|
Post by enigma on Aug 22, 2014 20:20:27 GMT -5
It sounds like the sherry was tainted in some way. I had a masses-of-spiders hallucination from lsd once. Not coincidentally, my last time with it. wow, never thought of that, sherry being tainted...maybe because Holland is so strict on food control ...(as dumm as any country though when it comes to animal proteine) I did have a negative LSD experience years earlier, maybe related, dunno. Yes, the sherry might have been spiked with animal protein. That would explain everything!
|
|
|
Post by quinn on Aug 23, 2014 6:56:52 GMT -5
The only general advice I would give is to trust your gut. In some situations, the only hope of survival is to get away or not get into a situation that feels 'off' in the first place. A hard thing for most women as we're conditioned to be acquiescent (although that seems to be changing - let's hope!). I don't know how I acted after 'I' wasn't there, but he did change at some point. Drove me to town instead of leaving me in the Florida woods after dark (not a place to be walking) and was full of apology. It could have gone very differently, and in this case maybe it did have to do with non-resistance. At the time, though, being fully identified with my thoughts and actions, it was difficult to live with the extreme sense of powerlessness that came out of it. The weight of that began to tip the scale as to which was better - to die fighting or live in a mental prison. I'd be careful about general advice to not resist, especially to women. As I see it, rape is more about control than it is about sex, and so there is a need for some sort of resistance to push against in order to experience that. In the apparent absence of this resistance, the dynamic is likely to change, but it's hard to say how it might change. It may move away from violence or toward an escalation of violence. It's unpredictable because the individual in question may be sociopathic or be dealing with other complex emotional issues, so I agree that advice is difficult. However, if resistance is chosen, it may need to be disabling or lethal, as anything short of that will likely be met with escalating force.(Just opinion. I don't mean to position myself as an expert.) Most definitely about control and power. It has no more to do with sex than someone cutting your penis off does. Yes, resistance wasn't recommended by the police that I spoke with. That usually ends badly. Anyway, who the 'holder of the power' was in that situation was established right from the get-go. It wasn't the skinny girl. Might have been the one in the tree though.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 23, 2014 12:06:58 GMT -5
Satprem describes an event in his life when he was followed by three men, near Auroville, and he felt they were out to kill him. (S. was a controversial man at that time and had antagonised a lot of (bad) people, large sums of money were involved as well as prestige) he is an accomplished yogi, and he said what he did was to keep completely still...inner stillness..no fear---the men took off his watch, maybe to make it look like a robbery, he kept still, and then they lost interest and walked away. S said, that since he did not resonate with them they were powerless to act violently--- never mind
|
|
|
Post by sunshine on Aug 26, 2014 5:59:52 GMT -5
carnism,
here is an uncommon experience, it lasts only four minutes
extremely uncommon
it can now be had by everybody
watch while you can not sure if this is allowed to stay online, considering new american patriot act laws.(any act threatening the profits of the meat industry must be regarded as terrorist act-)
mind you, this is the mildest version, that is still truthful to the facts
99pct of the meat that lands on your plate has been treated like this
there is a very good docu out there ´´the psychology of eating meat´´
there are 30 times more land animals for food production in the usa,than humans, how come we never see them?
most folk do not have the balls to see this through...for them, the lady presenting this clip, has an excellent solution at the end of it.
i am not a vegan activist--i just cant stand the hypocrisy and oistrich attitude of folk who claim to be ´´spiritual´´
oh-- every single minute 19.011 land animals are slaughtered in this manner in the usa alone.10 billion per year. keep smiling!!
|
|
|
Post by japhy on Aug 26, 2014 11:07:20 GMT -5
I have a question concerning the term Satori. I thought it was a name for enlightment in Zen Buddhism, but the term seems to be used differently in "Meeting Richard Rose: Notes from 1978" by Art Ticknor (http://tatfoundation.org/forum2006-05.htm#1).
Citation [from paragraph 6 and 7 from Rose's talk]: Koans are artificial trauma. Like studying mathematics, you can get a satori experience. [Satori: momentary "wow!"; things fit in place.] [...] The resulting emotional level is transcended by a satori or eureka experience.
Is this usage common?
Additionally I don't understand, why an eureka/satori experience trancends the emotional level. Personally I would say an eureka experience trancendes the intellecutal level. Art Ticknor says: "The subsequent intellectual level is transcended by a cosmic consciousness or unitive experience."
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Aug 26, 2014 11:48:21 GMT -5
I have a question concerning the term Satori. I thought it was a name for enlightment in Zen Buddhism, but the term seems to be used differently in "Meeting Richard Rose: Notes from 1978" by Art Ticknor (http://tatfoundation.org/forum2006-05.htm#1). Citation [from paragraph 6 and 7 from Rose's talk]: Koans are artificial trauma. Like studying mathematics, you can get a satori experience. [Satori: momentary "wow!"; things fit in place.] [...] The resulting emotional level is transcended by a satori or eureka experience. Is this usage common? Additionally I don't understand, why an eureka/satori experience trancends the emotional level. Personally I would say an eureka experience trancendes the intellecutal level. Art Ticknor says: "The subsequent intellectual level is transcended by a cosmic consciousness or unitive experience." The physical component of emotion can vary in intensity and has a range of different possible descriptions while the intellect is detached from that. The intellect deals in the currency of precision and accuracy, and thereby is where objectivity resides. It's easy to get two people to agree on what "two" means Emotions, on the other hand, are primarily subjective, and ultimately impossible to capture by the intellect. Just as the chemist can describe the components and reactions that go into your taste of a peach that isn't your experience of it, emotions, while often logically traceable to cause and effect, are essentially ineffable and irrational. Conversely, emotions are useless in furthering intellectual understanding. You can't anger or love your way to solving a problem in complex mathematics, although the intersection between subjectivity (emotion) and objectivity (intellect) can be seen by this example to be the notion of intuition, and that's precisely where you find "Eureka!". Because emotions are subjective and inherently personal in nature, when the same emotion is seemingly shared by different people in response to the same stimuli, the connection involved is quite a bit deeper than can be had by the intellect. This is why peeps dig art. It's also what seems to draw most of them to religion. Regardless of how the word satori is used -- either a transcendent insight or a permanent shift -- what it's referring to isn't either an emotion or an abstraction, but our only notice of it comes down to us through these. The details of what and in which order various emotions or ideas inform the mind of the individual so informed are going to be specific to the individual, but what they are informed of, is what is common to every individual.
|
|
|
Post by stardustpilgrim on Aug 26, 2014 12:46:34 GMT -5
It reminds me of a famous story of a Zen Master who was about to be killed by two samurai in Japan. When he showed no fear of death, and looked utterly unconcerned, the two men lost all interest in killing him. In the early days of the Iraqi war a small group of US contractors were taken hostage. In a later video of the hostages released to the media, one particular hostage stood out for his calm and complete lack of concern about the situation, while the other hostages were clearly worried. It turns out that in the end all of the hostages were killed...but one. Inexplicably, the captors released the same unconcerned hostage completely unharmed. I sometimes tell the occasional lady that if she were ever put in a position such as Quinn described, that if she were to have an attitude of calm, unconcern about it, she would likely disarm her attacker as a result. I've gotten some interesting looks along the way with that suggestion. But there is definitely something to be said about putting up emotional resistance to dangerous situations and empowering that danger, whereas non-resistence seems to have the effect of minimizing or dissolving danger. I first learned about this in my early twenties when someone much bigger and stronger came to harm me at my house and intuitively dealing with it without anger or upset. I watched in complete surprise and gratefulness when he began to literally melt and fall into my couch before my eyes, drained of ability and, as they say, dazed and confused. He too kept apologizing. I ended up making him a cup of coffee and giving him a ride home. Never saw him again after that. Quite curious I am right now watching Qvo Vadis, a film which I have never seen. A Roman soldier has fallen in love with a Christian, marries her (Peter married them), she is about to be killed in the arena by a raging bull. Just previous the non-Christian Roman soldier (Marcus) finally sees the light. The Roman soldier is tied up beside Nero. One Christian faces the bull while others are tied up. The Roman soldier prays for the Christian to have strength to kill the bull, he does. Right then the Roman soldier breaks free and rushes to the side of his wife. ......They are surrounded by other soldiers........I didn't see what happened as I was typing, but Marcus made some kind of speech about how nasty Nero is.........Oh.....later, that night...some lady just stabbed Nero in the heart and killed him.....OK, Marcus (Robert Taylor) the Roman soldier is alive......and his wife (Deborah Kerr) alive. The End. TCM That was just a sweet little synchronicity (I hadn't previously gotten this far in this thread). ...........Calm won out..........(in the arena).....Oh.....there were other scenes of Christians singing while being burned alive (calm didn't win out)........ sdp
|
|
|
Post by sunshine on Aug 26, 2014 13:25:34 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by stardustpilgrim on Aug 26, 2014 13:48:05 GMT -5
OK......thanks for telling me........ d
|
|
|
Post by japhy on Aug 31, 2014 4:44:03 GMT -5
The physical component of emotion can vary in intensity and has a range of different possible descriptions while the intellect is detached from that. The intellect deals in the currency of precision and accuracy, and thereby is where objectivity resides. It's easy to get two people to agree on what "two" means Emotions, on the other hand, are primarily subjective, and ultimately impossible to capture by the intellect. Just as the chemist can describe the components and reactions that go into your taste of a peach that isn't your experience of it, emotions, while often logically traceable to cause and effect, are essentially ineffable and irrational. Conversely, emotions are useless in furthering intellectual understanding. You can't anger or love your way to solving a problem in complex mathematics, although the intersection between subjectivity (emotion) and objectivity (intellect) can be seen by this example to be the notion of intuition, and that's precisely where you find "Eureka!". Because emotions are subjective and inherently personal in nature, when the same emotion is seemingly shared by different people in response to the same stimuli, the connection involved is quite a bit deeper than can be had by the intellect. This is why peeps dig art. It's also what seems to draw most of them to religion. Regardless of how the word satori is used -- either a transcendent insight or a permanent shift -- what it's referring to isn't either an emotion or an abstraction, but our only notice of it comes down to us through these. The details of what and in which order various emotions or ideas inform the mind of the individual so informed are going to be specific to the individual, but what they are informed of, is what is common to every individual. Hey laughter, thank you for the detailed explanation. I think (?) I got it now. Japhy
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Aug 31, 2014 6:31:52 GMT -5
The physical component of emotion can vary in intensity and has a range of different possible descriptions while the intellect is detached from that. The intellect deals in the currency of precision and accuracy, and thereby is where objectivity resides. It's easy to get two people to agree on what "two" means Emotions, on the other hand, are primarily subjective, and ultimately impossible to capture by the intellect. Just as the chemist can describe the components and reactions that go into your taste of a peach that isn't your experience of it, emotions, while often logically traceable to cause and effect, are essentially ineffable and irrational. Conversely, emotions are useless in furthering intellectual understanding. You can't anger or love your way to solving a problem in complex mathematics, although the intersection between subjectivity (emotion) and objectivity (intellect) can be seen by this example to be the notion of intuition, and that's precisely where you find "Eureka!". Because emotions are subjective and inherently personal in nature, when the same emotion is seemingly shared by different people in response to the same stimuli, the connection involved is quite a bit deeper than can be had by the intellect. This is why peeps dig art. It's also what seems to draw most of them to religion. Regardless of how the word satori is used -- either a transcendent insight or a permanent shift -- what it's referring to isn't either an emotion or an abstraction, but our only notice of it comes down to us through these. The details of what and in which order various emotions or ideas inform the mind of the individual so informed are going to be specific to the individual, but what they are informed of, is what is common to every individual. Hey laughter, thank you for the detailed explanation. I think (?) I got it now. Japhy Sure japhy, my pleasure. As to the original question, "Satori" is of Japanese origin and ZD states what the traditional Zen definition of it is here.
|
|
|
Post by tzujanli on Aug 31, 2014 11:03:29 GMT -5
There is a difference between 'seeing into one's nature', and being judged for not agreeing with what someone else thinks they 'see'.. it's like when the US 'liberates' a country by introducing democracy, and the country doesn't use 'democracy' the way the US thinks it should, then the 'liberators' get all pissy..
To see into one's nature is to actually 'see into one's nature', but.. to codify that seeing into a hierarchical ritual religion that judges separates others from the hierarchy, is mind-play 'about' the seeing..
|
|
|
Post by silver on Sept 3, 2014 21:10:08 GMT -5
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 3, 2014 21:27:16 GMT -5
thanks Silver... my net is capped at present, will watch when free. Have you seen the Australian film BLISS?
|
|
|
Post by silver on Sept 3, 2014 21:40:31 GMT -5
No, I haven't seen BLISS. Is it on Youtube? probly not...
|
|