Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 16, 2015 16:27:22 GMT -5
perhaps, but "beliefs" is a curious word, and I'm not certain it pertains here you know how we use the word "rez" around here? is "not-rezzing" a belief? it doesn't seem that it is I used the word 'belief' because it was in the O.P. I would say a strong visceral reaction to conversation on here goes beyond not-rezzing and underpinning it is likely to be a set of beliefs that create strong physical resistance/discordance. well, as silver so adeptly pointed out... there was some eggsagerating going on and you've added the word "strong" in front of visceral... to better make your point I imagine but its not a big deal, I just speed read the parts which don't interest me
|
|
|
Post by andrew on Jan 16, 2015 16:29:07 GMT -5
I used the word 'belief' because it was in the O.P. I would say a strong visceral reaction to conversation on here goes beyond not-rezzing and underpinning it is likely to be a set of beliefs that create strong physical resistance/discordance. well, as silver so adeptly pointed out... there was some eggsagerating going on and you've added the word "strong" in front of visceral... to better make your point I imagine but its not a big deal, I just speed read the parts which don't interest me Puking in mouth surely a strong visceral reaction, no?
|
|
|
Post by enigma on Jan 16, 2015 16:29:25 GMT -5
hehe .. I have similar visceral reactions.. which perplexes me, honestly... and seems to interfere with WIBIGO It's these kinds of reactions that can give us a clue that there could be some beliefs to put on the old chopping block. Like the idea that your posts instill nausea and drowziness in some members? No, I think that idea is true.
|
|
|
Post by quinn on Jan 16, 2015 16:29:30 GMT -5
Good observation, popee. Those reactions are interesting, eh? I have them too, but only about theories and philosophies. The model thing doesn't bother me at all. To me it's saying "The map is...a map". I haven't heard anyone purporting it to be territory at all. Anyway, that's how I take it. But the models are all made up of theories and philosophies, and the theories and philosophies all fit into models. A model is just larger a set of ideas rather than a specific theory seeking proof, or a philosophy that need not be confined to a scientific discipline. I don't have a problem with models, theories and philosophies. They just don't seem to have much to do with spirituality, at least the sort that we generally discuss here. Ummm...A model is a representation of something 'actual'. When we describe our own experiences, understandings, realizations, we're using words and ideas to represent them. Your point is well taken that these words and ideas are not to be looked at, it's what they're representing (pointing to) that's meant to be looked at. But they're still models until that point. Or maps or pointers. Theories are different in that they're extrapolations/ideas about the experience, understanding, realization.
|
|
|
Post by andrew on Jan 16, 2015 16:34:22 GMT -5
I started to ask what this model business was all about... way back... but I didn't want to muddle through 50 more pages of puking and dozing off At least 50 pages of puking. Hehe. The main reason it's not a model, which you will prolly understand, but not the hypermodelers, is that this stuff is really about what isn't so. It's about seeing through the illusory models, and you're not left with anything to grasp or to know (in the normal sense) or theorize or philosophise about. The brown bear has it right, it's just that Mr bear has turned it into a model rather than seeing what the ideas point to. More understandings here, more model of reality being demonstrated. What is also fascinating is that you think any discussion had on here is something other than two individuals discussing their models of reality. What do you think you are offering here if it's not your understanding of what in blazes is going on?
|
|
|
Post by enigma on Jan 16, 2015 19:06:51 GMT -5
But the models are all made up of theories and philosophies, and the theories and philosophies all fit into models. A model is just larger a set of ideas rather than a specific theory seeking proof, or a philosophy that need not be confined to a scientific discipline. I don't have a problem with models, theories and philosophies. They just don't seem to have much to do with spirituality, at least the sort that we generally discuss here. To speak of someone's overall 'model' is to speak of their frame of reference. The totality of their understandings/conditioning. For example, your model of reality includes ideas of nothing being ultimately true and greasy spots and everything being imaginary and what you are as being prior to what appears (to give a few examples). The really fascinating thing about your frame of reference/model is that it is set up in such way that makes you think you don't have one.
|
|
|
Post by enigma on Jan 16, 2015 19:11:34 GMT -5
well, as silver so adeptly pointed out... there was some eggsagerating going on and you've added the word "strong" in front of visceral... to better make your point I imagine but its not a big deal, I just speed read the parts which don't interest me Puking in mouth surely a strong visceral reaction, no? You know what eggsagerating means, right?
|
|
|
Post by enigma on Jan 16, 2015 19:19:09 GMT -5
But the models are all made up of theories and philosophies, and the theories and philosophies all fit into models. A model is just larger a set of ideas rather than a specific theory seeking proof, or a philosophy that need not be confined to a scientific discipline. I don't have a problem with models, theories and philosophies. They just don't seem to have much to do with spirituality, at least the sort that we generally discuss here. Ummm...A model is a representation of something 'actual'. When we describe our own experiences, understandings, realizations, we're using words and ideas to represent them. Your point is well taken that these words and ideas are not to be looked at, it's what they're representing (pointing to) that's meant to be looked at. But they're still models until that point. Or maps or pointers. Theories are different in that they're extrapolations/ideas about the experience, understanding, realization. The one who is pointing to potential nonconceptual realizations does not have a model. Using words to point does not mean he has a model he's working from. The distinction is a bit subtle, but the point that one is not pointing to a model is important.
|
|
|
Post by enigma on Jan 16, 2015 19:21:19 GMT -5
At least 50 pages of puking. Hehe. The main reason it's not a model, which you will prolly understand, but not the hypermodelers, is that this stuff is really about what isn't so. It's about seeing through the illusory models, and you're not left with anything to grasp or to know (in the normal sense) or theorize or philosophise about. The brown bear has it right, it's just that Mr bear has turned it into a model rather than seeing what the ideas point to. More understandings here, more model of reality being demonstrated. What is also fascinating is that you think any discussion had on here is something other than two individuals discussing their models of reality. What do you think you are offering here if it's not your understanding of what in blazes is going on? Talking about the boundaries of other peep's models is not the presentation of a model.
|
|
|
Post by stardustpilgrim on Jan 16, 2015 19:26:04 GMT -5
hehe .. I have similar visceral reactions.. which perplexes me, honestly... and seems to interfere with WIBIGO It's these kinds of reactions that can give us a clue that there could be some beliefs to put on the old chopping block. Oooo.......nice one..........
|
|
|
Post by andrew on Jan 16, 2015 19:27:12 GMT -5
Puking in mouth surely a strong visceral reaction, no? You know what eggsagerating means, right? That's an odd question to ask. Even if it WAS an exaggeration, an examination of the movement to exaggerate in that particular way would likely reveal beliefs that can go on the chopping block.
|
|
|
Post by andrew on Jan 16, 2015 19:29:17 GMT -5
More understandings here, more model of reality being demonstrated. What is also fascinating is that you think any discussion had on here is something other than two individuals discussing their models of reality. What do you think you are offering here if it's not your understanding of what in blazes is going on? Talking about the boundaries of other peep's models is not the presentation of a model. Oh but it is in it's own way. In order to talk about the boundaries of other's models, you would have to have a model of your own, in which there would be some kind of understanding about boundaries. You reveal much about your model when you challenge other people's models.
|
|
|
Post by stardustpilgrim on Jan 16, 2015 19:31:37 GMT -5
But the models are all made up of theories and philosophies, and the theories and philosophies all fit into models. A model is just larger a set of ideas rather than a specific theory seeking proof, or a philosophy that need not be confined to a scientific discipline. I don't have a problem with models, theories and philosophies. They just don't seem to have much to do with spirituality, at least the sort that we generally discuss here. To speak of someone's overall 'model' is to speak of their frame of reference. The totality of their understandings/conditioning. For example, your model of reality includes ideas of nothing being ultimately true and greasy spots and everything being imaginary and what you are as being prior to what appears (to give a few examples). The really fascinating thing about your frame of reference/model is that it is set up in such way that makes you think you don't have one. weltanschauung.
|
|
|
Post by andrew on Jan 16, 2015 19:31:42 GMT -5
Ummm...A model is a representation of something 'actual'. When we describe our own experiences, understandings, realizations, we're using words and ideas to represent them. Your point is well taken that these words and ideas are not to be looked at, it's what they're representing (pointing to) that's meant to be looked at. But they're still models until that point. Or maps or pointers. Theories are different in that they're extrapolations/ideas about the experience, understanding, realization. The one who is pointing to potential nonconceptual realizations does not have a model. Using words to point does not mean he has a model he's working from. The distinction is a bit subtle, but the point that one is not pointing to a model is important.
|
|
|
Post by andrew on Jan 16, 2015 19:33:25 GMT -5
To speak of someone's overall 'model' is to speak of their frame of reference. The totality of their understandings/conditioning. For example, your model of reality includes ideas of nothing being ultimately true and greasy spots and everything being imaginary and what you are as being prior to what appears (to give a few examples). The really fascinating thing about your frame of reference/model is that it is set up in such way that makes you think you don't have one. weltanschauung. Good word!
|
|