|
|
Post by topology on May 11, 2014 21:58:28 GMT -5
Mudslinging was the wrong term. But you opened the conversation with the statement that the faith in my beliefs are unfounded. You presume that I have beliefs, know what they are, that I have faith in them and that you determine it to be unfounded. When you presume to know about me, it does not leave an open space for me to participate. This pattern is fairly common with you from what I've seen. Disparage what someone else has said and then supplant your own thoughts. That is what I was trying to describe in the term mudslinging. Everything you just uttered to me sounds like the beliefs you carry around and have faith in. When my mind goes silent/still so does any concept of part and whole. When my mind is still and silent, i would describe the experience similarly, the absence of concepts like 'part/whole' or duality/nonduality'.. but, when we communicate, when we read the descriptions others share or when we are sharing our own experiences, the mind is actively assembling words/ideas to interpret of represent our understandings of those experiences.. it is during that mental activity that concepts like 'part/whole' or 'nonduality' emerge as our choice for representing our understanding of the experience we are trying to communicate.. i use the term 'belief' to represent the inspiration for choosing the words/concepts we want to represent our understandings, when that inspiration is not self-evident.. the concept, that there is no 'thinker', is not self-evident, it is a concept that has to explained and debated, and believed.. i can directly experience parts operating in unison/cooperation to create a result greater than the sum of the parts.. The openness for you to participate is there, you've chosen otherwise.. or, you could ask questions about my statements, you could present why you think my perception is flawed, 'we' could explore this topic, why do you suppose you chose the option of accusation? No, I haven't chosen otherwise. Why do you speak for me? However, I would like to invite you to re-read your post: spiritualteachers.proboards.com/thread/3582/thoughts?page=2&scrollTo=193215I asked you a question in black, which was an invitation to explore what you were claiming. What I got back was dominated by your first sentence in the post in question. Now I ask you another question, how can I participate openly and genuinely when I have to wrestle with the projection you place on me? My statement "there is no thinker" stems from not being able to identify a thinker in my experience. I can identify thought, but I cannot identify a thinker. My expression is no more unfounded than yours. |
|
|
|
Post by tzujanli on May 12, 2014 5:30:19 GMT -5
When my mind is still and silent, i would describe the experience similarly, the absence of concepts like 'part/whole' or duality/nonduality'.. but, when we communicate, when we read the descriptions others share or when we are sharing our own experiences, the mind is actively assembling words/ideas to interpret of represent our understandings of those experiences.. it is during that mental activity that concepts like 'part/whole' or 'nonduality' emerge as our choice for representing our understanding of the experience we are trying to communicate.. i use the term 'belief' to represent the inspiration for choosing the words/concepts we want to represent our understandings, when that inspiration is not self-evident.. the concept, that there is no 'thinker', is not self-evident, it is a concept that has to explained and debated, and believed.. i can directly experience parts operating in unison/cooperation to create a result greater than the sum of the parts.. The openness for you to participate is there, you've chosen otherwise.. or, you could ask questions about my statements, you could present why you think my perception is flawed, 'we' could explore this topic, why do you suppose you chose the option of accusation? No, I haven't chosen otherwise. Why do you speak for me? However, I would like to invite you to re-read your post: spiritualteachers.proboards.com/thread/3582/thoughts?page=2&scrollTo=193215I asked you a question in black, which was an invitation to explore what you were claiming. What I got back was dominated by your first sentence in the post in question. Now I ask you another question, how can I participate openly and genuinely when I have to wrestle with the projection you place on me? My statement "there is no thinker" stems from not being able to identify a thinker in my experience. I can identify thought, but I cannot identify a thinker. My expression is no more unfounded than yours. I'm not 'speaking for you', i'm describing what i see.. and. the first sentence was a reminder of the self-evident nature of your choice.. You don't "have to wrestle", that's your choice.. you could notice that i did answer your question, after reminding you of the self-evident nature of the experiencer's perspective, and move on with the discussion.. |
|
|
|
Post by topology on May 12, 2014 10:26:16 GMT -5
No, I haven't chosen otherwise. Why do you speak for me? However, I would like to invite you to re-read your post: spiritualteachers.proboards.com/thread/3582/thoughts?page=2&scrollTo=193215I asked you a question in black, which was an invitation to explore what you were claiming. What I got back was dominated by your first sentence in the post in question. Now I ask you another question, how can I participate openly and genuinely when I have to wrestle with the projection you place on me? My statement "there is no thinker" stems from not being able to identify a thinker in my experience. I can identify thought, but I cannot identify a thinker. My expression is no more unfounded than yours. I'm not 'speaking for you', i'm describing what i see.. and. the first sentence was a reminder of the self-evident nature of your choice.. You don't "have to wrestle", that's your choice.. you could notice that i did answer your question, after reminding you of the self-evident nature of the experiencer's perspective, and move on with the discussion.. You didn't answer my question. Here it is again: People can and some people do choose if and when to actively conjure thoughts,... ... Next Question, you said: I'm not 'speaking for you', i'm describing what i see.. and. the first sentence was a reminder of the self-evident nature of your choice.. This is the first sentence in question. Your appeal to faith in your belief as the final arbiter of differing perspectives is unfounded.. Your speaking for me is in stating (1) that I appealed to faith in my belief (2) that I made a choice on something. Can you specifically answer these questions: What was the choice you believe I made? What is the belief that I appealed to and how was it on faith? Next Item: Now I ask you another question, how can I participate openly and genuinely when I have to wrestle with the projection you place on me? You don't "have to wrestle", that's your choice.. My choice was to try to engage you in discussion. Under that choice, I have no choice but to wrestle with your presumptions about me if I want to be heard and seen clearly. The alternative is to not engage you in discussion. |
|
|
|
Post by tzujanli on May 12, 2014 20:58:54 GMT -5
I'm not 'speaking for you', i'm describing what i see.. and. the first sentence was a reminder of the self-evident nature of your choice.. You don't "have to wrestle", that's your choice.. you could notice that i did answer your question, after reminding you of the self-evident nature of the experiencer's perspective, and move on with the discussion.. Can you give a concrete example of when this happens?... If you ask me a question, i evaluate the options, i choose the option appropriate for the context, and i choose when i answer, or even if no answer is the appropriate answer for the question asked..[/quote] You chose to engage the conversation with a belief that i was acting in the manner you have chosen to believe i act in, and you have the option and the will to choose otherwise.. the observation that anyone's beliefs about their own understandings cannot be the final arbiter regarding misunderstandings between themselves and others, is self-evident.. though most would find a way to rationalize otherwise.. You believe 'there is no thinker', and to 'think' that requires faith contrary to actuality.. Both 'choices' are matters of conceptual construction, obliged to follow the intention and will of the experiencer.. claiming your control over the engagement calls to question your abandonment of control for the 'wrestling', as both choices are made by the same experiencer.. choosing not to choose is not the same as having no choice.. Do you disagree, that someone's belief about their understandings is not the final arbiter of the validity of the understandings? Why do you suppose that no two people think exactly alike? |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 12, 2014 21:03:54 GMT -5
presumption like assumption serves to keep us apart
as we(some of us) try to dissect each thought
in an effort to get out of our minds
and back into the frying pan,
bacon being best.
|
|
|
|
Post by tzujanli on May 13, 2014 5:17:55 GMT -5
presumption like assumption serves to keep us apart as we(some of us) try to dissect each thought in an effort to get out of our minds and back into the frying pan, bacon being best. My interest is in seeing what 'is', and letting go of what i think 'is' should be.. Some thoughts arise spontaneously, unsolicited.. others are carefully crafted to represent our understandings.. and some dissolve before they happen, and some go unnoticed.. this is the way things are, the 'way'.. to focus on one aspect of the way to the exclusion of others is like using a flashlight (torch) in a dark room, what is seen is where the light shines.. the unseen still exists, but the light of the experiencer's awareness is narrowly focused on what is desired.. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 13, 2014 20:13:06 GMT -5
presumption like assumption serves to keep us apart as we(some of us) try to dissect each thought in an effort to get out of our minds and back into the frying pan, bacon being best. My interest is in seeing what 'is', and letting go of what i think 'is' should be.. Some thoughts arise spontaneously, unsolicited.. others are carefully crafted to represent our understandings.. and some dissolve before they happen, and some go unnoticed.. this is the way things are, the 'way'.. to focus on one aspect of the way to the exclusion of others is like using a flashlight (torch) in a dark room, what is seen is where the light shines.. the unseen still exists, but the light of the experiencer's awareness is narrowly focused on what is desired.. what is thought? |
|
|
|
Post by tzujanli on May 14, 2014 5:02:04 GMT -5
My interest is in seeing what 'is', and letting go of what i think 'is' should be.. Some thoughts arise spontaneously, unsolicited.. others are carefully crafted to represent our understandings.. and some dissolve before they happen, and some go unnoticed.. this is the way things are, the 'way'.. to focus on one aspect of the way to the exclusion of others is like using a flashlight (torch) in a dark room, what is seen is where the light shines.. the unseen still exists, but the light of the experiencer's awareness is narrowly focused on what is desired.. what is thought? A recognizable pattern of information that has self-referential meaning to the thinker.. a thought may arise spontaneously or be invoked and crafted by the thinker.. a thought organizes information relevant to the thinker's relationship with Life, each thought is unique to the individual thinker's perspective, a cultivar or weed in the thinker's mindscape.. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 14, 2014 12:15:17 GMT -5
|
|
|
|
Post by topology on May 14, 2014 18:46:29 GMT -5
Can you give a concrete example of when this happens?... If you ask me a question, i evaluate the options, i choose the option appropriate for the context, and i choose when i answer, or even if no answer is the appropriate answer for the question asked.. You chose to engage the conversation with a belief that i was acting in the manner you have chosen to believe i act in, and you have the option and the will to choose otherwise.. the observation that anyone's beliefs about their own understandings cannot be the final arbiter regarding misunderstandings between themselves and others, is self-evident.. though most would find a way to rationalize otherwise.. You believe 'there is no thinker', and to 'think' that requires faith contrary to actuality.. Both 'choices' are matters of conceptual construction, obliged to follow the intention and will of the experiencer.. claiming your control over the engagement calls to question your abandonment of control for the 'wrestling', as both choices are made by the same experiencer.. choosing not to choose is not the same as having no choice.. Do you disagree, that someone's belief about their understandings is not the final arbiter of the validity of the understandings? Why do you suppose that no two people think exactly alike? Let's try to clean up some of the miscommunication going on here. You said that I believe that there is no thinker. This is not a correct characterization of what I believe. The correct characterization would be that I have no belief that a thinker exists. My beliefs are derived from my experience. I can identify thoughts as objects within my experience. I believe that thoughts exist for the duration of their occurrence. I believe that any object I experience exists for the duration of my experience of it. When I answer an ontological question: "Does X exist?" I query my current experience and my memory of previous experiences to identify whether or not X occurred at any point. (This is a pattern recognition between the concept image and the experiential image) If the object could not be found, I answer "no" to the question. If the object could not be found because I have a misconception or no clear idea about what I am looking for, I will still answer no to the question. It requires conceptual reasoning to say yes to the question "Does a thinker exist?" when there is no perception of a thinker, only the perception of thought. I'm not a fan of a priori reasoning when it comes to ontological decisions. I would venture that my concept of thinker and your concept of thinker differ. You have indicated that you believe the thinker is the medium or vehicle of thought. I would simply call that "mind" and not "thinker". The reason I cannot call the mind "the thinker" is because in my mind the idea of a "thinker" entails control over deciding what is thought about and when. There is nothing in my experience which has that kind of control over thought and over the mind. You would probably say I am actively choosing to think this way. I would simply say it is the nature of this mind to think this way. My mind can no more choose to think a different way than a dog can choose to behave like a cat. The activity of the mind is more of a compulsion. My use of the term "choice" I leave to poetic license. I don't actually believe there is a choice to make about anything. There is only the process of tensions resolving themselves. When I said I chose to discuss with you and that I had no choice about wrestling with your projections about me, it was my poetic way of saying I have an impulse to engage you and fulfilling that impulse entails the engagement. I don't actually believe I have a choice about anything. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 14, 2014 23:42:53 GMT -5
A recognizable pattern of information that has self-referential meaning to the thinker.. a thought may arise spontaneously or be invoked and crafted by the thinker.. a thought organizes information relevant to the thinker's relationship with Life, each thought is unique to the individual thinker's perspective, a cultivar or weed in the thinker's mindscape.. wonderful 2 read.. what is the absence of thinker in thought? |
|
|
|
Post by tzujanli on May 15, 2014 5:54:37 GMT -5
A recognizable pattern of information that has self-referential meaning to the thinker.. a thought may arise spontaneously or be invoked and crafted by the thinker.. a thought organizes information relevant to the thinker's relationship with Life, each thought is unique to the individual thinker's perspective, a cultivar or weed in the thinker's mindscape.. wonderful 2 read.. what is the absence of thinker in thought? There is no absence of thinker, thinker is the vehicle through which thought happens.. spontaneous thought is of the insight variety, crafted thought is of the choosing variety.. both varieties organize information and affect/effect deeds, the individual's interaction with its environment/'whole'.. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 15, 2014 19:42:02 GMT -5
wonderful 2 read.. what is the absence of thinker in thought? There is no absence of thinker, thinker is the vehicle through which thought happens.. spontaneous thought is of the insight variety, crafted thought is of the choosing variety.. both varieties organize information and affect/effect deeds, the individual's interaction with its environment/'whole'.. thank you. when your thoughts have ceased at which of your seven centers does your thinker reside?  |
|
|
|
Post by tzujanli on May 15, 2014 20:36:27 GMT -5
There is no absence of thinker, thinker is the vehicle through which thought happens.. spontaneous thought is of the insight variety, crafted thought is of the choosing variety.. both varieties organize information and affect/effect deeds, the individual's interaction with its environment/'whole'.. thank you. when your thoughts have ceased at which of your seven centers does your thinker reside? I don't have a model or familiarity that references seven centers, so i don't have a meaningful answer.. though, it might be useful to consider how the bolded portion of the quote you referenced could apply to your question about 'seven centers'.. |
|
|
|
Post by laughter on May 15, 2014 20:55:20 GMT -5
There is no absence of thinker, thinker is the vehicle through which thought happens.. spontaneous thought is of the insight variety, crafted thought is of the choosing variety.. both varieties organize information and affect/effect deeds, the individual's interaction with its environment/'whole'.. thank you. when your thoughts have ceased at which of your seven centers does your thinker reside? |
|
