Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 9, 2014 4:39:57 GMT -5
volition or non volition a non discussion, really who cares, what difference does it make? zero caring is something I do. |
|
|
|
Post by tzujanli on Sept 9, 2014 5:18:57 GMT -5
Greetings..
To have a cosmic consciousness experience, where there is no sensation of 'body', is not the same as there being no 'person', no individuation.. just as the choose to believe in no chooser, is not the same as an actuality where no chooser exists..
Volition is a description of what is actually happening, some people choose to deny the happening, regardless of what it's called.. "truth/true" are value judgments made by the experiencer making that claim, attachment to the mind's image of what happened, rejecting what's happening 'now' in favor of the imagery held in that experiencer's mindscape..
The entirety of discussion about volition, pro and con, is the experiencer's conceptualization of it, a fundamental choice made by that chooser's freedom to do so.. IF we discussed what is actually happening, without insisting that a special description must be true, it would be possible to expand beyond this recurring 'no volition/no chooser' conflict..
I have no interest or need to invoke volition/chooser into a description about what is actually happening, until someone insists that it is 'truth/true' or 'the case'.. those insisting that specialized descriptions of their personal mindscapes must be the only valid descriptions of what is happening are limited by their their attachment to their choice of beliefs about what is happening.. rather than look and see for themselves, they would rather tell others what 'they should see', and berate them for not seeing it the way they 'should'..
Be well..
|
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Sept 9, 2014 5:22:19 GMT -5
The distinction between a difference of opinion and a conflict is not a dwad.
|
|
|
|
Post by andrew on Sept 9, 2014 5:36:51 GMT -5
Greetings.. To have a cosmic consciousness experience, where there is no sensation of 'body', is not the same as there being no 'person', no individuation.. just as the choose to believe in no chooser, is not the same as an actuality where no chooser exists.. Volition is a description of what is actually happening, some people choose to deny the happening, regardless of what it's called.. "truth/true" are value judgments made by the experiencer making that claim, attachment to the mind's image of what happened, rejecting what's happening 'now' in favor of the imagery held in that experiencer's mindscape.. The entirety of discussion about volition, pro and con, is the experiencer's conceptualization of it, a fundamental choice made by that chooser's freedom to do so.. IF we discussed what is actually happening, without insisting that a special description must be true, it would be possible to expand beyond this recurring 'no volition/no chooser' conflict.. I have no interest or need to invoke volition/chooser into a description about what is actually happening, until someone insists that it is 'truth/true' or 'the case'.. those insisting that specialized descriptions of their personal mindscapes must be the only valid descriptions of what is happening are limited by their their attachment to their choice of beliefs about what is happening.. rather than look and see for themselves, they would rather tell others what 'they should see', and berate them for not seeing it the way they 'should'.. Be well.. The difficulty is with the word 'actual'. What one sees as 'actually' happening is different from what another sees as 'actually' happening, depending on what they think constitutes 'actuality'. Its a very abstract idea....a dog knows food, it knows joy, it knows fear...but it doesn't know the difference between 'actual' and 'not-actual'. |
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Sept 9, 2014 5:54:36 GMT -5
Greetings.. To have a cosmic consciousness experience, where there is no sensation of 'body', is not the same as there being no 'person', no individuation.. just as the choose to believe in no chooser, is not the same as an actuality where no chooser exists.. Volition is a description of what is actually happening, some people choose to deny the happening, regardless of what it's called.. "truth/true" are value judgments made by the experiencer making that claim, attachment to the mind's image of what happened, rejecting what's happening 'now' in favor of the imagery held in that experiencer's mindscape.. The entirety of discussion about volition, pro and con, is the experiencer's conceptualization of it, a fundamental choice made by that chooser's freedom to do so.. IF we discussed what is actually happening, without insisting that a special description must be true, it would be possible to expand beyond this recurring 'no volition/no chooser' conflict.. I have no interest or need to invoke volition/chooser into a description about what is actually happening, until someone insists that it is 'truth/true' or 'the case'.. those insisting that specialized descriptions of their personal mindscapes must be the only valid descriptions of what is happening are limited by their their attachment to their choice of beliefs about what is happening.. rather than look and see for themselves, they would rather tell others what 'they should see', and berate them for not seeing it the way they 'should'.. Be well.. The difficulty is with the word 'actual'. What one sees as 'actually' happening is different from what another sees as 'actually' happening, depending on what they think constitutes 'actuality'. Its a very abstract idea....a dog knows food, it knows joy, it knows fear...but it doesn't know the difference between 'actual' and 'not-actual'. This is essentially Reefs point on the question of "truth": "truth" comes along for the ride in the abstraction of "actuality". Regardless of the nature of experience -- which can itself come into controversy -- any description of experience involves abstraction. Here are three different descriptions of the same experience: 1) I went to Tasty Cream and chose the homemade strawberry ice cream last Friday. 2) I went to Tasty Cream and had the homemade strawberry ice cream last Friday. 3) Homemade strawberry ice cream was experienced at the Tasty Cream last Friday. The third might seem contrived to some perspectives. To mine, it still does. Now, what's going on there? Is there some conditioning that leads to the perception of contrivance? But notice that, objectively speaking, there are a decreasing number of abstractions from (1) to (3). |
|
|
|
Post by tzujanli on Sept 9, 2014 5:54:44 GMT -5
Greetings.. To have a cosmic consciousness experience, where there is no sensation of 'body', is not the same as there being no 'person', no individuation.. just as the choose to believe in no chooser, is not the same as an actuality where no chooser exists.. Volition is a description of what is actually happening, some people choose to deny the happening, regardless of what it's called.. "truth/true" are value judgments made by the experiencer making that claim, attachment to the mind's image of what happened, rejecting what's happening 'now' in favor of the imagery held in that experiencer's mindscape.. The entirety of discussion about volition, pro and con, is the experiencer's conceptualization of it, a fundamental choice made by that chooser's freedom to do so.. IF we discussed what is actually happening, without insisting that a special description must be true, it would be possible to expand beyond this recurring 'no volition/no chooser' conflict.. I have no interest or need to invoke volition/chooser into a description about what is actually happening, until someone insists that it is 'truth/true' or 'the case'.. those insisting that specialized descriptions of their personal mindscapes must be the only valid descriptions of what is happening are limited by their their attachment to their choice of beliefs about what is happening.. rather than look and see for themselves, they would rather tell others what 'they should see', and berate them for not seeing it the way they 'should'.. Be well.. The difficulty is with the word 'actual'. What one sees as 'actually' happening is different from what another sees as 'actually' happening, depending on what they think constitutes 'actuality'. Its a very abstract idea....a dog knows food, it knows joy, it knows fear...but it doesn't know the difference between 'actual' and 'not-actual'. I don't know what a dog knows.. we, as people with the capacity to understand and to imagine, have the same experiences, but different interpretations.. the experiences are actual, the interpretations are mindplay.. |
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Sept 9, 2014 6:10:35 GMT -5
The relationship between experience and actuality has to involve abstraction, if for no other reason than both ideas are abstractions to begin with. The word "experience" references an idea.  There is no experience that is not unique to the experiencer, and thereby at least partially subjective, but when I look away from the Moon, it remains in the sky. The first thought is the divide. Simply refrain from the first thought about what is happening. Refrain from the thought of the dichotomy embodied by the idea of "experience", and be still. Not even "be still and know". Just be still. |
|
|
|
Post by andrew on Sept 9, 2014 7:22:12 GMT -5
The relationship between experience and actuality has to involve abstraction, if for no other reason than both ideas are abstractions to begin with. The word "experience" references an idea. There is no experience that is not unique to the experiencer, and thereby at least partially subjective, but when I look away from the Moon, it remains in the sky. The first thought is the divide. Simply refrain from the first thought about what is happening. Refrain from the thought of the dichotomy embodied by the idea of "experience", and be still. Not even "be still and know". Just be still. ya. I much prefer 'be still' to 'be still and know'. |
|
|
|
Post by andrew on Sept 9, 2014 7:30:18 GMT -5
The difficulty is with the word 'actual'. What one sees as 'actually' happening is different from what another sees as 'actually' happening, depending on what they think constitutes 'actuality'. Its a very abstract idea....a dog knows food, it knows joy, it knows fear...but it doesn't know the difference between 'actual' and 'not-actual'. This is essentially Reefs point on the question of "truth": "truth" comes along for the ride in the abstraction of "actuality". Regardless of the nature of experience -- which can itself come into controversy -- any description of experience involves abstraction. Here are three different descriptions of the same experience: 1) I went to Tasty Cream and chose the homemade strawberry ice cream last Friday. 2) I went to Tasty Cream and had the homemade strawberry ice cream last Friday. 3) Homemade strawberry ice cream was experienced at the Tasty Cream last Friday. The third might seem contrived to some perspectives. To mine, it still does. Now, what's going on there? Is there some conditioning that leads to the perception of contrivance? But notice that, objectively speaking, there are a decreasing number of abstractions from (1) to (3). yup. I would also say the third one sounds contrived, which is interesting. |
|
|
|
Post by andrew on Sept 9, 2014 7:38:04 GMT -5
The difficulty is with the word 'actual'. What one sees as 'actually' happening is different from what another sees as 'actually' happening, depending on what they think constitutes 'actuality'. Its a very abstract idea....a dog knows food, it knows joy, it knows fear...but it doesn't know the difference between 'actual' and 'not-actual'. I don't know what a dog knows.. we, as people with the capacity to understand and to imagine, have the same experiences, but different interpretations.. the experiences are actual, the interpretations are mindplay..After I wrote that it occurred to me that it might have been more prudent to say that 'it seems that a dog knows'. So, fair point. Pretty sure I get what you mean by the bolded bit, nevertheless, it could be said that the variety of contrasting experiences are 'not-actual' and the abiding isness within all experiences is 'actual'. 'Isness' isn't a word I tend to use, but I'm trying to offer an example that illustrates the point that what is 'actual' means different things to different people. Personally, I like the statement 'Love is all that is Real' but I understand that that wouldn't work for you....and its not something that I would insist on in every conversation. |
|
|
|
Post by silver on Sept 9, 2014 8:32:45 GMT -5
I don't know what a dog knows.. we, as people with the capacity to understand and to imagine, have the same experiences, but different interpretations.. the experiences are actual, the interpretations are mindplay..After I wrote that it occurred to me that it might have been more prudent to say that 'it seems that a dog knows'. So, fair point. Pretty sure I get what you mean by the bolded bit, nevertheless, it could be said that the variety of contrasting experiences are 'not-actual' and the abiding isness within all experiences is 'actual'. 'Isness' isn't a word I tend to use, but I'm trying to offer an example that illustrates the point that what is 'actual' means different things to different people. Personally, I like the statement 'Love is all that is Real' but I understand that that wouldn't work for you....and its not something that I would insist on in every conversation. I tend to think that the experiences of individuals for example, of the same event (obviously from various angles and vantage points) are real or actual; it's the only fair way to try and crystallize what I'm trying to put forth: so, when people observe this same event and come together to sort out what really happened, is when it gets interesting - mainly because people have differing agendas hidden away from the others and sometimes their own selves. This is why I agree with the bolded of what Tzu said. |
|
|
|
Post by justlikeyou on Sept 9, 2014 9:04:55 GMT -5
This is essentially Reefs point on the question of "truth": "truth" comes along for the ride in the abstraction of "actuality". Regardless of the nature of experience -- which can itself come into controversy -- any description of experience involves abstraction. Here are three different descriptions of the same experience: 1) I went to Tasty Cream and chose the homemade strawberry ice cream last Friday. 2) I went to Tasty Cream and had the homemade strawberry ice cream last Friday. 3) Homemade strawberry ice cream was experienced at the Tasty Cream last Friday. The third might seem contrived to some perspectives. To mine, it still does. Now, what's going on there? Is there some conditioning that leads to the perception of contrivance? But notice that, objectively speaking, there are a decreasing number of abstractions from (1) to (3). yup. I would also say the third one sounds contrived, which is interesting.Have you ever had the experience where you spoke a word and then suddenly became aware of just the sound of the word minus all context, as if it were a completely foreign word? Or observed your hand on the steering wheel and for a moment it seemed like someone else's hand doing the driving? There is a kind of detached witnessing of the saying/doing in these moments that seems similar to what #3 points to. |
|
|
|
Post by andrew on Sept 9, 2014 9:33:16 GMT -5
After I wrote that it occurred to me that it might have been more prudent to say that 'it seems that a dog knows'. So, fair point. Pretty sure I get what you mean by the bolded bit, nevertheless, it could be said that the variety of contrasting experiences are 'not-actual' and the abiding isness within all experiences is 'actual'. 'Isness' isn't a word I tend to use, but I'm trying to offer an example that illustrates the point that what is 'actual' means different things to different people. Personally, I like the statement 'Love is all that is Real' but I understand that that wouldn't work for you....and its not something that I would insist on in every conversation. I tend to think that the experiences of individuals for example, of the same event (obviously from various angles and vantage points) are real or actual; it's the only fair way to try and crystallize what I'm trying to put forth: so, when people observe this same event and come together to sort out what really happened, is when it gets interesting - mainly because people have differing agendas hidden away from the others and sometimes their own selves. This is why I agree with the bolded of what Tzu said. Yes, I get what you are saying and agree. Nevertheless, I see value in what is meant by 'fear is an illusion', and can also see value in what is meant by 'its all illusion'. But then equally, I like 'its all Real'. It all depends on the situation/conversation. Sometimes I might resonate with 'what is prior to thought is actual', then sometimes I might say 'what is prior to and includes thought is actual'. Or could just say 'This' is actual. Its a bit of a messy business. |
|
|
|
Post by andrew on Sept 9, 2014 9:35:15 GMT -5
yup. I would also say the third one sounds contrived, which is interesting.Have you ever had the experience where you spoke a word and then suddenly became aware of just the sound of the word minus all context, as if it were a completely foreign word? Or observed your hand on the steering wheel and for a moment it seemed like someone else's hand doing the driving? There is a kind of detached witnessing of the saying/doing in these moments that seems similar to what #3 points to. haha yup, I know the experience you mean very well. |
|
|
|
Post by enigma on Sept 9, 2014 10:09:02 GMT -5
Experiencing the act of choosing, and then concluding that this means one must have volition, is not 'what happens at face value'. It's a conclusion, a story. The inability to distinguish what's actually happening from what one thinks is happening, is the source of much self delusion. This is why we talk about WIBIGO vs the illusion of what we think is going on.Right. The face value dogma (as the still mind dogma) are attempts to sell self-deception as clarity, attachment as freedom and hyperminding as wisdom. Yup. Face value really means one's own unquestioned stories. |
|
