|
Post by tenka on Nov 7, 2018 3:13:44 GMT -5
It's not a giraffe at all . You have based your conclusion in regards to what you think I mean by there is only what you are . Your not interested in what I mean by it . You have carried on saying what I mean is that you are a troll based on Gopal is . This would mean if andy lied about something then your a liar too . It's preposterous to suggest that . There is no foundation to your conclusion . If it's true that there is only what you are (and it is), then you are literally all individuations and you are responsible for all actions. If you truly understood what you've been saying, it would likely temper your judgement. Individual responsibility is just that . I have explained myself many times regarding this, butt feel free to ignore what I have said and continue to speak about what you think I mean without foundation . The nexus of the conversation was that if I call gopal a troll it means everyone else is a troll based upon there is only what you are . That is not what there is only what you are means . By all means dear fellow carry on regardless .. It's pantomime season after all .
|
|
|
Post by andrew on Nov 7, 2018 3:16:32 GMT -5
yes. There was a point reached at which each of the solipsists would state that they could only know for sure that they each existed as a 'nexus' point of perception...say 'Gopal' for example...who, as a 'nexus', has thoughts and feelings and bodily conscious capacity. This is in contrast to what they perceived outside of their 'nexus', which only appeared when they were perceiving it (hence the use of the word 'image'). But then they hit a problem, because if other 'nexus' points DO exist, then those other 'nexus' points can't just be an image. Instead they exist as 'nexus' points in their own right. So then we had this really weird scenario in which some people are just images that appear/disappear (so these 'people' don't have hearts or brains or backsides), whereas other people DO exist, complete with thoughts, feelings, bodily conscious capacity. Just a total context confusion. A nexus point is not an existing person with bodily organs. That's still an appearance, and it still isn't created if a nexus point is not perceiving it. This body doesn't appear if no point of perception is perceiving it. Can you find me find me a text which speaks of this 'nexus' point? Or the idea that these 'nexus' points ' associate' with an appearance (and yet other appearances are 'unassociated'?) What's happened is that you made something up in order to explain something that was bogus to start with. There's no such thing as 'nexus points' or 'associated appearances'. The truth is far simpler. Creation/perception is Whole. Yes, we can speak of individuated perception/creation, but ultimately this is an illusion. Isn't that simpler?
|
|
|
Post by andrew on Nov 7, 2018 3:18:45 GMT -5
Okay, so this is a great example of the context mix I just mentioned. In the context in which I would speak of being an apparently personal perceiver/creator, I know the moon is in the sky when I am not perceiving it. I know there is a sky when I am not perceiving it. The context of the personal perceiver/creator is the context of being in the apparent 'world of form'. In this world, brains do have function, human beings DO have hearts, and Marie does still have a backside when you are looking at her frontside. In this context, buses are likely to hurt you if they hit you, and butterflies tend to do no damage. In the context in which I would speak of appearances appearing in impersonal Consciousness, THEN I might speak of moon/sky appearing/disappearing, but in this context, there is no personal perceiver. Instead, creation/perception is whole. Your contexts were mixed up then, as they are now, because you hold the odd belief that you, as a personal creator/perceiver, might be 'God' i.e that you...as a personal creator/perceiver, are perceiving/creating the totality. It would be highly imaginative to ascertain that meaning from what Enigma has said. When? In the last two years? Or just there? If perception=creation, and Enigma is the ONLY perceiver....then he alone is creating ( and experiencing) all expressions, all structures, all parameters....the totality of all that is. I don't think it's unreasonable to suggest that this is entertaining a God-complex.
|
|
|
Post by andrew on Nov 7, 2018 3:22:12 GMT -5
All mushin demonstrates is that a particular kind of experience is available, it doesn't tell us that experience/beliefs don't go together. If we look closely at the structure of mushin, we would find the beliefs (looking closely at structure would probably ruin the experience, so it's not something I necessarily recommend). If you agree that mind cannot think in terms of an absence, then what I'm saying has to be correct here. First there is a belief in something. ThEN there can be a belief that the first belief is false. That's the only way the mind can reject what it knows. It cannot 'eliminate' what it knows (I guess 'forgetting' is the mind's way to eliminate). As an example, we don't 'eliminate' the belief in the SVP, instead we believe it to be false (and probably also re-contextualize it). It's more like recognising what you thought was true isn't. It is no longer a belief at all. It's more like...a 'blockchain'. 1. There is Santa Claus 2. This belief/knowledge in Santa Claus is false belief/knowledge. The mind cannot eliminate what it knows/creates (as I said, about the most that can happen is 'forgetting'). It can only falsify what it knows/creates (because it is able to 'measure'). Interestingly, if we consider that what the mind creates is more 'actual' than what it measures, then even though we can realize that Santa Claus is false, Santa Claus remains more 'actual' than it does 'false'. Hence why myth is so powerful. The 'myth' of the person might be a good example.
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Nov 7, 2018 4:04:58 GMT -5
Not once you've had it, no, like several other potential states and experience, after "no mind action", the issue can become very clear, but no debate will ever touch what the experience reveals. Your theory about how mind works in terms of absence is applying logic and reason to the ineffable: the absence of language and ideas to ever convey a gnosis. No movement of mind can ever capture the ineffable. I know this sounds like I'm describing mind in mechanistic terms, but there's a different way to understand this point: as a distinction between the mechanical and the holistic. But that's fine if you don't want to buy that, I'm not trying to sell it, after all. It's a freebie. But there's just no point in reasoning beyond that distinction. I want to be ultra clear about something. I'm not denying at all there is a mushin state. Nor am I denying there are other 'spiritual' states (or non-states), such as non-attachment, detachment, no-mind, non-judgement etc. But all these states have a structure, and if we look closely at the structure, you will find belief there. You can't look at the experience itself and find the belief (because the experience itself seems 'absent belief'!), you have to examine the structure itself. Maybe you have never done that before, I don't know...I learned how to do it (here's one example: www.amazon.co.uk/Neurolinguistic-Programming-Structure-Subjective-Experience/dp/0916990079)From this I conclude you've never experienced mushin or a body/mind state completely clear of any secondary mental activity. I didn't follow the link, because the practice of examining conditioning is one that goes far deeper than the shallow analysis of psychological structures. It's a process that can trigger experiences that are very similar to an acid trip. NLP is explained as a science of changing the condition of the brain, but the only scientists I've encountered that aren't completely benighted on this topic are the ones associated with Gary Webber. I haven't mentioned 'the ineffable', what I have said is that what the mind believes/knows, it cannot deny or eliminate. The only way forward is to create another belief/knowing in relation to the first belief/knowing. I've given clear examples. If you want to bring 'the ineffable' into it, we could look at that, but we started talking about a belief in objective reality, not 'the ineffable'. What you're describing is a belief swap. That's not what neti-neti is. You want to argue the mechanics of how mind works, but what I'm referring to is only tangentially related to that, and as I've already conceded, isn't a position that's tenable in a debate.
|
|
|
Post by andrew on Nov 7, 2018 4:36:25 GMT -5
I want to be ultra clear about something. I'm not denying at all there is a mushin state. Nor am I denying there are other 'spiritual' states (or non-states), such as non-attachment, detachment, no-mind, non-judgement etc. But all these states have a structure, and if we look closely at the structure, you will find belief there. You can't look at the experience itself and find the belief (because the experience itself seems 'absent belief'!), you have to examine the structure itself. Maybe you have never done that before, I don't know...I learned how to do it (here's one example: www.amazon.co.uk/Neurolinguistic-Programming-Structure-Subjective-Experience/dp/0916990079)From this I conclude you've never experienced mushin or a body/mind state completely clear of any secondary mental activity. I didn't follow the link, because the practice of examining conditioning is one that goes far deeper than the shallow analysis of psychological structures. It's a process that can trigger experiences that are very similar to an acid trip. NLP is explained as a science of changing the condition of the brain, but the only scientists I've encountered that aren't completely benighted on this topic are the ones associated with Gary Webber. I haven't mentioned 'the ineffable', what I have said is that what the mind believes/knows, it cannot deny or eliminate. The only way forward is to create another belief/knowing in relation to the first belief/knowing. I've given clear examples. If you want to bring 'the ineffable' into it, we could look at that, but we started talking about a belief in objective reality, not 'the ineffable'. What you're describing is a belief swap. That's not what neti-neti is. You want to argue the mechanics of how mind works, but what I'm referring to is only tangentially related to that, and as I've already conceded, isn't a position that's tenable in a debate. Giraffe. I spoke of examining the structure of experience, not examining conditioning. I can understand why you would conclude what you concluded, but I believe that you are confusing actual experience, for structure. The direct quality or nature of the experience won't tell you about the structure, in fact it will often seem to be in opposition to the structure. Also, NLP doesn't exclusively focus on neuroscience by any means. For example, in its origination, Milton Erickson was one of the key practitioners that was modelled and synthesized, and Milton worked almost entirely with the unconscious mind. I can give lots more examples, but I sense you aren't interested, and that's fine. And no, what I am saying is the opposite of a belief swap. One belief doesn't replace another. New information is added to the old information. It's more of a re-contextualization. Hence why, experience is always a process of learning (though I understand what is meant by unlearning, and see the validity in the idea). In the spiritual process, structurally speaking, information is not lost. Experientially, we can speak of many losses and can speak of such things as 'beginners mind' or 'innocence' etc. Here on the forum, we have traditionally tended to prefer to talk about experience rather than structure, but there is a time and place to understand structure, because understanding how the mind functions can be useful.
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Nov 7, 2018 4:52:34 GMT -5
From this I conclude you've never experienced mushin or a body/mind state completely clear of any secondary mental activity. I didn't follow the link, because the practice of examining conditioning is one that goes far deeper than the shallow analysis of psychological structures. It's a process that can trigger experiences that are very similar to an acid trip. NLP is explained as a science of changing the condition of the brain, but the only scientists I've encountered that aren't completely benighted on this topic are the ones associated with Gary Webber. What you're describing is a belief swap. That's not what neti-neti is. You want to argue the mechanics of how mind works, but what I'm referring to is only tangentially related to that, and as I've already conceded, isn't a position that's tenable in a debate. Giraffe. I spoke specifically of examining the structure of experience, not the structure of examining conditioning. Incorrect. Did I write that you wrote about the changes in conditioning? That was my interpretive translation of what you wrote. "Structure" is an abstraction from "conditioning". I can understand why you would conclude what you concluded, but I believe that you are confusing actual experience, for structure. The direct quality or nature of the experience won't tell you about the structure, in fact it will often seem to be in opposition to the structure. Also, NLP doesn't exclusively focus on neuroscience by any means. For example, in its origination, Milton Erickson was one of the key practitioners that was modelled and synthesized, and Milton worked almost entirely with the unconscious mind. I can give lots more examples, but I sense you aren't interested, and that's fine. And no, what I am saying is the opposite of a belief swap. One belief doesn't replace another. New information is added to the old information. It's more of a re-contextualization. Hence why, experience is always a process of learning (though I understand what is meant by unlearning, and see the validity in the idea). In the spiritual process, structurally speaking, information is not lost. Experientially, we can speak of many losses and can speak of such things as 'beginners mind' or 'innocence' etc. That's a dwad to belief-swap, and I agree that "information isn't lost". It's not that beliefs are forgotten or erased, they're seen for what they are. Debating the difference between knowledge and absence from that point is debating the ineffable -- but I understand you don't see it that way. If you don't want to allow for the possibility that mushin or other types of experience might lead to a gnosis with no foundation in belief, that's fine, but you are drawing conclusions about something you've never experienced based on abstractions.
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Nov 7, 2018 5:15:26 GMT -5
He won't cause any permanent damage. He knows that about you as well, which is why he can let a conversation go with 'Okay' when he gets insulted or when there's no real understanding happening. If you get your facts straight, it was Gopal who was on the side lines cheer leading doing what he does best . He was laughing at my expense and I called him out . I asked him to answer questions based upon his foundation . There was no foundation, all he had was his agenda . I said don't say okay, answer the bloody question .. If he wants to laugh at me and call me out then he should pay me the courtesy in answering my question, otherwise he needs to keep his agenda to himself . Otherwise he is just living up to his troll like behaviour . Does it give you a feeling of satisfaction to write stuff like this and that?
|
|
|
Post by andrew on Nov 7, 2018 5:33:17 GMT -5
Giraffe. I spoke specifically of examining the structure of experience, not the structure of examining conditioning. Incorrect. Did I write that you wrote about the changes in conditioning? That was my interpretive translation of what you wrote. "Structure" is an abstraction from "conditioning". I can understand why you would conclude what you concluded, but I believe that you are confusing actual experience, for structure. The direct quality or nature of the experience won't tell you about the structure, in fact it will often seem to be in opposition to the structure. Also, NLP doesn't exclusively focus on neuroscience by any means. For example, in its origination, Milton Erickson was one of the key practitioners that was modelled and synthesized, and Milton worked almost entirely with the unconscious mind. I can give lots more examples, but I sense you aren't interested, and that's fine. And no, what I am saying is the opposite of a belief swap. One belief doesn't replace another. New information is added to the old information. It's more of a re-contextualization. Hence why, experience is always a process of learning (though I understand what is meant by unlearning, and see the validity in the idea). In the spiritual process, structurally speaking, information is not lost. Experientially, we can speak of many losses and can speak of such things as 'beginners mind' or 'innocence' etc. That's a dwad to belief-swap, and I agree that "information isn't lost". It's not that beliefs are forgotten or erased, they're seen for what they are. Debating the difference between knowledge and absence from that point is debating the ineffable -- but I understand you don't see it that way. If you don't want to allow for the possibility that mushin or other types of experience might lead to a gnosis with no foundation in belief, that's fine, but you are drawing conclusions about something you've never experienced based on abstractions. Conditioning is unique to each individual, but the core structures of experience are the same for each of us, and it is these core structures that I am guessing you haven't learned. This is a distinction, and as such, what you said was a giraffe. I do have reference for the 'states' you are talking about (I don't expect you to believe that), but the point I have to repeat, that you seem to be missing, is that these states can seem to contradict structure. A good example might be the state of 'detachment', in which it seems that there is no attachment. In structural terms though, there is still attachment. As I said, looking at structure isn't always useful by any means, and it's entirely possible that it just isn't relevant for some folks. In your case, you DO seem to have interest in understanding the content of your mind, but I believe you are currently misunderstanding that content. If you look at structure, 'seeing a belief for what it is', engenders another belief about beliefs (this will likely contradict the actual experience though).
|
|
|
Post by tenka on Nov 7, 2018 5:44:01 GMT -5
If you get your facts straight, it was Gopal who was on the side lines cheer leading doing what he does best . He was laughing at my expense and I called him out . I asked him to answer questions based upon his foundation . There was no foundation, all he had was his agenda . I said don't say okay, answer the bloody question .. If he wants to laugh at me and call me out then he should pay me the courtesy in answering my question, otherwise he needs to keep his agenda to himself . Otherwise he is just living up to his troll like behaviour . Does it give you a feeling of satisfaction to write stuff like this and that? I like to get things straight if that's okay with you? And while we are at it, you just spoke to andy referencing ' but you are drawing conclusions about something you've never experienced based on abstractions'.
Well based upon your understanding of what there is only what you are means, then you are basing something you've never experienced or if you have that means andy has .. Does that give you a feeling of satisfaction to make things up in regards to what I actually mean and then call what a say a giraffe based upon that premise?
|
|
|
Post by lolly on Nov 7, 2018 5:44:42 GMT -5
It would be highly imaginative to ascertain that meaning from what Enigma has said. When? In the last two years? Or just there? If perception=creation, and Enigma is the ONLY perceiver....then he alone is creating ( and experiencing) all expressions, all structures, all parameters....the totality of all that is. I don't think it's unreasonable to suggest that this is entertaining a God-complex. He was emphatically clear a great many times that he doesn't consider it personalised. How could anyone miss that?
|
|
|
Post by andrew on Nov 7, 2018 5:47:28 GMT -5
When? In the last two years? Or just there? If perception=creation, and Enigma is the ONLY perceiver....then he alone is creating ( and experiencing) all expressions, all structures, all parameters....the totality of all that is. I don't think it's unreasonable to suggest that this is entertaining a God-complex. He was emphatically clear a great many times that he doesn't consider it personalised. How could anyone miss that? How is a point of perception NOT personal? If the word 'personal' offends, then it can be easily swapped to a less offensive concept, but we have to find a concept to distinguish between the whole/holistic/impersonal and the finite/personal. I don't care about the word, it's just a convenient one for illustrative purposes. Enigma can say his point of perception isn't 'personalized', but by definition and virtue of what it is, it is 'personal'. If the word 'individual' is less offensive, then I'm fine to go with that.
|
|
|
Post by tenka on Nov 7, 2018 5:57:05 GMT -5
He was emphatically clear a great many times that he doesn't consider it personalised. How could anyone miss that? How is a point of perception NOT personal? As E replied to one of my posts earlier '' There's nothing more personal than having a conversation with an aspect of yourself. As you say, God is both impersonal and personal''.
So something that relates to a pop is of a personal nature . Butt in my eyes you don't have a conversation / argument with another with the notion that you are arguing with yourself, it would be pointless and to further explain myself along these lines would mean you would both be right and both be wrong in regards to what you are arguing about, based upon the notion that there is only what you are ..
|
|
|
Post by andrew on Nov 7, 2018 5:59:12 GMT -5
There's really only 2 ways to understand 'perception' (or 'creation'). Either inter-perception is the case, OR actually boundaried perception is the case. Spiritual solipsism ('I don't know if there are other perceivers'), believes in actually boundaried perception.
Similar applies to 'being'. Either inter-being is the case, or actually boundaried beings are the case.
|
|
|
Post by andrew on Nov 7, 2018 5:59:38 GMT -5
How is a point of perception NOT personal? As E replied to one of my posts earlier '' There's nothing more personal than having a conversation with an aspect of yourself. As you say, God is both impersonal and personal''.
So something that relates to a pop is of a personal nature . yes.
|
|