|
|
Post by enigma on May 10, 2014 20:15:27 GMT -5
Oddly, the same thought occurred to me today, before this thread was ever started.  Where's mittenhead and his rant about Kermit in his brain when you need him! I read Libet's abstract after that post and it's more better clearerer now. He linked to it in the OP if you're interested. |
|
|
|
Post by enigma on May 10, 2014 20:30:10 GMT -5
The right-hand/left-hand experiment sets limitations such that the subject is likely to reveal a bias ahead of the activity.. the 'decision point' is not likely made by neuro-transmitters that activate the meat-puppet.. there is another system, significantly quicker than the CNS (central nervous system), it is the connective tissue system (CTS), the 'body-mind'.. there are processes happening that most people aren't aware of, but which are easily integrated into the more complete holistic human experience.. these are activities and sensory input comprehensions that function in harmony with who/what the experiencer has evolved into.. the CTS and its integration into the experiencer's conscious participation expands awareness exponentially, revealing potentials most people have not even noticed.. It is interesting to observe people willing to abandon their opportunity to choose liberation due to an experiment based on if/then suppositions and conclusions limited to the examiner's bias.. remain open to more comprehensive evidence of what is happening, attaching to the evidence you want to believe is not the same as observing all the evidence while allowing for the actuality that you do not have 'all' of the evidence.. You have precisely hit the nail on the head. 90% of the problem I have with (conceptual)non-dualism is this repeated idea that we can't do anything. Although it's difficult to come to see that all our thoughts, feeling and actions result from the conditioning of self, this is indeed the case and it's an important stage to see this. But non-dual teachers, most who have spent thousands of hours in some sort of interior spiritual practice, turn around and say that the spiritual practice wasn't necessary, and in any case, the practice just happened in the same manner that thoughts, feelings and actions, just happen. The point is that with which we do interior spiritual practice, attention and/or awareness, is our point of freedom and cannot be conditioned. Now, they can be captured by our thoughts, feelings and actions, and this is how most people live, but attention and awareness are separate from thoughts, feelings and actions, so we can separate-out our attention and awareness and live through attention and awareness instead of living through thoughts, feelings and actions. This is what breaks the conditioning and eventually brings awakening and liberation. So this is what we can do, it doesn't just happen. If you think you have no control over what you attend to or what you are aware of, then you have " abandoned your opportunity to choose liberation". Now, ego/self isn't practicing, can't. Interior practice is not thinking, feeling or bodily movement, as these constitute ego/self. You have to find this distinction, make this distinction........and that via practice. You can't conceptualize the distinction. sdp I understand why the statement is confusing, but it is correct. Why would a teacher, much less many teachers, tell you that if it weren't true? Aren't they also saying their own efforts were not necessary? If it's not true, aren't they sabotaging your own efforts? |
|
|
|
Post by stardustpilgrim on May 10, 2014 21:23:55 GMT -5
You have precisely hit the nail on the head. 90% of the problem I have with (conceptual)non-dualism is this repeated idea that we can't do anything. Although it's difficult to come to see that all our thoughts, feeling and actions result from the conditioning of self, this is indeed the case and it's an important stage to see this. But non-dual teachers, most who have spent thousands of hours in some sort of interior spiritual practice, turn around and say that the spiritual practice wasn't necessary, and in any case, the practice just happened in the same manner that thoughts, feelings and actions, just happen. The point is that with which we do interior spiritual practice, attention and/or awareness, is our point of freedom and cannot be conditioned. Now, they can be captured by our thoughts, feelings and actions, and this is how most people live, but attention and awareness are separate from thoughts, feelings and actions, so we can separate-out our attention and awareness and live through attention and awareness instead of living through thoughts, feelings and actions. This is what breaks the conditioning and eventually brings awakening and liberation. So this is what we can do, it doesn't just happen. If you think you have no control over what you attend to or what you are aware of, then you have " abandoned your opportunity to choose liberation". Now, ego/self isn't practicing, can't. Interior practice is not thinking, feeling or bodily movement, as these constitute ego/self. You have to find this distinction, make this distinction........and that via practice. You can't conceptualize the distinction. sdp I understand why the statement is confusing, but it is correct. Why would a teacher, much less many teachers, tell you that if it weren't true? Aren't they also saying their own efforts were not necessary? If it's not true, aren't they sabotaging your own efforts? Well..........this is why I'm not a non-dualist (not in the strictest sense anyway). .......I've been reading the dialogue between Andrew and laughter on the I'm not there yet un-moderated thread. They are both right in their own context. OToneH, there is an absolute context (I would agree with this), there is a (meaningful) hierarchy of order. OTOH there is no absolute context, there is no hierarchy in any meaningful way. There is no meaningful differentiation as one thing pretty-much equals another. If one level of hierarchy equals another, there isn't a hierarchy. This is the non-dual view. The non-dual view would be that man's nature, being, goes all the way down to the basic nature of all that is, Oneness, non-duality. As zd says, turtles all the way down. My view is that man's being does not go all the way down to the very ground of all that is. It is in this sense I am not a non-dualist (because in this sense man does not participate in all that is, IOW, man's being does not include what one might call the Consciousness of "God" (as Absolute, in mystical Judaism called Ein Sof). So, Andrew is right in his context and laughter is right in his context. And they are right in that they cannot come to an agreement. I can see both sides of the fence, and see truth as truth in one context and truth as truth in another context. However, "Andrew" will never be able to demonstrate, objectively, to laughter that he is correct, and laughter will never be able to demonstrate, objectively, to "Andrew", that he is correct. So I don't try to prove anything to anybody, but just keep posting my view........ In my view, there are meaningful, differentiated "rungs", and interior practices using attention and awareness are the means of moving from one rung to another. It all has to do with the transformation of energy and the saving of the energy to-and-of a higher rung which makes participation thereof possible. sdp |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 10, 2014 21:30:47 GMT -5
I understand why the statement is confusing, but it is correct. Why would a teacher, much less many teachers, tell you that if it weren't true? Aren't they also saying their own efforts were not necessary? If it's not true, aren't they sabotaging your own efforts? Well..........this is why I'm not a non-dualist (not in the strictest sense anyway). .......I've been reading the dialogue between Andrew and laughter on the I'm not there yet un-moderated thread. They are both right in their own context. OToneH, there is an absolute context (I would agree with this), there is a (meaningful) hierarchy of order. OTOH there is no absolute context, there is no hierarchy in any meaningful way. There is no meaningful differentiation as one thing pretty-much equals another. If one level of hierarchy equals another, there isn't a hierarchy. This is the non-dual view. The non-dual view would be that man's nature, being, goes all the way down to the basic nature of all that is, Oneness, non-duality. As zd says, turtles all the way down. My view is that man's being does not go all the way down to the very ground of all that is. It is in this sense I am not a non-dualist (because in this sense man does not participate in all that is, IOW, man's being does not include what one might call the Consciousness of "God" (as Absolute, in mystical Judaism called Ein Sof). So, Andrew is right in his context and laughter is right in his context. And they are right in that they cannot come to an agreement. I can see both sides of the fence, and see truth as truth in one context and truth as truth in another context. However, "Andrew" will never be able to demonstrate, objectively, to laughter that he is correct, and laughter will never be able to demonstrate, objectively, to "Andrew", that he is correct. So I don't try to prove anything to anybody, but just keep posting my view........ sdp Despite their differing experiences they are both pure consciousness. That's what freedom is. Thats all there is. One consciousness having 7 billion experiences. |
|
|
|
Post by stardustpilgrim on May 10, 2014 21:37:38 GMT -5
Well..........this is why I'm not a non-dualist (not in the strictest sense anyway). .......I've been reading the dialogue between Andrew and laughter on the I'm not there yet un-moderated thread. They are both right in their own context. OToneH, there is an absolute context (I would agree with this), there is a (meaningful) hierarchy of order. OTOH there is no absolute context, there is no hierarchy in any meaningful way. There is no meaningful differentiation as one thing pretty-much equals another. If one level of hierarchy equals another, there isn't a hierarchy. This is the non-dual view. The non-dual view would be that man's nature, being, goes all the way down to the basic nature of all that is, Oneness, non-duality. As zd says, turtles all the way down. My view is that man's being does not go all the way down to the very ground of all that is. It is in this sense I am not a non-dualist (because in this sense man does not participate in all that is, IOW, man's being does not include what one might call the Consciousness of "God" (as Absolute, in mystical Judaism called Ein Sof). So, Andrew is right in his context and laughter is right in his context. And they are right in that they cannot come to an agreement. I can see both sides of the fence, and see truth as truth in one context and truth as truth in another context. However, "Andrew" will never be able to demonstrate, objectively, to laughter that he is correct, and laughter will never be able to demonstrate, objectively, to "Andrew", that he is correct. So I don't try to prove anything to anybody, but just keep posting my view........ sdp Despite their differing experiences they are both pure consciousness. That's what freedom is. Thats all there is. One consciousness having 7 billion experiences. Yes. But, but if we take us-as marionette, the non-dual view would be, strings always attached. My view, strings are cut. We choose whether to be united with "God", or not. sdp |
|
|
|
Post by enigma on May 10, 2014 22:48:55 GMT -5
You have precisely hit the nail on the head. 90% of the problem I have with (conceptual)non-dualism is this repeated idea that we can't do anything. Although it's difficult to come to see that all our thoughts, feeling and actions result from the conditioning of self, this is indeed the case and it's an important stage to see this. But non-dual teachers, most who have spent thousands of hours in some sort of interior spiritual practice, turn around and say that the spiritual practice wasn't necessary, and in any case, the practice just happened in the same manner that thoughts, feelings and actions, just happen. The point is that with which we do interior spiritual practice, attention and/or awareness, is our point of freedom and cannot be conditioned. Now, they can be captured by our thoughts, feelings and actions, and this is how most people live, but attention and awareness are separate from thoughts, feelings and actions, so we can separate-out our attention and awareness and live through attention and awareness instead of living through thoughts, feelings and actions. This is what breaks the conditioning and eventually brings awakening and liberation. So this is what we can do, it doesn't just happen. If you think you have no control over what you attend to or what you are aware of, then you have " abandoned your opportunity to choose liberation". Now, ego/self isn't practicing, can't. Interior practice is not thinking, feeling or bodily movement, as these constitute ego/self. You have to find this distinction, make this distinction........and that via practice. You can't conceptualize the distinction. sdp I understand what you're saying, sdp, but I question the underlined. On some level, we know who we are. How could we not? That's why we resonate with some of the things said here, or with something we've read - because we recall that knowing. But there's a dissonance between that underlying knowledge (or sense or whatever you want to call it) and what you'd call ego-knowledge, what we've learned. That dissonance creates a need for resolution - the desire for enlightenment or the 'itch' or the 'longing'. How strongly we feel that dissonance is the impetus for interior practice, imo. You're right, ego is not calling for interior practice, but neither is there someone else, or some aspect of self, calling for it. Dissonance is calling for resolution. Brokenness is calling for unity, pain is calling for healing. Why that's true, I don't know, and I don't know where it comes from, but so far, this is what I see. What I don't see is someone making a decision to heal, to search, to see clearly. I see circumstances creating a situation where we're compelled to do those things. That can sound nihilistic, but it's not. If we get out of the way, there's a natural movement towards whatever's needed to resolve that dissonance. Sometimes it's a movement towards ramping it up! Or finding some quiet, somehow. Or creating a conflict to externalize the internal conflict so we can see it. All sorts of movements. I don't see anyone orchestrating that. That's well said. Maybe what the seeker feels least in control of is the seeking itself. I think at some point most seekers realize they didn't start it, and they can't stop it. It seems to have a momentum of it's own. Something I've mentioned about looking closely at mind; Ironically, one encounters the face of God there too. That Intelligence is always present, driving us beyond ourselves. The source of human creativity, imagination, courage, compassion, and a willingness to die, both literally and figuratively, for something greater than ourselves as we are. This cannot be ego. God is right here. |
|
|
|
Post by enigma on May 10, 2014 22:53:00 GMT -5
I understand what you're saying, sdp, but I question the underlined. On some level, we know who we are. How could we not? That's why we resonate with some of the things said here, or with something we've read - because we recall that knowing. But there's a dissonance between that underlying knowledge (or sense or whatever you want to call it) and what you'd call ego-knowledge, what we've learned. That dissonance creates a need for resolution - the desire for enlightenment or the 'itch' or the 'longing'. How strongly we feel that dissonance is the impetus for interior practice, imo. You're right, ego is not calling for interior practice, but neither is there someone else, or some aspect of self, calling for it. Dissonance is calling for resolution. Brokenness is calling for unity, pain is calling for healing. Why that's true, I don't know, and I don't know where it comes from, but so far, this is what I see. What I don't see is someone making a decision to heal, to search, to see clearly. I see circumstances creating a situation where we're compelled to do those things. That can sound nihilistic, but it's not. If we get out of the way, there's a natural movement towards whatever's needed to resolve that dissonance. Sometimes it's a movement towards ramping it up! Or finding some quiet, somehow. Or creating a conflict to externalize the internal conflict so we can see it. All sorts of movements. I don't see anyone orchestrating that. Not only is it not nihilistic .. but in any instant when we simply do in the absence of any question of who, what, how or why about the doing, there is a sublime sense of unity, of a love for anything, anyone and everything, that is to be found. As we can see right here, we all "live on the lip of insanity", but there's also evidence that we've "been knocking from the inside". |
|
|
|
Post by enigma on May 10, 2014 23:09:28 GMT -5
You've raised a top-level criticism from the outside-in that I also agree with and I think can be stated more generally as: how can Libet measure the instant of conscious choice without any rigorous consensus model of "consciousness" to begin with? My criticism was from the inside-out and is directed at the nature and the details of the experiment. Libet, as far as I know, sidesteps that by focusing on 'felt intention' which is reported by the subjects. Definitely squishy. It may be squishy science, but the marker of interest here is, when do I consciously acknowledge my intention? That's the point at which will is volitionally exercised regardless of what happens before that in some pre-conscious mode. The action is referenced to that, and it turns out the action occurs first. |
|
|
|
Post by enigma on May 10, 2014 23:57:22 GMT -5
I understand why the statement is confusing, but it is correct. Why would a teacher, much less many teachers, tell you that if it weren't true? Aren't they also saying their own efforts were not necessary? If it's not true, aren't they sabotaging your own efforts? Well..........this is why I'm not a non-dualist (not in the strictest sense anyway). .......I've been reading the dialogue between Andrew and laughter on the I'm not there yet un-moderated thread. They are both right in their own context. OToneH, there is an absolute context (I would agree with this), there is a (meaningful) hierarchy of order. OTOH there is no absolute context, there is no hierarchy in any meaningful way. There is no meaningful differentiation as one thing pretty-much equals another. If one level of hierarchy equals another, there isn't a hierarchy. This is the non-dual view. The non-dual view would be that man's nature, being, goes all the way down to the basic nature of all that is, Oneness, non-duality. As zd says, turtles all the way down. My view is that man's being does not go all the way down to the very ground of all that is. It is in this sense I am not a non-dualist (because in this sense man does not participate in all that is, IOW, man's being does not include what one might call the Consciousness of "God" (as Absolute, in mystical Judaism called Ein Sof). So, Andrew is right in his context and laughter is right in his context. And they are right in that they cannot come to an agreement. I can see both sides of the fence, and see truth as truth in one context and truth as truth in another context. However, "Andrew" will never be able to demonstrate, objectively, to laughter that he is correct, and laughter will never be able to demonstrate, objectively, to "Andrew", that he is correct. So I don't try to prove anything to anybody, but just keep posting my view........ In my view, there are meaningful, differentiated "rungs", and interior practices using attention and awareness are the means of moving from one rung to another. It all has to do with the transformation of energy and the saving of the energy to-and-of a higher rung which makes participation thereof possible. sdp What you're saying is that man is not the totality of the consciousness of God. You don't mean that man doesn't participate in all that is. If the consciousness of God is driving man's consciousness, he obviously is participating. |
|
|
|
Post by enigma on May 11, 2014 0:00:08 GMT -5
Despite their differing experiences they are both pure consciousness. That's what freedom is. Thats all there is. One consciousness having 7 billion experiences. Yes. But, but if we take us-as marionette, the non-dual view would be, strings always attached. My view, strings are cut. We choose whether to be united with "God", or not. sdp Well, you'll choose that if the proper string is pulled.  |
|
|
|
Post by laughter on May 11, 2014 0:04:29 GMT -5
Where's mittenhead and his rant about Kermit in his brain when you need him! I read Libet's abstract after that post and it's more better clearerer now. He linked to it in the OP if you're interested. Allright maybe I'll do the same -- in the final analysis though we do share an opinion on the relevance of the brain to the question, even though that conclusion is arrived at from different angles. |
|
|
|
Post by laughter on May 11, 2014 0:08:28 GMT -5
Despite their differing experiences they are both pure consciousness. That's what freedom is. Thats all there is. One consciousness having 7 billion experiences. My view, strings are cut. We choose whether to be united with "God", or not. sdp Nah, not really. The absence of volition isn't the presence of destiny. |
|
|
|
Post by stardustpilgrim on May 11, 2014 7:47:37 GMT -5
Libet, as far as I know, sidesteps that by focusing on 'felt intention' which is reported by the subjects. Definitely squishy. It may be squishy science, but the marker of interest here is, when do I consciously acknowledge my intention? That's the point at which will is volitionally exercised regardless of what happens before that in some pre-conscious mode. The action is referenced to that, and it turns out the action occurs first. Are you saying that the point of will is when the participant acknowledges intention? And, the action (lifting the finger?), is referenced to that (whatever happens in the pre-conscious mode) occurs first (?) It's not clear what you are saying. If you are saying the point of will is the lifting of the finger, and that occurs first, that's not what Libet found. Libet is saying we have no free will because the unconscious processes which cause the lifting of the finger occur before the (conscious) decision to lift the finger. sdp |
|
|
|
Post by topology on May 12, 2014 10:59:12 GMT -5
I understand why the statement is confusing, but it is correct. Why would a teacher, much less many teachers, tell you that if it weren't true? Aren't they also saying their own efforts were not necessary? If it's not true, aren't they sabotaging your own efforts? Well..........this is why I'm not a non-dualist (not in the strictest sense anyway). .......I've been reading the dialogue between Andrew and laughter on the I'm not there yet un-moderated thread. They are both right in their own context. OToneH, there is an absolute context (I would agree with this), there is a (meaningful) hierarchy of order. OTOH there is no absolute context, there is no hierarchy in any meaningful way. There is no meaningful differentiation as one thing pretty-much equals another. If one level of hierarchy equals another, there isn't a hierarchy. This is the non-dual view. The non-dual view would be that man's nature, being, goes all the way down to the basic nature of all that is, Oneness, non-duality. As zd says, turtles all the way down. My view is that man's being does not go all the way down to the very ground of all that is. It is in this sense I am not a non-dualist (because in this sense man does not participate in all that is, IOW, man's being does not include what one might call the Consciousness of "God" (as Absolute, in mystical Judaism called Ein Sof). So, Andrew is right in his context and laughter is right in his context. And they are right in that they cannot come to an agreement. I can see both sides of the fence, and see truth as truth in one context and truth as truth in another context. However, "Andrew" will never be able to demonstrate, objectively, to laughter that he is correct, and laughter will never be able to demonstrate, objectively, to "Andrew", that he is correct. So I don't try to prove anything to anybody, but just keep posting my view........ In my view, there are meaningful, differentiated "rungs", and interior practices using attention and awareness are the means of moving from one rung to another. It all has to do with the transformation of energy and the saving of the energy to-and-of a higher rung which makes participation thereof possible. sdp At what point do the rungs stop? At what point does a person decide to stop trying to climb to the next rung? |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 12, 2014 13:11:03 GMT -5
Well..........this is why I'm not a non-dualist (not in the strictest sense anyway). .......I've been reading the dialogue between Andrew and laughter on the I'm not there yet un-moderated thread. They are both right in their own context. OToneH, there is an absolute context (I would agree with this), there is a (meaningful) hierarchy of order. OTOH there is no absolute context, there is no hierarchy in any meaningful way. There is no meaningful differentiation as one thing pretty-much equals another. If one level of hierarchy equals another, there isn't a hierarchy. This is the non-dual view. The non-dual view would be that man's nature, being, goes all the way down to the basic nature of all that is, Oneness, non-duality. As zd says, turtles all the way down. My view is that man's being does not go all the way down to the very ground of all that is. It is in this sense I am not a non-dualist (because in this sense man does not participate in all that is, IOW, man's being does not include what one might call the Consciousness of "God" (as Absolute, in mystical Judaism called Ein Sof). So, Andrew is right in his context and laughter is right in his context. And they are right in that they cannot come to an agreement. I can see both sides of the fence, and see truth as truth in one context and truth as truth in another context. However, "Andrew" will never be able to demonstrate, objectively, to laughter that he is correct, and laughter will never be able to demonstrate, objectively, to "Andrew", that he is correct. So I don't try to prove anything to anybody, but just keep posting my view........ In my view, there are meaningful, differentiated "rungs", and interior practices using attention and awareness are the means of moving from one rung to another. It all has to do with the transformation of energy and the saving of the energy to-and-of a higher rung which makes participation thereof possible. sdp At what point do the rungs stop? At what point does a person decide to stop trying to climb to the next rung? When they realize fulfillment can never been found in the next(future) rung. |
|
