|
|
Post by jay17 on Feb 15, 2016 21:56:48 GMT -5
The conundrum is that talking/writing about spiritual issues is a different modality than experiencing it. And we spend a lot of time talking about a modality that cannot be reached via words or thought. How can it be a conundrum if you are aware they are different actions that produce different results? Jay, My style of writing is based on observation over a long period of time. I tend to use We when I notice a trend that is widespread in the world. Like how widespread...(not including aliens and human-alien hybrids of course)out of the 7.4 billion people on earth, how many of them are you aware of that are talking-thinking too much about spiritual issues instead of directly experiencing it? My generalization may not apply to you (only you would know that). It is unclear to me, due to your generalization, where i fit on your scale of 'talking-thinking too much' to make an accurate self examination. If you are aware of the duality I am referencing and are not caught in it, it is admirable. The only duality i interpret you have mentioned is a generalized level of acceptable and unacceptable expressing-thinking of vs experiencing spirituality, and i don't see any problem there. Who are these people that spend a lot of time talking? My observation is that most of the world is trapped in the constructed, virtual reality where words and consensus reign supreme. Even this forum, with a theme of spirituality, has over 300k posts. How many out of 7.4 billion have you observed? What are you observing to make this evaluation that it's most of earth's population? What is an acceptable amount of posts in this forum for you to judge the members are not trapped in what you perceive existence as? Do you have a guideline that informs others of how much talking is okay and what is too much? I am not an authority and do not want to become one. Therefore, I will not be issuing guidelines that must be followed. At most, I might make suggestions. What suggestions do you have to offer, on a small scale, to every member(as a group) in this forum on how much they should talk and think about spirituality so they do not become entrapped in whatever it is you perceive as a false\"virtual" reality? Cannot a human directly experience talking, writing, listening, reading? This kind of question leads to endless philosophical discussion, an area that I loath to venture into. For all of humanity, if the species does not wipe itself out, it's possible a discussion could be endless, but in the confines of you and i chatting, that's literally not possible. My intepretation thus far, is you appear to have issue with thinking and verbal expression of thought about existence, and that an unknown amount of doing this somehow negatively interferes with one's experience of existence. I am not that learned in the numerous spiritual philosophies in existence, but i am sure, if my interpretation is somewhat accurate, this is an old philosophy\religion. |
|
|
|
Post by hicksetta on Feb 15, 2016 22:19:35 GMT -5
Jay17, are you completely out of your own mind? The nazi in me sometimes thinks that...well...never mind...don't let that fooker out of its cage, please.
|
|
Larry
New Member
Posts: 26
|
Post by Larry on Feb 15, 2016 23:44:12 GMT -5
Jay17,
I don't think our brief interchange of information has been very fruitful. Please read through some of the book I offered. Then we can have a dialog without me attempting to rewrite the book one post at a time. It will be more efficient that way.
|
|
|
|
Post by jay17 on Feb 16, 2016 1:38:01 GMT -5
Jay17, I don't think our brief interchange of information has been very fruitful. Please read through some of the book I offered. Then we can have a dialog without me attempting to rewrite the book one post at a time. It will be more efficient that way. I think one reason is i interface with existence in fine details and you do so in a generalized manner. I seek to understand what is your cut off point before the amount of talking and thinking about spirituality negatively interferes in one's spiritual journey, while you do not provide this info, and only state 'too much' does. If i read your book, which i did go and have a gander at 2 chapters earlier, i simply would have eleventee hundreds of questions that i would seek answers from you to help me understand precisely what you are saying. |
|
Larry
New Member
Posts: 26
|
Post by Larry on Feb 16, 2016 8:12:49 GMT -5
Jay17, I don't think our brief interchange of information has been very fruitful. Please read through some of the book I offered. Then we can have a dialog without me attempting to rewrite the book one post at a time. It will be more efficient that way. I think one reason is i interface with existence in fine details and you do so in a generalized manner. I seek to understand what is your cut off point before the amount of talking and thinking about spirituality negatively interferes in one's spiritual journey, while you do not provide this info, and only state 'too much' does. If i read your book, which i did go and have a gander at 2 chapters earlier, i simply would have eleventee hundreds of questions that i would seek answers from you to help me understand precisely what you are saying. Jay, Your fine-grained approach to existence may be perfect if you are a physicist or a chemist, but spirituality requires an emotional connection. Spirituality is all about connection to "something" that it outside of or beyond your ordinary way of dealing with the world. A spiritual experience is many times found as a focal point for one's life, such that the spiritual feeling is sufficient to provide a direction in life. The fine-grained, intellectual approach will not lead to such a spiritual connection, it is a different modality. The duality of cognitive apprehension vs. the direct experience of life is what the book is about. This is the human condition in a nutshell. That duality cannot be changed, it is hard-wired in the brain (dual brain hemispheres). The best we (all humans) can do is to shift the ratio of virtual reality as primary, to experienced reality as primary. That is the task, and it's what I write about. The cognitive, fine-grained approach is like mathematics, it deals with a closed system, while spirituality is about that feeling of expanse or awe pointing to something greater than ourselves. Without the experience of spirituality you are really stuck in the intellectual mode - sort of like wondering in the arid desert. Take a long walk out in nature - long enough so that the fine-grained apprehension of life gives way to a purely sensory experience. The "connection" will start there. |
|
|
|
Post by jay17 on Feb 16, 2016 15:48:55 GMT -5
Jay, Your fine-grained approach to existence may be perfect if you are a physicist or a chemist, but spirituality requires an emotional connection. Spirituality is all about connection to "something" that it outside of or beyond your ordinary way of dealing with the world. A spiritual experience is many times found as a focal point for one's life, such that the spiritual feeling is sufficient to provide a direction in life. The fine-grained, intellectual approach will not lead to such a spiritual connection, it is a different modality. The duality of cognitive apprehension vs. the direct experience of life is what the book is about. This is the human condition in a nutshell. That duality cannot be changed, it is hard-wired in the brain (dual brain hemispheres). The best we (all humans) can do is to shift the ratio of virtual reality as primary, to experienced reality as primary. That is the task, and it's what I write about. The cognitive, fine-grained approach is like mathematics, it deals with a closed system, while spirituality is about that feeling of expanse or awe pointing to something greater than ourselves. Without the experience of spirituality you are really stuck in the intellectual mode - sort of like wondering in the arid desert. Seems to me it is you that is bound by your beliefs about the duality of the human being. You think a scientist, chemist or i cannot have a deep emotional connection to existence if we are deep thinkers. Seems to me, like others i have actually encountered on forums...i have not come across any 'Direct Experience" devotees\advocates\preachers offline(preacher seems apt as your book is about a new religion) yet, and most likely won't in my small neck of the woods in Tassie, though i have not personally met the 2500(approx) inhabitants yet, and there are some who i see that might be into spiritual things... Anyways, seems to me, like others i have actually encountered on forums, you have a bias against one half of the human being, the intellect, and thus have an imbalanced favor towards the emotional half. You still have not provided a number to this... I seek to understand what is your cut off point before the amount of talking and thinking about spirituality negatively interferes in one's spiritual journey, while you do not provide this info, and only state 'too much' does. ...but you have reworded your judgement to the underlined text...so i ask again...I seek to understand what is the correct ratio so the amount of talking and thinking about spirituality does not negatively interfere in one's spiritual journey? And i ask because you have thought and written words in your book, and i calculate that to you, this is an acceptable amount of thinking and writing about spirituality...so i would like to know at what point do you think thinking and\or writing negatively interferes in one's spirituality? Take a long walk out in nature - long enough so that the fine-grained apprehension of life gives way to a purely sensory experience. The "connection" will start there. By what functions of your human beingness have you determined i have never done this? Also, from your observation of me in our extremely brief interaction, what have you seen about me have you used to help you determine i have never done this? |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 16, 2016 16:03:18 GMT -5
welcome to the forum anonji Larry  good luck with your book (and the reviewers)  |
|
Larry
New Member
Posts: 26
|
Post by Larry on Feb 16, 2016 18:41:52 GMT -5
Jay17,
I'm sure you must have realized now that forum interactions are lacking in real, direct human contact. At best, we are dealing with appearances. Most people with an interest in spirituality have some sense that it is a different realm than merely discussing it. From a deep thinker: "The most beautiful thing we can experience is the mysterious. It is the source of all true art and science." -- Einstein. I doubt there is anyone studying spirituality as a science or a scholarly endeavor that could answer the question about the exact and preferred ratio of thinking vs. feeling, or experience vs. cognition. Do you want to approach spirituality as a scholar or scientist? If so, there may be a pocket of such individuals out there. Ken Wilber might be one who shares your approach to spirituality.
|
|
|
|
Post by anja on Feb 17, 2016 13:19:07 GMT -5
I would be interested in reading Jay17's book for free on the internet. Or at least I would like to have an idea about what he wants to do, to accomplish, with his kind of knowledge. That's what I wanna know.
|
|
|
|
Post by jay17 on Feb 17, 2016 15:01:10 GMT -5
The conundrum is that talking/writing about spiritual issues is a different modality than experiencing it. And we spend a lot of time talking about a modality that cannot be reached via words or thought. I'm still waiting for you to specify how much thinking and talking\writing about spirituality negatively interferes in each individual's unique journey of life. You have written 4 books, all related to the one subject of what you think is the best spiritual path for humanity to take, so you must judge thinking and writing\talking about spirituality is beneficial or neutral to one's spiritual life. But according to what you've expressed in this thread, you see a problem when people think and talk\write too much about spirituality. I still want to know how much? And still awaiting answers to these... Jay, My style of writing is based on observation over a long period of time. I tend to use We when I notice a trend that is widespread in the world. Like how widespread...(not including aliens and human-alien hybrids of course)out of the 7.4 billion people on earth, how many of them are you aware of that are thinking-talking\writing too much about spiritual issues instead of experiencing it? My observation is that most of the world is trapped in the constructed, virtual reality where words and consensus reign supreme. Even this forum, with a theme of spirituality, has over 300k posts. How many out of 7.4 billion have you observed? What are you observing to make this evaluation that it's most of earth's population? What is an acceptable amount of posts in this forum for you to judge the members are not entrapped in whatever it is you think humanity is trapped in? I am not an authority and do not want to become one. Therefore, I will not be issuing guidelines that must be followed. At most, I might make suggestions. What suggestions do you have to offer, on a small scale say, to every member(as a group) in this forum, on how much they should think and and talk\write about spirituality so they do not become entrapped in whatever it is you think humanity is trapped in? |
|
|
|
Post by anja on Feb 17, 2016 15:16:22 GMT -5
"Jay?"
"Yes, Anja?"
"You should not engage in stuff like that anymore, Honey. You're pregnant."
"But I have to say what needs to be said! Pregnant or not!"
"What about eating some girkins? Vanilla-ice with hot cherry souce? Plum-pudding?"
"Ah! Get me some, if I can't avoid it!"
|
|
Larry
New Member
Posts: 26
|
Post by Larry on Feb 17, 2016 16:31:43 GMT -5
Jay17,
I really don't think there is any benefit for us to have this exchange. I doubt there is any possibility of having agreement on anything. If you have no sense at all of what I am saying, then it is pointless to try to explain anything. It would then become a sales pitch for a product. I won't be responding to you again.
|
|
|
|
Post by mutemantalking on Feb 17, 2016 16:42:14 GMT -5
Larry, I'm still too nice, it seem. Am I? BillFromTexas just got muted. Now that's my only way to respond. Not that I don't have anything better to do than responding to you. I just wanna tell you I still haven'd found the time to read your book completely. I hope that's not something to be worried about. I'll try to finish it anytime soon. I'm not much of a reader anymore. Maybe that's why.
|
|
Larry
New Member
Posts: 26
|
Post by Larry on Feb 17, 2016 17:03:10 GMT -5
Larry, I'm still too nice, it seem. Am I? BillFromTexas just got muted. Now that's my only way to respond. Not that I don't have anything better to do than responding to you. I just wanna tell you I still haven'd found the time to read your book completely. I hope that's not something to be worried about. I'll try to finish it anytime soon. I'm not much of a reader anymore. Maybe that's why. Sorry about your troubles with the forum. Thanks for persisting with the book. |
|
|
|
Post by jay17 on Feb 17, 2016 23:24:29 GMT -5
Jay17, I really don't think there is any benefit for us to have this exchange. I do not know what you would regard as beneficial information within our exchange, but i do know what i regard as beneficial, and so far you have avoided providing simple answers to simple questions to help me understand your thoughts about humanity and existence. I doubt there is any possibility of having agreement on anything. I judge you have not shared enough specific information for me to agree or disagree with the precepts of your "new religion", existence and what you see as a conundrum that most of humanity is entrapped in. The majority of what you have shared of your "new religion" and your thoughts about humanity and existence, so far, is very vague to me, so that i cannot determine if i agree or not. I have not even pin pointed the foundation of what you think the conumdrum actually is. Perhaps your "new religion" is based on vagueness and generalizations, that way you do not have to provide specific data to substantiate it. If you have no sense at all of what I am saying, then it is pointless to try to explain anything. That's right..."If"...and i do vaguely understand what you are vaguely saying, i simply seek specific information, which you either cannot or will not provide. You claim too much thinking and talking\writing about spirituality negatively interferes with a person's spiritual life...i simply want to know how much. You claim this is a widespread phenomena throughout the world, i simply want to know how many of the 7.4 billion people on earth you know that suffer from this. Yoiu also claim to know that i have never gone for a walk in nature and turned off my deep thinking in order to "directly experience" it, and i simply want to know how you determined this by the extremely small amount of interaction you have had with me. It would then become a sales pitch for a product. I won't be responding to you again. Seems to me that is all you have been doing so far, and not appreciating a customer asking specific questions to better understand the product. Also seems apt to call your precepts a "new religion", for most religions do not appreciate or encourage critical thinking from their followers or seekers...they prefer people just believe without question. Religions and spiritual philosophies that have 'direct experience' in their doctrines\precepts, and the people that adhere to them, also do not advocate or encourage thinking of any kind, even though they themselves use their minds a lot to create, develop and proclaim their religion\philosophy. |
|
