Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 18, 2013 15:30:13 GMT -5
That's a great story Andrew and one that very much demonstrates how at the time, there may be no self referential thought involved and every action just seems to unfold, but in retrospect, we can very much connect with the sense of motivation and purpose behind it all. Are you connecting to it or imagining it? We only need to 'imagine' a purpose if we're attached to a story. Once we've let go of identity and storyline, that need is no longer there....To 'connect' with motivation is simply to connect with clarity......to become conscious of what was going on there. |
|
|
|
Post by enigma on Mar 18, 2013 15:31:02 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. I'm clear about free will being valid in a certain context. I'm the one who argued that point with you for weeks, remember? However, ironically, you've made context absolute so that if free will is valid in some context, then it really is true 'in one way'. It's never true. Context is a way of talking about stuff, not a tool to turn illusion into truth 'in one way'. Once again, it is not assumed. I do not assume I have free will. I clearly do not, but how do you figure this would keep anything from happening? How do you figure I wouldn't be able to make suggestions if I didn't have free will? What this is telling me is that you don't see nonvolition, you just sorta understand the concept, so yes you are a straight free willy who's playing with a nondual concept. |
|
|
|
Post by quinn on Mar 18, 2013 15:35:35 GMT -5
Nah...I wasn't so much referring to "pain and anguish there", just more an inability to empathize with or see what others are saying as you personally have had quite a different experience with E than some others here. And yes, I've never seen you tell E he was wrong... From what I've seen Quinn, it's just not really your style to argue for point of view. Therefore, even if you and E disagree on some small point, you'd likely just stop discussing it & let it go, before it ever got to the point of him mocking what he regarded to be your delusion or making sideways remarks about you to another whom he does see eye to eye with. It's hard for me to accept your point that I 'can't see' something that's obviously there when you weave such elaborate stories about me at the same time. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 18, 2013 15:36:50 GMT -5
maybe yer just smarter dan me.  No, I specifically disclaim that speculation but will offer the replacement story that I've got a talent for making it seem that way for the pure comedic joy of doing so.   |
|
|
|
Post by quinn on Mar 18, 2013 15:44:33 GMT -5
Silver - you can talk to me anyway you want to. It's fine. If I come back and tell you that part of what you said was actually an assumption, something you 'added', it's not to attack you. It's so you can see how that happens. You were able to see the assumption in "Where did I say I thought you were stuck being mad...?" That's all it's about. Just noticing. You're a cool person, Quinn. (wish there were more like you and less - pirates...) The pirates are actually saying the same thing. Just in a more piratey way.  |
|
|
|
Post by enigma on Mar 18, 2013 15:47:33 GMT -5
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. Yes, though I have never made such claims. You took some comments I've made about specific situations, or about others, and applied then universally to me. I haven't talked about my level of egoness. It might be an interesting discussion as to what it means to be egoless, but I don't really know what that means, nor do I know what you mean by it. I'm not motivationless at all. I worked on somebody's house today because I figure he's going to pay me. If I figured he wasn't going to pay me, it's highly unlikely I would have done that. Same for intentionless. I might, but has it ever occurred to anybody to ask me if I am egoless, motivationless and intentionless? I haven't heard anybody ask, I just see them assuming, and I speculate they do this because they don't like something I'm saying and want to discredit me. It's this giraffe spotting that I'm pointing to. Did I hint or imply or trick somebody into assuming that? No. |
|
|
|
Post by topology on Mar 18, 2013 15:47:48 GMT -5
You mistake my position. I'm not okay with the mocking. Never have been. But thanks for putting words in my mouth. Why did you do that? You have to think it through. When someone sees something they disapprove of 'in the family' and they don't say anything about it, it sure seems like collusion to me. I don't remember you saying anything about disapproving of E's mocking that I can recall. You're pretty emo for a non-duallie. Oy Vey, I said what I wanted to say about it almost a year ago. Do I need to repeat myself? I've always had a contention with Enigma and Reefs with respect to style and content. I think style matters and that includes what people are calling mocking. I don't need to be a constant broken record on the matter. If Reefs and Enigma change, it won't be because I harassed them over and over and over about it. As I told you before, it LOOKS LIKE I am in close mental proximity to E due to your own mental distance from both of us. From space, Lubbock and Amarillo look like they're right next to each other, but I wouldn't want to walk from here to there on foot. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 18, 2013 15:54:14 GMT -5
Nah...I wasn't so much referring to "pain and anguish there", just more an inability to empathize with or see what others are saying as you personally have had quite a different experience with E than some others here. And yes, I've never seen you tell E he was wrong... From what I've seen Quinn, it's just not really your style to argue for point of view. Therefore, even if you and E disagree on some small point, you'd likely just stop discussing it & let it go, before it ever got to the point of him mocking what he regarded to be your delusion or making sideways remarks about you to another whom he does see eye to eye with. It's hard for me to accept your point that I 'can't see' something that's obviously there when you weave such elaborate stories about me at the same time. " Elaborate stories"? I see some weaving going on here actually.  didn't you say yourself that you don't argue with E, but rather acknowledge the disagreement & walk away? I've observed that you do not generally argue with folks here. Am I 'weaving an elaborate story' in suggesting that this rather peaceful way seems to be 'your style'? All I'm pointing out in the first bit is that YOU have not been mocked by E or told you're deluded or discussed in a sideways manner. But rather, you have been praised and treated very kindly and approached with a much greater level of respect. Do you think that might color your perspective of things at all? |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 18, 2013 15:56:28 GMT -5
From space, Lubbock and Amarillo look like they're right next to each other, but I wouldn't want to walk from here to there on foot. Oh Top...I like that!  |
|
|
|
Post by andrew on Mar 18, 2013 15:56:31 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. I'm clear about free will being valid in a certain context. I'm the one who argued that point with you for weeks, remember? However, ironically, you've made context absolute so that if free will is valid in some context, then it really is true 'in one way'. It's never true. Context is a way of talking about stuff, not a tool to turn illusion into truth 'in one way'. Once again, it is not assumed. I do not assume I have free will. I clearly do not, but how do you figure this would keep anything from happening? How do you figure I wouldn't be able to make suggestions if I didn't have free will? What this is telling me is that you don't see nonvolition, you just sorta understand the concept, so yes you are a straight free willy who's playing with a nondual concept. When you make a recommendation, you assume that a choice can be autonomously made. You may not directly assume that YOU have free will, but there is an assumption/belief in free will there. It doesn't make sense to say that I don't understand 'no free will' given that we spent 6 months supporting each other on the subject. I don't recall you saying that 'free will' is relatively true, what context are you saying it is relatively true in? To speak is to speak contextually, so when I say that 'free will' is true in one way, I am saying that it is relatively true in one context, I am not making context absolute. The context in which I would say it is relatively true is a context in which we are the Source of creation, the Source of reality/experience, so choices are inherently timelessly and freely made. To say that 'free will' is never true is fine in the context of absoluteness, thought equally it is equally never false. But in that context, 'oneness' is also never true and equally never false. |
|
|
|
Post by enigma on Mar 18, 2013 15:58:24 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. 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. I think you would find that if you stopped self creating your motivations that the story of motivation is not a prerequisite to action in the present moment. We only think it is because we are such good story tellers. It looks like what you assume spontaneous present moment action to be includes a conditioned story of the past that acts as the catalyst to make the present unfold. If so, what makes it spontaneous and present and unconditioned? What is true in the 'widest context' really is what's happening now, just as wholeness is actually what's happening right now. Nonvolition is what is happening right now. |
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Mar 18, 2013 15:59:37 GMT -5
Oh okay. Hehe.... Often your posts go over my head Laughter......too 'eloquent' perhaps....or then again, maybe yer just smarter dan me. He's our very own court jester~*  |
|
|
|
Post by quinn on Mar 18, 2013 16:03:53 GMT -5
It's hard for me to accept your point that I 'can't see' something that's obviously there when you weave such elaborate stories about me at the same time. " Elaborate stories"? I see some weaving going on here actually. didn't you say yourself that you don't argue with E, but rather acknowledge the disagreement & walk away? I've observed that you do not generally argue with folks here. Am I 'weaving an elaborate story' in suggesting that this rather peaceful way seems to be 'your style'? This wasn't the elaborate one. The only story-telling part is that it's my 'style' rather than a response to a situation. Ask my husband if 'not arguing' is my style. You'd probably get an eye-roll, cause he'd know better than to say anything.  It might if it was true. Then again, maybe it wouldn't - maybe I could actually differentiate between what's being said and whether or not my ego was stroked/ruffled. |
|
|
|
Post by andrew on Mar 18, 2013 16:06:05 GMT -5
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. Yes, though I have never made such claims. You took some comments I've made about specific situations, or about others, and applied then universally to me. I haven't talked about my level of egoness. It might be an interesting discussion as to what it means to be egoless, but I don't really know what that means, nor do I know what you mean by it. I'm not motivationless at all. I worked on somebody's house today because I figure he's going to pay me. If I figured he wasn't going to pay me, it's highly unlikely I would have done that. Same for intentionless. I might, but has it ever occurred to anybody to ask me if I am egoless, motivationless and intentionless? I haven't heard anybody ask, I just see them assuming, and I speculate they do this because they don't like something I'm saying and want to discredit me. It's this giraffe spotting that I'm pointing to. Did I hint or imply or trick somebody into assuming that? No. Would you say that it is possible that you are attached to a position but that you cannot see it? Would you say that its possible that not all your actions are Loving? Would you say that its possible that the conflict you are often embroiled is at least partly a reflection of your own attachments? |
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Mar 18, 2013 16:06:20 GMT -5
I did and I was just messin' with ya'  ... to be explicit as to the root and wend of the joke it was the same sort of elevation of attention to the incident under discussion that the number of days and words, devoted to it constitute. Andrew refers to that here: In general "Free will" only becomes an object of discussion in the context of "destiny". They're two ends of an abstraction stick. The rational, thinking mind can demonstrate that both are ever evident and we can apply what we know about the rational thinking mind we can see that both are illusory. One can look at the instant incident as so trivial as to not warrant adopting a context that assumes the relevance of the stick or alternatively as being so trivial to make such an assumption correspondingly trivial. I can craft one of those ex-post-facto stories you referred to earlier in the thread by speculating that perhaps Enigma opted for the first path to highlight the triviality of the incident by the effort applied to pry him out of his silence on motivation. Yes, it comes up in the context of 'destiny', and this is linked, but I would say it is relevant in the context of whether there is any 'autonomy of choice' or not. I used to say 'no!' but I see different ways to look at it these days. One mental construct I found useful in the past to reconcile actionless action and practice was to boil all apparent choice down to a single choice that can be expressed with a few different vocabularies such as "the choice to love God" or the "choice to be Present" etc... of course that's only necessary when trying to speak through the paradox from a position of the absolute. |
|
