|
|
Post by figgles on Nov 22, 2015 13:49:26 GMT -5
Didn't you ask her about the statement "It's way deeper than what you are currently able to perceive." with the question "How did you conclude that about me if you did not 'analyse, compare of evaluate' my understanding against your own?" Yes, I did...(with reference to her assertion that she no longer compares or analyses or evaluates writings of others.'..AND with reference after to her assertion that all words that attempt to speak of 'this' are "Lies." ) In order to arrive at the conclusion that I am not perceiving deep enough to understand her, she had to read my words and decipher what they meant. Point being: conversing here involves some degree of comparing, analysing and evaluation and we really cannot get around the written word bit, thus, if we're going to engage, best put that "Lie" biziness aside, and if we do pull it out, perhaps not just use it to augment our own argument. In saying I am not able to perceive deep enough' to grasp her point, I think she is referencing my past assertion that she and Jed were expressing something different when he said: There are two types of consciousness, and she said: They are not different, they are the same. If anything, she was not grasping what McKenna was saying due to 'it being way deeper than what she was currently able to perceive.' His entire book hinges upon the two types of Consciousness...to not be able to see two types, is to miss his message. |
|
|
|
Post by justlikeyou on Nov 22, 2015 13:59:20 GMT -5
Didn't you ask her about the statement "It's way deeper than what you are currently able to perceive." with the question "How did you conclude that about me if you did not 'analyse, compare of evaluate' my understanding against your own?" Yes, I did...(with reference to her assertion that she no longer compares or analyses or evaluates writings of others.'..AND with reference after to her assertion that all words that attempt to speak of 'this' are "Lies." ) In order to arrive at the conclusion that I am not perceiving deep enough to understand her, she had to read my words and decipher what they meant to her and then to compare that to her own understanding. Point being: conversing here involves some degree of comparing, analysing and evaluation and we really cannot get around the written word bit, thus, if we're going to engage, best put that "Lie" biziness aside, and if we do pull it out, perhaps not just use it to augment our own argument. In saying I am not able to perceive deep enough' to grasp her point, she is referencing my past assertion that she and Jed were expressing something different when he said: There are two types of consciousness, and she said: They are not different, they are the same. If anything, she was not grasping what McKenna was saying due to 'it being way deeper than what she was currently able to perceive.' His entire book hinges upon the two types of Consciousness...to not be able to see two types, is to miss his message. I disagree. Conversing here need not to involve comparing, analysis and evaluation. Clarity is clarity in the absence of mentation. |
|
|
|
Post by figgles on Nov 22, 2015 14:09:25 GMT -5
Yes, I did...(with reference to her assertion that she no longer compares or analyses or evaluates writings of others.'..AND with reference after to her assertion that all words that attempt to speak of 'this' are "Lies." ) In order to arrive at the conclusion that I am not perceiving deep enough to understand her, she had to read my words and decipher what they meant to her and then to compare that to her own understanding. Point being: conversing here involves some degree of comparing, analysing and evaluation and we really cannot get around the written word bit, thus, if we're going to engage, best put that "Lie" biziness aside, and if we do pull it out, perhaps not just use it to augment our own argument. In saying I am not able to perceive deep enough' to grasp her point, she is referencing my past assertion that she and Jed were expressing something different when he said: There are two types of consciousness, and she said: They are not different, they are the same. If anything, she was not grasping what McKenna was saying due to 'it being way deeper than what she was currently able to perceive.' His entire book hinges upon the two types of Consciousness...to not be able to see two types, is to miss his message. I disagree. Conversing here need not to involve comparing, analysis and evaluation. Clarity is clarity in the absence of mentation. Having a conversation of disparate viewpoints,....Reading the words of another and understanding their intended meaning happens absent any 'mentation'? Isn't 'mentation' really just 'mental activity'? Doesn't conversing require some degree of that? I say, The very interest to engage in these types of conversations involves one step into mentation...the engaging itself, all sorts of mentation. Clarity though does not require a complete absence of minding or mentation...just an absence of attachment to any particular thought or idea...just awareness of what's happening. Mentation or thought, need not mean an absence of being consciously aware of what's happening with mind. |
|
|
|
Post by enigma on Nov 22, 2015 14:11:44 GMT -5
Hehe...and yet you say this; How did you conclude that about me if you did not 'analyse, compare of evaluate' my understanding against your own? Seems when you question someone else here, words are taken at face value and have a certain validity, and yet when your own words are questioned, suddenly 'all words uttered are a lie'. No doubt, words are an imperfect means to relay these understandings, but particularly on a forum, that's all we got. We make the best of it. I do not have a fixed "theory of everything". She speaks to the difference between conclusions based in mentation and that which is seen in the absence of mentation. Niz: "The discovery of the truth is in the discernment of the false. You can know what is not. What is... you can only be."Zackly. We can see the false for what it is, meaning we can see through illusions. This is mostly because we create them to begin with, and with a bit of witnessing space, we can see that being done. |
|
|
|
Post by figgles on Nov 22, 2015 14:13:27 GMT -5
She speaks to the difference between conclusions based in mentation and that which is seen in the absence of mentation. Niz: "The discovery of the truth is in the discernment of the false. You can know what is not. What is... you can only be."Zackly. We can see the false for what it is, meaning we can see through illusions. This is mostly because we create them to begin with, and with a bit of witnessing space, we can see that being done. But do you or do you not agree that conversing here on the forum, reading someone's post and responding with your own, DOES involve some degree of mental activity?...even 'comparing, and analysing & evaluating? mental activity is not the enemy of clarity. And considering your take on meditation, you of all, should see this. |
|
|
|
Post by justlikeyou on Nov 22, 2015 14:25:56 GMT -5
I disagree. Conversing here need not to involve comparing, analysis and evaluation. Clarity is clarity in the absence of mentation. Having a conversation of disparate viewpoints,....Reading the words of another and understanding their intended meaning happens absent any 'mentation'? Isn't 'mentation' really just 'mental activity'? Doesn't conversing require some degree of that? I say, The very interest to engage in these types of conversations involves one step into mentation...the engaging itself, all sorts of mentation. Clarity though does not require a complete absence of minding or mentation...just an absence of attachment to any particular thought or idea...just awareness of what's happening. Mentation or thought, need not mean an absence of being consciously aware of what's happening with mind. That's interesting. You've apparently never experienced the flow of words from your mouth that teach your ears, or the typing of words that teach your eyes. |
|
|
|
Post by enigma on Nov 22, 2015 14:26:32 GMT -5
Zackly. We can see the false for what it is, meaning we can see through illusions. This is mostly because we create them to begin with, and with a bit of witnessing space, we can see that being done. But do you or do you not agree that conversing here on the forum, reading someone's post and responding with your own, DOES involve some degree of mental activity?...even 'comparing, and analysing & evaluating? Absotively. While 'looking' and 'seeing' is effortless, translating that seeing into words engages mind and can be quite challenging, and engaging the thoughts of others can be downright laborious for mind. Hehe. |
|
|
|
Post by enigma on Nov 22, 2015 14:28:52 GMT -5
Having a conversation of disparate viewpoints,....Reading the words of another and understanding their intended meaning happens absent any 'mentation'? Isn't 'mentation' really just 'mental activity'? Doesn't conversing require some degree of that? I say, The very interest to engage in these types of conversations involves one step into mentation...the engaging itself, all sorts of mentation. Clarity though does not require a complete absence of minding or mentation...just an absence of attachment to any particular thought or idea...just awareness of what's happening. Mentation or thought, need not mean an absence of being consciously aware of what's happening with mind. That's interesting. You've apparently never experienced the flow of words from your mouth that teach your ears, or the typing of words that teach your eyes. Are we talking channeling and automatic writing now?  |
|
|
|
Post by figgles on Nov 22, 2015 14:31:49 GMT -5
Having a conversation of disparate viewpoints,....Reading the words of another and understanding their intended meaning happens absent any 'mentation'? Isn't 'mentation' really just 'mental activity'? Doesn't conversing require some degree of that? I say, The very interest to engage in these types of conversations involves one step into mentation...the engaging itself, all sorts of mentation. Clarity though does not require a complete absence of minding or mentation...just an absence of attachment to any particular thought or idea...just awareness of what's happening. Mentation or thought, need not mean an absence of being consciously aware of what's happening with mind. That's interesting. You've apparently never experienced the flow of words from your mouth that teach your ears, or the typing of words that teach your eyes. Oh I have...I've written songs and lyrics for many years now....poetry since i was a wee one, and have experienced writing pages upon pages that I seemed to have no personal part in. having a conversation with someone on a forum though, falls into a different category. It involves reading their words and often 'interpreting them'....I'll admit I don't always understand what someone means...so I will read the words and turn them over a few times, to see if I am actually garnering what they say, and then the formulation of a response often involves some reflection and perhaps some evaluating so see if I am actually addressing their point. As I said to E, mental activity is not the enemy of Clarity. A conversation in my estimation always involves some degree of mental acitivity....perhaps we simply define 'mental acitivity' differently though...I dunno. |
|
|
|
Post by justlikeyou on Nov 22, 2015 14:36:57 GMT -5
That's interesting. You've apparently never experienced the flow of words from your mouth that teach your ears, or the typing of words that teach your eyes. Oh I have...I've written songs and lyrics for many years now....poetry since i was a wee one, and have experienced writing pages upon pages that I seemed to have no personal part in. having a conversation with someone on a forum though, falls into a different category. It involves reading their words and often 'interpreting them'....I'll admit I don't always understand what someone means...so I will read the words and turn them over a few times, to see if I am actually garnering what they say, and then the formulation of a response often involves some reflection and perhaps some evaluating so see if I am actually addressing their point. As I said to E, mental activity is not the enemy of Clarity. A conversation in my estimation always involves some degree of mental acitivity....perhaps we simply define 'mental acitivity' differently though...I dunno. That's your belief? |
|
|
|
Post by figgles on Nov 22, 2015 14:40:06 GMT -5
Oh I have...I've written songs and lyrics for many years now....poetry since i was a wee one, and have experienced writing pages upon pages that I seemed to have no personal part in. having a conversation with someone on a forum though, falls into a different category. It involves reading their words and often 'interpreting them'....I'll admit I don't always understand what someone means...so I will read the words and turn them over a few times, to see if I am actually garnering what they say, and then the formulation of a response often involves some reflection and perhaps some evaluating so see if I am actually addressing their point. As I said to E, mental activity is not the enemy of Clarity. A conversation in my estimation always involves some degree of mental acitivity....perhaps we simply define 'mental acitivity' differently though...I dunno. That's your belief?More of an experience. The level of mental activity can readily be seen if I look when conversing through written word....not so much when writing poetry or other 'flow-type' writing. |
|
|
|
Post by justlikeyou on Nov 22, 2015 14:45:16 GMT -5
More of an experience. The level of mental activity can readily be seen if I look when conversing through written word....not so much when writing poetry or other 'flow-type' writing. And you believe that it is impossible for anyone here to converse here without comparing, analysing and evaluating? |
|
|
|
Post by figgles on Nov 22, 2015 14:48:06 GMT -5
That's interesting. You've apparently never experienced the flow of words from your mouth that teach your ears, or the typing of words that teach your eyes. Are we talking channeling and automatic writing now? Yes, laugh as you likely will  , my experience with such very much describes with JLY is talking about...and I'm betting you can relate his words to your own poetry writing...where words and more importantly, a message, quite literally just seem to 'pour' forth on it's own accord, absent mentation about it. But yeah, conversations on a forum, a DO require mental activity, and even then, we often don't grasp what the other is getting at.  |
|
|
|
Post by figgles on Nov 22, 2015 14:53:31 GMT -5
More of an experience. The level of mental activity can readily be seen if I look when conversing through written word....not so much when writing poetry or other 'flow-type' writing. And you believe that it is impossible for anyone here to converse here without comparing, analysing and evaluating? If I am reading another's words to conclude that they have not gone deep enough to see what I am saying, I do not see how that could happen without some degree of mental activity. There is comparison involved in saying 'what your words indicate to me, that you see, is different from what I see and what I am saying. There is analysis and evaluation involved in reading the words of another to denote their meaning. All conversations where viewpoints are being shared and then commented upon in terms of whether there is agreement or disagreement, resonance or not, involve some degree of evaluation and comparison. A mind that is devoid of all thought, would not be interested in whether there was agreement or not. That very interest to read another's words and say whether they 'get' what we are saying or not, indicates a certain degree of mental activity. |
|
|
|
Post by justlikeyou on Nov 22, 2015 14:58:51 GMT -5
And you believe that it is impossible for anyone here to converse here without comparing, analysing and evaluating? If I am reading another's words to conclude that they have not gone deep enough to see what I am saying, I do not see how that could happen without some degree of mental activity. There is comparison involved in saying 'what your words indicate to me, that you see, is different from what I see and what I am saying. There is analysis and evaluation involved in reading the words of another to denote their meaning. All conversations where viewpoints are being shared and then commented upon in terms of whether there is agreement or disagreement, resonance or not, involve some degree of evaluation and comparison. A mind that is devoid of all thought, would not be interested in whether there was agreement or not. That very interest to read another's words and say whether they 'get' what we are saying or not, indicates a certain degree of mental activity. I read your post and I did not have to do any mentating to see clearly that it is full of limiting beliefs. But its all good. We can agree to disagree. |
|
, my experience with such very much describes with JLY is talking about...and I'm betting you can relate his words to your own poetry writing...where words and more importantly, a message, quite literally just seem to 'pour' forth on it's own accord, absent mentation about it. 