|
|
Post by preciocho on Aug 23, 2016 14:36:39 GMT -5
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.  Mooji uses his mind to communicate thoughts just like you and I do. Your mind can't be fascinated with awareness. You're fascinated with the idea of being awareness, and also completely identified with that idea. That's not an oxymoron. |
|
|
|
Post by quinn on Aug 23, 2016 14:48:02 GMT -5
Well what the hell do you know!  Haha! Just kidding. (Thanks) But then again, I don't read every post.   |
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Aug 23, 2016 17:03:57 GMT -5
Well, then, I'd invite you to go back and read it in detail, and I'm not being sarcastic in that. If, after you have read it carefully, you'd like to debate me on this point of whether or not lolly was being entirely reasonable and rational in what he wrote, I promise that I'll remain entirely reasonable, rational, and impersonal in the debate for as long as you do the same. Serious offer. You'd have to give me a starting point. Lolly has been opining for quite a while on communication and power dynamics. But if you're stating out front that one can opine impersonally I'd throw in the towel. I'm not in that game. Also, 'entirely' reasonable, rational? Who here can claim that? Dan Dennet likes to go by a set of rules, I forgot what they're called...(1)re-express/paraphase the other's position in a way that may exceed the clarity of their own; (2) list points of agreement; (3) mention what you have learned from their argument; (4) then rebut, criticize. You agree to those terms? I'd be interested in your take of Lolly's perspective both 1-3 and 4. Well, I think those terms would be meant to apply to our dialog between us (rather than my applying them to what lolz wrote). They're fine except perhaps for part of the first one, as I wouldn't presume that my clarification would ever state what someone meant to write better than they did. But what would be the point of any in-depth discussion with you about something that you haven't read, and if you hadn't read it, why take a position on it? |
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Aug 23, 2016 17:09:28 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. Yes, the process of becoming conscious definitely feels to the peep as if it's a process of integration. The mind is vulnerable to a deception here, in that it can ascribe causality to an abstract "whole", which mind can never wrap itself around. Peeps can even understand this intellectually but yet the attachment to an idea of oneness remains, unconsciously fragmented. |
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Aug 23, 2016 17:17:21 GMT -5
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. A process of becoming conscious that has the individual in possession of the benefits of it will ultimately maintain the integrity and obscure what that process can, at best, instead, reveal. |
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Aug 23, 2016 17:29:06 GMT -5
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. I didn't write that "you wrote smugness", I wrote that you wrote about smugness. You claimed I was projecting smugness onto you, but I never wrote that you were smug, only that in writing about how others were smug, you'd joined the game of one-ups-manship. As far as your PM innuendo is concerned, well, that's the way innuendo works, just as you're playing it now, using the device of incomplete information. The question in front of you in this instance was: did you recognize your own nastiness ("nastiness" being your word) in resorting to innuendo about PM's? Even if I was wrong in assuming which one you were referring to, the question stands to you as it is, and stands unanswered. And what " other post" are you imagining that I was referring to, and what is the basis for that imagination? If you are reading things that are objectively not in what I've written, what does that imply about how conscious you are of what you're reading? |
|
|
|
Post by preciocho on Aug 23, 2016 17:56:28 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. Yes, the process of becoming conscious definitely feels to the peep as if it's a process of integration. The mind is vulnerable to a deception here, in that it can ascribe causality to an abstract "whole", which mind can never wrap itself around. Peeps can even understand this intellectually but yet the attachment to an idea of oneness remains, unconsciously fragmented. I'm not entirely sure what you mean on ascribing causality to an abstract whole. Obviously, the idea of oneness is not what oneness is pointing to. The experience of oneness is not the experience of a separate person at the center of an impossible to divide whole universe. The loss of consciousness or the gaining of identification comes through rejection of personal experience, which is a rejection of the universe relative to the person, or vice versa. These personal rejections aren't random, but perfectly ordered. Synchronicity reveals that perfect order in a personally meaningful way (or universally, depends on how you look at it). The source of the person's perception is not the person, and the idea one is separate from that source isn't true.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 23, 2016 18:48:07 GMT -5
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. Mooji uses his mind to communicate thoughts just like you and I do. Your mind can't be fascinated with awareness. You're fascinated with the idea of being awareness, and also completely identified with that idea. That's not an oxymoron. Awareness is an idea yes. Without awareness ideas wouldn't be known. That's your thang, ideas...but You have to be there before they appear. That awareness which is prior to ideas is where Mooji points, not to the ideas themselves. Someone who is fascinated with Mr Mind is unconscious of and overlooks awareness. Nothing wrong with that. |
|
|
|
Post by enigma on Aug 23, 2016 19:55:18 GMT -5
Well what the hell do you know! Haha! Just kidding. (Thanks) But then again, I don't read every post. Quinn is very agreeable and even tries to bring opposing sides together, most of the time. But when she gets 'upset' with somebody, she can't seem to agree on anything. It may be the backlash from trying so hard to be agreeable. |
|
|
|
Post by quinn on Aug 23, 2016 20:35:32 GMT -5
But then again, I don't read every post. Quinn is very agreeable and even tries to bring opposing sides together, most of the time. But when she gets 'upset' with somebody, she can't seem to agree on anything. It may be the backlash from trying so hard to be agreeable. You gonna keep poking at me until I actually do get upset? It's a good plan, you know, cause then you'd get to be right. "trying so hard to be agreeable" - nice. That's a good start! |
|
|
|
Post by preciocho on Aug 23, 2016 20:45:56 GMT -5
Mooji uses his mind to communicate thoughts just like you and I do. Your mind can't be fascinated with awareness. You're fascinated with the idea of being awareness, and also completely identified with that idea. That's not an oxymoron. Awareness is an idea yes. Without awareness ideas wouldn't be known. That's your thang, ideas...but You have to be there before they appear. That awareness which is prior to ideas is where Mooji points, not to the ideas themselves. Someone who is fascinated with Mr Mind is unconscious of and overlooks awareness. Nothing wrong with that. You just shared a bunch of ideas, which is fine, really. Regardless, a fascination with thinking isn't an indication of unconsciousness. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 23, 2016 21:04:04 GMT -5
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. Sorry I scared you. But your reply doesn't cut it for me. In the waking state you cannot be more or less conscious. There is only consciousness which is also the case in sleep and dream. There is no such thing as a higher state of consciousness as if that were distinct from what you might call an ordinary state of consciousness. It's only higher in the sense that attention has shifted to experience what is already there. If that is what is meant by being more conscious that's fine by me. That might sound like I'm splitting hairs. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 23, 2016 21:09:19 GMT -5
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.
I've always been fascinated by coincidences. There is always a statistical possibility of a coincidence happening yet the mind can interpret it as having some kind of mystical significance. Who knows. The other interesting experience is deja vu. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 23, 2016 21:25:25 GMT -5
Awareness is an idea yes. Without awareness ideas wouldn't be known. That's your thang, ideas...but You have to be there before they appear. That awareness which is prior to ideas is where Mooji points, not to the ideas themselves. Someone who is fascinated with Mr Mind is unconscious of and overlooks awareness. Nothing wrong with that. You just shared a bunch of ideas, which is fine, really. Regardless, a fascination with thinking isn't an indication of unconsciousness. Of course it is. You are unconscious of awareness because your attention is fully engaged with your fascination of conceptual thought. Conceptual thought is fascinating, just not if you want to be free of it. |
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Aug 23, 2016 21:30:10 GMT -5
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. It can certainly, at the very least, form the premise of what you're alluding to though. |
|
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. 
