Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 27, 2013 13:59:29 GMT -5
In your own words please. Not from the dictionary. It means that I have some difficulty understanding metaphorical stuff (though analogies work well for me, because my thinking is also visually-oriented), innuendo, subliminal suggestion, etc. I've gotten a lot better than I used to be. Currently, I'm processing Quinn's "It's a stopper because it addresses where the question came from". Which actually works for me, because a hook acts as a "stopper" (as in what causes a fish to stop swimming in the ocean). I get that all communication comes from mind, but right now, I don't understand what that's got to do with a toilet being God. I haven't reached a question, yet, because I simply don't have one. I'm just processing. I understand that all language is conceptual. Even these words now are neurally registered and breathed into life by your own, breathing. Do away with the idea that you have difficulty understanding metaphor, all that's happening is that the concept that the word stands for isn't familiar to you. "It's a stopper because it addresses where the question came from" ~ Another way to say this, is that, thought is suspended when faced with the primal intelligence that birthed it. Everything is trying to lead you back to the source of thought, because you have asked for it to be done.
|
|
|
Post by Beingist on Jun 27, 2013 14:07:46 GMT -5
It means that I have some difficulty understanding metaphorical stuff (though analogies work well for me, because my thinking is also visually-oriented), innuendo, subliminal suggestion, etc. I've gotten a lot better than I used to be. Currently, I'm processing Quinn's "It's a stopper because it addresses where the question came from". Which actually works for me, because a hook acts as a "stopper" (as in what causes a fish to stop swimming in the ocean). I get that all communication comes from mind, but right now, I don't understand what that's got to do with a toilet being God. I haven't reached a question, yet, because I simply don't have one. I'm just processing. I understand that all language is conceptual. Even these words now are neurally registered and breathed into life by your own, breathing. Do away with the idea that you have difficulty understanding metaphor, all that's happening is that the concept that the word stands for isn't familiar to you. "It's a stopper because it addresses where the question came from" ~ Another way to say this, is that, thought is suspended when faced with the primal intelligence that birthed it. Everything is trying to lead you back to the source of thought, because you have asked for it to be done. Thanks for the input, but at this point, I think I have to step back and look at the whole. Maybe look at it again tomorrow.
|
|
|
Post by silence on Jun 27, 2013 19:03:06 GMT -5
I'll rephrase: Thanks for your input, Quinn. It sounds like there might be something there for me to listen to. Care to elaborate? Or is it not important? Here it is again-- Haha! Sorry, Beingist - I read "don't know what in the world you're talking about" as "not enough of a common ground to be able to communicate". Plus I was crashing from too much coffee earlier. What I was saying is this: What you called a 'mind hook' from Enigma was, in actuality, a mind-stopper (in a good way). That's what I meant by it getting real quiet internally. And, even more importantly, it's not a mind-stopper by enforced silence or manipulated silence. There's no trickiness. It's a stopper because it addresses where the question came from. What you and I were doing in that conversation, and in our minds, was divvying up the Whole into the parts. Not a problem, and absolutely necessary for conversing. So one one side is ISness and the other is appearances. Or actuality and reality. Fine to talk about it that way. What were were then doing is trying to reconcile those parts see how they relate. How is a toilet God? But they don't need to relate, because the only place they were separate to being with was in our minds. Yes, that's very well said.
|
|
|
Post by Beingist on Jun 27, 2013 19:20:38 GMT -5
Haha! Sorry, Beingist - I read "don't know what in the world you're talking about" as "not enough of a common ground to be able to communicate". Plus I was crashing from too much coffee earlier. What I was saying is this: What you called a 'mind hook' from Enigma was, in actuality, a mind-stopper (in a good way). That's what I meant by it getting real quiet internally. And, even more importantly, it's not a mind-stopper by enforced silence or manipulated silence. There's no trickiness. It's a stopper because it addresses where the question came from. What you and I were doing in that conversation, and in our minds, was divvying up the Whole into the parts. Not a problem, and absolutely necessary for conversing. So one one side is ISness and the other is appearances. Or actuality and reality. Fine to talk about it that way. What were were then doing is trying to reconcile those parts see how they relate. How is a toilet God? But they don't need to relate, because the only place they were separate to being with was in our minds. Might have to read this a couple times for it to sink in, but thanks, Quinn. Okay, I get what you're saying, here, and I understand and agree (which is to say, mentally), but I don't rez, for the simple fact that E's mind hooks are anything but 'mind-stoppers' for me. They're rather more like an ether can for hyper-minding (like when you spray either into the carburetor of an idling engine). Ultimately, it's my choice to spray the can into the carb, but E is always there to offer me the can, even if unconsciously (this analogy is similar to the gas can analogy for Reefs, but much less messy and violent). This is another reason why ignore works well--I rarely notice the ether can he offers. Otherwise, of course a toilet is God. But, then, so is a sink, and plumbing, and the whole sewage system of Schenectady. It's all One. And we can't grasp it with the mind. Got it. And since mind is all we've got to work with, it doesn't seem to make a whole hell of a lot of sense to try to make a whole hell of a lot of sense out of the relationship between Reality and actuality. Is that what you were saying, or am I off base? ETA: Otherwise, thanks for the post. Reading it closely help me to realize that E really has no intention behind his mind hooks, and is no more conscious of them, than I am of saying something that is a mind-stopper for you.
|
|
|
Post by quinn on Jun 27, 2013 20:31:49 GMT -5
Might have to read this a couple times for it to sink in, but thanks, Quinn. Okay, I get what you're saying, here, and I understand and agree (which is to say, mentally), but I don't rez, for the simple fact that E's mind hooks are anything but 'mind-stoppers' for me. They're rather more like an ether can for hyper-minding (like when you spray either into the carburetor of an idling engine). Ultimately, it's my choice to spray the can into the carb, but E is always there to offer me the can, even if unconsciously (this analogy is similar to the gas can analogy for Reefs, but much less messy and violent). This is another reason why ignore works well--I rarely notice the ether can he offers. Otherwise, of course a toilet is God. But, then, so is a sink, and plumbing, and the whole sewage system of Schenectady. It's all One. And we can't grasp it with the mind. Got it. And since mind is all we've got to work with, it doesn't seem to make a whole hell of a lot of sense to try to make a whole hell of a lot of sense out of the relationship between Reality and actuality. Is that what you were saying, or am I off base? ETA: Otherwise, thanks for the post. Reading it closely help me to realize that E really has no intention behind his mind hooks, and is no more conscious of them, than I am of saying something that is a mind-stopper for you. To your edit: YYYYYYYYYYYEEEEEEEEEEEEEEESSSSSSSSSSSSSS! To the toilet is God thingy....it isn't that we can't grasp Oneness with mind. I mean, that's true, but that's not what this mind-stopping business is about. It's simpler than that. But I can't come up with any clearer way of saying it. I've tried three times now and just made a muddled mess. That I deleted. You're welcome. It's really just noticing where we created the problem we're so frustrated trying to solve.
|
|
|
Post by Beingist on Jun 27, 2013 21:20:10 GMT -5
Okay, I get what you're saying, here, and I understand and agree (which is to say, mentally), but I don't rez, for the simple fact that E's mind hooks are anything but 'mind-stoppers' for me. They're rather more like an ether can for hyper-minding (like when you spray either into the carburetor of an idling engine). Ultimately, it's my choice to spray the can into the carb, but E is always there to offer me the can, even if unconsciously (this analogy is similar to the gas can analogy for Reefs, but much less messy and violent). This is another reason why ignore works well--I rarely notice the ether can he offers. Otherwise, of course a toilet is God. But, then, so is a sink, and plumbing, and the whole sewage system of Schenectady. It's all One. And we can't grasp it with the mind. Got it. And since mind is all we've got to work with, it doesn't seem to make a whole hell of a lot of sense to try to make a whole hell of a lot of sense out of the relationship between Reality and actuality. Is that what you were saying, or am I off base? ETA: Otherwise, thanks for the post. Reading it closely help me to realize that E really has no intention behind his mind hooks, and is no more conscious of them, than I am of saying something that is a mind-stopper for you. To your edit: YYYYYYYYYYYEEEEEEEEEEEEEEESSSSSSSSSSSSSS! To the toilet is God thingy....it isn't that we can't grasp Oneness with mind. I mean, that's true, but that's not what this mind-stopping business is about. It's simpler than that. But I can't come up with any clearer way of saying it. I've tried three times now and just made a muddled mess. That I deleted. You're welcome. It's really just noticing where we created the problem we're so frustrated trying to solve. I'm frustrated trying to solve a problem?
|
|
|
Post by Beingist on Jun 27, 2013 23:28:57 GMT -5
Ya know, there's this buddy o' mine, with whom my other buddies and I go to the horse races on occasion. Any more, I don't even presume to know anything about how to bet horses, because this guy knows horses, and how to bet them. So, the common question we now ALL ask him before we make a bet is, 'okay, what's my bet, Sam?'
Maybe I can do the same thing here amongst y'all, but instead, just ask, 'okay, what concept am I clinging to?'
|
|
|
Post by enigma on Jun 28, 2013 2:37:19 GMT -5
It means that I have some difficulty understanding metaphorical stuff (though analogies work well for me, because my thinking is also visually-oriented), innuendo, subliminal suggestion, etc. I've gotten a lot better than I used to be. Currently, I'm processing Quinn's "It's a stopper because it addresses where the question came from". Which actually works for me, because a hook acts as a "stopper" (as in what causes a fish to stop swimming in the ocean). I get that all communication comes from mind, but right now, I don't understand what that's got to do with a toilet being God. I haven't reached a question, yet, because I simply don't have one. I'm just processing. I understand that all language is conceptual. Even these words now are neurally registered and breathed into life by your own, breathing. Do away with the idea that you have difficulty understanding metaphor, all that's happening is that the concept that the word stands for isn't familiar to you. "It's a stopper because it addresses where the question came from" ~ Another way to say this, is that, thought is suspended when faced with the primal intelligence that birthed it. Everything is trying to lead you back to the source of thought, because you have asked for it to be done. Nothing so transcendental, from my perspective. If I imagine a Germidgepillion, and then the thought occurs as to whether or not it is carnivorous, the question is misconceived and therefore has no answer. No amount of research or wisdom, from whatever source, can possibly reveal the actual dietary habits of an imaginary creature. It can only lead to more imagination. As it so happens, all existential questions, all queries that cross the contextual boundaries of dualistic experience, fall into the same category of misconception because all questions are, by definition, constricted to the context of duality. Duality itself is a Germidgepillion; a creature of the imagination. What am I? What is God? Why is there life? Cannot be answered. Not because the answer cannot be known, but because the question does not apply to anything outside the imagination of man. There are no answers because the questions make no sense. This is what it means to say nothing is ultimately true. It is also what it means to say I know nothing.
|
|
|
Post by andrew on Jun 28, 2013 2:40:59 GMT -5
I understand that all language is conceptual. Even these words now are neurally registered and breathed into life by your own, breathing. Do away with the idea that you have difficulty understanding metaphor, all that's happening is that the concept that the word stands for isn't familiar to you. "It's a stopper because it addresses where the question came from" ~ Another way to say this, is that, thought is suspended when faced with the primal intelligence that birthed it. Everything is trying to lead you back to the source of thought, because you have asked for it to be done. Nothing so transcendental, from my perspective. If I imagine a Germidgepillion, and then the thought occurs as to whether or not it is carnivorous, the question is misconceived and therefore has no answer. No amount of research or wisdom, from whatever source, can possibly reveal the actual dietary habits of an imaginary creature. It can only lead to more imagination. As it so happens, all existential questions, all queries that cross the contextual boundaries of dualistic experience, fall into the same category of misconception because all questions are, by definition, constricted to the context of duality. Duality itself is a Germidgepillion; a creature of the imagination. What am I? What is God? Why is there life? Cannot be answered. Not because the answer cannot be known, but because the question does not apply to anything outside the imagination of man. There are no answers because the questions make no sense. This is what it means to say nothing is ultimately true. It is also what it means to say I know nothing. Some examples: What am I? Spirit in human form, a non physical consciousness experiencing physical reality, God individuated. What is God? Infinite Love, Creator, Creation and Created. Why is there life? So that God can experience Itself.
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Jun 28, 2013 2:44:10 GMT -5
Nothing so transcendental, from my perspective. If I imagine a Germidgepillion, and then the thought occurs as to whether or not it is carnivorous, the question is misconceived and therefore has no answer. No amount of research or wisdom, from whatever source, can possibly reveal the actual dietary habits of an imaginary creature. It can only lead to more imagination. As it so happens, all existential questions, all queries that cross the contextual boundaries of dualistic experience, fall into the same category of misconception because all questions are, by definition, constricted to the context of duality. Duality itself is a Germidgepillion; a creature of the imagination. What am I? What is God? Why is there life? Cannot be answered. Not because the answer cannot be known, but because the question does not apply to anything outside the imagination of man. There are no answers because the questions make no sense. This is what it means to say nothing is ultimately true. It is also what it means to say I know nothing. Some examples: What am I? Spirit in human form, a non physical consciousness experiencing physical reality, God individuated. What is God? Infinite Love, Creator, Creation and Created. Why is there life? So that God can experience Itself. These are your answers? In what context do you give them? Are these answers that you find when you're presented with the question or answers that come to mind as useful to point in certain circumstances?
|
|
|
Post by enigma on Jun 28, 2013 2:44:32 GMT -5
Haha! Sorry, Beingist - I read "don't know what in the world you're talking about" as "not enough of a common ground to be able to communicate". Plus I was crashing from too much coffee earlier. What I was saying is this: What you called a 'mind hook' from Enigma was, in actuality, a mind-stopper (in a good way). That's what I meant by it getting real quiet internally. And, even more importantly, it's not a mind-stopper by enforced silence or manipulated silence. There's no trickiness. It's a stopper because it addresses where the question came from. What you and I were doing in that conversation, and in our minds, was divvying up the Whole into the parts. Not a problem, and absolutely necessary for conversing. So one one side is ISness and the other is appearances. Or actuality and reality. Fine to talk about it that way. What were were then doing is trying to reconcile those parts see how they relate. How is a toilet God? But they don't need to relate, because the only place they were separate to being with was in our minds. Yes, that's very well said. Yes. However, the thought occurred that our literal Being-ist may be reading and re-reading trying to make sense of the "being" in this sentence, which i believe should be "begin".: (Just thought maybe I could save a couple of weeks of research)
|
|
|
Post by andrew on Jun 28, 2013 2:47:48 GMT -5
Some examples: What am I? Spirit in human form, a non physical consciousness experiencing physical reality, God individuated. What is God? Infinite Love, Creator, Creation and Created. Why is there life? So that God can experience Itself. These are your answers? In what context do you give them? Are these answers that you find when you're presented with the question or answers that come to mind as useful to point in certain circumstances? They're just the first answers the popped into my head. It was very simple to answer them, I see no misconception in those questions.
|
|
|
Post by amit on Jun 28, 2013 2:49:41 GMT -5
Hi enigma, Your response contains the assumption that my intention was to teach. What is it that you think you know about me that results in that assumption? amit I know that you have refused all attempts to engage you on a personal level. I know that you do not approve of the personal approach in this venue. I know that you believe I approach others with unconscious motivations and projections. I know that you started a thread with the intention of encouraging those who engage the personal approach to reveal their own personal dynamics, effectively reflecting back the process to them. I further speculate that you suspected these people would resist the intrusion much the same way you have, and therefore might learn something that you suppose they did not know before, perhaps even altering their behavior. So again, do you feel i have adequately learned the lesson you started this thread to teach? If not, we can continue the lesson. Hi enigma, "I further speculate that you suspected these people would resist the intrusion much the same way you have, and therefore might learn something that you suppose they did not know before, perhaps even altering their behavior". You say "and therefore" as though one follows the other. It is possible to resist something and learn nothing about oneself. Do you accept that you get personal with people here and that you see that as useful? If so is it with the intention that they might learn something? If so do you have any generalized idea of what that might be? For example what has worked for you in terms of waking you up? Were you subjected to the getting personal approach by someone you respect? Following an understanding of what each is saying, characters may indeed resonate with this or that but that does not have to be the intention of the discussion. If there is the intention to teach (getting personal is often present in that approach) open discussion is undermined and often becomes a slagging match as can be seen on this forum. amit
|
|
|
Post by enigma on Jun 28, 2013 2:54:23 GMT -5
Might have to read this a couple times for it to sink in, but thanks, Quinn. Okay, I get what you're saying, here, and I understand and agree (which is to say, mentally), but I don't rez, for the simple fact that E's mind hooks are anything but 'mind-stoppers' for me. They're rather more like an ether can for hyper-minding (like when you spray either into the carburetor of an idling engine). Ultimately, it's my choice to spray the can into the carb, but E is always there to offer me the can, even if unconsciously (this analogy is similar to the gas can analogy for Reefs, but much less messy and violent). This is another reason why ignore works well--I rarely notice the ether can he offers. Otherwise, of course a toilet is God. But, then, so is a sink, and plumbing, and the whole sewage system of Schenectady. It's all One. And we can't grasp it with the mind. Got it. And since mind is all we've got to work with, it doesn't seem to make a whole hell of a lot of sense to try to make a whole hell of a lot of sense out of the relationship between Reality and actuality. Is that what you were saying, or am I off base? I speculate you're off base. There isn't something to "grasp". I don't understand the whole 'mind hook' biznis. In this case I was pointing to something and Quinn saw what I was pointing to, and the effect of that seeing is that mind sees the illusory nature of the question and stops thinking about it and lets it go.
|
|
|
Post by enigma on Jun 28, 2013 2:58:29 GMT -5
Ya know, there's this buddy o' mine, with whom my other buddies and I go to the horse races on occasion. Any more, I don't even presume to know anything about how to bet horses, because this guy knows horses, and how to bet them. So, the common question we now ALL ask him before we make a bet is, 'okay, what's my bet, Sam?' Maybe I can do the same thing here amongst y'all, but instead, just ask, 'okay, what concept am I clinging to?' You don't seem to like that very much.
|
|