|
|
Post by preciocho on Aug 22, 2016 22:49:21 GMT -5
If, like beauty, ugliness is in the eye of the beholder, and the judgement of ugliness is truly effortless, then the beholder probably has a lot of unconsciousness going on. #funwithlogic Flawful!  |
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Aug 22, 2016 22:51:13 GMT -5
 This is a great example of a "potential", since this "best possession" is only yours for as long as you don't pay.  ... you see, once you pay, you've lost the ability to pay ... .. You say so because you know my interest in 'potential'.. but I put the sentence without context there, he was talking about talents in the previous section. And the very place of this quote is about whether one's 'spiritual payment' can help one's parents or not.. he says yes. While they're alive? What does he mean by "spiritual payment"? Yes, I took the quote out of context but I think it's an interesting one that can stand on it's own. |
|
|
|
Post by preciocho on Aug 22, 2016 22:53:11 GMT -5
I didn't watch that whole swami-G vid, but I don't question the idea of a non-intellectual intelligence or the possibility to align intellect with a creative principle when coming out of identification (or to get lost in that alignment in an unconscious way hehe). Visions and dreams are certainly not a requisite to conscious alignment, but what Jung calls an acausal connecting principle embodies a force Adyashanti once spoke about, the universe wanting to wake up. Maharaj and other sages speak on this force through a seeing of degradation implicit in seeking.
Jung did an interesting analysis on the infamous scarab in the context of coincidence. Basically, a patient of his had a dream of a bizarre beetle, and during the recollection and relay of the dream, Jung walked over to his window, and found the scarab. He couldn't say whether the dream 'caused' the scarab to be there that day, so labeled synchronicity an acausal connecting principle.
Dreams and visions are information. If we start there, everything else follows.
"acausal connecting principle" .. hmmmmm, that's got some potential to it for sure.  Don't the left-brainer's know a thing or two about the information that presents in physical sleep-dreams? My limited general knowledge of it is that they think it has something to do with learning and psychological housekeeping, which would color that information a certain chaotic hue. I neglected to mention the acausal nature of the principle arose within the context of 'meaning'. Under the umbrella of the idea there is a universe that wants to wake up, synchronicity isn't acausal at all, which is where the compartmentalization dynamic stuff can demystify the whole deally. |
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Aug 22, 2016 22:53:54 GMT -5
Re: the "I think you've grown cynical" comment. Good point about it's aim, not at the content but at the deliverer of the content. Good ole' ad hominem in play yet again. This discussion is about behavior in general, and mine in particular. Assuming you don't see your comments about me as ad hominem attacks, how can my comments about you be? I don't understand what you're saying there."You only call me disagreeable when I disagree with you. You don't say that when I'm agreeing with you. Calling me disagreeable dismisses any inner disturbance you feel from the disagreement." |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 22, 2016 22:56:48 GMT -5
See, can't even be conciliatory without being accusatory. Excuse the polarity but that's a lose/lose scenario. Do you seriously perceive this as " conciliatory"??  Yeah, it's a tough love version of conciliatory. You'd know about that. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 22, 2016 22:57:17 GMT -5
That would be amusing. Hi mr. mind.
Forget about mr. mind. (Mooji) |
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Aug 22, 2016 23:01:14 GMT -5
You asked me if I thought what you said was denigration and one-upmanship. I said yes. Why are you talking about Lolly? Why are you talking about me? This is about you. , yes. In actuality, it's about you and Lolly. It was never even actually just about you, either. |
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Aug 22, 2016 23:04:35 GMT -5
Who are you refering to, Enigma? Unconscious peeps. Hypothetically. Of course. |
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Aug 22, 2016 23:07:59 GMT -5
Apply that advice to yourself and we're done, Enigma. Did I read something that wasn't written, or was that you? .. yeah yeah, I know it's only a ball .. but .. well .. you know .. |
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Aug 22, 2016 23:10:02 GMT -5
WHAT!? I've never found quinn to be disagreeable. When she says she's not upset, just dismayed and frustrated, you don't think maybe she's being disagreeable? You could also just take a literal interpretation of the word and count the number of stated disagreements.  |
|
|
|
Post by preciocho on Aug 22, 2016 23:12:43 GMT -5
Forget about mr. mind. (Mooji) I don't think Mooji said that!
Mr mind has permission from Mooji to stop pretending to be what sees mr. mind. Not sure mr. mind can handle that, but give it a go if you're up for it. Lot less effort
|
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Aug 22, 2016 23:13:03 GMT -5
Do you seriously perceive this as " conciliatory"?? Yeah, it's a tough love version of conciliatory. You'd know about that. No, no I wouldn't, as I've never mistaken telling someone that "all you are saying is something very boring" for an offer to reconcile with them. |
|
|
|
Post by enigma on Aug 22, 2016 23:16:47 GMT -5
Ostensibly, yes. In actuality, it's about you and Lolly. Does that ever work both ways? I spose it could. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 22, 2016 23:22:45 GMT -5
Yeah, it's a tough love version of conciliatory. You'd know about that. No, no I wouldn't, as I've never mistaken telling someone that "all you are saying is something very boring" for an offer to reconcile with them. Give me a couple of days to search the archives. |
|
|
|
Post by enigma on Aug 22, 2016 23:24:34 GMT -5
That's precisely the attitude and energy Lolly brings to the forum, and rather than revealing the mechanics of conflict from a position of superiority, as intended, it's the fundamental source of the conflict in question. The Lolly position is that nobody ever says anything true, that it's all about manipulation tactics to gain control. Somebody says you're upset. You say, Oh no, I'm dismayed and frustrated. Somebody points out to you that they are the same and you label that as denigrating one-upmanship. I shouldn't have to point out to you that you're being argumentative, cynical and judgmental, and that you are the perpetrator that you're currently trying to chase down. And it seems that the biggest possible sin of all is to attempt to make light of any of it. That would be ideal, and we could all have a chuckle over it and carry on. |
|
This is a great example of a "potential", since this "best possession" is only yours for as long as you don't pay. 
