|
|
Post by preciocho on Aug 30, 2016 23:05:38 GMT -5
When vacation and real life blur into one thing, you are a bum! Do you like the Beatles? I listened to Daniel for about 6 months read Tolle shortly thereafter woke up from emotions never looked back woo hoo.
Come to the islands, dude.
Daniel Johnston has had some cool songs. Did you see the documentary on him.... The Devil and Daniel Johnston? I actually went into a manically depressed state after watching Devil and Daniel Johnston. I became obsessed with his music, his character, his genius, and then I got a bulldog puppy and woke up out of that whole mess. My brother actually saw him live not that long ago. I still appreciate his music but hate to see what the lithium and other drugs did to him. Giving people lithium is like playing Russian Roulette.
Anyway, best story when he crashed the plane! He thought he was Casper the ghost, was in a plane with his Dad, and decided to pull the keys out because he thought he could fly. Oh Daniel.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 30, 2016 23:57:34 GMT -5
Precisely. It is quite an odd situation. (I think it's good for everybody to have to ask these questions). Yea welp it's actually a pretty common thing, mind thinking there is no mind and believing what the mind itself is thinking. Is your mind an entity or is it just a single thought happening in this moment followed by another which may or may not be related to the previous thought. Now who is the unchanging knower or witness of that. When you find out you'll be free. Here's a clue. The finding out won't depend on any thoughts. |
|
|
|
Post by preciocho on Aug 31, 2016 0:24:31 GMT -5
Yea welp it's actually a pretty common thing, mind thinking there is no mind and believing what the mind itself is thinking. Is your mind an entity or is it just a single thought happening in this moment followed by another which may or may not be related to the previous thought. Now who is the unchanging knower or witness of that. When you find out you'll be free. Here's a clue. The finding out won't depend on any thoughts. Like I said, pretty common thing. Can you see within the context of your experience there is a person who thinks and talks that's different from the other people? I'm talking about understanding that person.
The witness of the person is not the person, obviously. But the person (appearance) can be identified as the witness (an idea of non appearing consciousness).
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 31, 2016 0:57:44 GMT -5
Is your mind an entity or is it just a single thought happening in this moment followed by another which may or may not be related to the previous thought. Now who is the unchanging knower or witness of that. When you find out you'll be free. Here's a clue. The finding out won't depend on any thoughts. Like I said, pretty common thing. Can you see within the context of your experience there is a person who thinks and talks that's different from the other people? I'm talking about understanding that person.
The witness of the person is not the person, obviously. But the person (appearance) can be identified as the witness (an idea of non appearing consciousness).
The person is not the ultimate witness, consciousness is. It is only through reflected consciousness that illuminates mind and senses that you could say a person is witnessing an object. But it is borrowed witnessing. Borrowed from the ultimate witness. |
|
|
|
Post by preciocho on Aug 31, 2016 1:33:28 GMT -5
Like I said, pretty common thing. Can you see within the context of your experience there is a person who thinks and talks that's different from the other people? I'm talking about understanding that person.
The witness of the person is not the person, obviously. But the person (appearance) can be identified as the witness (an idea of non appearing consciousness).
The person is not the ultimate witness, consciousness is. It is only through reflected consciousness that illuminates mind and senses that you could say a person is witnessing an object. But it is borrowed witnessing. Borrowed from the ultimate witness. Nevermind. |
|
|
|
Post by maxdprophet on Aug 31, 2016 7:51:02 GMT -5
Well I'm a fan of using the good faith reading request to cut through snark and painting and such. So yes, it's an excellent idea especially with respect to this type of stuff. I only think it's overboard in general, as there's lots of just creative riffing that goes on that would be (imo) inhibited with stark, though useful-in-context, guidelines. If I reply to your last resistance remark you'll probably respond with some sort of 'why do you continue to be interested in this?' remark. So I won't. That's great, but then you end up creating your own snarky paintings in the process of encouraging good faith. The idea is that there is normal back and forth communication. Some snark, some agreement, mutual celebration, disagreement, yada yada yada. A whole variety of wonderful sometimes frustrating communication. But if someone wants to get a serious openhearted take from another they should just request it. What I'm hearing you say is that you think opining on the benefits of this as-needed request may possibly be tainted by snarky styles, for example, possibly creating more problems that need to be 'cut through' with such serious treatment. Yes that is possible. Are you suggesting that you prefer the style of offering good faith readings most or all of the time so that you won't create additional opaqueness? If so, that would be new for you wouldn't it? |
|
|
|
Post by maxdprophet on Aug 31, 2016 8:08:39 GMT -5
Yea I'm not convinced you're very interested in good faith readings. Otherwise you would specifically ask which particular post you want treated that way. And if you want your Link Master to do the work, do the work to ask him. I'm very interested in peeps ability to comprehend what they read because selective reading is a misuse of mind that is indicative of unconsciousness, and becoming conscious is extremely important on the spiritual path. I don't point out folks' misreading and interpretation biases just because I want to bicker. I would prefer not to argue with or upset anyone. I agree that selective reading can be frustrating if there are particular salient points that are not being addressed. The expression of that selective reading may be indicative of unconsciousness or just laziness or lack of interest in the rest of the points. And of course when folks point out what they perceive as your misreading and interpretation biases they may do it in an open-hearted way in service to a mutual exploration of becoming conscious. I italicized 'may' in there because it's hard be certain about what motivates folks. In this conversation you are saying that you are continually asking for good faith readings. But when I asked you which particular posts you would like to be read in good faith you demurred for very slight technical reasons. I take this as your lack of interest, which is fine. |
|
|
|
Post by maxdprophet on Aug 31, 2016 8:13:50 GMT -5
 ha! ha! as maxy would say "I resemble that remark" ... in my defense I plead "fire with fire". The difference is, I don't see your snarkiosity as created unconsciously. <insert conscious snark here> |
|
|
|
Post by enigma on Aug 31, 2016 9:50:57 GMT -5
That's great, but then you end up creating your own snarky paintings in the process of encouraging good faith. The idea is that there is normal back and forth communication. Some snark, some agreement, mutual celebration, disagreement, yada yada yada. A whole variety of wonderful sometimes frustrating communication. But if someone wants to get a serious openhearted take from another they should just request it. What I'm hearing you say is that you think opining on the benefits of this as-needed request may possibly be tainted by snarky styles, for example, possibly creating more problems that need to be 'cut through' with such serious treatment. Yes that is possible. Are you suggesting that you prefer the style of offering good faith readings most or all of the time so that you won't create additional opaqueness? If so, that would be new for you wouldn't it? I don't care if good faith readings are "offered". The conversation should make it clear enough whether or not one has been understood. I'm talking about reading in good faith, which just means trying to honestly understand. |
|
|
|
Post by enigma on Aug 31, 2016 9:57:41 GMT -5
I'm very interested in peeps ability to comprehend what they read because selective reading is a misuse of mind that is indicative of unconsciousness, and becoming conscious is extremely important on the spiritual path. I don't point out folks' misreading and interpretation biases just because I want to bicker. I would prefer not to argue with or upset anyone. I agree that selective reading can be frustrating if there are particular salient points that are not being addressed. The expression of that selective reading may be indicative of unconsciousness or just laziness or lack of interest in the rest of the points. And of course when folks point out what they perceive as your misreading and interpretation biases they may do it in an open-hearted way in service to a mutual exploration of becoming conscious. I italicized 'may' in there because it's hard be certain about what motivates folks. In this conversation you are saying that you are continually asking for good faith readings. But when I asked you which particular posts you would like to be read in good faith you demurred for very slight technical reasons. I take this as your lack of interest, which is fine. Read everything in an attempt to honestly understand what's being said and intended. A few years ago I wouldn't have thought it necessary to request that. |
|
|
|
Post by maxdprophet on Aug 31, 2016 11:23:38 GMT -5
The idea is that there is normal back and forth communication. Some snark, some agreement, mutual celebration, disagreement, yada yada yada. A whole variety of wonderful sometimes frustrating communication. But if someone wants to get a serious openhearted take from another they should just request it. What I'm hearing you say is that you think opining on the benefits of this as-needed request may possibly be tainted by snarky styles, for example, possibly creating more problems that need to be 'cut through' with such serious treatment. Yes that is possible. Are you suggesting that you prefer the style of offering good faith readings most or all of the time so that you won't create additional opaqueness? If so, that would be new for you wouldn't it? I don't care if good faith readings are "offered". The conversation should make it clear enough whether or not one has been understood. I'm talking about reading in good faith, which just means trying to honestly understand. Twists and turns.  In this conversation, at least to my understanding, the "reading" part of 'good faith reading' has implicitly referred to how it is expressed, or written. If one asks for a good faith reading it is implied that a reply to that would be a written interpretation or paraphrase. How else would you know if someone does a good faith read unless they write something back to you? Me: Enigma could you give a good faith reading of that? Enigma: Done. Me: So?? Enigma: sew buttons on your underwear...I read it in good faith and understand it perfectly. I agree that the assumption that we are all reading to understand is helpful and sort of a no-brainer, but if the ensuing conversation then shows that it has not been understood, then asking for a 'good faith reading' ( read: a written response demonstrating one's understanding) is exactly the right thing to happen, don't you think? |
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Aug 31, 2016 16:14:00 GMT -5
The difference is, I don't see your snarkiosity as created unconsciously. <insert conscious snark here>  |
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Aug 31, 2016 16:17:54 GMT -5
I agree that selective reading can be frustrating if there are particular salient points that are not being addressed. The expression of that selective reading may be indicative of unconsciousness or just laziness or lack of interest in the rest of the points. And of course when folks point out what they perceive as your misreading and interpretation biases they may do it in an open-hearted way in service to a mutual exploration of becoming conscious. I italicized 'may' in there because it's hard be certain about what motivates folks. In this conversation you are saying that you are continually asking for good faith readings. But when I asked you which particular posts you would like to be read in good faith you demurred for very slight technical reasons. I take this as your lack of interest, which is fine. Read everything in an attempt to honestly understand what's being said and intended. A few years ago I wouldn't have thought it necessary to request that. Yes, it's rather poignant how hard it is to underestimate our fellow man. A good faith reading of what maxy's written in this latest round leads me to opine that he's conflated "good faith reading" with whatever one might mean by "good faith writing". |
|
|
|
Post by enigma on Aug 31, 2016 17:25:46 GMT -5
I don't care if good faith readings are "offered". The conversation should make it clear enough whether or not one has been understood. I'm talking about reading in good faith, which just means trying to honestly understand. Twists and turns. In this conversation, at least to my understanding, the "reading" part of 'good faith reading' has implicitly referred to how it is expressed, or written. If one asks for a good faith reading it is implied that a reply to that would be a written interpretation or paraphrase. How else would you know if someone does a good faith read unless they write something back to you? Me: Enigma could you give a good faith reading of that? Enigma: Done. Me: So?? Enigma: sew buttons on your underwear...I read it in good faith and understand it perfectly. I agree that the assumption that we are all reading to understand is helpful and sort of a no-brainer, but if the ensuing conversation then shows that it has not been understood, then asking for a 'good faith reading' ( read: a written response demonstrating one's understanding) is exactly the right thing to happen, don't you think? Uh, huh. I'm interested in folks trying to understand each other. |
|
|
|
Post by enigma on Aug 31, 2016 17:46:11 GMT -5
Read everything in an attempt to honestly understand what's being said and intended. A few years ago I wouldn't have thought it necessary to request that. Yes, it's rather poignant how hard it is to underestimate our fellow man. A good faith reading of what maxy's written in this latest round leads me to opine that he's conflated "good faith reading" with whatever one might mean by "good faith writing". Sumthin like that. I spose he means 'reading' in the way it's used in 'psychic reading'. |
|
ha! ha! as maxy would say "I resemble that remark" ... in my defense I plead "fire with fire". 
