|
|
Post by andrew on Mar 15, 2013 6:12:07 GMT -5
Anyone that I have shared a lot with I experience deep alignment with, and I have been through a lot with Phil. There is a love there, not even in a non-dual sense, just....a love. If I didn't love him, I wouldn't do this with him every day. I sense in Phil a genuine goodness of intention, but I also think he is barking up the (relatively) wrong tree. Thanks for that Mr. Temp ... and of course, responding to Enigma's post with a challenge to debate the idea of "no thought being ultimately true" is, if you think about it, a return to coming empty.  I'm challenging it because I see Enigma's 'coming empty' as one that ironically requires us to believe a thought to be true. The belief is implicit though, and disguised cleverly by 'nothing is ultimately true', though it is within that very statement that the belief being held to be true can be seen. As such, 'nothing is ultimately true' is a sentiment...a nice panacea, that provides us with a relief/break from ideation, without actually transcending it. |
|
|
|
Post by quinn on Mar 15, 2013 7:09:37 GMT -5
I would like to chime in as well. I too perceive things similarly to Enigma. But I have to admit, its just a perception made through a mind that has a particular way of interpreting things. What I see is that Enigma will put forward his observations without qualifications, without saying "This is my perception/observation of things" and the receiver of the observation then assumes that Enigma is claiming that his observation is objective truth. Then the receiver feels like they have to battle this observation which appears to be a claim to objective truth because it is uncomfortable. Reefs takes this to an extreme. "Polite" people soften the observation with qualifications such as "This is what things look like to me". So I see two opposing tacit assumptions at play. 1) Assumes that everything anyone says is ultimately a flawed perception through a mind, a subjective observation that needs no qualification that "This is just the way things are appearing to me". 2) Assumes that people will qualify their statements with how un-objective they are in order to do one of two things: (A) to accommodate alternate perceptions of what is going on or (B) Not hurt the other person's feelings so much. This is fundamentally a culture clash leading to significant miscommunication. Peeps accustomed to (1) have thick skins and prefer being direct and don't take what others say so personally. Peeps accustomed to (2) will get offended more easily and feel affronted. When trying to communicate back to a (1) at (1's) level, the pendulum swings past the midpoint and they come across angry and crusading. (1)'s don't care much for (2) style of communication and (2)'s expect to be accommodated because its the polite and civilized way of being. Nice summation, Tops. I think you hit the nail on the head here as far as noticing where stories get triggered. We get anger and hurt feelings by 2s towards 1s, which then spins off some 'justified' crusades to protect the 'innocents'. (Which, by the way, is kind of funny cause I haven't seen anyone here who can't take care of their own 'protection'.) What we also get is an intolerance by 1s for what is perceived as wishy-washyness or uncertainty in the 2s, which then spawns even more 'brutal frankness'. And on the merry-go-round spins. I also appreciate Laughter's addition - that a tight-knit group will tend to morph into (1)-style. I'd add that trust comes into play there. And a common goal (or common enemy!). It's a good thing to notice. |
|
|
|
Post by Beingist on Mar 15, 2013 8:03:08 GMT -5
I would like to chime in as well. I too perceive things similarly to Enigma. But I have to admit, its just a perception made through a mind that has a particular way of interpreting things. What I see is that Enigma will put forward his observations without qualifications, without saying "This is my perception/observation of things" and the receiver of the observation then assumes that Enigma is claiming that his observation is objective truth. Then the receiver feels like they have to battle this observation which appears to be a claim to objective truth because it is uncomfortable. Reefs takes this to an extreme. "Polite" people soften the observation with qualifications such as "This is what things look like to me". So I see two opposing tacit assumptions at play. 1) Assumes that everything anyone says is ultimately a flawed perception through a mind, a subjective observation that needs no qualification that "This is just the way things are appearing to me". 2) Assumes that people will qualify their statements with how un-objective they are in order to do one of two things: (A) to accommodate alternate perceptions of what is going on or (B) Not hurt the other person's feelings so much. This is fundamentally a culture clash leading to significant miscommunication. Peeps accustomed to (1) have thick skins and prefer being direct and don't take what others say so personally. Peeps accustomed to (2) will get offended more easily and feel affronted. When trying to communicate back to a (1) at (1's) level, the pendulum swings past the midpoint and they come across angry and crusading. (1)'s don't care much for (2) style of communication and (2)'s expect to be accommodated because its the polite and civilized way of being. From my perspective, IMHO, I perceive that to be the case, though of course I can't know, but I sense it to be true from my limited and flawed ability to observe. To me, it is the qualifying of a unique perspective that seems to imply that there is an underlying truth if only it could be known. If only the body/mind were more perfect, more clear, smart enough, enlightened enough, not so stuck, it could know for certain. The whole game is a nonsense, an absurdity. I've probly said hundreds of times, 'nothing is ultimately true. All ideas arise out of nothingness, refer only to other ideas, and return to nothingness.' How could anybody possibly believe I mean to say anything is true? How many times have I said beliefs are not useful? How can anybody believe I believe in anything? How many times have I said it all collapses into a little greasy spot? How can anybody believe I think I know something? All that I say here is that nothing is true, in a million different ways. Separation is not true, volition is not true, your thoughts about anything are not true. Somewhere they collapse back into nothing and never meant anything. That's all I say, and from that the stories spin; wild and wacky stories about how we should be more humble, more selfless, more friendly, less hurtful, more helpful, less mocking, more introspective, on and on. This is the stuff nightmares are made of. Everybody's in the same boat, and it's sinking. Let it sink. Drown in that nothingness. Which is all good and well, (and I rez with much of this), but, unfortunately, the concept (or even belief) that 'nothing is ultimately true' cannot be ultimately true, either (assuming that it IS true that nothing is ultimately true). Hence, it remains a mere concept, and as such, makes you just as prone to being noticed as expressing your belief (that nothing is ultimately true) as anyone else. |
|
|
|
Post by tzujanli on Mar 15, 2013 8:30:19 GMT -5
Greetings..
Buying into the notion of 'truth' sets-up a mind-loop that ends up in discussions like this one.. where the simple process of just 'looking' and seeing what 'is' needs no mind-loop about 'truth'.. 'truth' is a set of beliefs and values that are compared to 'what is' to satisfy the attachment to those beliefs and values, the minding that happens while 'now' is happening, where will your attention 'be'?
Be well..
|
|
|
|
Post by Reefs on Mar 15, 2013 9:19:38 GMT -5
I would like to chime in as well. I too perceive things similarly to Enigma. But I have to admit, its just a perception made through a mind that has a particular way of interpreting things. What I see is that Enigma will put forward his observations without qualifications, without saying "This is my perception/observation of things" and the receiver of the observation then assumes that Enigma is claiming that his observation is objective truth. Then the receiver feels like they have to battle this observation which appears to be a claim to objective truth because it is uncomfortable. Reefs takes this to an extreme. "Polite" people soften the observation with qualifications such as "This is what things look like to me". So I see two opposing tacit assumptions at play. 1) Assumes that everything anyone says is ultimately a flawed perception through a mind, a subjective observation that needs no qualification that "This is just the way things are appearing to me". 2) Assumes that people will qualify their statements with how un-objective they are in order to do one of two things: (A) to accommodate alternate perceptions of what is going on or (B) Not hurt the other person's feelings so much. This is fundamentally a culture clash leading to significant miscommunication. Peeps accustomed to (1) have thick skins and prefer being direct and don't take what others say so personally. Peeps accustomed to (2) will get offended more easily and feel affronted. When trying to communicate back to a (1) at (1's) level, the pendulum swings past the midpoint and they come across angry and crusading. (1)'s don't care much for (2) style of communication and (2)'s expect to be accommodated because its the polite and civilized way of being. Nice summation, Tops. I think you hit the nail on the head here as far as noticing where stories get triggered. We get anger and hurt feelings by 2s towards 1s, which then spins off some 'justified' crusades to protect the 'innocents'. (Which, by the way, is kind of funny cause I haven't seen anyone here who can't take care of their own 'protection'.) What we also get is an intolerance by 1s for what is perceived as wishy-washyness or uncertainty in the 2s, which then spawns even more 'brutal frankness'. And on the merry-go-round spins. I also appreciate Laughter's addition - that a tight-knit group will tend to morph into (1)-style. I'd add that trust comes into play there. And a common goal (or common enemy!). It's a good thing to notice. Did someone mention sincerity? |
|
|
|
Post by topology on Mar 15, 2013 9:24:08 GMT -5
Both sides would see themselves as being sincere and the other side as insincere as that is the nature of differing cultures.
|
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Mar 15, 2013 9:25:41 GMT -5
Did someone mention sincerity? Not that I noticed ... so far, other the detour into the truth about truthiness it seems to be about onsey-twosey style and the intersection of that with substance and conversation. The way I read it topo' didn't mean to suggest that either onsey or twosey was more or less sincere but my guess is that onsey's and twosey's will see that point differently regardless of what topo' meant. |
|
|
|
Post by Reefs on Mar 15, 2013 9:54:22 GMT -5
Did someone mention sincerity? Not that I noticed ... so far, other the detour into the truth about truthiness it seems to be about onsey-twosey style and the intersection of that with substance and conversation. The way I read it topo' didn't mean to suggest that either onsey or twosey was more or less sincere but my guess is that onsey's and twosey's will see that point differently regardless of what topo' meant. Sincerity increases adaptability. |
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Mar 15, 2013 9:55:59 GMT -5
Not that I noticed ... so far, other the detour into the truth about truthiness it seems to be about onsey-twosey style and the intersection of that with substance and conversation. The way I read it topo' didn't mean to suggest that either onsey or twosey was more or less sincere but my guess is that onsey's and twosey's will see that point differently regardless of what topo' meant. Sincerity increases adaptability. Well not only that but I'd hazard that it also serves as a metric for determining whether a conversation is worth continuing. |
|
|
|
Post by someNOTHING! on Mar 15, 2013 9:58:29 GMT -5
From my perspective, IMHO, I perceive that to be the case, though of course I can't know, but I sense it to be true from my limited and flawed ability to observe. To me, it is the qualifying of a unique perspective that seems to imply that there is an underlying truth if only it could be known. If only the body/mind were more perfect, more clear, smart enough, enlightened enough, not so stuck, it could know for certain. The whole game is a nonsense, an absurdity. I've probly said hundreds of times, 'nothing is ultimately true. All ideas arise out of nothingness, refer only to other ideas, and return to nothingness.' How could anybody possibly believe I mean to say anything is true? How many times have I said beliefs are not useful? How can anybody believe I believe in anything? How many times have I said it all collapses into a little greasy spot? How can anybody believe I think I know something? All that I say here is that nothing is true, in a million different ways. Separation is not true, volition is not true, your thoughts about anything are not true. Somewhere they collapse back into nothing and never meant anything. That's all I say, and from that the stories spin; wild and wacky stories about how we should be more humble, more selfless, more friendly, less hurtful, more helpful, less mocking, more introspective, on and on. This is the stuff nightmares are made of. Everybody's in the same boat, and it's sinking. Let it sink. Drown in that nothingness. Which is all good and well, (and I rez with much of this), but, unfortunately, the concept (or even belief) that 'nothing is ultimately true' cannot be ultimately true, either (assuming that it IS true that nothing is ultimately true). Hence, it remains a mere concept, and as such, makes you just as prone to being noticed as expressing your belief (that nothing is ultimately true) as anyone else. To believe in the concept or in the words is not what is being asked of. The futility of such endeavors, no matter how ornate, verbose, crazy, or elegant, is being called out and pointed to. The thoughts, story telling, conversation, bickering, etc in/as the boat require words. What do words sound like at the bottom of nothingness anyway? Pause. There YOU are. Noah's speedboat of ideas doth protest and is taking on water. Lotsa folks got their paper cups out and are scooping away, trying to keep it afloat. Is there some kind of saboteur on board, or is it just by apparent intelligent design? |
|
|
|
Post by topology on Mar 15, 2013 10:11:00 GMT -5
Not that I noticed ... so far, other the detour into the truth about truthiness it seems to be about onsey-twosey style and the intersection of that with substance and conversation. The way I read it topo' didn't mean to suggest that either onsey or twosey was more or less sincere but my guess is that onsey's and twosey's will see that point differently regardless of what topo' meant. Sincerity increases adaptability. But who should be adapting to who? Each "camp" is going to expect the other camp to adapt to them or else claim insincerity on the part of the other camp. |
|
|
|
Post by Reefs on Mar 15, 2013 10:15:38 GMT -5
Sincerity increases adaptability. But who should be adapting to who? Each "camp" is going to expect the other camp to adapt to them or else claim insincerity on the part of the other camp. No one will have to change their style. Style won't be an issue when the focus is fully on content. |
|
|
|
Post by tzujanli on Mar 15, 2013 10:18:04 GMT -5
Greetings.. Sincerity increases adaptability. But who should be adapting to who? Each "camp" is going to expect the other camp to adapt to them or else claim insincerity on the part of the other camp. Get out of camp.. strike-out on your own.. Be well.. |
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Mar 15, 2013 10:18:44 GMT -5
Sincerity increases adaptability. But who should be adapting to who? Each "camp" is going to expect the other camp to adapt to them or else claim insincerity on the part of the other camp. onesey's are going to cluster by cultural affinity and if they adapt to the twosey's then they'll minimize the violence of the interactions. It doesn't have to happen that way and whatever'll happen will happen but that's the way I see the model playing out if at all. |
|
|
|
Post by Beingist on Mar 15, 2013 10:25:36 GMT -5
Which is all good and well, (and I rez with much of this), but, unfortunately, the concept (or even belief) that 'nothing is ultimately true' cannot be ultimately true, either (assuming that it IS true that nothing is ultimately true). Hence, it remains a mere concept, and as such, makes you just as prone to being noticed as expressing your belief (that nothing is ultimately true) as anyone else. To believe in the concept or in the words is not what is being asked of. The futility of such endeavors, no matter how ornate, verbose, crazy, or elegant, is being called out and pointed to. The thoughts, story telling, conversation, bickering, etc in/as the boat require words. What do words sound like at the bottom of nothingness anyway? Pause. There YOU are. Noah's speedboat of ideas doth protest and is taking on water. Lotsa folks got their paper cups out and are scooping away, trying to keep it afloat. Is there some kind of saboteur on board, or is it just by apparent intelligent design? The way pointers are often presented in this forum, I would have to say that it indeed appears that believing in the concept is what is being asked of. Of course, I know E a little better than that, and am aware that he really isn't asking anyone to believe anything, but the ways of others don't work the same as his, and the natural tendency is for people to see one's beliefs in what they say, to judge by appearances. It's unfortunate, but one of the main reasons why I just don't talk about that kind of stuff, anymore. |
|
