Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 23, 2016 12:50:25 GMT -5
Unconscious peeps.  Saw that coming. He unconsciously omitted the word ' appearance' of unconscious peeps...  |
|
|
|
Post by preciocho on Aug 23, 2016 12:51:37 GMT -5
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. Well that's a very particular and special type of "cause" that I wouldn't relate to the everyday meaning, like at all, but I get the drift. It reminds me alot of the anthropic principle. And while I dig these ideas you're working with, I'm of the opinion that synchronicity is, ultimately, safe from demystification. If we look at compartmentalization as a falling apart or movement toward fragmentation, then through becoming conscious we should expect experience to 'come together' in ways that embody a oneness principle. I think that demystifies things to an extent, but not to the point of placing some person in control of causing synchronicity. That would violate the principle. |
|
|
|
Post by preciocho on Aug 23, 2016 12:52:26 GMT -5
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. What would the universe wake up to, that it is an idea ? Sincere question. I was saying the idea was that the universe wants to wake up. Not that the universe wakes up to an idea. |
|
|
|
Post by preciocho on Aug 23, 2016 12:54:18 GMT -5
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 
Mr mind is pretending to be aware of mr mind? He is talking about what observes Mr Mind (thoughts and perceptions). Thats what's amusing, imagining Mooji holds a fascination with Mr Mind. That's your projection, your thang, not his. Forget Mooji. I'm talking about you and your mind which is on display in this forum in all of your posts. It's this mind that imagines that it isn't a mind and that there is no mind, which is why you're in the same gear and regurgitate the same stuff in basically every post. |
|
|
|
Post by stardustpilgrim on Aug 23, 2016 12:56:19 GMT -5
He's talking about payment via conscious efforts. There is no practical limit, one is only limited by sleep. In the long run perhaps but the fact of the need for sleep illustrates what I was referring to quite precisely. In a wider sense it's a metaphor for losing the peep, but that doesn't involve actually using the potential, but instead, surrendering the posession. Although Bennett studied a lot of stuff, he considered Gurdjieff to be his teacher, so I just know by payment Bennett means making conscious efforts here. Sleep like in a bed where one goes unconscious is not what I meant by sleep here. Gurdjieff said: "No work can be done in sleep". He didn't mean bedtime beddy-bye. He mean the second state of consciousness, which he also called the so-called waking state, which he also called, in actually, (a-kind-of) sleep. It's the state of consciousness most people wake-up-to, from "nighttime" unconsciousness. IOW, Gurdjieff said no real (interior) work, that is, conscious efforts, can be done in the second state of consciousness. IOW, conscious means conscious, which means, the third state of consciousness. |
|
|
|
Post by preciocho on Aug 23, 2016 13:00:27 GMT -5
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. Well that's a very particular and special type of "cause" that I wouldn't relate to the everyday meaning, like at all, but I get the drift. It reminds me alot of the anthropic principle. And while I dig these ideas you're working with, I'm of the opinion that synchronicity is, ultimately, safe from demystification. Also, because synchronicity comes laced in context of meaning, it's relative. Meaningful to whom? To the interpretation of consciousness as a person I guess we could say. Although if you're only figment I don't know if figment can experience synchronicity. |
|
|
|
Post by stardustpilgrim on Aug 23, 2016 13:14:01 GMT -5
I don't always see my nastiness, but most times it's pretty obvious and I admit it and own it. I stated that directly in the post. I said "In ourselves", that means I was not excluding myself. I was agreeing with ZD (I think that's allowed). So, honestly, I think you have projected smugness onto me. ( I will "say no more", as PM's are private). ...but think the obvious. a simple "yes, it did ellude me" would have sufficed. You've extrapolated from one-upsmanship to nasty, and no, you wrote this with an air of assumed objectivity about the psychological dynamics of others, and left no hint that you were self-aware of your one-upping those who had based their sense of self on their smugness. And in case it wasn't clear, what I wrote to you certainly applies to ZD as well. And how could I have projected smugness onto you when you're the one that wrote about it? Read that question again, did I characterize you as smug? And how about now? And how about innuendo, do you think innuendo is "nasty"?  Publish what you want from that exchange. All I was with you was blunt. Glass house much dude?  .. to be clear, I'm not trying to claim the high ground you, ZD, quinn, lolz and maxy seem to think you're standing on, I'm just pointing casually to your waterlogged shoes.  I didn't write smugness, I directly copied ZD. If by copying what ZD wrote that means to you I wrote smugness, the I wrote smugness. You have no idea what PM I'm talking about, so I won't take that as blanket permission. I have no idea what the other post was about, or this post, and I don't care. So yes, it all eludes me. I'm not claiming any high ground, I have never intended to claim any high ground. I just post how I see things, people can take it or leave it. And yes, I read what you wrote as characterizing me as smug. I belong to the I know I know nothing club. I know that I know that I know nothing. I know only my own experience. |
|
|
|
Post by stardustpilgrim on Aug 23, 2016 13:18:36 GMT -5
"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. Yes, acausal from an outward perspective, invisibly/internally/deeper, not-acausal. |
|
|
|
Post by stardustpilgrim on Aug 23, 2016 13:20:45 GMT -5
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.  But that's not what disagreeable means. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 23, 2016 13:26:17 GMT -5
Well that's a very particular and special type of "cause" that I wouldn't relate to the everyday meaning, like at all, but I get the drift. It reminds me alot of the anthropic principle. And while I dig these ideas you're working with, I'm of the opinion that synchronicity is, ultimately, safe from demystification. If we look at compartmentalization as a falling apart or movement toward fragmentation, then through becoming conscious we should expect experience to 'come together' in ways that embody a oneness principle. I think that demystifies things to an extent, but not to the point of placing some person in control of causing synchronicity. That would violate the principle. I have no idea what you're talking about, but it sounds like it ought to mean something yet it doesn't. Becoming conscious? Well we always are. Experience that comes together in ways that embody a oneness principle. Are you kidding? What on earth does that even mean? |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 23, 2016 13:27:23 GMT -5
Well that's a very particular and special type of "cause" that I wouldn't relate to the everyday meaning, like at all, but I get the drift. It reminds me alot of the anthropic principle. And while I dig these ideas you're working with, I'm of the opinion that synchronicity is, ultimately, safe from demystification. Also, because synchronicity comes laced in context of meaning, it's relative. Meaningful to whom? To the interpretation of consciousness as a person I guess we could say. Although if you're only figment I don't know if figment can experience synchronicity. Whaaaaaat? |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 23, 2016 13:33:56 GMT -5
Mr mind is pretending to be aware of mr mind? He is talking about what observes Mr Mind (thoughts and perceptions). Thats what's amusing, imagining Mooji holds a fascination with Mr Mind. That's your projection, your thang, not his. Forget Mooji. I 'm talking about you and your mind which is on display in this forum in all of your posts. It's this mind that imagines that it isn't a mind and that there is no mind, which is why you're in the same gear and regurgitate the same stuff in basically every post. And I'm talking about that which is aware of ' that'. YOU are fascinated with Mr Mind, while I am fascinated with Awareness. As is Mooji. I'm not saying there is any thang wrong with that, I'm saying it's your thang. And Mr Mind is playing a joke on you using the vision of Mooji as a guide, to delve deeper into Mr Mind. I am just shedding light on the oxymoronic humor that you seem to be unconscious of.  |
|
|
|
Post by stardustpilgrim on Aug 23, 2016 13:58:11 GMT -5
If we look at compartmentalization as a falling apart or movement toward fragmentation, then through becoming conscious we should expect experience to 'come together' in ways that embody a oneness principle. I think that demystifies things to an extent, but not to the point of placing some person in control of causing synchronicity. That would violate the principle. I have no idea what you're talking about, but it sounds like it ought to mean something yet it doesn't. Becoming conscious? Well we always are. Experience that comes together in ways that embody a oneness principle. Are you kidding? What on earth does that even mean? I understand what preciocho is saying. People throw around this word conscious as if we all know what it means. We are not always conscious. To say we are always conscious gives me doubts that you know what that means (and here you had me fooled for so long, maybe just kidding, but at the point I don't know. 1. the first state of consciousness, ordinary sleep, as where one goes unconscious to rest the body, usually about eight hours out of every 24. 2. The second state of consciousness, the so-called waking state. This is what one is in when they wake up from the first state of consciousness. 3. Unconsciousness, either #1 above, or one can be knocked unconscious from a blow, or one can drink themselves into unconsciousness, or other various means, but you get the idea. One can "pass out", that is, move very quickly and directly from #2, to #3. 4. When we talk about being conscious here on ST's, we don't mean #2. Therefore, when you (sca) say "we always are" (conscious), by this you mean #2. But preciocho means something entirely different. So you scare me a little when you say "it ought to mean something yet it doesn't". I thought I had understood you previously, but I guess not. 5. So, what does being conscious mean? (ZD means one thing, E means one thing, I think they probably agree, but I don't agree with them, at least not fully). This "being conscious" means there is a third state of consciousness. It is a state of awakeness over and above "we are all conscious". Gurdjieff called #2 (described above) the so-called waking state, because there is a different and higher state of being awake. This means a person can be awake, read, write, drive a car, eat a good meal, etc., etc., etc., yet not be in this higher state of consciousness, the third state of consciousness. And so Gurdjieff called the second state of consciousness (#2 above), sleep. In comparison of the third state of consciousness to the second state of consciousness, the second state is sleep (the so-called waking state). So what is one characteristic of the third state of consciousness? In the second state we are compartmentalized, we are fragmented. Not to see that one is fragmented means that one necessarily is (merely) in the second state of consciousness. So, "becoming conscious" (quoting preciocho) is to embody the "oneness principle", to "come together". IOW, it isn't something one automatically is (in). The third state of consciousness means we see the whole of what we are all at once. |
|
|
|
Post by preciocho on Aug 23, 2016 14:32:35 GMT -5
If we look at compartmentalization as a falling apart or movement toward fragmentation, then through becoming conscious we should expect experience to 'come together' in ways that embody a oneness principle. I think that demystifies things to an extent, but not to the point of placing some person in control of causing synchronicity. That would violate the principle. I have no idea what you're talking about, but it sounds like it ought to mean something yet it doesn't. Becoming conscious? Well we always are. Experience that comes together in ways that embody a oneness principle. Are you kidding? What on earth does that even mean? You can be unconsciously identified as a person. As a person, you aren't always conscious.
As far as the oneness principle, it's what Adyashanti is talking about when he says there is a universal force that wants to wake people up. It's what Maharaj is talking about when he points out the degradation implicit in self seeking. I was speaking of that force and how it can be made conscious within the context of coincidences.
|
|
|
|
Post by preciocho on Aug 23, 2016 14:34:35 GMT -5
Also, because synchronicity comes laced in context of meaning, it's relative. Meaningful to whom? To the interpretation of consciousness as a person I guess we could say. Although if you're only figment I don't know if figment can experience synchronicity. Whaaaaaat? I was only kidding about the figment thing. That was from a Gopal discussion weeks ago that I found amusing.
Um, otherwise, have you ever experienced a coincidence? If so, my suggestion is that you find something coincidental because it is a meaningful experience.
|
|
Publish what you want from that exchange. All I was with you was blunt.
.. to be clear, I'm not trying to claim the high ground you, ZD, quinn, lolz and maxy seem to think you're standing on, I'm just pointing casually to your waterlogged shoes. 
