|
Post by enigma on Jun 26, 2013 3:35:08 GMT -5
So the assumption is that I'm lying,(denial) which ends the possibility of openness. The only way openness could happen is if I declared various projections and defenses, but then why would you take anything I say seriously. What would you be open to? It sounds like a perfect plan for not listening to anything personal under any conditions. Hi enigma, Characters and the way they interact with each other are complicated. The nonverbal face to face aspects of relationship are important in establishing trust. We cannot do that here so for me getting personal is best left out. However if some are willing to carefully do some work on defense mechanisms that would be of interest to me but to expose oneself to those who are not open in that way and don't care about the effect they have would be foolish. So its difficult to see how that could operate here. There isn't some complicated scary bears process involved. A perceived defense on your part has already been clearly and calmly pointed out to you, without any violence or bloodshed or intensive therapy sessions. Look at it or don't. It need not have anything more to do with others. I would suggest it can be far more useful than your conceptual analysis of the non-duality concept. Defenses only come down when there is nothing being threatened. Good spearichool work is not safe.
|
|
|
Post by enigma on Jun 26, 2013 3:39:12 GMT -5
Of course, but it didn't happen by trying to qualify others. It happened by looking within. Hi enigma, Yes. So has that not happened on this forum for you? Could you give an example? amit I did that work for years, before I came here. I highly recommend it.
|
|
|
Post by quinn on Jun 26, 2013 5:18:11 GMT -5
Peeps can guess what 'what is' is (which is to say that they're trying to grasp what 'what is' is by thinking). Hope that helps. I'm guessing that I'm understanding. Do you see 'what is' as a snapshot (for lack of a better word) of everything that's happening in this moment? In other words, are you including what's seen, heard, etc. with all the senses, plus what's being thought about, plus any emotional content? Or is 'what is' just a sense of what underlies anything that can be seen, heard, etc., before thinking and emotions arise? (And when I say emotions, I'm differentiating between emotions and feelings. If I hit my toe with a hammer, I'll have the feeling of pain . If I get pissed off about it, that's an emotion.)
|
|
|
Post by Beingist on Jun 26, 2013 7:15:07 GMT -5
Peeps can guess what 'what is' is (which is to say that they're trying to grasp what 'what is' is by thinking). Hope that helps. I'm guessing that I'm understanding. Do you see 'what is' as a snapshot (for lack of a better word) of everything that's happening in this moment? In other words, are you including what's seen, heard, etc. with all the senses, plus what's being thought about, plus any emotional content? Or is 'what is' just a sense of what underlies anything that can be seen, heard, etc., before thinking and emotions arise? (And when I say emotions, I'm differentiating between emotions and feelings. If I hit my toe with a hammer, I'll have the feeling of pain . If I get pissed off about it, that's an emotion.) No. 'What is', is ISness. Can't be sensed. (And please don't hit your toe with a hammer to experience it. That won't work.) Emotions, to me, are just thoughts that are manifest through the body.
|
|
|
Post by amit on Jun 26, 2013 7:32:18 GMT -5
Hi enigma, Characters and the way they interact with each other are complicated. The nonverbal face to face aspects of relationship are important in establishing trust. We cannot do that here so for me getting personal is best left out. However if some are willing to carefully do some work on defense mechanisms that would be of interest to me but to expose oneself to those who are not open in that way and don't care about the effect they have would be foolish. So its difficult to see how that could operate here. There isn't some complicated scary bears process involved. A perceived defense on your part has already been clearly and calmly pointed out to you, without any violence or bloodshed or intensive therapy sessions. Look at it or don't. It need not have anything more to do with others. I would suggest it can be far more useful than your conceptual analysis of the non-duality concept. Defenses only come down when there is nothing being threatened. Good spearichool work is not safe. Hi enigma, In view of your attempt to analyze my character, I would like to first ask some questions to see how clear of conditioning the attempt is, and suggest an analysis in return. What is it that you think you know about me for you to suggest what I need? Could it be that your prescription for me has something to do with what works for you which is then projected out onto others as though they were like you? The defense thinking behind that in terms of what you find unacceptable in yourself would be some form of rejection. The details may not be known to you anymore as covered up by attacking those who reject you as the best defense you could come up with way back when this character was first constructed by your mind. This is only a suggestion presented for your consideration not a statement of how you actually are. I would be interested to hear your response. There is no shame in considering this sought of stuff, I suspect we all have some it going on to varying degrees. Looking at defenses, requires a willingness, openness, and care on both sides. amit
|
|
|
Post by quinn on Jun 26, 2013 8:38:20 GMT -5
I'm guessing that I'm understanding. Do you see 'what is' as a snapshot (for lack of a better word) of everything that's happening in this moment? In other words, are you including what's seen, heard, etc. with all the senses, plus what's being thought about, plus any emotional content? Or is 'what is' just a sense of what underlies anything that can be seen, heard, etc., before thinking and emotions arise? (And when I say emotions, I'm differentiating between emotions and feelings. If I hit my toe with a hammer, I'll have the feeling of pain . If I get pissed off about it, that's an emotion.) No. 'What is', is ISness. Can't be sensed. (And please don't hit your toe with a hammer to experience it. That won't work.) Emotions, to me, are just thoughts that are manifest through the body. Ah, ok. Thanks. I went back and re-read our conversation with that understanding of what you meant. I'm still totally lost on the relationship between ISness and perceiving criticism. But that's ok. To me, 'what is' is all that appears and that which it appears to, before thought gets involved. So I can see why we're crossing wires in communication. On the same page with emotions, though!
|
|
|
Post by Beingist on Jun 26, 2013 8:56:51 GMT -5
No. 'What is', is ISness. Can't be sensed. (And please don't hit your toe with a hammer to experience it. That won't work.) Emotions, to me, are just thoughts that are manifest through the body. Ah, ok. Thanks. I went back and re-read our conversation with that understanding of what you meant. I'm still totally lost on the relationship between ISness and perceiving criticism. But that's ok. To me, 'what is' is all that appears and that which it appears to, before thought gets involved. So I can see why we're crossing wires in communication. On the same page with emotions, though! I'm actually still working on understanding the relationship between ISness and actuality (i.e., perceiver and perceived). I've long held that the latter is a manifestation of the former, but in a conversation some months ago, E got me all confused on that (another reason for the ignore), and so I would now have to revisit it, but don't, because of the 'misconceived question' issue. "All that appears and that to which it appears" is actuality, to me (as opposed to Reality, which is, basically, ISness). Lastly, glad we're on the same page with emotions.
|
|
|
Post by quinn on Jun 26, 2013 10:24:28 GMT -5
Ah, ok. Thanks. I went back and re-read our conversation with that understanding of what you meant. I'm still totally lost on the relationship between ISness and perceiving criticism. But that's ok. To me, 'what is' is all that appears and that which it appears to, before thought gets involved. So I can see why we're crossing wires in communication. On the same page with emotions, though! I'm actually still working on understanding the relationship between ISness and actuality (i.e., perceiver and perceived). I've long held that the latter is a manifestation of the former, but in a conversation some months ago, E got me all confused on that (another reason for the ignore), and so I would now have to revisit it, but don't, because of the 'misconceived question' issue. "All that appears and that to which it appears" is actuality, to me (as opposed to Reality, which is, basically, ISness). Lastly, glad we're on the same page with emotions. So, to you, actuality doesn't equate to 'what is', reality/ISness does. Interrrresting. I'll try to remember that if we get into one of these conversations again. To me, actuality is 'what is' and ISness is TWCBN (That Which Cannot Be Named). As far as the relationship being confusing...I dunno. I've 'seen' the relationship between perceiver and perceived, but I haven't seen the relationship between ISness and actuality. Adya describes a waking-up experience he had as a realization of God-ness everywhere, and walking around his house and seeing that the toilet was God. Uh...that has not happened here. Flowers, maybe. Nature, a sense of it. The toilet...no. I think an 'understanding' based on a conversation with anyone about this is going to be confusing. No reason not to ask the questions though.
|
|
|
Post by Beingist on Jun 26, 2013 10:49:10 GMT -5
I'm actually still working on understanding the relationship between ISness and actuality (i.e., perceiver and perceived). I've long held that the latter is a manifestation of the former, but in a conversation some months ago, E got me all confused on that (another reason for the ignore), and so I would now have to revisit it, but don't, because of the 'misconceived question' issue. "All that appears and that to which it appears" is actuality, to me (as opposed to Reality, which is, basically, ISness). Lastly, glad we're on the same page with emotions. So, to you, actuality doesn't equate to 'what is', reality/ISness does. Interrrresting. I'll try to remember that if we get into one of these conversations again. To me, actuality is 'what is' and ISness is TWCBN (That Which Cannot Be Named). Yeah, we're on the same page, here. Terms really aren't as important here, I don't think, as long as we both agree that experience in the material world is not ISness. TWCBN works for me. Yeah, pretty much the same, here (i.e., no toilet-as-god experience). And, I've had the woo-woo, but it got me locked up for a time (I even realize to the extreme, and certain, erm, medical professionals are compelled to do certain things with peeps who say they're God ). Agreed wholeheartedly, except to say that the only thing likely to cause the confusion is any conflicting terminology. I'll stand on the significance of asking the question until my dying day, regardless of whether anyone thinks it's 'misconceived' or not.
|
|
|
Post by topology on Jun 26, 2013 11:00:54 GMT -5
So, to you, actuality doesn't equate to 'what is', reality/ISness does. Interrrresting. I'll try to remember that if we get into one of these conversations again. To me, actuality is 'what is' and ISness is TWCBN (That Which Cannot Be Named). Yeah, we're on the same page, here. Terms really aren't as important here, I don't think, as long as we both agree that experience in the material world is not ISness. TWCBN works for me. Yeah, pretty much the same, here (i.e., no toilet-as-god experience). And, I've had the woo-woo, but it got me locked up for a time (I even realize to the extreme, and certain, erm, medical professionals are compelled to do certain things with peeps who say they're God ). Agreed wholeheartedly, except to say that the only thing likely to cause the confusion is any conflicting terminology. I'll stand on the significance of asking the question until my dying day, regardless of whether anyone thinks it's 'misconceived' or not. There is a significant effort under the heading of " spiritual emergency" to re-educate the psychological community about the difference between woo-woo experiences and true psychotic episodes, and to treat them differently.
|
|
|
Post by quinn on Jun 26, 2013 11:57:31 GMT -5
And, I've had the woo-woo, but it got me locked up for a time (I even realize to the extreme, and certain, erm, medical professionals are compelled to do certain things with peeps who say they're God ). I hope it didn't have anything to do with electrodes. Was this the original question that started the rhubarb?
|
|
|
Post by quinn on Jun 26, 2013 12:02:31 GMT -5
There is a significant effort under the heading of " spiritual emergency" to re-educate the psychological community about the difference between woo-woo experiences and true psychotic episodes, and to treat them differently. Good. My friend, who's a UU minister, is trained in that. Next time I see her I'll see if I can get some info. My guess, though, is she mostly deals with existential crises, not so much identity/loss of identity kinds of things.
|
|
|
Post by Beingist on Jun 26, 2013 12:11:37 GMT -5
And, I've had the woo-woo, but it got me locked up for a time (I even realize to the extreme, and certain, erm, medical professionals are compelled to do certain things with peeps who say they're God ). I hope it didn't have anything to do with electrodes. No, but I did have some interesting conversations with some who were fairly intimate with electrodes. But, it did involve diagnoses and medications and people in white smocks, and all that isn't pleasant. Not the original question, but a question that might fall into that bucket.
|
|
|
Post by enigma on Jun 26, 2013 15:49:19 GMT -5
There isn't some complicated scary bears process involved. A perceived defense on your part has already been clearly and calmly pointed out to you, without any violence or bloodshed or intensive therapy sessions. Look at it or don't. It need not have anything more to do with others. I would suggest it can be far more useful than your conceptual analysis of the non-duality concept. Defenses only come down when there is nothing being threatened. Good spearichool work is not safe. Hi enigma, In view of your attempt to analyze my character, I would like to first ask some questions to see how clear of conditioning the attempt is, and suggest an analysis in return. What is it that you think you know about me for you to suggest what I need? Could it be that your prescription for me has something to do with what works for you which is then projected out onto others as though they were like you? The defense thinking behind that in terms of what you find unacceptable in yourself would be some form of rejection. The details may not be known to you anymore as covered up by attacking those who reject you as the best defense you could come up with way back when this character was first constructed by your mind. This is only a suggestion presented for your consideration not a statement of how you actually are. I would be interested to hear your response. There is no shame in considering this sought of stuff, I suspect we all have some it going on to varying degrees. Looking at defenses, requires a willingness, openness, and care on both sides. amit Like I said, look at it or don't. I'm not going to play the mirror game with you.
|
|
|
Post by enigma on Jun 26, 2013 15:56:20 GMT -5
I'm actually still working on understanding the relationship between ISness and actuality (i.e., perceiver and perceived). I've long held that the latter is a manifestation of the former, but in a conversation some months ago, E got me all confused on that (another reason for the ignore), and so I would now have to revisit it, but don't, because of the 'misconceived question' issue. "All that appears and that to which it appears" is actuality, to me (as opposed to Reality, which is, basically, ISness). Lastly, glad we're on the same page with emotions. So, to you, actuality doesn't equate to 'what is', reality/ISness does. Interrrresting. I'll try to remember that if we get into one of these conversations again. To me, actuality is 'what is' and ISness is TWCBN (That Which Cannot Be Named). As far as the relationship being confusing...I dunno. I've 'seen' the relationship between perceiver and perceived, but I haven't seen the relationship between ISness and actuality. Adya describes a waking-up experience he had as a realization of God-ness everywhere, and walking around his house and seeing that the toilet was God. Uh...that has not happened here. Flowers, maybe. Nature, a sense of it. The toilet...no. I think an 'understanding' based on a conversation with anyone about this is going to be confusing. No reason not to ask the questions though. Once we separate and define stuff, like isness and actuality, then we have to figure out what the relationship is between the ideas we made up. This is what makes this sort of question misconceived. (shout out to B) If we don't separate to begin with, the toilet is obviously God.
|
|