Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 15, 2014 3:16:24 GMT -5
I am fairly convinced that you could never make me feel headless, no.  Thing is, I nor anyone else on this forum can make you feel anything, (head constriction, headless or happy for that matter). If you think "I" made your head constrict, you are assigning me a power I do not actually possess and in the process denying the powers of your own perceptions. Let me rephrase this as well, as the grasp that you presently have of it is in the personal again. I am 100% certain that you are not free to write a post that I would only be able to read headless. |
|
|
|
Post by Reefs on Sept 15, 2014 4:56:11 GMT -5
The love that I am describing is unconditional because it is always present. Sounds like the Love you are describing is not present when 'the person is playing with dualistic ideas'. The love you're describing is not always present. Sometimes what is present is anger, fear, judgment, etc, but you imagine this stuff is sourced in love so that you can say that love is always present. As I said, your love comes and goes, and is therefore conditional. I rather think he means live force or something. |
|
|
|
Post by Reefs on Sept 15, 2014 4:58:26 GMT -5
The love you're describing is not always present. Sometimes what is present is anger, fear, judgment, etc, but you imagine this stuff is sourced in love so that you can say that love is always present. As I said, your love comes and goes, and is therefore conditional. I said that the love is present amidst anger, fear, judgement etc. It has to be present, its the energy of life itself. We are always in service, and service is love in action. It doesn't come and go. The Love you are describing sounds conditional. Then why do you call it love and not life force instead? Sometimes I'm wondering if you come here just to create confusion. |
|
|
|
Post by Reefs on Sept 15, 2014 5:03:44 GMT -5
Experience is subjective. Sometimes peeps descriptions of experience will resonate with us, and sometimes quite deeply, but none of that is never not our projecting our own subjective experience onto the canvas of their words. Conflict arises when the peep forgets that in order to describe the experience, they had to objectify it using words and ideas, and that any reaction to their description, is to that objectification and the ideas that comprise it, not the subjective experience itself. Is it an interesting question that this might actually be the only source of conflict?  The idea of a 'direct experience' never rezzed with me, since as you say, all experience is subjective. That includes all these woo woo meditative experiences, though I don't dismiss them any more than I would dismiss any experience. This is why the distinction between experience and realization is important. Realization is essentially the same for everyone because it's not the realization of 'something', which would imply various qualities that would bring it into the subjective realm. Realization is fundamentally a realization of an absence; the collapse of a conceptual structure. This is what makes it both ineffable and self evident. No evidence is required because no presence of quality is being confirmed. Right, realization gives you nothing to carry around or put on display. |
|
|
|
Post by Reefs on Sept 15, 2014 5:07:11 GMT -5
It describes the absence of wanting, but in doing so in the way she did it, attributes the quality of being able to either want or not want to 'what is.' her question would only make sense if I had asserted that 'what is' wanted me to accept it or see perfection in it. I said nothing of the sort. It's a bit like me saying to her; What would happen if you realized that that constriction in your head doesn't want you to accept it or reject it? It brings into question the whole idea that the constriction in her head, is capable of either 'wanting or not wanting.' It's a nonsense. What you replied to was absent reference to the personalities involved and focused only on the ideas. Is that worse than regular TMT? |
|
|
|
Post by Reefs on Sept 15, 2014 5:16:31 GMT -5
If you are programmed you are NOT free and NOT spontaneous by definition.  "Programmed to be spontaneous"...Hehe....he..he.  It's absurd. Maybe that's the sign to slowly leave the discussion... |
|
|
|
Post by andrew on Sept 15, 2014 5:19:13 GMT -5
The love you're describing is not always present. Sometimes what is present is anger, fear, judgment, etc, but you imagine this stuff is sourced in love so that you can say that love is always present. As I said, your love comes and goes, and is therefore conditional. I rather think he means live force or something. Life force doesn't NOT work for me...I could go with that....but I prefer 'energy' because there is an actual movement to it. Its a constant service in action. Its constantly manifesting itself. |
|
|
|
Post by andrew on Sept 15, 2014 5:20:24 GMT -5
That's not only TMT, but it's personalized TMT. What you replied to was absent reference to the personalities involved and focused only on the ideas. Is that worse than regular TMT? LOL Its worse, but not as bad as impersonalized TMT |
|
|
|
Post by Reefs on Sept 15, 2014 5:22:27 GMT -5
Seems Andy uses this formula: choice not rationally explainable = volitional choice rationally explainable = not volitional Which is a nonsense since the criteria for volition is separation and not explainability. Expect nothing less than constant contradiction from the Brave New Spirituality.  Well, if the concepts that are discussed here are not understood at all, what else should one expect? |
|
|
|
Post by Reefs on Sept 15, 2014 5:25:03 GMT -5
Sounds like hyper-minding. I call for the duck test!  Is that a 'yes'?  |
|
|
|
Post by Reefs on Sept 15, 2014 5:32:53 GMT -5
You're NOT talking about Love. You're talking about your experience and calling it Love. I am talking about 'love', as I know it and define it, and you are talking about 'love' as you know it and define it. And I am not defining it solely on 'experience', like I said, I see all behaviour as service....it is always in service to 'something'. Behaviour always comes with positive intention. I see 'service' as love, and life is in service to itself constantly. So life and love go inextricably hand in hand, regardless of condition.Sorry dude, but the love I am talking about is permanent and unconditional, whereas the Love you are talking about sounds like it is dependent on illusions and stuff. I'd call it life expressing itself. That's much cleaner. Service is like volition, an unnecessary conceptual extra layer over what is actually happening. Service also implies the idea of purpose, which is another unnecessary conceptual layer again. |
|
|
|
Post by Reefs on Sept 15, 2014 5:36:01 GMT -5
Seems Andy uses this formula: choice not rationally explainable = volitional choice rationally explainable = not volitional Which is a nonsense since the criteria for volition is separation and not explainability. Both Alice's and a human's choices are explainable (or at the very least, describable). The former are programmed choices, the latter are a mix of conditioning and 'free choices'. 'Free choice' is volition, right? In the context of human beings or people, we have to say they are volitional. Even Enigma has no problem with this context. You don't see yourself as a human being or a person, you see yourself as prior to that, therefore you would say that 'you' are not volitional (because the issue of volition and non-volition doesn't apply). You don't know that. That's pure speculation. ALICE could say essentially the same. |
|
|
|
Post by Reefs on Sept 15, 2014 5:40:24 GMT -5
If you are programmed you are NOT free and NOT spontaneous by definition. Ah you conveniently missed out what I said at the end i.e. perhaps they wouldn't be machine any more. Classic. The point was that you think spontaneity can be programmed. Which is absurd. Your disclaimer at the end changes nothing. |
|
|
|
Post by Reefs on Sept 15, 2014 5:41:45 GMT -5
It only reveals that there is something about the human that you cannot explain. And it's odd that you would use this lack of understanding as proof of volition. Regardless of explainability, it reveals that humans make 'free choices' in a way that machines do not. Simples. You are not listening. You are just repeating your favorite belief again. It's classic fundamentalism. |
|
|
|
Post by Reefs on Sept 15, 2014 5:44:12 GMT -5
Is that worse than regular TMT? LOL Its worse, but not as bad as impersonalized TMT Yeah, I agree the impersonalized TMT like 'the still mind does/sees this and that' is the worst of them all. |
|
