|
Post by silver on Jun 12, 2013 9:21:09 GMT -5
Granted, he made an oversimplified statement.........but aren't you working overtime to misunderstand / misconstrue this simple statement? You do understand what is meant by "Teach a man to fish and he can feed himself" don't you? Learning how to fish by sitting at a desk in primary school and hearing someone lecture about how to fish doesn't give you the ability to show up on the dock with a tackle box, know how to prep the line for the type of fish you want to catch, etc. There is a whole lot more to "teaching a man to fish" than saying "you should fish for your meals". And having the knowledge alone isn't enough, the person needs to change their lifestyle and diet to accommodate the practice of fishing as a primary source of food. The phrase "teach a man to fish..." is an over simplification of what is required. And if we look at Jesus, the source of the quote, we can question whether or not any of the apostles truly learned to fish properly despite the time they spent with the expert fisher. Did you see all that in what Tzu said?! Wow. Talk about embellishing. You call that an argument? There is a cohesiveness that takes place - just like watching something under a microscope. All the little thingies come running to fight a (perceived) outsider. There is nothing going on that you think is - it's pure imagination on your part, Top. You know what I mean. @ others: I think you have your parables mixed up there. I don't think you should use it because you don't understand the parables and are totally crossing the streams here. Thank the Lord there are no Bible scholars within a holler of here.
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Jun 12, 2013 9:35:10 GMT -5
Seems like human beings are naturally generous and compassionate, when they find something good, the natural inclination is to want to share it, where it seems to start to get a bit silly, is when two people find something good that is different than, or even opposite to the other. For example, Tzu finds the color white to be good, and Enigma finds black to be....they each start telling people about how good each color is, and then bump into each other. Next thing you know, a conversation ensues about which is gooderer, where each eventually gets entrenched in defending their position, and pointing out the other's delusionalness Makes for good theater :-) When I washed up on the beach here a year ago that was the extent of my take on the distinction between "either/or" and "both/and". This is an arena where mind confronts itself and witnessing the confrontations during that time has caused me to reconsider it.
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Jun 12, 2013 9:36:56 GMT -5
Learning how to fish by sitting at a desk in primary school and hearing someone lecture about how to fish doesn't give you the ability to show up on the dock with a tackle box, know how to prep the line for the type of fish you want to catch, etc. There is a whole lot more to "teaching a man to fish" than saying "you should fish for your meals". And having the knowledge alone isn't enough, the person needs to change their lifestyle and diet to accommodate the practice of fishing as a primary source of food. The phrase "teach a man to fish..." is an over simplification of what is required. And if we look at Jesus, the source of the quote, we can question whether or not any of the apostles truly learned to fish properly despite the time they spent with the expert fisher. Haha....your making a distinction between: Teaching a person TO fish, and Teaching a person HOW to fish. Back in the day, I use to try and teach folks around here HOW to fish, but that turned into a debate about what is the best "How". If you take a position, someone somewhere will surely oppose it lol But maybe whether you decide to defend your position or not is a useful self barometer.I dunno. Yes I've got no doubt of that one ... always an opportunity to watch every part of that process in action.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 12, 2013 9:44:09 GMT -5
Seems like human beings are naturally generous and compassionate, when they find something good, the natural inclination is to want to share it, where it seems to start to get a bit silly, is when two people find something good that is different than, or even opposite to the other. For example, Tzu finds the color white to be good, and Enigma finds black to be....they each start telling people about how good each color is, and then bump into each other. Next thing you know, a conversation ensues about which is gooderer, where each eventually gets entrenched in defending their position, and pointing out the other's delusionalness Makes for good theater :-) When I washed up on the beach here a year ago that was the extent of my take on the distinction between "either/or" and "both/and". This is an arena where mind confronts itself and witnessing the confrontations during that time has caused me to reconsider it. Thanks Laughter Once again, I am reminded, that clearly, I don't know lol
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 12, 2013 9:52:58 GMT -5
Seems like human beings are naturally generous and compassionate, when they find something good, the natural inclination is to want to share it, where it seems to start to get a bit silly, is when two people find something good that is different than, or even opposite to the other. For example, Tzu finds the color white to be good, and Enigma finds black to be....they each start telling people about how good each color is, and then bump into each other. Next thing you know, a conversation ensues about which is gooderer, where each eventually gets entrenched in defending their position, and pointing out the other's delusionalness Makes for good theater :-) When I washed up on the beach here a year ago that was the extent of my take on the distinction between "either/or" and "both/and". This is an arena where mind confronts itself and witnessing the confrontations during that time has caused me to reconsider it. Please elaborate. (And I don't mean that as a joke
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Jun 12, 2013 10:01:28 GMT -5
When I washed up on the beach here a year ago that was the extent of my take on the distinction between "either/or" and "both/and". This is an arena where mind confronts itself and witnessing the confrontations during that time has caused me to reconsider it. Please elaborate. (And I don't mean that as a joke Partly from watching the interplay of mind here I've become biased toward the expression of either/or. This, in turn, is partly because I haven't seen a single both/and'er or a supporter thereof, either here or on other boards or media, whose position couldn't be reduced to a statement of self-interest. As Bob Ferguson put it, the little man lives to die.
|
|
|
Post by tzujanli on Jun 12, 2013 10:25:04 GMT -5
Greetings.. Please elaborate. (And I don't mean that as a joke Partly from watching the interplay of mind here I've become biased toward the expression of either/or. This, in turn, is partly because I haven't seen a single both/and'er or a supporter thereof, either here or on other boards or media, whose position couldn't be reduced to a statement of self-interest. As Bob Ferguson put it, the little man lives to die. Either/or is the attention to exclusion/conflict.. both/and is the attention to inclusiveness/peace.. Either/or assumes self-interest in one while rejecting the other.. both/and sets aside self-interest for the greater good.. Be well..
|
|
|
Post by topology on Jun 12, 2013 10:25:55 GMT -5
Learning how to fish by sitting at a desk in primary school and hearing someone lecture about how to fish doesn't give you the ability to show up on the dock with a tackle box, know how to prep the line for the type of fish you want to catch, etc. There is a whole lot more to "teaching a man to fish" than saying "you should fish for your meals". And having the knowledge alone isn't enough, the person needs to change their lifestyle and diet to accommodate the practice of fishing as a primary source of food. The phrase "teach a man to fish..." is an over simplification of what is required. And if we look at Jesus, the source of the quote, we can question whether or not any of the apostles truly learned to fish properly despite the time they spent with the expert fisher. Haha....your making a distinction between: Teaching a person TO fish, and Teaching a person HOW to fish. Back in the day, I use to try and teach folks around here HOW to fish, but that turned into a debate about what is the best "How". If you take a position, someone somewhere will surely oppose it lol But maybe whether you decide to defend your position or not is a useful self barometer. I dunno. Yes, you teach a person TO fish by taking them out of the market place and to the dock where you give them a rod, tackle and bait. You show them how to cast the line and you sit with them as they cast. You talk to them about the experience they are having right now. As the fish nibbles on the line, depending on the type of fish, you show them how to tend the line. For the fish that are caught, you show them how to clean and prep the fish and then cook it for a meal. You do all that while being with the person. It's not the words, its the presence in the shared activity where the knowledge get's transferred. And then you do it all again and again and again and again until fishing becomes second nature and a way of life. What this looks like when teaching someone to see clearly, is that you spend time with the person discussing various perceptions, the ins and outs of perception, noticing pitfalls and traps and how to become more self-aware. You do it continually and constantly, a daily discussion and participation. But the foundation of this transference is friendship, commitment, persistence, dedication, openness, receptiveness, etc.
|
|
|
Post by tzujanli on Jun 12, 2013 10:29:13 GMT -5
Greetings.. Haha....your making a distinction between: Teaching a person TO fish, and Teaching a person HOW to fish. Back in the day, I use to try and teach folks around here HOW to fish, but that turned into a debate about what is the best "How". If you take a position, someone somewhere will surely oppose it lol But maybe whether you decide to defend your position or not is a useful self barometer. I dunno. Yes, you teach a person TO fish by taking them out of the market place and to the dock where you give them a rod, tackle and bait. You show them how to cast the line and you sit with them as they cast. You talk to them about the experience they are having right now. As the fish nibbles on the line, depending on the type of fish, you show them how to tend the line. For the fish that are caught, you show them how to clean and prep the fish and then cook it for a meal. You do all that while being with the person. It's not the words, its the presence in the shared activity where the knowledge get's transferred. And then you do it all again and again and again and again until fishing becomes second nature and a way of life. What this looks like when teaching someone to see clearly, is that you spend time with the person discussing various perceptions, the ins and outs of perception, noticing pitfalls and traps and how to become more self-aware. You do it continually and constantly, a daily discussion and participation. But the foundation of this transference is friendship, commitment, persistence, dedication, openness, receptiveness, etc. Yep.. especially the last semtence.. applicable to all parties involved.. Be well..
|
|
|
Post by topology on Jun 12, 2013 10:31:51 GMT -5
Learning how to fish by sitting at a desk in primary school and hearing someone lecture about how to fish doesn't give you the ability to show up on the dock with a tackle box, know how to prep the line for the type of fish you want to catch, etc. There is a whole lot more to "teaching a man to fish" than saying "you should fish for your meals". And having the knowledge alone isn't enough, the person needs to change their lifestyle and diet to accommodate the practice of fishing as a primary source of food. The phrase "teach a man to fish..." is an over simplification of what is required. And if we look at Jesus, the source of the quote, we can question whether or not any of the apostles truly learned to fish properly despite the time they spent with the expert fisher. Funny, I don't recall anything in the Gospels about teaching a man to fish. And, if it IS there, one may also consider that he multiplied the fishes and the loaves to feed the multitudes. He didn't teach the multitudes how to fish. I'm probably mixing my parables. Jesus did say he would make his disciples fishers of men.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 12, 2013 10:43:46 GMT -5
Seems like human beings are naturally generous and compassionate, when they find something good, the natural inclination is to want to share it, where it seems to start to get a bit silly, is when two people find something good that is different than, or even opposite to the other. For example, Tzu finds the color white to be good, and Enigma finds black to be....they each start telling people about how good each color is, and then bump into each other. Next thing you know, a conversation ensues about which is gooderer, where each eventually gets entrenched in defending their position, and pointing out the other's delusionalness Makes for good theater :-) When I washed up on the beach here a year ago that was the extent of my take on the distinction between "either/or" and "both/and". This is an arena where mind confronts itself and witnessing the confrontations during that time has caused me to reconsider it. Haha, I think maybe I've removed myself from the both/and & either/or camps, and put myself in the neither/nor camp lol Where does that fit into your paradigm?
|
|
|
Post by topology on Jun 12, 2013 10:44:39 GMT -5
Greetings.. If someone is going to engage what you say and part of what you say is an assertion about how the world appears to you, then that person has to wrestle with your perception and either agree with it, argue with it, or disconnect from it and ignore it. You can vary the degree of strength (certainty) of your assertion which varies the degree to which someone will argue, agree, or ignore. Have you looked into Mirror Neurons and the idea of Trans Personal space? Mirror neurons recognize actions but do not distinguish between actor and perceiver. When you assert your perception, I experience it as an assertion about the truth of my experience as well. If it agrees, then it stands. If it disagrees then it creates cognitive dissonance which evokes it's own kind of fight or flight response, to argue or to disconnect and ignore. You tell me how you believe I am in most of our interactions. I am not the one that expressed the value of not telling someone how to perceive the world (calling it fooling them). Wrestling with that cognitive dissonance is essential for learning how to see clearly. Wrestling with other people's perceptions to see if they are true or where they fall apart is critical for the development of one's own insight and intuition. If someone is learning to see, they need people to challenge their assertions and to wrestle with the assertions of others. The only fooling that happens is when the listener accepts what is said without critically thinking about it. Tzu, you have your own filters when it comes to me and many of the people here. You advocate dropping beliefs, but then you hold onto your own beliefs about what is true or false and who is wrong and right. You make assumptions about the mental state (that these statements are beliefs) of others. You advocate letting go, but have you taken that critical eye and examined what is available for you to let go of? Yes, which requires challenge that person's existing perception with the possibility of alternate perception. How do you know you are seeing clearly and that certain others are not? I am sincerely interested in clarity as well. What you are interprettig as scoring points, if you go back and read it, have all been about the factors that are skewing clear perception. But you are not engaging the challenges as to whether or not you are seeing clearly as such but treat them as personal attacks or as if I had a need to be right or dominate you. I am all about examining what might be skewing people's perceptions and would love to actually engage you over the subject of what might be skewing either of our perceptions so long as you are open to self-examination as well.Hi Top: My understanding is simple.. just let go of attachments like beliefs, even 'knowing'.. i experience clarity when i suspend the mind's 'thinking' processes.. i experience some challenges when intentionally recalling those direct experiences for the purposes of fitting them into my private mindscape's 'intentional' interaction with its environment.. this is when it is useful to have experience with 'feeling' energetic resonance, such that fitting experiences into the mindscape's 'understanding' is energetically coherent with what is actually happening.. that same sensitivity to energetic resonances also counsels the mind's adjustments and revisions to the mindscape and the understandings.. I don't understand/believe that i am different or have different abilities than others, i understand that others have the same capacity to suspend their thinking processes.. i hear many different 'perspectives', and when hearing those perspectives i 'see clearly' that they are influenced by people's beliefs/attachments.. and, i 'see clearly' that the conflicts between beliefs/attachments are a source of suffering in the human experience.. I suggest that what people think 'about' their direct experience, i.e.: Life happening as an interconnected functioning whole, but thought 'about' as 'oneness' excluding the obvious parts interacting.. that is a degree of separation from clarity..There's an open honest account of my understanding, i'm trusting you are sincere.. we'll see how others interact, too.. Be well.. My experience with the mind has shown me that suspending thinking isn't enough. There are filters still active when looking out in the world and what is seen "clearly" can still be heavily interpreted and susceptible to confirmation bias. Even if the mind being silent for a while (absent of thinking) when the mind becomes active again, it usually picks up right where it left off. Energetic resonance of the mind I have found is more a product of coherence between beliefs and interpretations. A thought or idea resonates and coheres to other pre-existing thoughts or ideas. It is in having to wrestle with cognitive dissonance that I have found the most advancement in my own thinking and perceptive processes. You advocate letting go of beliefs, attachment and knowing. How is the underlined not something you yourself could take your own advice on?
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Jun 12, 2013 10:51:03 GMT -5
Greetings.. Partly from watching the interplay of mind here I've become biased toward the expression of either/or. This, in turn, is partly because I haven't seen a single both/and'er or a supporter thereof, either here or on other boards or media, whose position couldn't be reduced to a statement of self-interest. As Bob Ferguson put it, the little man lives to die. Either/or is the attention to exclusion/conflict.. both/and is the attention to inclusiveness/peace.. Either/or assumes self-interest in one while rejecting the other.. both/and sets aside self-interest for the greater good.. Be well.. I can agree to disagree.
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Jun 12, 2013 10:58:07 GMT -5
When I washed up on the beach here a year ago that was the extent of my take on the distinction between "either/or" and "both/and". This is an arena where mind confronts itself and witnessing the confrontations during that time has caused me to reconsider it. Haha, I think maybe I've removed myself from the both/and & either/or camps, and put myself in the neither/nor camp lol Where does that fit into your paradigm? It's all mental positioning. Just expression, and what I've expressed is a bias relative to that ongoing discussion about bettererness that you outlined. Your viewpoint is familiar to me but that might just be my projection. The best description of what we are that I can muster is that the human experience embodies the paradox of a limitation on the limitless. This is what the mind finds if it goes looking for answers. As we live, from within the paradox, it dissolves, as we simply be as we are.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 12, 2013 11:05:32 GMT -5
Haha, I think maybe I've removed myself from the both/and & either/or camps, and put myself in the neither/nor camp lol Where does that fit into your paradigm? It's all mental positioning. Just expression, and what I've expressed is a bias relative to that ongoing discussion about bettererness that you outlined. Your viewpoint is familiar to me but that might just be my projection. The best description of what we are that I can muster is that the human experience embodies the paradox of a limitation on the limitless. This is what the mind finds if it goes looking for answers. As we live, from within the paradox, it dissolves, as we simply be as we are. :-)
|
|