|
|
Post by andrew on Mar 18, 2013 16:13:09 GMT -5
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. Motivation and action do go hand in hand for the human organism. All action is motivated and this motivation is not just 'of the mind', it is of the bodymind as a whole. There is purpose and reason to behaviour. We may not be conscious or aware of all motivations, and its not necessary to be conscious/aware of all of them, but nevertheless, action is not just random. It is purposeful. I see spontaneous present moment action as action that arises without a need to defend self-image, without self-limiting beliefs. It has nothing to do with motivation. There is a motivation to write this message, and to post it. I don't have an issue with the idea that wholeness and non-volition are happening now. But equally, so then is individuality and volition. |
|
|
|
Post by andrew on Mar 18, 2013 16:14:33 GMT -5
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. No comprendo L. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 18, 2013 16:15:18 GMT -5
This wasn't the elaborate one. So, which one was...? Alright, fair enough. I've obviously made some assumptions there due to my observations here. I will say that your absence of arguing here has been a pretty consistent 'response' on this forum...is it so far out there to call that your 'forum style'? You don't see that you have a different relationship with E, than some others here? You don't see a difference in the style of engagement between how E relates to Andrew and I and Arisha vs. you , Reefs and Silence for example? Maybe. maybe not. Unless E starts mocking you, calling you deluded, and speaking ABOUT you in a sideways manner to joke with his buddies, you will know with certainty. |
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Mar 18, 2013 16:15:56 GMT -5
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 laughter on Mar 18, 2013 16:18:32 GMT -5
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. No comprendo L. Start here, do you see these as valid statements of the paradox: "practice is the practice of what we are never not which is here and now" ... and the related -- "there is nothing you can do to wake up as there is no doer" |
|
|
|
Post by silver on Mar 18, 2013 16:24:00 GMT -5
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. All right, all right! There's a lot of mileage in a year's time. It might have more effect if someone like you repeated it endlessly, rofl. It might only take half a century to kick in. You never know till you try.  |
|
|
|
Post by andrew on Mar 18, 2013 16:26:26 GMT -5
Start here, do you see these as valid statements of the paradox: "practice is the practice of what we are never not which is here and now" ... and the related -- "there is nothing you can do to wake up as there is no doer" I don't know. Would it be possible to cut to the chase? Or was your previous message already your cut to the chase? |
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Mar 18, 2013 16:40:26 GMT -5
Start here, do you see these as valid statements of the paradox: "practice is the practice of what we are never not which is here and now" ... and the related -- "there is nothing you can do to wake up as there is no doer" I don't know. Would it be possible to cut to the chase? Or was your previous message already your cut to the chase? you said that you saw different ways to view the question of "autonomy of choice" and I offered you one ... 'sok if you don't want to follow the reasoning I've already sold off my spirtiual_sledgehammer. if we're just talking about what to eat for breakfast then fine, there's a person who has a choice of shredded wheat or quisp ... I thought we were considering choices that had a different focus than that and if so then that consideration has to be done with regard to what we're considering, which is a abstraction stick with two ends. |
|
|
|
Post by enigma on Mar 18, 2013 16:41:25 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. What does it mean for actions to start lining up with intent? You mean you used to intend one thing and do something else? Aren't you always doing what you intend to do? Well, yes, there may come a time when you lose interest in analyzing why thoughts happen. You won't lose interest as long as you are suspicious of your own motives, but while we're under the hood, lets look at why it is you might be suspicious of yourself. It's an odd thingy, really, and it implies you're purposely deceiving yourself and then trying to catch yourself in the act, and this is the whole reason you need a crack police force to keep yourself under control. If we are truly conscious, there is truly nothing to look at/for and nothing to find, yes? If we are truly conscious, we know precisely what's going on simply by virtue of being conscious. What's going on is what you observe going on. No less and no more. The one who is wondering whether or not he/she is conscious is the one you should keep your eye on. He/she is up to no good.  |
|
|
|
Post by enigma on Mar 18, 2013 16:43:14 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. You mean it was another (GASP!) projection?  |
|
|
|
Post by enigma on Mar 18, 2013 16:49:01 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? It seems to drive the swallows back to Capistrano, so I dunno why not. |
|
|
|
Post by enigma on Mar 18, 2013 16:53:38 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. Wow, that's a pretty sophisticated story. I speculate you've never seen anybody "equate being conscious of intent with self 'blame'." |
|
|
|
Post by Beingist on Mar 18, 2013 16:56:07 GMT -5
Just wanted to respond to one bit of your last post, figgles-- What about Being itself? Does that not drive us? It seems to drive the swallows back to Capistrano, so I dunno why not. Actually, not lately: sanjuancapistrano.patch.com/articles/where-have-all-the-swallows-goneMaybe they discovered and learned how to use the LoA to find a nice mansion to live in? |
|
|
|
Post by quinn on Mar 18, 2013 16:56:27 GMT -5
This wasn't the elaborate one. So, which one was...? Alright, fair enough. I've obviously made some assumptions there due to my observations here. I will say that your absence of arguing here has been a pretty consistent 'response' on this forum...is it so far out there to call that your 'forum style'? You don't see that you have a different relationship with E, than some others here? You don't see a difference in the style of engagement between how E relates to Andrew and I and Arisha vs. you , Reefs and Silence for example? Maybe. maybe not. Unless E starts mocking you, calling you deluded, and speaking ABOUT you in a sideways manner to joke with his buddies, you will know with certainty. This is the elaborate story-telling: You assume you know that my experiences with E do not include mocking, etc. Do you know for a fact that that's true? Cause it's not. You assume I think mocking if fine, since I haven't been mocked. Story on top of story. I've posted several times that I don't care for it. I'm with Top on this- Oy Vey. Then, since you've established what I have and have not experienced, you go further to assume that I have an "inability to empathize" as a result. Another assumption on top of an assumption (hence, the 'elaborate' qualifier). Fact is, you really have no way of knowing my ability to empathize. Therefore....you admonishing me that I'm not seeing clearly doesn't hold water. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 18, 2013 17:01:24 GMT -5
What does it mean for actions to start lining up with intent? Aren't you always doing what you intend to do?[/quote] Yes, that's why it's important sometimes to have a gander to see if what we say we're intending lines up with our actual way of being. The old adage, 'actions speak louder than words' comes into play here. Can you see the difference between having a look at thoughts that arise, and ' analyzing why thoughts happen'? having a look or acknowledging need not involve analysis or even judgment. Just seeing and saying, oh yeah....there's that. So in order to be interested in looking and staying open to acknowledging what's going on, we must be 'suspicious' of self and trying to police ourselves to keep ourselves under control? That just doesn't ring true for me. It's not about 'being suspicious' but rather about wanting to be as clear and conscious as possible. Being conscious means being open to seeing and acknowledging. Even in someone who is mostly conscious, egoic needy behavior can still sometimes arise. Being conscious is not an end all and be all point of arrival, where we can declare ourselves 'done' but rather it's an ongoing way of being. It's about dedication to having an open and honest look at what's arising as it's arising. It's about 'being' aware, not 'arriving' at a place of never ending and perpetual, crystal clear awareness. yes. And how about those who flat out insist they are perpetually and unwaveringly conscious, but who engage in behaviors that suggest otherwise...? |
|
