|
|
Post by stardustpilgrim on Aug 24, 2016 15:09:43 GMT -5
To be upset, dismayed and frustrated doesn't necessarily mean one has to be disagreeable. That's not what I'm saying. See post above. (But, OK). |
|
|
|
Post by anja on Aug 24, 2016 15:10:40 GMT -5
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. . If you point this out even to the ordinary person, they will so, OK, sure, yes, that's true. Ordinary circumstance, I will give you an example from about 2 hours ago. I took my father to the doctor. We took his current medicine and a list of his current medicine, I had that in a plastic bag. We came out of the doctors office, I had that, and an extra shoe, and he was in the wheelchair, had doctor's instructions and next appointment card stapled to it. Got home, got wheelchair out of the trunk, put him in it, got the shoe, got him inside. I was going to write the appointment on the calendar, couldn't find that paper. I looked all around, didn't see where I had laid it. Went back, looked in the car, it wasn't there. I then looked in the plastic bag with the medicine and medicine list, it was in it. If I had been more conscious when I put it in the bag, I would have remembered putting it in the bag. .......People, all the time, lay stuff here and there and cannot find it. Car keys, particularly. Memory is linked to how conscious one is. (Experiment with it if you don't think so). OK...that's just ordinary life. Concerning the other, unequivocally, there is a higher state of consciousness. But one can't possibly know that, 100%, unless it is experienced. And then, you will never forget it. From the ~personal~ perspective, it is not already there, meaning, IT Not-Now Is. It just isn't, until it is. 1.) "Conscious" of what? 2.) That's not what sat-chit-ananda is all about. 3.) No, there isn't. What ever is happening, happens no matter how conscious you are about what happens. 4.) Tenka would like that one.  |
|
|
|
Post by anja on Aug 24, 2016 15:13:34 GMT -5
That's not what I'm saying. See post above. (But, OK). Then...what is it you're saying, Enigma? All I read is: That's not it, because I say so. |
|
|
|
Post by stardustpilgrim on Aug 24, 2016 15:13:45 GMT -5
Yea deja vu. On the coincidence level, Yadira is sitting next to me in the bed and recognized your symbol in the icon just now as the same symbol from the painting on our wall, hehe.
On the level of meaning, I spose the meaning of a coincidence is whatever the individuals chooses to supply it with. When there's personal unconsciousness involved the meaning will almost inevitably be in furtherance of the avoidance of unconsciousness or in some sort of self seeking loop. I spose in the more highly conscious it may just lead to a heightened enjoyment of the moment or appreciation for life and being alive. Jed McKenna talks about making micro adjustments to the trajectory and things like that and synchronicity or 'signs' can be a part of that interplay.
Did you see my reply to sdp about the use of the the word conscious as in more conscious less conscious or even unconscious. Enigma uses it too. Now you introduce the phrase, personal unconsciousness. I can't get my head around that. Do you regard sleep as an unconscious state? If so then how can the unconscious be personal if there is no persona to experience anything. Did you see my reply? |
|
|
|
Post by anja on Aug 24, 2016 15:15:58 GMT -5
Did you see my reply to sdp about the use of the the word conscious as in more conscious less conscious or even unconscious. Enigma uses it too. Now you introduce the phrase, personal unconsciousness. I can't get my head around that. Do you regard sleep as an unconscious state? If so then how can the unconscious be personal if there is no persona to experience anything. Did you see my reply? Come on, Stardustpilgrim! Nail that ?/&%$?§ er! |
|
|
|
Post by anja on Aug 24, 2016 15:19:20 GMT -5
There are no "coincidences" and no "sychronisities", like at all.
That's all baby-talk in the dream-state.
|
|
|
|
Post by stardustpilgrim on Aug 24, 2016 15:23:21 GMT -5
You seem to be the only one here who understands that you cannot separate these three aspects! What about you, Satch? (The story of the 10th man).  |
|
|
|
Post by stardustpilgrim on Aug 24, 2016 15:24:25 GMT -5
Come on, Stardustpilgrim! Nail that ?/&%$?§ er! I'm a two birds one stone kind of guy. |
|
|
|
Post by stardustpilgrim on Aug 24, 2016 15:30:50 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. OK, this is generic, this is for anybody who reads it, for everybody on the planet, and applies to 99.999999% of the people on the planet. Somebody find a stone mason so we can chisel it in stone. Whatever you write, says more about you, than the person you are writing about. |
|
|
|
Post by stardustpilgrim on Aug 24, 2016 15:36:46 GMT -5
Helps who? 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? That's not what she said. She's saying, in this particular instance, I (quinn) know more about my own state, that you (E) do. And more particularly, when I say that back to you, and you still say you (E) know me (q) better than I know myself....well ((*$8 *^%%^$&*3#$(&^, or words to that effect.....not putting words in quinn's mouth.....but dude....dude... [It's like you have never been married]....OK...sdp shutting up.... (Reading in order, can't wait to see what q said).......... |
|
|
|
Post by stardustpilgrim on Aug 24, 2016 15:39:10 GMT -5
"And I'm saying I agree with you. Are. We. Done? " "No. Do those dots between words signify frustration?" "You're agreeing there's a one-upmanship culture on ST? Is that all you got from my posts?" Read more: spiritualteachers.proboards.com/thread/4132/world#ixzz4I9S7QZ1qOnly that you're a complete .... (fill in the blank yourself) , who hides behind some pseudo-advaita drivel for the sake of feeling superiour to certain "peeps", and that's what Quinn tried to point out to you but couldn't do as good I as I can, Enigma. Now what? |
|
|
|
Post by stardustpilgrim on Aug 24, 2016 15:43:30 GMT -5
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? Enigma you seem upset. But I don't believe it. For example the "not permitted" cries are unfounded (Quinn has no say in that). What would be a good faith reading of what she is saying? Maybe E was just having a bad day? ....Happens to everyone at times.... (I sometimes recognize the "I have to win at any cost" thingy in me, and then all objectivity goes out the window....of course I only see that after the fact.. .after making a mess...)... |
|
|
|
Post by stardustpilgrim on Aug 24, 2016 15:45:44 GMT -5
That's the name of some old folks game, isn't it? Yes...but you can say bingo only if....... |
|
|
|
Post by stardustpilgrim on Aug 24, 2016 15:52:39 GMT -5
Sure one can be more or less conscious in the waking state. If you point this out even to the ordinary person, they will so, OK, sure, yes, that's true. Ordinary circumstance, I will give you an example from about 2 hours ago. I took my father to the doctor. We took his current medicine and a list of his current medicine, I had that in a plastic bag. We came out of the doctors office, I had that, and an extra shoe, and he was in the wheelchair, had doctor's instructions and next appointment card stapled to it. Got home, got wheelchair out of the trunk, put him in it, got the shoe, got him inside. I was going to write the appointment on the calendar, couldn't find that paper. I looked all around, didn't see where I had laid it. Went back, looked in the car, it wasn't there. I then looked in the plastic bag with the medicine and medicine list, it was in it. If I had been more conscious when I put it in the bag, I would have remembered putting it in the bag. .......People, all the time, lay stuff here and there and cannot find it. Car keys, particularly. Memory is linked to how conscious one is. (Experiment with it if you don't think so). OK...that's just ordinary life. Concerning the other, unequivocally, there is a higher state of consciousness. But one can't possibly know that, 100%, unless it is experienced. And then, you will never forget it. From the ~personal~ perspective, it is not already there, meaning, IT Not-Now Is. It just isn't, until it is. 1.) "Conscious" of what? 2.) That's not what sat-chit-ananda is all about. 3.) No, there isn't. What ever is happening, happens no matter how conscious you are about what happens. 4.) Tenka would like that one. #1. To be ~more conscious~ there does not necessarily need to be an "of what". (But there can be). #2. OK, granted, but he made a blanket statement. (I qualified it some). #3. That doesn't make sense. I'm not going to try to sort that out. #4. No comment. |
|
|
|
Post by anja on Aug 24, 2016 15:53:53 GMT -5
Come on, Stardustpilgrim! Nail that ?/&%$?§ er! I'm a two birds one stone kind of guy. I see. Like...you're attempting to nail them with one shot out of one nail-gun, right? |
|
