|
|
Post by enigma on Mar 11, 2013 11:53:52 GMT -5
I'll ask the same question I asked Figgy. If you could empty yourself of all purpose, would you fall limp and silent, or would you continue to act? ' Emptying ourselves of purpose isn't possible. Behaviour is motivated. However, I would describe 'spontaneous' purpose as possible. Even if you are consistently emptying yourself of purpose, it is still done with purpose. There could be common ground here. How would you describe 'spontaneous purpose'? |
|
|
|
Post by enigma on Mar 11, 2013 12:33:20 GMT -5
Going forward, if there is anyone that feels like I am not coming empty to them, you have my permission to *thwack* me with the zen stick. I left the forum because I needed to focus on my life outside the forum. I ended up breaking up with my wife. The weight of my relationship was affecting me significantly and I feel much lighter now. We share two young kids, so we're still a part of each other's lives but my energy and her energy are no longer tied together and I was being codependent in the relationship. I want to give a blanket apology to everyone, my negative emotions in that relationship were affecting how I was interacting everywhere. So in some sense Andrew was right that my relationship with my wife was affecting my interaction here. Thanks Andrew for being you. I want now to express a statement of purpose and give everyone permission to *thwack* me if I'm not living up to it. I don't religiously practice the Course In Miracles, I don't consider myself a Christian and have no thoughts about this "Jesus" fellow, but I resonate deeply with the purpose of the Course in Miracles. The Course's message is about the change in perception that comes through the active practice of Forgiveness. Forgiveness isn't about forgetting about wrongs, its about seeing that there was no wrong to begin with. The course's workbook endeavors to restore a person's perception of the world to wholeness through challenging thoughts and beliefs, particularly negative thought patterns and beliefs in being separate. Shame, guilt, fear, jealousy, insecurity, etc. One of the realizations that I had while first getting into the Course several years ago was that the highest honor and highest service you could perform for another person is to constantly come to them empty. What this means is somehow shedding the impressions, perceptions, judgments, and assumptions we make about others. As we interact with others we collect these things in our memory banks and then the next time we meet the person we relate to them through this built up crud. We stop seeing them as they are now and instead we relate to them through this built up image. This is a fundamental mistake. Relating to a person through an image is not relating to them how they are right now. What is worse, it is subconsciously telling that person that that is how they are viewed and thus how they are (or should be). If the person is unconscious, it is encourage them to integrate that image into their self-image. For many years now it has been my intentional practice to see people as whole and to shed my initial perceptions and impressions as much as possible. While I was caught up in the negative emotions and the unhappiness I had in my marriage, I was not able to keep this practice very well. I want to return to this practice and I would like to ask for everyone's help in this. If I am not coming to my interaction with you (or anyone) empty, If I am holding on to a stale perception or hardened impression, please let me know. Refer me back to this writing. General message for the forum: How you perceive someone bleeds into your interaction with them. It becomes a subliminal message telling the other person how they are viewed. If a person has a weak sense of self, insecure, codependent, people pleasing, or empathic, this message gets picked up and may be integrated into a person's self image depending on how unconscious they are. If you see someone and relate to someone as if they are whole, that is the message they will integrate. If you see someone and relate to someone as if they are broken or unworthy or damaged, that is the message they will integrate. It is my intent to cultivate a manner which exudes the message: "You Are Whole." If anyone finds that my manner does not convey this message, then please confront me about it. Edward Sweet re-introduction! *Bows* Howdy do.  Serendipitously, I had been thinking about starting a thread on exploring the meaning of 'coming empty.' And so here it is! And well done. Question: I assume 'coming empty' includes abandoning the positive impression you may have of someone as well? Impressions are like concepts, it seems, partly functioning as a shortcut to make goal-oriented living more efficient. And like concepts, they compromise what is real because they only represent a snapshot, and thus remain a distortion of a perception (also distorted). I'm going to differ with Top's description of what it means to 'come empty'. However, I don't know where his rendition of the concept comes from and I didn't know someone other than me was using it. It's said that to know someone is to love them. It's not Love in most true sense, but knowledge of the other is what leads to understanding, appreciation, communion and compassion. People want to be understood and loved for who they actually are, and are grateful and open when this happens. Hencely, to come empty does not mean to drop this understanding and not know who your partner is as a person. What it does mean is to drop the expectations, judgments, fears, needs, deceptions and manipulations. Much the way small children relate to each other. They play, enjoy, appreciate, care, and they are genuine with their expressions and trusting of each other because they have no reason to mistrust themselves. |
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Mar 11, 2013 13:45:00 GMT -5
Greetings.. ... oh, I'm sorry, did I misunderstand you?  So by this: ... you didn't mean to subscribe to the idea that "the enemy is within"? ... so that means that "the enemy can be external to us"? and you didn't answer, so I'll ask again: Oh, i thought that was a rhetorical question.. i don't know, Phil won't meet on a level playing field and have an open, honest, respectful, direct discussion.. but, he will make excuses and misrepresent the issues to avoid the discussions.. Yes, you do misunderstand.. suppose the references are not directed where you want to 'think' the are? why do you believe there's an argument needing your services? why have you dropped the formalities of "Dear Tzu", and "kind sir"? or 'with warm regards', has there been a change in our relationship? Be well.. i don't know, Phil won't meet on a level playing field and have an open, honest, respectful, direct discussion.. but, he will make excuses and misrepresent the issues to avoid the discussions.. Well I'll interpret this answer in "light most favorable" and simply thank you for it ... but it does leave me sort of ...  Because I'm going to re-iterate a question to you I'll do you the courtesy of responding to these: Yes, you do misunderstand.. suppose the references are not directed where you want to 'think' the are? why do you believe there's an argument needing your services? But here again, sincere apologies (for this answer), but why have you dropped the formalities of "Dear Tzu", and "kind sir"? or 'with warm regards', has there been a change in our relationship? O.k. o.k. I'll delve here ... When you started posting two things stood out, the second is my imagination: 1) "stop thinking, be still, and know" 2) the warrior's tendency to sometimes be offensive, sometimes defensive I'm curious as to any source of #1 and I wanted to have a conversation to learn more about you and your philosophy, but I realized that the warrior's tendency (over here as well) could wind up shutting that down before it got started. Every conversation has a beginning a middle and and end. At the begining of our conversation I imagined that it was necessary to take certain steps to meet you where you were. As we move toward the middle of the conversation I see less of a need for that. Please rest assured that I do ever sincerely strive for sincerity, will always, even at my worst, have genuinely warm regards for you. I have no interest in war. I'd like to re-iterate this question to you. The context was what you wrote about Phil here: i am not his enemy, he is.. and I'll re-phrase it: what is your reaction to the idea that it is always the case that if there is an enemy, that the enemy is within? |
|
|
|
Post by tzujanli on Mar 11, 2013 13:59:21 GMT -5
I'd like to re-iterate this question to you. The context was what you wrote about Phil here: i am not his enemy, he is.. and I'll re-phrase it: what is your reaction to the idea that it is always the case that if there is an enemy, that the enemy is within? My reaction is that it is partially accurate, depending on your meanings of words, values, and the general context of any specific situation.. My honest answer is, i don't know until there is a situation that requires that an enemy be defined.. the forum seems to have defined Tzu' (the character i play) as Phil's enemy, i am not 'that'.. If you hand someone the keys to their prison, and they do not use them, who is the jailer? Be well.. |
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Mar 11, 2013 14:03:58 GMT -5
I'd like to re-iterate this question to you. The context was what you wrote about Phil here: and I'll re-phrase it: what is your reaction to the idea that it is always the case that if there is an enemy, that the enemy is within? My reaction is that it is partially accurate, depending on your meanings of words, values, and the general context of any specific situation.. My honest answer is, i don't know until there is a situation that requires that an enemy be defined.. the forum seems to have defined Tzu' (the character i play) as Phil's enemy, i am not 'that'.. If you hand someone the keys to their prison, and they do not use them, who is the jailer? Be well.. In the metaphorical sense stated, I would take the position there is not a prisoner now or in the history of mankind who isn't behind bars willingly. |
|
|
|
Post by tzujanli on Mar 11, 2013 14:16:22 GMT -5
My reaction is that it is partially accurate, depending on your meanings of words, values, and the general context of any specific situation.. My honest answer is, i don't know until there is a situation that requires that an enemy be defined.. the forum seems to have defined Tzu' (the character i play) as Phil's enemy, i am not 'that'.. If you hand someone the keys to their prison, and they do not use them, who is the jailer? Be well.. behind bars held captive willingly.Agreed.. Be well.. |
|
|
|
Post by Beingist on Mar 11, 2013 14:25:07 GMT -5
[...] the forum seems to have defined Tzu' (the character i play) as Phil's enemy, i am not 'that' Though the term, 'enemy' doesn't come to mind, 'nemesis' does, and such a term has been my impression of you since your earliest exchanges with E -- that you are Enigma's nemesis. |
|
|
|
Post by tzujanli on Mar 11, 2013 14:31:23 GMT -5
Greetings.. [...] the forum seems to have defined Tzu' (the character i play) as Phil's enemy, i am not 'that' Though the term, 'enemy' doesn't come to mind, 'nemesis' does, and such a term has been my impression of you since your earliest exchanges with E -- that you are Enigma's nemesis. From another post, but applicable here: If you hand someone the keys to their prison, and they do not use them, who is the jailer? Be well.. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 11, 2013 14:36:16 GMT -5
What it does mean is to drop the expectations, judgments, fears, needs, deceptions and manipulations. Much the way small children relate to each other. They play, enjoy, appreciate, care, and they are genuine with their expressions and trusting of each other because they have no reason to mistrust themselves. Is that the way you see 'Enigma', as having dropped expectations, judgements, fears, needs, deceptions and manipulations? How is it that we can do that and yet our 'actions', can reflect the exact opposite of that, for example when you reported 8 posts to Peter? |
|
|
|
Post by Beingist on Mar 11, 2013 14:45:49 GMT -5
Greetings.. Though the term, 'enemy' doesn't come to mind, 'nemesis' does, and such a term has been my impression of you since your earliest exchanges with E -- that you are Enigma's nemesis. From another post, but applicable here: If you hand someone the keys to their prison, and they do not use them, who is the jailer? Be well.. Okay, so you assume that he's in prison. Besides being apparently Too Much Thinking (TMT), you know what they say about assuming... |
|
|
|
Post by andrew on Mar 11, 2013 14:52:42 GMT -5
' Emptying ourselves of purpose isn't possible. Behaviour is motivated. However, I would describe 'spontaneous' purpose as possible. Even if you are consistently emptying yourself of purpose, it is still done with purpose. There could be common ground here. How would you describe 'spontaneous purpose'? Its what we talked about when we talked about the 'caring' on the other thread. You talked about 2 different kinds of action, I can't remember the names you gave them, and I talked about 2 different kinds of action but gave them different names. Basically, 'spontaneous purpose' is purpose that arises without the need to defend or support a self-image, so the purpose arises 'intelligently', in alignment with the situation, rather than from the 'machine' of mind, or from memory. |
|
|
|
Post by tzujanli on Mar 11, 2013 14:57:04 GMT -5
Greetings.. Greetings.. From another post, but applicable here: If you hand someone the keys to their prison, and they do not use them, who is the jailer? Be well.. [/size] Thank you kindly, but.. don't assume you think you know what i assume.. The reference to 'prison' is likened to your "Nemesis", Greek spirit of Retribution/revenge".. no foul/no harm, here's the 'keys'.. "physician, heal thyself".. this is not directed at you, B.. mostly, a general statement of 'is'.. Be well.. |
|
|
|
Post by enigma on Mar 11, 2013 15:46:19 GMT -5
Greetings.. Though the term, 'enemy' doesn't come to mind, 'nemesis' does, and such a term has been my impression of you since your earliest exchanges with E -- that you are Enigma's nemesis. From another post, but applicable here: If you hand someone the keys to their prison, and they do not use them, who is the jailer? Be well.. The ongoing foundation of all my discussion with you is the assumption that I am in prison and you hold the keys. Consequently, there can be only two outcomes: 1) I gratefully (or otherwise) accept the keys and free myself from prison. 2) I refuse to accept the keys and remain in prison. Since there are no other possible outcomes from your perspective, and since these are your dancing giraffes and not mine, there is nothing to discuss. No amount of discussion can ever free me from a prison you only imagine that I am in. I'm not quite arrogant enough to assume you are in a prison, nor that I have the keys you need to free yourself from that hypothetical prison. You seem to have a belief system that makes you very confident and somewhat pleased in an Oscar the Grouch sort of way, so I suggest you enjoy it for as long as it serves you. |
|
|
|
Post by enigma on Mar 11, 2013 15:52:39 GMT -5
What it does mean is to drop the expectations, judgments, fears, needs, deceptions and manipulations. Much the way small children relate to each other. They play, enjoy, appreciate, care, and they are genuine with their expressions and trusting of each other because they have no reason to mistrust themselves. Is that the way you see 'Enigma', as having dropped expectations, judgements, fears, needs, deceptions and manipulations? Yes. Because what we're exploring is the 'fullness' that makes that emptying out impossible. One does not simply choose to 'come empty'. It's the end result of removing the clutter. Clutter can be ugly but how does one remove it without picking it up? |
|
|
|
Post by enigma on Mar 11, 2013 16:05:50 GMT -5
There could be common ground here. How would you describe 'spontaneous purpose'? Its what we talked about when we talked about the 'caring' on the other thread. You talked about 2 different kinds of action, I can't remember the names you gave them, and I talked about 2 different kinds of action but gave them different names. Basically, 'spontaneous purpose' is purpose that arises without the need to defend or support a self-image, so the purpose arises 'intelligently', in alignment with the situation, rather than from the 'machine' of mind, or from memory. Okay. So a purpose that has no foundation in support of a self image is actually quite a radical thingy. Even the purpose to help another, or to act in a 'selfless' way, is in support of a self image. What would such a purpose look like in terms of personal motivation? Maybe an example would help. |
|
