|
|
Desire
May 15, 2014 23:43:53 GMT -5
Post by enigma on May 15, 2014 23:43:53 GMT -5
You mean that he desires not to desire?  Doesn't seem so. Seems like he's just trying to understand from whence it cometh. that's why I said they're ________. they come from nowhere and they go nowhere.  The desire to eat comes from hunger and goes to fulfillment in eating. Why are you making it mysterious? |
|
|
|
Desire
May 15, 2014 23:46:43 GMT -5
Post by enigma on May 15, 2014 23:46:43 GMT -5
The sunset pic was nice until I spotted the trout in the clouds. Now I can't see anything but.  Ha ha ha ha ha, ya mean the one peeking from underneath the clouds? Is there another one?  |
|
|
|
Desire
May 15, 2014 23:51:36 GMT -5
Post by enigma on May 15, 2014 23:51:36 GMT -5
The sunset pic was nice until I spotted the trout in the clouds. Now I can't see anything but. Ha ha ha ha ha, ya mean the one peeking from underneath the clouds? Oh, God, now I see a London cop. He looks like this:  |
|
|
|
Desire
May 16, 2014 5:20:48 GMT -5
Post by tzujanli on May 16, 2014 5:20:48 GMT -5
Desire is not always related to belief in lack, curiosity/interest is a motivator, and change is the common thread.. change is always happening, it is the vehicle of the happening.. desire also happens when the experiencer is conflicting with what is happening..
|
|
|
|
Desire
May 16, 2014 8:59:00 GMT -5
Post by silver on May 16, 2014 8:59:00 GMT -5
that's why I said they're ________. they come from nowhere and they go nowhere. The desire to eat comes from hunger and goes to fulfillment in eating. Why are you making it mysterious? I guess the fact that you're seein' a different trout is proof that we all see things quite differently, ya? Plus, I'm really worried about you...I mean...a London cop???  |
|
|
|
Desire
May 16, 2014 9:07:00 GMT -5
Post by stardustpilgrim on May 16, 2014 9:07:00 GMT -5
It's not a trout, it's obviously a catfish.
sdp
|
|
|
|
Desire
May 16, 2014 9:11:21 GMT -5
Post by silver on May 16, 2014 9:11:21 GMT -5
It's not a trout, it's obviously a catfish. sdp hey I was thinking that, too! but he seems so small but the way he's looking at the sun like he wants to eat it!  |
|
|
|
Desire
May 16, 2014 12:38:39 GMT -5
Post by laughter on May 16, 2014 12:38:39 GMT -5
In the most general sense yes: it's that curious Georgie wants to know. Curiosity can get pretty intense without it being painful or melodramatic or angst-ridden or .. well, whatever -- that's a point that came up in figgles last gallery show (and that recurs with her btw). It's the lack of an answer. PS: I'll go out on a limb and offer the distinction between curiosity-as-desire as being related to a question that Georgie will take as a clue to his identity ... that would help him answer "what am I?", as opposed to curiosity for it's own sake. Yes, well Figgles is right in that not all desire leads to suffering, and I don't think it's fair to characterize inclinations and passing interest (way low level desires) as lack based, though curiously it sounds like something Andy would do. It's off topic, but this is why I talk about the point of suffering as a focus of attention rather than desire or feeling in general. As one becomes more at peace, it's that point that changes rather than the feeling content as such. Yes and your interest in this regard has led in the past to some interesting and intense conversation! A great example of how not everything in a megathread is a waste. I've got no particular point of disagreement with what you said. I'd offer the opinion that the distinction between desire and lack, while not a dwad, implicates polysemy on both words, and in the interplay with "suffering", this leads to complication based on the various possible combinations of the words. For example, as far as curiosity goes, I'd opine that on one hand, once the existential questions are gone, there's no longer any desire at the root of curiosity, and on the other, that while they are active, one can be quite intensely interested in topics one finds relevant to them without suffering from the lack of answers. My point of disagreement with figgles wasn't directly over the distinction between desire and suffering, it was on the question of whether or not a seeker is always emotionally involved in the process of seeking. |
|
|
|
Desire
May 16, 2014 21:58:39 GMT -5
Post by enigma on May 16, 2014 21:58:39 GMT -5
Yes, well Figgles is right in that not all desire leads to suffering, and I don't think it's fair to characterize inclinations and passing interest (way low level desires) as lack based, though curiously it sounds like something Andy would do. It's off topic, but this is why I talk about the point of suffering as a focus of attention rather than desire or feeling in general. As one becomes more at peace, it's that point that changes rather than the feeling content as such. Yes and your interest in this regard has led in the past to some interesting and intense conversation! A great example of how not everything in a megathread is a waste. I've got no particular point of disagreement with what you said. I'd offer the opinion that the distinction between desire and lack, while not a dwad, implicates polysemy on both words, and in the interplay with "suffering", this leads to complication based on the various possible combinations of the words. For example, as far as curiosity goes, I'd opine that on one hand, once the existential questions are gone, there's no longer any desire at the root of curiosity, and on the other, that while they are active, one can be quite intensely interested in topics one finds relevant to them without suffering from the lack of answers. My point of disagreement with figgles wasn't directly over the distinction between desire and suffering, it was on the question of whether or not a seeker is always emotionally involved in the process of seeking. Okey dokey. |
|
|
|
Desire
May 17, 2014 3:09:44 GMT -5
Post by runstill on May 17, 2014 3:09:44 GMT -5
In the most general sense yes: it's that curious Georgie wants to know. Curiosity can get pretty intense without it being painful or melodramatic or angst-ridden or .. well, whatever -- that's a point that came up in figgles last gallery show (and that recurs with her btw). It's the lack of an answer. PS: I'll go out on a limb and offer the distinction between curiosity-as-desire as being related to a question that Georgie will take as a clue to his identity ... that would help him answer "what am I?", as opposed to curiosity for it's own sake. Yes, well Figgles is right in that not all desire leads to suffering, and I don't think it's fair to characterize inclinations and passing interest (way low level desires) as lack based, though curiously it sounds like something Andy would do. It's off topic, but this is why I talk about the point of suffering as a focus of attention rather than desire or feeling in general. As one becomes more at peace, it's that point that changes rather than the feeling content as such. I like [that the point changes] after I looked that's quite the case here , its funny but once in awhile something will occur that used to cause angst/suffering and a little bit of quilt will come up about not having any, not saying there isn't any suffering that might still happen and does, but even then there's a detached awareness and sometimes a feeling of playing an odd game ! |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Desire
May 17, 2014 4:55:43 GMT -5
Post by Deleted on May 17, 2014 4:55:43 GMT -5
In the most general sense yes: it's that curious Georgie wants to know. Curiosity can get pretty intense without it being painful or melodramatic or angst-ridden or .. well, whatever -- that's a point that came up in figgles last gallery show (and that recurs with her btw). It's the lack of an answer. PS: I'll go out on a limb and offer the distinction between curiosity-as-desire as being related to a question that Georgie will take as a clue to his identity ... that would help him answer "what am I?", as opposed to curiosity for it's own sake. It's off topic, but this is why I talk about the point of suffering as a focus of attention rather than desire or feeling in general. As one becomes more at peace, it's that point that changes rather than the feeling content as such. Yeah....where you cast your attention, along with attachment versus 'go-with-the-flow' determines whether one 'suffers' or not in any given circumstance. And its a moment to moment thing. Suffering versus Joy is not dependent on or reliant on circumstance, rather, its reliant on where you place your attention in any given circumstance. |
|
|
|
Desire
May 17, 2014 22:18:43 GMT -5
Post by enigma on May 17, 2014 22:18:43 GMT -5
Yes, well Figgles is right in that not all desire leads to suffering, and I don't think it's fair to characterize inclinations and passing interest (way low level desires) as lack based, though curiously it sounds like something Andy would do. It's off topic, but this is why I talk about the point of suffering as a focus of attention rather than desire or feeling in general. As one becomes more at peace, it's that point that changes rather than the feeling content as such. I like [that the point changes] after I looked that's quite the case here , its funny but once in awhile something will occur that used to cause angst/suffering and a little bit of quilt will come up about not having any, not saying there isn't any suffering that might still happen and does, but even then there's a detached awareness and sometimes a feeling of playing an odd game ! Yeah, most folks naturally expect something fundamental about the events or feelings in their lives to change, but the whole point is that nothing's wrong to begin with, so life pretty much goes on as it did, but without the idea that there's something wrong with it. Mostly it takes the form of certain reactions not happening anymore, and mind responds oddly to the vague recognition that something is NOT happening anymore. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Desire
May 17, 2014 23:16:35 GMT -5
Post by Deleted on May 17, 2014 23:16:35 GMT -5
It's off topic, but this is why I talk about the point of suffering as a focus of attention rather than desire or feeling in general. As one becomes more at peace, it's that point that changes rather than the feeling content as such. Yeah....where you cast your attention, along with attachment versus 'go-with-the-flow' determines whether one 'suffers' or not in any given circumstance. And its a moment to moment thing. Suffering versus Joy is not dependent on or reliant on circumstance, rather, its reliant on where you place your attention in any given circumstance.If I 'could' place my attention in any given circumstance, why would I place it on suffering instead of joy in the first place? I don't choose to place my attention on suffering, it arises on it's own. Where am I going to place the attention when suffering arises. The only thing I can do is to allow it, to absorb it and not resist it. |
|
