|
Why?
Mar 13, 2019 22:57:10 GMT -5
Post by Reefs on Mar 13, 2019 22:57:10 GMT -5
Oh, I see. The only question I have is, how is this guy still alive? He's never slipped once? Once is all it takes. I didn't get the impression he doesn't care if he lives or dies. He strikes me as an adrenaline junkie who has learned to compartmentalize his fear. If I remember correctly, he has made over 1,000 solo climbs. No, he doesn't want to die. He considers it accurate to say that he doesn't take chances. In the film he talks about at least one guy who died free soloing who was "crazy" (did take chances). Also in the film he had a brain scan (fMRI I believe) to test his fear. He has an exceptionally high fear threshold, most likely from his training (versus vice versa). He says he is not an adrenalin junky, adrenalin spells disaster for him. Sounds to me like a textbook case of flow. The skills match the challenge and he also has the mental presence that is required to maintain a state of alignment/mental coherence which takes care of everything else. There’s a quote about expert rock climbers in one of MC’s books about flow which seems to fit here:
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 14, 2019 9:24:16 GMT -5
It IS a movie, but a documentary...so the dude is not an actor. But yeah, I would have figured both concerns would fall away simultaneously too. But it really seems as though this guy is ok with the idea of death as he's climbing, rope free. Have a gander if you have time.
Oh, I see. The only question I have is, how is this guy still alive? He's never slipped once? Once is all it takes. I didn't get the impression he doesn't care if he lives or dies. He strikes me as an adrenaline junkie who has learned to compartmentalize his fear. I think he digs perfection and he knows if his fitness and focus isn't perfect, he dies.
|
|
|
Why?
Mar 14, 2019 9:52:09 GMT -5
Post by enigma on Mar 14, 2019 9:52:09 GMT -5
But you're not the fragment, you're the wholeness. That's the principle of non - dualism. I accept that reasoning if I am an advocate of non - duality. The principle of duality does not accept that. In the beginning there was only Adam. Wholeness. Adam felt lonely. So, this Wholeness took from Adam a rib and came into being, Eve. So, they became two. Adam & Eve. The latter is the fragment. I am only part of the Wholeness. I am Eve, the fragment taken from the rib of Adam (Wholeness ). So, sometimes you are wholeness and sometimes you are fragmented?
|
|
|
Why?
Mar 14, 2019 10:09:24 GMT -5
Post by enigma on Mar 14, 2019 10:09:24 GMT -5
How can you be both "one with the source" and "Separate as an organism"? There is only One, but as an organism we need to play the game of separation, how can we enjoy our life when continuing to be reminded of the Source ?. This reminder is what the subconscious gives birth to, and hence we have many belief systems with all sorts of stories which is only our reminder of where we came from, or in realty that which we truly are. Right, that which you truly are, have always been, always will be. You have never for one instant been "separate as an organism".
|
|
|
Why?
Mar 14, 2019 10:18:33 GMT -5
Post by enigma on Mar 14, 2019 10:18:33 GMT -5
Oh, I see. The only question I have is, how is this guy still alive? He's never slipped once? Once is all it takes. I didn't get the impression he doesn't care if he lives or dies. He strikes me as an adrenaline junkie who has learned to compartmentalize his fear. If I remember correctly, he has made over 1,000 solo climbs. No, he doesn't want to die. He considers it accurate to say that he doesn't take chances. In the film he talks about at least one guy who died free soloing who was "crazy" (did take chances). Also in the film he had a brain scan (fMRI I believe) to test his fear. He has an exceptionally high fear threshold, most likely from his training (versus vice versa). He says he is not an adrenalin junky, adrenalin spells disaster for him. Well, as long as he doesn't take chances.
|
|
|
Why?
Mar 14, 2019 10:20:04 GMT -5
Post by enigma on Mar 14, 2019 10:20:04 GMT -5
If I remember correctly, he has made over 1,000 solo climbs. No, he doesn't want to die. He considers it accurate to say that he doesn't take chances. In the film he talks about at least one guy who died free soloing who was "crazy" (did take chances). Also in the film he had a brain scan (fMRI I believe) to test his fear. He has an exceptionally high fear threshold, most likely from his training (versus vice versa). He says he is not an adrenalin junky, adrenalin spells disaster for him. He climbed El Capitan with ropes first to know every foothold and hand grip he was going to use. And then the day he did the filmed climb, was chosen on the morning. Complete, alignment (in action.) Alignment with what?
|
|
|
Why?
Mar 14, 2019 10:32:31 GMT -5
Post by laughter on Mar 14, 2019 10:32:31 GMT -5
To the extent that compassion is an outpouring of Love, it is genuine. There is a compassion for others that originates in empathy. This is a distortion which is uniquely self centered. Responding to illusion as though it were actual is not the correct response to suffering. ***feeling the noose tighten a bit*** Funny. Notice the question was who “feels.” If we're making a distinction between the person (the some nothing or whatever, we can debate the more meaningful term at another time) and awareness, we can come closer to the truth with something like the person feels and awareness witnesses. Basically, the feeling is occurring in awareness, not to awareness and even that is not very close. But that wasn't my point in this thread. I was pointing out that by reacting to a story, and emotions are often a symptom of a reaction, the story is afforded “truthiness,” to borrow your term. In this case, if you backtrack on the thread, we were talking about figgles feeling compassion for a child molester (the story).
Compassion and empathy are synonyms. So I'm assuming in this case you're setting aside a special definition for compassion and empathy, compassion you’re defining as an outpouring of love (awareness is quite often described as love) and empathy is a “distortion of mind". And your argument is that the SR express love and the non-SR, like me, and a few others express the latter out of selfishness which is a little insulting but okay, the truth hurts. Now in my mind, Laughy, had already conceded that SR folk retain the same conditioning they had before SR. So if you're an ass before SR, you're still an ass. This his how he accounted for some SR folk being d$$cks, acting very unsagely, making unsavory comments, making fun of others, questioning their intelligence, mocking their logic, etc.
I stated that I should have at that point, after his very fine explanation, shut my trap, but I was a d$$ck and decided to exercise my ego a bit and strut, very unsagely behavior which I attribute to me being far from SR. But now you argue that Laughy is incorrect, and I'm extrapolating here, that the d$$ckness, cool word huh, is NOT from conditioning but an outpouring of love because this is the emotion SR express.
Now others might argue that making insulting comments does not come from emotion, but out of frustration, I classify frustration, as a relative of anger, but we can debate this. Still, I am deducing from your argument, that only this special case of compassion is the only "genuine" emotion, so the insults must come from this special form of compassion in the case of SR folk.
My question to you is, should I conclude that the insulting comments, which by the way, I’m often guilty of as well, in the case of the SR come from compassion, not conditioning? Now please feel free to reply but as I stated to fig, I've ODed on zazeniac. So I'll probably read your replies, but I won't respond for quite some time, until I get over myself a bit.
Yes, the noose is so tight now.
FWIW, my two cents are that to say that feelings are happening in awareness might be a helpful pointer in the right conversational context, but it's counter-productive to apply that idea to trying to figure out why someone did or said anything in particular. Awareness, in this sense, is entirely unconditioned, unbounded, indescribable and eternal. Compassion and empathy are emotional expressions, and when they're not misapplied, they can reflect the unbounded aspect of awareness, and love is indeed, the right word to describe that. It doesn't matter whether the one expressing them is SR or not. Like. At all.
|
|
|
Why?
Mar 14, 2019 10:44:13 GMT -5
via mobile
Post by stardustpilgrim on Mar 14, 2019 10:44:13 GMT -5
If I remember correctly, he has made over 1,000 solo climbs. No, he doesn't want to die. He considers it accurate to say that he doesn't take chances. In the film he talks about at least one guy who died free soloing who was "crazy" (did take chances). Also in the film he had a brain scan (fMRI I believe) to test his fear. He has an exceptionally high fear threshold, most likely from his training (versus vice versa). He says he is not an adrenalin junky, adrenalin spells disaster for him. He climbed El Capitan with ropes first to know every foothold and hand grip he was going to use. And then the day he did the filmed climb, was chosen on the morning. Complete, alignment (in action.) Yes. I saw the film in the theater. It was a kind of novelty here. Most films don't stay on for months and months, it did. And not just at the artsy theater. Usually Independent films are on here at most a couple of weeks, sometimes only one week. So it caught on here. (If you get a chance to see it in theater, a must on the big screen). He climbed El Capitan with ropes multiple times, and yes, had every tiny move mapped out, written out even. I watched it again on NatGeo, and taped it. Awesome achievement. Unique, probably will not be done again (he dreamed of it for years, but kept saying to himself, no. Then finally yes, but not this year, not this year, and still years of planning).
|
|
|
Why?
Mar 14, 2019 10:49:42 GMT -5
via mobile
Post by stardustpilgrim on Mar 14, 2019 10:49:42 GMT -5
If I remember correctly, he has made over 1,000 solo climbs. No, he doesn't want to die. He considers it accurate to say that he doesn't take chances. In the film he talks about at least one guy who died free soloing who was "crazy" (did take chances). Also in the film he had a brain scan (fMRI I believe) to test his fear. He has an exceptionally high fear threshold, most likely from his training (versus vice versa). He says he is not an adrenalin junky, adrenalin spells disaster for him. Well, as long as he doesn't take chances. Practicing with ropes, he knew he could make every move he made on the free solo. That's the meaning of not taking chances.
|
|
|
Why?
Mar 14, 2019 10:51:06 GMT -5
via mobile
Post by stardustpilgrim on Mar 14, 2019 10:51:06 GMT -5
Oh, I see. The only question I have is, how is this guy still alive? He's never slipped once? Once is all it takes. I didn't get the impression he doesn't care if he lives or dies. He strikes me as an adrenaline junkie who has learned to compartmentalize his fear. I think he digs perfection and he knows if his fitness and focus isn't perfect, he dies. Yes.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Why?
Mar 14, 2019 11:01:03 GMT -5
Post by Deleted on Mar 14, 2019 11:01:03 GMT -5
Funny. Notice the question was who “feels.” If we're making a distinction between the person (the some nothing or whatever, we can debate the more meaningful term at another time) and awareness, we can come closer to the truth with something like the person feels and awareness witnesses. Basically, the feeling is occurring in awareness, not to awareness and even that is not very close. But that wasn't my point in this thread. I was pointing out that by reacting to a story, and emotions are often a symptom of a reaction, the story is afforded “truthiness,” to borrow your term. In this case, if you backtrack on the thread, we were talking about figgles feeling compassion for a child molester (the story).
Compassion and empathy are synonyms. So I'm assuming in this case you're setting aside a special definition for compassion and empathy, compassion you’re defining as an outpouring of love (awareness is quite often described as love) and empathy is a “distortion of mind". And your argument is that the SR express love and the non-SR, like me, and a few others express the latter out of selfishness which is a little insulting but okay, the truth hurts. Now in my mind, Laughy, had already conceded that SR folk retain the same conditioning they had before SR. So if you're an ass before SR, you're still an ass. This his how he accounted for some SR folk being d$$cks, acting very unsagely, making unsavory comments, making fun of others, questioning their intelligence, mocking their logic, etc.
I stated that I should have at that point, after his very fine explanation, shut my trap, but I was a d$$ck and decided to exercise my ego a bit and strut, very unsagely behavior which I attribute to me being far from SR. But now you argue that Laughy is incorrect, and I'm extrapolating here, that the d$$ckness, cool word huh, is NOT from conditioning but an outpouring of love because this is the emotion SR express.
Now others might argue that making insulting comments does not come from emotion, but out of frustration, I classify frustration, as a relative of anger, but we can debate this. Still, I am deducing from your argument, that only this special case of compassion is the only "genuine" emotion, so the insults must come from this special form of compassion in the case of SR folk.
My question to you is, should I conclude that the insulting comments, which by the way, I’m often guilty of as well, in the case of the SR come from compassion, not conditioning? Now please feel free to reply but as I stated to fig, I've ODed on zazeniac. So I'll probably read your replies, but I won't respond for quite some time, until I get over myself a bit.
Yes, the noose is so tight now.
FWIW, my two cents are that to say that feelings are happening in awareness might be a helpful pointer in the right conversational context, but it's counter-productive to apply that idea to trying to figure out why someone did or said anything in particular. Awareness, in this sense, is entirely unconditioned, unbounded, indescribable and eternal. Compassion and empathy are emotional expressions, and when they're not misapplied, they can reflect the unbounded aspect of awareness, and love is indeed, the right word to describe that. It doesn't matter whether the one expressing them is SR or not. Like. At all. The way I look at it, the self centered form of compassion is based on the story. The type of compassion E is talking about is there always, regardless of the story. Even when there is none. If you go back and read the thread, fig said she felt compassion because these folk are often loathed. To me it's quite complicated to unweave the tangle of emotions one feels in these situations, even loathing in this case can be a close relative of love. But this argument just leads to more debate that in my view is distraction. So is the d$$cknes we're all guilty of here based conditioning or could it be a form of compassion?
|
|
|
Why?
Mar 14, 2019 11:06:51 GMT -5
via mobile
Post by stardustpilgrim on Mar 14, 2019 11:06:51 GMT -5
It IS a movie, but a documentary...so the dude is not an actor. But yeah, I would have figured both concerns would fall away simultaneously too. But it really seems as though this guy is ok with the idea of death as he's climbing, rope free. Have a gander if you have time.
Oh, I see. The only question I have is, how is this guy still alive? He's never slipped once? Once is all it takes. I didn't get the impression he doesn't care if he lives or dies. He strikes me as an adrenaline junkie who has learned to compartmentalize his fear. In the film two times are discussed when he fell, climbing with ropes. Once he was climbing with his girlfriend. She wasn't watching and let the end of the rope slip through her hands (through a pully-"contraption"). He broke his back (I think that fall was about 30'). He kept climbing with doctor's OK. The other fall, he sprained his ankle. He kept climbing with a boot-"cast". Both falls were during the training-planning time for El Cap.
|
|
|
Post by zendancer on Mar 14, 2019 11:36:43 GMT -5
Oh, I see. The only question I have is, how is this guy still alive? He's never slipped once? Once is all it takes. I didn't get the impression he doesn't care if he lives or dies. He strikes me as an adrenaline junkie who has learned to compartmentalize his fear. In the film two times are discussed when he fell, climbing with ropes. Once he was climbing with his girlfriend. She wasn't watching and let the end of the rope slip through her hands (through a pully-"contraption"). He broke his back (I think that fall was about 30'). He kept climbing with doctor's OK. The other fall, he sprained his ankle. He kept climbing with a boot-"cast". Both falls were during the training-planning time for El Cap. The fall with the girlfriend is why most climbers prefer to climb with people who have a good history of being highly focused anytime they're climbing. Your post reminded me of an initial climb in the Flatirons more than 50 years ago. I was new to climbing, and so was the guy who was with me. At one point I moved around a projection and lost sight of my partner. I was on belay, and he was supposedly holding the end of the rope in case I slipped. I yelled to him that I couldn't find a hand hold, and was going to let go of the rock while I searched for somewhere to drive in a piton. I leaned back away from the rock with only my feet and the rope holding me. I had a piton in my left hand and a hammer in my right hand. As I moved around a bit, keeping tension on the rope, I happened to lean back far enough that I could see around the projection between my partner and me. I was astonished to see that he wasn't holding the rope, and the only thing keeping me from falling was the rope that had become wedged in a small crevice! I yelled at him to grab the rope, quickly retreated to a secure location, and rappelled to the ground. That ended my climbing for the day, and I never went climbing with that guy again. Absent-mindedness when climbing in the mountains is a killer.
|
|
|
Why?
Mar 14, 2019 11:49:43 GMT -5
Post by laughter on Mar 14, 2019 11:49:43 GMT -5
FWIW, my two cents are that to say that feelings are happening in awareness might be a helpful pointer in the right conversational context, but it's counter-productive to apply that idea to trying to figure out why someone did or said anything in particular. Awareness, in this sense, is entirely unconditioned, unbounded, indescribable and eternal. Compassion and empathy are emotional expressions, and when they're not misapplied, they can reflect the unbounded aspect of awareness, and love is indeed, the right word to describe that. It doesn't matter whether the one expressing them is SR or not. Like. At all. The way I look at it, the self centered form of compassion is based on the story. The type of compassion E is talking about is there always, regardless of the story. Even when there is none. If you go back and read the thread, fig said she felt compassion because these folk are often loathed. To me it's quite complicated to unweave the tangle of emotions one feels in these situations, even loathing in this case can be a close relative of love. But this argument just leads to more debate that in my view is distraction. So is the d$$cknes we're all guilty of here based conditioning or could it be a form of compassion? My take on it is that for as long as we're drawing breath we're going to be expressing conditioned responses through what we can think of as the sum total of a myriad of conditioned media, and that can be thought of in terms of all of our past experiences and circumstances. In squaring this with not-two, bear in mind that none of the boundaries we use to describe that conditioning are actual, they're just ways of describing the appearances that are coming and going relative to the unchanging Awareness that is what we really all are. That said, what I mean by "conditioning" goes as deep as deep can be. The codes expressed by our DNA are one example of it. I 2nd this notion: our conditioned expressions of empathy or compassion happen with various matters of degree of clarity. The same is true of our expressions of d!ckishness, and sure, I see the potential of the possibility of "tough love", or "being cruel to be kind", but if we idealize the potential clarity of the expression, it seems to me that d!ckishness would be a last resort. SR is relevant to this only in that it opens up a potential for clarity that's not available otherwise, and inevitably shifts the perspective to a gravitation toward clarity. But not all relatively clear expressions of love are limited to the SR, and as we're really talking about conditions and conditioning, it would be a false expectation to assume that SR necessarily means a clean windshield.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Why?
Mar 14, 2019 17:35:30 GMT -5
Post by Deleted on Mar 14, 2019 17:35:30 GMT -5
What is being called an entity is an intellectual impulse within the human network that wishes it were real. Although such a wish can be temporarily granted, it must be known for certain that it will never have any permanent existence. I don't think anyone "wishes" that selfhood were real. It's more a matter of unconsciously assuming that selfhood is real due to culturally-reinforced conditioning. The human mind is a distinction-making mechanism, and as a child grows, it distinguishes more and more sets of boundaries defining things. At first the things are objects, but gradually the things become more and more abstract (energy, space, time, beauty, etc.) The child's family, friends, and entire culture reinforce the belief in the independent nature of things, so the child never questions the meta-reality conjured up by the intellect. The naming of separate things simply solidifies the idea of separateness. It's only when THIS, as manifested by particular humans, becomes curious about existential issues, or suffers sufficient psychological pain, that the search for truth begins. The self wishes it were real. That's the core of the Enigma's Pinocchio reference.
|
|