|
|
Post by enigma on Aug 23, 2016 23:31:26 GMT -5
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! I wasn't really poking at you and would have preferred that you not even read what I wrote about you. I was trying to clarify my comment for Pilgrim as I do understand why he sees you as agreeable. I think it also helps to understand a little bit about how the feminine mind and heart work together, as men are quite good at keeping them separate, for better or worse. Trying hard to be agreeable can be dangerous. I'll assume you know why. |
|
|
|
Post by enigma on Aug 23, 2016 23:58:01 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. There are natural and spontaneous consequences to the way oneness moves that mind has enormous difficulty wrapping itself around simply because mind discerns by breaking things apart; making distinctions, which is precisely counter to how oneness expresses. I've tried to explain to Gopal why spontaneous creation looks like predetermination to mind, and I've tried to explain to Tenka how cause and effect can be absent in the physical universe and yet the world seems to move in perfect harmony with certain principles and natural laws. I failed on both counts. What we mean by coincidence is that one separate part of experience seems to 'overlap' another separate part of experience in such a way that these separate parts seem somehow connected. Truly, the miracle is in how they somehow seem separate. |
|
|
|
Post by anja on Aug 24, 2016 4:04:03 GMT -5
The problem I have with the terms: Consciousness (personal or impersonal), awareness (pure or otherwise), chit or cit (the sanskrit term) can not be seperated from sat and ananda, therfore the term: sat-chit-ananda.
Sat-chit-ananda means: being conscious of bliss. Or...being conscious of bliss being the case.
When one seperates chit from sat and ananda, it gets tricky and one could assume that there is such a thing as consciousness as being impersonal and/or being divided into un-consciousness, sub-consciousness, personal unconsciousness...yadda-yadda. But that is not meant by sat-chit-ananda. It is non-dual (a-dvaita). It can not be seperated and discussed as if it is a seperate thingy or phenomenon.
(I guess I just "channeled" Swami Sarasvati Dayananda or Swami Chinmayananda...on I just made it up as I go along and/or it was my "spiritual" father James who farted that into me brain...)
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 24, 2016 4:44:51 GMT -5
The problem I have with the terms: Consciousness (personal or impersonal), awareness (pure or otherwise), chit or cit (the sanskrit term) can not be seperated from sat and ananda, therfore the term: sat-chit-ananda. Sat-chit-ananda means: being conscious of bliss. Or...being conscious of bliss being the case. When one seperates chit from sat and ananda, it gets tricky and one could assume that there is such a thing as consciousness as being impersonal and/or being divided into un-consciousness, sub-consciousness, personal unconsciousness...yadda-yadda. But that is not meant by sat-chit-ananda. It is non-dual (a-dvaita). It can not be seperated and discussed as if it is a seperate thingy or phenomenon. (I guess I just "channeled" Swami Sarasvati Dayananda or Swami Chinmayananda...on I just made it up as I go along and/or it was my "spiritual" father James who farted that into me brain...) You seem to be the only one here who understands that you cannot separate these three aspects! |
|
|
|
Post by anja on Aug 24, 2016 4:52:34 GMT -5
The problem I have with the terms: Consciousness (personal or impersonal), awareness (pure or otherwise), chit or cit (the sanskrit term) can not be seperated from sat and ananda, therfore the term: sat-chit-ananda. Sat-chit-ananda means: being conscious of bliss. Or...being conscious of bliss being the case. When one seperates chit from sat and ananda, it gets tricky and one could assume that there is such a thing as consciousness as being impersonal and/or being divided into un-consciousness, sub-consciousness, personal unconsciousness...yadda-yadda. But that is not meant by sat-chit-ananda. It is non-dual (a-dvaita). It can not be seperated and discussed as if it is a seperate thingy or phenomenon. (I guess I just "channeled" Swami Sarasvati Dayananda or Swami Chinmayananda...on I just made it up as I go along and/or it was my "spiritual" father James who farted that into me brain...) You seem to be the only one here who understands that you cannot separate these three aspects! What about you, Satch? |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 24, 2016 4:53:46 GMT -5
You seem to be the only one here who understands that you cannot separate these three aspects! What about you, Satch? Look at my name babe! |
|
|
|
Post by anja on Aug 24, 2016 4:55:44 GMT -5
Read me nama backwards, dude. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 24, 2016 4:58:05 GMT -5
Read me nama backwards, dude. Ajna? When peeps talk about the impersonal it is just a concept. |
|
|
|
Post by anja on Aug 24, 2016 5:06:31 GMT -5
Read me nama backwards, dude. Ajna? When peeps talk about the impersonal it is just a concept. Whaaaatt?!? "...I have legs....and I fancy you!" (Runs away...goes giggling with the girls who stand near by and heard me saying it...) |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 24, 2016 5:08:57 GMT -5
Ajna? When peeps talk about the impersonal it is just a concept. Whaaaatt?!? "...I have legs....and I fancy you!" (Runs away...goes giggling with the girls who stand near by and heard me saying it...)Your answer leaves me at a loss for words. |
|
|
|
Post by anja on Aug 24, 2016 5:10:17 GMT -5
Whaaaatt?!? "...I have legs....and I fancy you!" (Runs away...goes giggling with the girls who stand near by and heard me saying it...)Your answer leaves me at a loss for words. But that you must say in order to say it? |
|
|
|
Post by maxdprophet on Aug 24, 2016 7:17:55 GMT -5
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? Give me a starting point to start reading. Lolly has written a lot on this subject so I need to know where you want to begin. I will read everything from that point to now. We can use our own interpretations of what he wrote so as not to bother him to join in (though if he does that would be welcome). On #1, the aim is to state as clearly as possible what you think the position is, the goal being that the originator of the position might say "Gee, you said that better than I could myself!" So, no presumption involved hopefully. In this case, we'll be starting with our secondary readings of what Lolly said (and others), which is suboptimal but oh well. |
|
|
|
Post by quinn on Aug 24, 2016 8:28:36 GMT -5
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! I wasn't really poking at you and would have preferred that you not even read what I wrote about you. I was trying to clarify my comment for Pilgrim as I do understand why he sees you as agreeable. I think it also helps to understand a little bit about how the feminine mind and heart work together, as men are quite good at keeping them separate, for better or worse. ? Are you asking for help in understanding? Or are you schooling me in how you see mine tied together? Your wording is a little vague there. Sure. Are we now talking in generalities now? Because originally you said "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." That isn't general. The word "may" refers to backlash. "trying so hard to be agreeable" is your assessment, specifically of me. Is it hard for you to be agreeable? Really, it's not an effort for me. There are often points of agreement in conversations, even in debates. It takes no effort on my part to see them or comment on them. You'll notice where I disagreed with you was on your insistence that your assessment of my emotional/mental state Trumps mine. Which ties neatly back to how this whole conversation started. I was suggesting that your use of the term "deeply unconscious" as a label for particular people colors how you relate. It creates an uneven playing field, where you're the conscious one in a superior position of 'knowing' than the other. This is what Lolly's talking about.This whole conversation we're having is an excellent example. I say I'm not upset (which is an agitated state), just dismayed and a bit frustrated (not agitated) and you say that's wrong, that I really am upset. I disagree with you and you say I'm being disagreeable (bad tempered, prickly, irritable) when all I've done is disagree. And now, all that morphs into "backlash from trying so hard to be agreeable". Egads. Of course, if you see me as upset that's as good as going deeply unconscious, so from that point forward we've entered the uneven playing ground. The bolded above is my point. Take it or leave it. |
|
|
|
Post by enigma on Aug 24, 2016 9:40:13 GMT -5
I wasn't really poking at you and would have preferred that you not even read what I wrote about you. I was trying to clarify my comment for Pilgrim as I do understand why he sees you as agreeable. I think it also helps to understand a little bit about how the feminine mind and heart work together, as men are quite good at keeping them separate, for better or worse. ? Are you asking for help in understanding? Or are you schooling me in how you see mine tied together? Your wording is a little vague there. Sure. Are we now talking in generalities now? Because originally you said "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." That isn't general. The word "may" refers to backlash. "trying so hard to be agreeable" is your assessment, specifically of me. Is it hard for you to be agreeable? Really, it's not an effort for me. There are often points of agreement in conversations, even in debates. It takes no effort on my part to see them or comment on them. You'll notice where I disagreed with you was on your insistence that your assessment of my emotional/mental state Trumps mine. Which ties neatly back to how this whole conversation started. I was suggesting that your use of the term "deeply unconscious" as a label for particular people colors how you relate. It creates an uneven playing field, where you're the conscious one in a superior position of 'knowing' than the other. This is what Lolly's talking about.This whole conversation we're having is an excellent example. I say I'm not upset (which is an agitated state), just dismayed and a bit frustrated (not agitated) and you say that's wrong, that I really am upset. I disagree with you and you say I'm being disagreeable (bad tempered, prickly, irritable) when all I've done is disagree. And now, all that morphs into "backlash from trying so hard to be agreeable". Egads. Of course, if you see me as upset that's as good as going deeply unconscious, so from that point forward we've entered the uneven playing ground. The bolded above is my point. Take it or leave it. So it's not permitted for one to be more conscious than another here? That would be an uneven playing field, and therefore would compromise whatever game you think is being played here? Or maybe you're saying that it's simply a fact that everybody has the same knowledge, understanding, clarity and pretending otherwise is just another gaming tactic? Of course how we see others 'colors how we relate to them'. Is that also not permitted? |
|
|
|
Post by anja on Aug 24, 2016 9:48:13 GMT -5
You think I got something else from her posts? Do tell.  |
|
