|
|
Post by enigma on Mar 18, 2013 12:15:48 GMT -5
In case you haven't noticed, there's a monkey sitting on your head and pulling your hair, Silver. She might think it's just a hat.  |
|
|
|
Post by silver on Mar 18, 2013 12:24:51 GMT -5
Aww, well - maybe he's the one who bit me. Go much earlier in your life than what is happening right now. What bit you did it long before you joined the forum. Remember the bad poetry thread? You admitted that Reefs and Enigma's actions brought up some old wounds in your life, which felt like an Atom Bomb going off in your psyche. Reefs and Enigma didn't put the atom bomb there, but you still blame them for hitting the detonator. You blame them for having natures which have a tendency for hitting people's detonators. The real issue is how did the atom bombs get there in the first place? Fixating on E and R is a convenient distraction for going deeper into looking at why you find them so irritating to the point that you want to lash out at them.
You can't distract me from what I'm trying to say and/or dilute its meaning or discredit me and what I'm trying to say here. We all insert what we would like to say, if we feel strongly enough about something - whether we're initially involved in 'X' thread/post - that's your trick to take the wind out of my sails, Top. (I don't know why I'm getting double-space, but *shrug*).
Iow, don't try to psychoanalyze me, because you're not that good at it.
|
|
|
|
Post by enigma on Mar 18, 2013 12:40:37 GMT -5
No, I'm actually saying no 'me' acted. If it wasn't 'you' then something else invaded or acted upon your body or through your body. When we talk about 'doing but no doer', we are really pointing to a state. It's not actually true that 'the doer' is totally absent (even IF this 'doer' is a thought) from the experience. If it was, there would be no sense of cause and effect, no sense of purpose, no sense of motivatation, no sense of values, no sense of this being an experience, and none of these things would have any meaning. None of this stuff is left behind, nothing 'personal' is left behind, and neither is the experience of there being 'a doer', or 'a you'. When I was thinking about you earlier, a memory popped into my mind of something that happened some years ago in a gas station. A guy basically tried to steal something, the security jumped on him and the guy started hyperventilating in a big way. 'Unthinkingly' I stepped in to loosen the guards grip on the guy a bit and calm him down. I put my hand on his chest, spoke to him quietly and he calmed down. The guards stepped away and I stayed with the guy until the police came. This all happened 'in flow'. Afterwards I looked back on my actions and it seemed like a dream, like....'who the hell was that?'. It had all happened without thinking, without deliberation. But when my friends asked me about it (they had been there too), I could identify the motivation at every step of the way. I'm sure that if you wanted to, you could look closely at your motivation for reporting the posts, even though it happened spontaneously and seemingly thoughtlessly. You didn't used to report posts but something changed last year. There's the clue. I don't even care WHAT it is to be honest, I just don't accept that it happened without any sense of motivation. Something I mentioned earlier is that we often just 'do things' in the way you describe, and then after the fact (after the mind thinks 'who the heck did that') the mind insists on a personal motivation story, and so one shows up, and it looks like there really was some kind of motivational process going on that we weren't aware of before. Most of the time, we're consciously aware of motivations before the act, because folks imagine they're in control and are trying to self direct. The stories of motivation match the action that follows and all's well. Sometimes, the action doesn't seem to be what we wanted to happen, and we write a story of unconscious motivation and do a little introspection and warn ourselves not to do that again because we want things to be under control. This whole unconscious deally is a self perpetuated scam. We pretend we're not about to do something, then do it, then pretend we discovered something we didn't already know about. When we stop playing that game with ourselves, we find that things just happen, and since we're not trying to play controller anymore, we don't need a personal controller story to precede or follow every action. It doesn't mean desires don't arise along with corresponding action, but in the absence of desire, action still follows, and there may be no story. So why did it happen? Again, the answer is in the stars. |
|
|
|
Post by andrew on Mar 18, 2013 12:51:53 GMT -5
Experience suggests that whatever I say here, it will be dismissed, and I am not blaming you for that. Your frame of reference is such that whatever I said as a direct reply would genuinely and truthfully seem absurd to you. So I will say this instead. In order to see what is being said to you, I think would be helpful to look at the ideas that you have dismissed as false, and find the relative truth and validity in them. Including free will, volition, separation, cause and effect, selves. I guess whether you do it or not depends on whether you see any potential value in seeing what we see. In a way, it DOES come down the free willys vs the no free willys,(volition and separation are the same issue) cuz that's where ego gets triggered, goes unconscious and starts lashing out and then looking for ways to justify itself. I see why it could be said that a lot of the arguments on the forum can be divided into free willers vs. no free willers, but I am not a straight free willer. I can see the relative truth and validity of 'no free will' in some contexts, and I can see the relative truth and validity of 'free will' in other contexts. I am suggesting that if you want to see what people often point out to you, then seeing the latter contexts might be helpful. It might also be helpful to notice that although you are a no free willer, in talking on the forum, free will is assumed. You wouldn't put forward any suggestions or recommendations or advice, if you didn't assume free will. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 18, 2013 12:57:04 GMT -5
Okay. Here it goes. I stopped being 'mad' at him for things in the past, and yet he most definitely has a way of irritating (!) enough peeps to make it pretty remarkable in its consistency, and it's not news that I'm one of those who find him consistently irritating. Perhaps I assumed it in this instance. Yes, I do have a way of irritating peeps with remarkable consistency. We finally agree on something! Yeah, that's because the folks you irritate don't see your mocking and actions as ego-less, motivational-less, and intentional-less. They essentially believe you're a liar. Which is only fair, because wouldn't you think peeps were lying if they told you they were ego-less, motivational-less, and intentional-less, and acted contrary to that? |
|
|
|
Post by andrew on Mar 18, 2013 12:59:35 GMT -5
If it wasn't 'you' then something else invaded or acted upon your body or through your body. When we talk about 'doing but no doer', we are really pointing to a state. It's not actually true that 'the doer' is totally absent (even IF this 'doer' is a thought) from the experience. If it was, there would be no sense of cause and effect, no sense of purpose, no sense of motivatation, no sense of values, no sense of this being an experience, and none of these things would have any meaning. None of this stuff is left behind, nothing 'personal' is left behind, and neither is the experience of there being 'a doer', or 'a you'. When I was thinking about you earlier, a memory popped into my mind of something that happened some years ago in a gas station. A guy basically tried to steal something, the security jumped on him and the guy started hyperventilating in a big way. 'Unthinkingly' I stepped in to loosen the guards grip on the guy a bit and calm him down. I put my hand on his chest, spoke to him quietly and he calmed down. The guards stepped away and I stayed with the guy until the police came. This all happened 'in flow'. Afterwards I looked back on my actions and it seemed like a dream, like....'who the hell was that?'. It had all happened without thinking, without deliberation. But when my friends asked me about it (they had been there too), I could identify the motivation at every step of the way. I'm sure that if you wanted to, you could look closely at your motivation for reporting the posts, even though it happened spontaneously and seemingly thoughtlessly. You didn't used to report posts but something changed last year. There's the clue. I don't even care WHAT it is to be honest, I just don't accept that it happened without any sense of motivation. Something I mentioned earlier is that we often just 'do things' in the way you describe, and then after the fact (after the mind thinks 'who the heck did that') the mind insists on a personal motivation story, and so one shows up, and it looks like there really was some kind of motivational process going on that we weren't aware of before. Most of the time, we're consciously aware of motivations before the act, because folks imagine they're in control and are trying to self direct. The stories of motivation match the action that follows and all's well. Sometimes, the action doesn't seem to be what we wanted to happen, and we write a story of unconscious motivation and do a little introspection and warn ourselves not to do that again because we want things to be under control. This whole unconscious deally is a self perpetuated scam. We pretend we're not about to do something, then do it, then pretend we discovered something we didn't already know about. When we stop playing that game with ourselves, we find that things just happen, and since we're not trying to play controller anymore, we don't need a personal controller story to precede or follow every action. It doesn't mean desires don't arise along with corresponding action, but in the absence of desire, action still follows, and there may be no story. So why did it happen? Again, the answer is in the stars. When we sit down and look at our motivations after a 'flow' event, we step back into the experience at the time, slow it down, break it down, bit by bit. I don't think we are wrong when we identify the motivations and I think you could do the same if you wanted to.... but you don't want to. To say that 'things just happen' is fine, but that includes the sense of desiring happening, and the sense of being motivated happening. I agree that in the widest context its true that the answer to 'why do things happen' is in the stars. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 18, 2013 13:00:25 GMT -5
If it wasn't 'you' then something else invaded or acted upon your body or through your body. When we talk about 'doing but no doer', we are really pointing to a state. It's not actually true that 'the doer' is totally absent (even IF this 'doer' is a thought) from the experience. If it was, there would be no sense of cause and effect, no sense of purpose, no sense of motivatation, no sense of values, no sense of this being an experience, and none of these things would have any meaning. None of this stuff is left behind, nothing 'personal' is left behind, and neither is the experience of there being 'a doer', or 'a you'. When I was thinking about you earlier, a memory popped into my mind of something that happened some years ago in a gas station. A guy basically tried to steal something, the security jumped on him and the guy started hyperventilating in a big way. 'Unthinkingly' I stepped in to loosen the guards grip on the guy a bit and calm him down. I put my hand on his chest, spoke to him quietly and he calmed down. The guards stepped away and I stayed with the guy until the police came. This all happened 'in flow'. Afterwards I looked back on my actions and it seemed like a dream, like....'who the hell was that?'. It had all happened without thinking, without deliberation. But when my friends asked me about it (they had been there too), I could identify the motivation at every step of the way. I'm sure that if you wanted to, you could look closely at your motivation for reporting the posts, even though it happened spontaneously and seemingly thoughtlessly. You didn't used to report posts but something changed last year. There's the clue. I don't even care WHAT it is to be honest, I just don't accept that it happened without any sense of motivation. Something I mentioned earlier is that we often just 'do things' in the way you describe, and then after the fact (after the mind thinks 'who the heck did that') the mind insists on a personal motivation story, and so one shows up, and it looks like there really was some kind of motivational process going on that we weren't aware of before. Most of the time, we're consciously aware of motivations before the act, because folks imagine they're in control and are trying to self direct. The stories of motivation match the action that follows and all's well. Sometimes, the action doesn't seem to be what we wanted to happen, and we write a story of unconscious motivation and do a little introspection and warn ourselves not to do that again because we want things to be under control. This whole unconscious deally is a self perpetuated scam. We pretend we're not about to do something, then do it, then pretend we discovered something we didn't already know about. When we stop playing that game with ourselves, we find that things just happen, and since we're not trying to play controller anymore, we don't need a personal controller story to precede or follow every action. It doesn't mean desires don't arise along with corresponding action, but in the absence of desire, action still follows, and there may be no story. So why did it happen? Again, the answer is in the stars. My experience has been, that once there is clarity about what mind does and attachment has fallen away, 'way of being' aligns with that and reflects that. What we have then is resonance and congruence between intent and action. When the overall intent is to take the path of love, least resistance, highest alignment with intent in that moment, the individuated actions begin to line up with that. It's very rare then to have some action occur that falls outside of those parameters and if it were to, there's enough clarity and willingness there to have a look at it. Is there ever a point where we drop the willingness to look at why certain thoughts or actions arose? Sure, in the moment sometimes things 'just happen' but if we are truly 'conscious' then there's also an ability to look into that, to see what's behind it and if need be, to assess whether or not our actions are in alignment with what we deem to be the overall intent. As much as we may believe we've let go of all personal desire, there's still some main theme or drive behind the movement of each individuated experience. It's important to be able to connect with that sense of purpose or we get all sorts of acting out all over the place without any awareness of what's actually going on. Where in your estimation do we cross the line between being unconscious and simply 'going with the flow'? And, Do you see it as all important to make a distinction between the two? I see that line as an incredibly important one to be able to see as it really is the difference between being conscious and not. |
|
|
|
Post by topology on Mar 18, 2013 13:03:58 GMT -5
Go much earlier in your life than what is happening right now. What bit you did it long before you joined the forum. Remember the bad poetry thread? You admitted that Reefs and Enigma's actions brought up some old wounds in your life, which felt like an Atom Bomb going off in your psyche. Reefs and Enigma didn't put the atom bomb there, but you still blame them for hitting the detonator. You blame them for having natures which have a tendency for hitting people's detonators. The real issue is how did the atom bombs get there in the first place? Fixating on E and R is a convenient distraction for going deeper into looking at why you find them so irritating to the point that you want to lash out at them.
You can't distract me from what I'm trying to say and/or dilute its meaning or discredit me and what I'm trying to say here. We all insert what we would like to say, if we feel strongly enough about something - whether we're initially involved in 'X' thread/post - that's your trick to take the wind out of my sails, Top. (I don't know why I'm getting double-space, but *shrug*).
Iow, don't try to psychoanalyze me, because you're not that good at it.
Yes it does contain psycho analysis. Where do you think the words "entitlement" and "enabling" get used? Those are psycho analytical words as well. |
|
|
|
Post by andrew on Mar 18, 2013 13:08:40 GMT -5
Something I mentioned earlier is that we often just 'do things' in the way you describe, and then after the fact (after the mind thinks 'who the heck did that') the mind insists on a personal motivation story, and so one shows up, and it looks like there really was some kind of motivational process going on that we weren't aware of before. Most of the time, we're consciously aware of motivations before the act, because folks imagine they're in control and are trying to self direct. The stories of motivation match the action that follows and all's well. Sometimes, the action doesn't seem to be what we wanted to happen, and we write a story of unconscious motivation and do a little introspection and warn ourselves not to do that again because we want things to be under control. This whole unconscious deally is a self perpetuated scam. We pretend we're not about to do something, then do it, then pretend we discovered something we didn't already know about. When we stop playing that game with ourselves, we find that things just happen, and since we're not trying to play controller anymore, we don't need a personal controller story to precede or follow every action. It doesn't mean desires don't arise along with corresponding action, but in the absence of desire, action still follows, and there may be no story. So why did it happen? Again, the answer is in the stars. My experience has been, that once there is clarity about what mind does and attachment has fallen away, 'way of being' aligns with that and reflects that. What we have then is resonance and congruence between intent and action. When the overall intent is to take the path of love, least resistance, highest alignment with intent in that moment, the individuated actions begin to line up with that. It's very rare then to have some action occur that falls outside of those parameters and if it were to, there's enough clarity and willingness there to have a look at it. Is there ever a point where we drop the willingness to look at why certain thoughts or actions arose? Sure, in the moment sometimes things 'just happen' but if we are truly 'conscious' then there's also an ability to look into that, to see what's behind it and if need be, to assess whether or not our actions are in alignment with what we deem to be the overall intent. As much as we may believe we've let go of all personal desire, there's still some main theme or drive behind the movement of each individuated experience. It's important to be able to connect with that sense of purpose or we get all sorts of acting out all over the place without any awareness of what's actually going on. Where in your estimation do we cross the line between being unconscious and simply 'going with the flow'? And, Do you see it as all important to make a distinction between the two? I see that line as an incredibly important one to be able to see as it really is the difference between being conscious and not. I see some great points in there Fig |
|
|
|
Post by silver on Mar 18, 2013 13:11:17 GMT -5
~Contains psychoanalysis~
You can't distract me from what I'm trying to say and/or dilute its meaning or discredit me and what I'm trying to say here. We all insert what we would like to say, if we feel strongly enough about something - whether we're initially involved in 'X' thread/post - that's your trick to take the wind out of my sails, Top. (I don't know why I'm getting double-space, but *shrug*).
Iow, don't try to psychoanalyze me, because you're not that good at it.
Yes it does contain psycho analysis. Where do you think the words "entitlement" and "enabling" get used? Those are psycho analytical words as well. Oh, yeah? {j/k}  The more nicer way for me to say the above, is that we both have valid points, and that they are separate issues. |
|
|
|
Post by Beingist on Mar 18, 2013 13:13:45 GMT -5
Just wanted to respond to one bit of your last post, figgles-- As much as we may believe we've let go of all personal desire, there's still some main theme or drive behind the movement of each individuated experience. It's important to be able to connect with that sense of purpose or we get all sorts of acting out all over the place without any awareness of what's actually going on. What about Being itself? Does that not drive us? |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 18, 2013 13:17:56 GMT -5
In a way, it DOES come down the free willys vs the no free willys,(volition and separation are the same issue) cuz that's where ego gets triggered, goes unconscious and starts lashing out and then looking for ways to justify itself. I see why it could be said that a lot of the arguments on the forum can be divided into free willers vs. no free willers, but I am not a straight free willer. I can see the relative truth and validity of 'no free will' in some contexts, and I can see the relative truth and validity of 'free will' in other contexts. I am suggesting that if you want to see what people often point out to you, then seeing the latter contexts might be helpful. It might also be helpful to notice that although you are a no free willer, in talking on the forum, free will is assumed. You wouldn't put forward any suggestions or recommendations or advice, if you didn't assume free will. Good assessment Andrew. It seems to me that the no free willy's often use 'no free will...therefore no intent or motivation) as a 'get outa jail free card.' What they don't get is that they've created the jail themselves. They seem to equate being conscious of intent with self 'blame.' For some reason, They fail to see that awareness of intent need not go hand in hand with negative, judgmental 'blaming' or 'shaming,' which leads me to wonder, again, if the unwillingness to engage with motivation or intent arises from a need to avoid the shaming judgment of self that is deemed to necessarily go hand in hand with this kind of inquiry. They either hold themselves apart from the experience of being motivated to act OR they experience the unpleasantness of harshly judging themselves. And Again, at the crux of all that is needing to see things as black vs. white...true vs. false, actual vs. illusion. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 18, 2013 13:25:19 GMT -5
Just wanted to respond to one bit of your last post, figgles-- As much as we may believe we've let go of all personal desire, there's still some main theme or drive behind the movement of each individuated experience. It's important to be able to connect with that sense of purpose or we get all sorts of acting out all over the place without any awareness of what's actually going on. What about Being itself? Does that not drive us? I'd say that a certain drive is inherent in being. |
|
|
|
Post by Beingist on Mar 18, 2013 13:27:19 GMT -5
I see why it could be said that a lot of the arguments on the forum can be divided into free willers vs. no free willers, but I am not a straight free willer. I can see the relative truth and validity of 'no free will' in some contexts, and I can see the relative truth and validity of 'free will' in other contexts. I am suggesting that if you want to see what people often point out to you, then seeing the latter contexts might be helpful. It might also be helpful to notice that although you are a no free willer, in talking on the forum, free will is assumed. You wouldn't put forward any suggestions or recommendations or advice, if you didn't assume free will. Good assessment Andrew. It seems to me that the no free willy's often use 'no free will...therefore no intent or motivation) as a 'get outa jail free card.' What they don't get is that they've created the jail themselves. They seem to equate being conscious of intent with self 'blame.' For some reason, They fail to see that awareness of intent need not go hand in hand with negative, judgmental 'blaming' or 'shaming,' which leads me to wonder, again, if the unwillingness to engage with motivation or intent arises from a need to avoid the shaming judgment of self that is deemed to necessarily go hand in hand with this kind of inquiry. They either hold themselves apart from the experience of being motivated to act OR they experience the unpleasantness of harshly judging themselves. And Again, at the crux of all that is needing to see things as black vs. white...true vs. false, actual vs. illusion. |
|
|
|
Post by topology on Mar 18, 2013 13:27:25 GMT -5
Yes it does contain psycho analysis. Where do you think the words "entitlement" and "enabling" get used? Those are psycho analytical words as well. Oh, yeah? {j/k} The more nicer way for me to say the above, is that we both have valid points, and that they are separate issues. Are they separate issues? I gave a motivation that sees them as related. What do you see as motivation for your taking a shot at Quinn when the content of the shot you fired was all about Enigma? |
|
