it does, then we're talking about the same thing. To me, the focus of attention is done with mind, but not the actual seeing. If you don't see the distinction, then we're not talking about the same thing. As Reefs said, it's possible to mentally understand non-volition, and just as easily mind may conclude the opposite since they're both just conceptual stories. One timeless moment of clear seeing, without thought, ends both the stories.And it will end in laughter.
|
|
|
page 72
Jun 30, 2014 9:50:34 GMT -5
Post by laughter on Jun 30, 2014 9:50:34 GMT -5
Right. It keeps the separate personal music going. Since when is non-volition more than an absence of volition? Non-volition refers to the fiction of a separate person existing as a God-puppet.
|
|
|
page 72
Jun 30, 2014 9:52:14 GMT -5
Post by Reefs on Jun 30, 2014 9:52:14 GMT -5
Decisions were being made prior to entertaining the question. If deciding the question impacts how you relate to people, then I would put forward that your relationship is mitigated through a philosophic disposition. If volition or determinism, either, is decided on then, yes, the relationship happens through the veil of that belief. That's the point, really. Until it's looked into, that veil/distortion is there. Not exactly. Keep in mind that it's all memory based and that this feeling of having free will comes natural. So, as with all other attempts of trying to live a concept, when push comes to shove, they will all forget their conclusions in the heat of the moment and will act all the same way.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
page 72
Jun 30, 2014 9:53:56 GMT -5
via mobile
Post by Deleted on Jun 30, 2014 9:53:56 GMT -5
I think before one commits time and energy towards answering a question like "is volition true" or "is the universe deterministic?", one should ask first "what difference would the answer make?" And if there is no difference, then why bother with the question?Did you choose to have that question or did that question just appear out of nowhere? To assume that folks would deliberately choose to torture themselves with existential questions is absurd. My experience has been that the questions appear out of nowhere, and I have no control over the mind to halt the process.
|
|