|
|
Post by quinn on Jan 26, 2016 20:07:29 GMT -5
kind of form scenes from a kaleidoscope : ) (this may sound unserious but it's not so for me!  ) .. I mean I can't talk about meditation, I am so new to it, but what I see about 'being' here reminds me of Rumi's words "Your hand opens and closes and opens and closes/ If it were always a fist or always stretched open, you would be paralyzed/ Your deepest presence is in every small contracting and expanding"... Also, the totality of life on the planet on that day may be effective, too (who knows!!) Thank you for your answer : ) Lovely, Zin. Thank you. |
|
|
|
Post by quinn on Jan 26, 2016 20:21:57 GMT -5
Then my interpretation of what you mean by split mind is off. I could have sworn your main point was that there really isn't a split. Which reads to me the same as "see what you are doing with the mind" (i.e. creating an imaginary split). The split mind conversation is starting to go in circles and I'm losing interest. Yes, we're saying the same thing. Sorry. No problem.  |
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Jan 26, 2016 20:58:06 GMT -5
 It was an exaggeration to highlight the distinction -- that figgle had smeared as a dwad -- between a peep successfully employing will power and control, on one hand, and the genuine absence of internal struggle on the other. Her basis for equating the two was that the outcome is the same. It was easy to see and express how it isn't the same because the assumed outcome was the fulfillment of a desire. Any gains had from the absence of internal conflict are, of course, secondary to that absence, which isn't the result of any such fulfillment. Yeah, winning the battle isn't the same as walking off the battlefield. And there really is no winning/losing cuz mind is fighting both sides of the battle anyhoo.  |
|
|
|
Post by enigma on Jan 26, 2016 22:00:18 GMT -5
I don't know what philosophy or Nihilism or Neti-Neti has to do with split mind. Oh, c’mon, e…Love me like one of your double standards. Double standards?  You're not making any sense. Are you okay? |
|
|
|
Post by enigma on Jan 26, 2016 22:03:25 GMT -5
All mind games are unconscious. That's what makes them work. Oh....I'm confused then as to your stance on this. am I wrong or did you at one time poo-poo the idea of 'unconscious' as it applied to habits...?  Habits are unconscious programs. |
|
|
|
Post by figgles on Jan 26, 2016 23:31:01 GMT -5
Well, yes, you did, as I already explained previously in just a few posts back before, so this is a redundant repeat of something written then, appearing again, now: [quote/Figgles: Whether we call it 'will power, surrender, or choosing one behavior over another' it's still about one desire/preference/intent outweighing another... Again, The "It" I am referring to there was not actual will power, just the appearance of such...I was using your own terminology to respond back to you to essentially say "it doesn't matter what we denote as being behind an outcome of cessation of smoking when one is trying to quit....it may look like 'will power, surrender, choosing, but fundamental to any of that is really just one desire winning out over another. Desires outweighing other desires has absolutely nothing to do with will power. The point I was really making there was about intensity/heirarchy of desire trumping anything that could ever be done in any given moment by the individual. If one desire in any given moment is top dog, it's gonna win out in terms of what behavior ensues...regardless of how strong one may believe their will power is. I tried a few times..I really did...it just didn't compute. ....at no point was I suggesting that will power played a part in the cessation of a habit..rather, I was attempting to make the point that intensity of desire is what determines what behavior will manifest. Okay, Yes. I was asking E a question re: his thoughts on the matter...from a position of having stated my own. For the record; Regardless of what words I used there, I do not equate the use of will power with surrender. |
|
|
|
Post by figgles on Jan 26, 2016 23:57:14 GMT -5
Oh....I'm confused then as to your stance on this. am I wrong or did you at one time poo-poo the idea of 'unconscious' as it applied to habits...? Habits are unconscious programs. ...Yes, agreed, and being consciously aware of the purpose the habit has been serving (self soothing in most cases) and in engaging in the behavior consciously if the desire to engage should arise, the habitual aspect of the behavior falls away. I've always said that if one could smoke, or eat, (even 3 pieces of cake sometimes), drink, suck their thumb, chew their nails, whatever, fully conscious of all aspects inherent in the behavior as they engaged, the sense of feeling compelled towards that behavior/activity would fall away. Thus, it is very possible one can eat whatever they desire to eat, and not get fat...and smoke when they feel like smoking and not have it become a compulsion, etc, etc. |
|
|
|
Post by figgles on Jan 27, 2016 0:47:06 GMT -5
Yeah, winning the battle isn't the same as walking off the battlefield. And there really is no winning/losing cuz mind is fighting both sides of the battle anyhoo. Don't worry....So long as experience continues to be....in that, there will continue to be carrots. |
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Jan 27, 2016 1:00:48 GMT -5
Don't worry....So long as experience continues to be....in that, there will continue to be carrots. Sure but in the absence of illusion there's never any wishing or hope for one that didn't grow out of the ground and has only one end to it.  |
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Jan 27, 2016 1:15:20 GMT -5
Well, yes, you did, as I already explained previously in just a few posts back before, so this is a redundant repeat of something written then, appearing again, now: [quote/Figgles: Whether we call it 'will power, surrender, or choosing one behavior over another' it's still about one desire/preference/intent outweighing another... Again, The "It" I am referring to there was not actual will power, just the appearance of such...I was using your own terminology to respond back to you to essentially say "it doesn't matter what we denote as being behind an outcome of cessation of smoking when one is trying to quit....it may look like 'will power, surrender, choosing, but fundamental to any of that is really just one desire winning out over another. Right, you saw an appearance that is the same thing no matter what we call it, but what I was pointing out was a fine distinction. In one case, the internal resistance is active, in the other it's not. In both cases, the outcome is the same: a cigarette not smoked. You keep on mistaking that for the satisfaction of desire in both instances. It's not. It's only the case in the absence of genuine surrender. Desires outweighing other desires has absolutely nothing to do with will power. The point I was really making there was about intensity/heirarchy of desire trumping anything that could ever be done in any given moment by the individual. If one desire in any given moment is top dog, it's gonna win out in terms of what behavior ensues...regardless of how strong one may believe their will power is. Sure it can. A person can concentrate and exert will and that can work for a time. They can lose weight or work harder or whatever for awhile before that concentration fades or they get distracted or something unexpected comes up. The underlined is a tautology .. and tautologies are essentially meaningless. I tried a few times..I really did...it just didn't compute. It's because you want what I originally wrote about surrender and will power to mean what you initially misunderstood it to mean. I've already explained that there's a fine distinction involved. If you really want to understand it better, you'll go back to that post and explain exactly what you didn't understand about it. The rest of what you're putting in front of me here is just alot of needless argumentative morphing. ....at no point was I suggesting that will power played a part in the cessation of a habit..rather, I was attempting to make the point that intensity of desire is what determines what behavior will manifest. .. and again, you don't acknowledge that the root of our dialog was your question about control. Your point about the intensity of desire is peripheral to this dialog, which was centered on that interest. Okay, Yes. I was asking E a question re: his thoughts on the matter...from a position of having stated my own. For the record; Regardless of what words I used there, I do not equate the use of will power with surrender. But the thing is that the appearance of successful will power is really nothing other than surrender in disguise. That's why there's really no suggesting that self-control is involved when, in the absence of internal struggle, the choice that corresponds to the stronger desire is made. The fulfillment or thwarting of that desire is something that happens after the fact, is conditional, and dependent on conditions. The absence of the split in the moment of decision isn't either conditioned or conditional. It's ... well, you know .. an absence. |
|
|
|
Post by enigma on Jan 27, 2016 1:27:13 GMT -5
Habits are unconscious programs. ...Yes, agreed, and being consciously aware of the purpose the habit has been serving (self soothing in most cases) and in engaging in the behavior consciously if the desire to engage should arise, the habitual aspect of the behavior falls away.
I've always said that if one could smoke, or eat, (even 3 pieces of cake sometimes), drink, suck their thumb, chew their nails, whatever, fully conscious of all aspects inherent in the behavior as they engaged, the sense of feeling compelled towards that behavior/activity would fall away. Thus, it is very possible one can eat whatever they desire to eat, and not get fat...and smoke when they feel like smoking and not have it become a compulsion, etc, etc. The compulsive aspect, yes. The split mind is about plausible deniability. One must feel compelled to do something one pretends he does not really want to do. |
|
|
|
Post by enigma on Jan 27, 2016 1:31:22 GMT -5
Don't worry....So long as experience continues to be....in that, there will continue to be carrots. Sure but in the absence of illusion there's never any wishing or hope for one that didn't grow out of the ground and has only one end to it. Yes, the price of freedom is all those delusion based carrots....except MTV, of course. BTW, I like the meataphor of the two ended carrot. |
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Jan 27, 2016 1:45:53 GMT -5
Sure but in the absence of illusion there's never any wishing or hope for one that didn't grow out of the ground and has only one end to it. Yes, the price of freedom is all those delusion based carrots....except MTV, of course. BTW, I like the meataphor of the two ended carrot.  |
|
|
|
Post by figgles on Jan 27, 2016 11:54:49 GMT -5
Don't worry....So long as experience continues to be....in that, there will continue to be carrots. Sure but in the absence of illusion there's never any wishing or hope for one that didn't grow out of the ground and has only one end to it. I'm just talking 'bout regular carrots. |
|
|
|
Post by figgles on Jan 27, 2016 12:27:46 GMT -5
Right, you saw an appearance that is the same thing no matter what we call it, but what I was pointing out was a fine distinction. In one case, the internal resistance is active, in the other it's not. In both cases, the outcome is the same: a cigarette not smoked. I could also (likely would have been better if I had) said; Regardless of how one gets there, if/when the smoking habit truly ceases to be, fundamental to that is the fact that the desire to self soothe through that behavior lost it's intensity to a greater desire/want/intent...in some cases that desire/intent just might be 'to be free' of all need to be dependent upon conditions to self soothe. Keep in mind context here; we were talking about the presence of a habit, wanting to end that habit and the eventual cessation of that habit. Surrender may indeed have played a part in the cessation of your own smoking habit, but if you try to tell me there was no sense of satisfaction involved at all in the end result of that cessation, or even now as you look back, I'd question that. If that is what happens, (an experience of exerting will), then that too is reflective of the 'top' or presiding desire. If I am experiencing exerting my will to refrain from eating a third slice of cake, it is because there's a strong desire there not to eat cake. The experience of 'will power' arises via desire. The sense of having to 'exert will' just means that the desire to eat cake, is a close second. If the will power seems to fade, it's just that the desire that gave rise to that, waned and the desire to eat or whatever, gained in intensity. Nope. I find Your thinking processes and how you express them, are at times difficult to follow. We've been down this road before. I asked the question to E about control from a position of already clearly seeing myself, that it is always the top desire that wins out, not the application of will power or control that somehow lies contrary to desire. I wanted to see if he saw it that way too (I am not getting that he does)... my point being; Control or exertion of will may be what it looks like on the surface of things, or what is experienced, but underneath that, is the playing out, unfolding of, the fulfillment of the reigning desire. |
|
).. I mean I can't talk about meditation, I am so new to it, but what I see about 'being' here reminds me of Rumi's words "Your hand opens and closes and opens and closes/ If it were always a fist or always stretched open, you would be paralyzed/ Your deepest presence is in every small contracting and expanding"... Also, the totality of life on the planet on that day may be effective, too (who knows!!) Thank you for your answer : )
It was an exaggeration to highlight the distinction -- that figgle had smeared as a dwad -- between a peep successfully employing will power and control, on one hand, and the genuine absence of internal struggle on the other. Her basis for equating the two was that the outcome is the same. It was easy to see and express how it isn't the same because the assumed outcome was the fulfillment of a desire. Any gains had from the absence of internal conflict are, of course, secondary to that absence, which isn't the result of any such fulfillment. 
