Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
quotes
Oct 15, 2021 19:24:51 GMT -5
via mobile
Post by Deleted on Oct 15, 2021 19:24:51 GMT -5
Only if you're a domesticated fern. I think that the original quote, and the short exchange that followed, point to a fact of life: how do you use what your perceive to intuit other knowledge. The mistake we make is to rely too much on rationalizations, on meaningless generalizations that sound right. We don't generally know how to access our intuition. Even more, most of the time we lose focus on our intent. Gurus and well meaning people confuse us while sometimes having good intentions. All I had was intuition as I began my enquired so I must be outside your WE brother. Should one realise their intuition, it would be foolish to consider collecting others information to appease their ego.
|
|
|
Post by Reefs on Nov 4, 2021 5:01:04 GMT -5
“Kindly let me help you or you will drown,” said the monkey putting the fish safely up a tree.
- Alan Watts
|
|
|
quotes
Nov 4, 2021 11:58:36 GMT -5
Post by inavalan on Nov 4, 2021 11:58:36 GMT -5
“Kindly let me help you or you will drown,” said the monkey putting the fish safely up a tree. - Alan Watts
|
|
|
quotes
Dec 16, 2021 22:54:06 GMT -5
Post by Reefs on Dec 16, 2021 22:54:06 GMT -5
"If man makes himself a worm he must not complain when he is trodden on."
Immanuel Kant
|
|
|
quotes
Dec 17, 2021 0:44:34 GMT -5
Post by inavalan on Dec 17, 2021 0:44:34 GMT -5
"If man makes himself a worm he must not complain when he is trodden on." Immanuel Kant It is interesting how everybody interprets differently the same input ... When I first read this quote, a vague thought came to my mind on the lines ... Reefs might be in a darker mood about (some) people. Then I checked en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Immanuel_Kant, as I have the impression that it is a more reliable source, as it provides the source of those quotes, as @laughtat likes them. Wer sich aber zum Wurm macht, kann nachher nicht klagen, dass er mit Füßen getreten wird.per google automatic translation: 'But anyone who turns himself into a worm cannot complain afterwards that he has been trampled underfoot'. 'However, he who makes himself a worm cannot complain afterwards that he gets stepped on.' --- Part two: Metaphysical Principles of Virtue page 98. These two translations say pretty much the same as @reef's quoted version, with slightly different emphasis. I browsed a few more of Kant's quotes, and I felt the need to check that I remembered correctly the period he lived: Immanuel Kant (22 April 1724 – 12 February 1804), born Emanuel Kant, was a German philosopher. Now, the "worm ... trodden on" got a little different flavor, that would flung the woke test and would bring Kant's statue down (to me, wokeness is stupidity unleashed). Then I looked up at others' interpretations of this quote: linkOne's opinion ( link): Victimhood Kant warns against playing too hard the victim card. Indulging in the pleasures and gains that can be brought on by servility inevitably leads to unwanted negative consequences:
'One who makes himself a worm cannot complain afterwards if people step on him.' Another's ( link): How Reading Kant As A Teen Changed My Life After reading Kant’s Answering The Question, I felt as though he had welcomed me into a place where curiosity was celebrated. Kant pleaded everyone to continue to strive for knowledge, reason and understanding in a world that so often prefers to ignore it. Reading about Kant’s enthusiasm for knowledge made me feel less alone. As a result, I became increasingly more comfortable in my own skin and started to slowly build up my self-esteem. This lesson in self-love from Kant was simple: stop searching for approval and you will find respect. As he wisely affirms,
‘One who makes himself a worm cannot complain afterwards if people step on him.’
That, then, became my mission: to be comfortable with myself, my likes and dislikes, and to continue being the bookworm I had always been without fearing judgement from others This interpretation was amusing / ridiculous to me.
My spiritual view of reality ... It is immature to dismiss 'worms' and give the word a pejorative meaning (like Hilary's 'deplorable' view of people). Thinking about yourself or about another in terms of 'worm' suggests a misunderstanding of reality, of what we are and of why we are here. One is a 'worm' (pejoratively put) only in the reality in which it is created so by the perceiver (be it about perceiving oneself or another). Bottom line ... In spite of my spiritual views, it happens sometimes that my emotions get the better of me when I hear / read some contemporaries. Surely, it isn't their fault.
|
|
|
quotes
Dec 18, 2021 0:39:18 GMT -5
Post by Reefs on Dec 18, 2021 0:39:18 GMT -5
"If man makes himself a worm he must not complain when he is trodden on." Immanuel Kant It is interesting how everybody interprets differently the same input ... When I first read this quote, a vague thought came to my mind on the lines ... Reefs might be in a darker mood about (some) people. Then I checked en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Immanuel_Kant, as I have the impression that it is a more reliable source, as it provides the source of those quotes, as @laughtat likes them. Wer sich aber zum Wurm macht, kann nachher nicht klagen, dass er mit Füßen getreten wird.per google automatic translation: 'But anyone who turns himself into a worm cannot complain afterwards that he has been trampled underfoot'. 'However, he who makes himself a worm cannot complain afterwards that he gets stepped on.' --- Part two: Metaphysical Principles of Virtue page 98. These two translations say pretty much the same as @reef's quoted version, with slightly different emphasis. I browsed a few more of Kant's quotes, and I felt the need to check that I remembered correctly the period he lived: Immanuel Kant (22 April 1724 – 12 February 1804), born Emanuel Kant, was a German philosopher. Now, the "worm ... trodden on" got a little different flavor, that would flung the woke test and would bring Kant's statue down (to me, wokeness is stupidity unleashed). Then I looked up at others' interpretations of this quote: linkOne's opinion ( link): Victimhood Kant warns against playing too hard the victim card. Indulging in the pleasures and gains that can be brought on by servility inevitably leads to unwanted negative consequences:
'One who makes himself a worm cannot complain afterwards if people step on him.' Another's ( link): How Reading Kant As A Teen Changed My Life After reading Kant’s Answering The Question, I felt as though he had welcomed me into a place where curiosity was celebrated. Kant pleaded everyone to continue to strive for knowledge, reason and understanding in a world that so often prefers to ignore it. Reading about Kant’s enthusiasm for knowledge made me feel less alone. As a result, I became increasingly more comfortable in my own skin and started to slowly build up my self-esteem. This lesson in self-love from Kant was simple: stop searching for approval and you will find respect. As he wisely affirms,
‘One who makes himself a worm cannot complain afterwards if people step on him.’
That, then, became my mission: to be comfortable with myself, my likes and dislikes, and to continue being the bookworm I had always been without fearing judgement from others This interpretation was amusing / ridiculous to me.
My spiritual view of reality ... It is immature to dismiss 'worms' and give the word a pejorative meaning (like Hilary's 'deplorable' view of people). Thinking about yourself or about another in terms of 'worm' suggests a misunderstanding of reality, of what we are and of why we are here. One is a 'worm' (pejoratively put) only in the reality in which it is created so by the perceiver (be it about perceiving oneself or another). Bottom line ... In spite of my spiritual views, it happens sometimes that my emotions get the better of me when I hear / read some contemporaries. Surely, it isn't their fault. TMT. It just means, if you behave like a doormat, then expect to be stepped on and don't complain about it. It always takes two to tango.
|
|
|
quotes
Dec 18, 2021 0:41:40 GMT -5
Post by Reefs on Dec 18, 2021 0:41:40 GMT -5
"In the gap between subject and object lies the entire misery of humankind."
Jiddu Krishnamurti
|
|
|
quotes
Dec 19, 2021 1:56:08 GMT -5
Post by inavalan on Dec 19, 2021 1:56:08 GMT -5
"In the gap between subject and object lies the entire misery of humankind." Jiddu Krishnamurti I interpret this quote to mean: If you realized that what you think as objective existence is your subjective creation, your misery would sublimate. Surely, it isn't enough to know it (intellectually), you have to believe it. Ames illusion.
|
|
|
quotes
Dec 19, 2021 10:53:34 GMT -5
Post by Reefs on Dec 19, 2021 10:53:34 GMT -5
"In the gap between subject and object lies the entire misery of humankind." Jiddu Krishnamurti I interpret this quote to mean: If you realized that what you think as objective existence is your subjective creation, your misery would sublimate. Surely, it isn't enough to know it (intellectually), you have to believe it. Ames illusion. It's an out of context quote, of course. But I take it to be in the context of thingness/suchness, separation/oneness, not in the context of deliberate creation. Because the root cause of misery or existential suffering is the belief in separation, which in practical terms means being stuck on the level of thingness, the subject-object split. Which means as long as you perceive in terms of the creator and the created, or even Source and extensions of Source, you've still got the subject-object split going. It's tricky to talk about this because language, in order to be intelligible, demands the subject-object format. So there's no way of understanding or explaining this intellectually. It has to be seen, directly, from a position that is prior to the subject-object format, i.e. prior to a 'me here' vs. 'this there' way of perception. And when that happens, then you know that separation was just a bogus belief. But that's a different kind of knowing than knowing your name or phone number or even knowing that you are male or female.
|
|
|
quotes
Dec 19, 2021 13:38:39 GMT -5
Post by laughter on Dec 19, 2021 13:38:39 GMT -5
I interpret this quote to mean: If you realized that what you think as objective existence is your subjective creation, your misery would sublimate. Surely, it isn't enough to know it (intellectually), you have to believe it. Ames illusion. It's an out of context quote, of course. But I take it to be in the context of thingness/suchness, separation/oneness, not in the context of deliberate creation. Because the root cause of misery or existential suffering is the belief in separation, which in practical terms means being stuck on the level of thingness, the subject-object split. Which means as long as you perceive in terms of the creator and the created, or even Source and extensions of Source, you've still got the subject-object split going. It's tricky to talk about this because language, in order to be intelligible, demands the subject-object format. So there's no way of understanding or explaining this intellectually. It has to be seen, directly, from a position that is prior to the subject-object format, i.e. prior to a 'me here' vs. 'this there' way of perception. And when that happens, then you know that separation was just a bogus belief. But that's a different kind of knowing than knowing your name or phone number or even knowing that you are male or female. "Between the two, my life flows". Er .. um .. just knot, in misery. So much.
|
|
|
quotes
Dec 19, 2021 14:22:09 GMT -5
Post by inavalan on Dec 19, 2021 14:22:09 GMT -5
It's an out of context quote, of course. But I take it to be in the context of thingness/suchness, separation/oneness, not in the context of deliberate creation. Because the root cause of misery or existential suffering is the belief in separation, which in practical terms means being stuck on the level of thingness, the subject-object split. Which means as long as you perceive in terms of the creator and the created, or even Source and extensions of Source, you've still got the subject-object split going. It's tricky to talk about this because language, in order to be intelligible, demands the subject-object format. So there's no way of understanding or explaining this intellectually. It has to be seen, directly, from a position that is prior to the subject-object format, i.e. prior to a 'me here' vs. 'this there' way of perception. And when that happens, then you know that separation was just a bogus belief. But that's a different kind of knowing than knowing your name or phone number or even knowing that you are male or female. "Between the two, my life flows". Er .. um .. just knot, in misery. So much. Many live in mental misery without realizing it. Is it better? Is it worse?
|
|
|
quotes
Dec 19, 2021 20:09:38 GMT -5
Post by laughter on Dec 19, 2021 20:09:38 GMT -5
"Between the two, my life flows". Er .. um .. just knot, in misery. So much. Many live in mental misery without realizing it. Is it better? Is it worse? From what I can tell it runs along a spectrum like anything else. Seems to me most people are conscious, to one degree or another, to some measure of at least dissatisfaction with their lives. There are, of course, those on one end of another extreme from this middle. People so lost in self-deception as to be completely unconscious of a deep state of misery. This is how I described it, at the time when existential dread lifted for good - very suddenly, and quite unexpected. Yeah. Worse don't really cover it. Doesn't even touch it.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 5, 2022 8:09:14 GMT -5
Elle est retrouvée. Quoi ? L'éternité. C'est la mer allée Avec le soleil.
~ Jean-Nicolas-Arthur Rimbaud.
|
|
|
Post by zin on Aug 1, 2022 17:40:13 GMT -5
I am reading a book 'the Observing Self' by a psychiatrist, Arthur Deikman. I liked the pond analogy, it indirectly answers one of my questions, "why do I exist?".. It's good for me at least for today.
"The senses and intellect provide content: sounds, vision, touch, ideas, memories, fantasies. But the observing self is outside content and thus outside intellect and sensation. It follows that a different type of knowing is involved, one we must designate as intuitive, or direct, knowing - knowing by being that which is known. We are awareness, and that is why we cannot observe it; we cannot detach ourselves from it because it is the core experience of self.
I will use an analogy to illustrate how direct knowing might take place and what its relationship to ordinary thought could be. Consider a pond that borders on and is continuous with the ocean. Our awareness, the observing self, is the surface of the pond. Thoughts, feelings, and other mental activities are like splashes and ripples in the water, as if small stones were being tossed in from the shore. When such activity subsides, the pond is smooth, still, and reflective; at such times the observing self is enhanced, becomes prominent, and is the major dimension of consciousness. (.....)
When the water becomes still, and the quiet extends to a sufficient depth, the pond begins to resonate with the longer phase pulsations originating from the ocean [God]. When stillness and activity are in proper balance, the state of the pond reflects the subtle rhythms that are ordinarily obscured and confused by surface ripples.
Using such a model, we can understand how unconsciousness and death would affect awareness. When all activity ceases completely, awareness cannot be known intellectually in the particular locale (the pond) that is the individual person because there would be no localizing activity at all."
|
|
|
quotes
Aug 1, 2022 19:43:21 GMT -5
Post by stardustpilgrim on Aug 1, 2022 19:43:21 GMT -5
I am reading a book 'the Observing Self' by a psychiatrist, Arthur Deikman. I liked the pond analogy, it indirectly answers one of my questions, "why do I exist?".. It's good for me at least for today.
"The senses and intellect provide content: sounds, vision, touch, ideas, memories, fantasies. But the observing self is outside content and thus outside intellect and sensation. It follows that a different type of knowing is involved, one we must designate as intuitive, or direct, knowing - knowing by being that which is known. We are awareness, and that is why we cannot observe it; we cannot detach ourselves from it because it is the core experience of self.
I will use an analogy to illustrate how direct knowing might take place and what its relationship to ordinary thought could be. Consider a pond that borders on and is continuous with the ocean. Our awareness, the observing self, is the surface of the pond. Thoughts, feelings, and other mental activities are like splashes and ripples in the water, as if small stones were being tossed in from the shore. When such activity subsides, the pond is smooth, still, and reflective; at such times the observing self is enhanced, becomes prominent, and is the major dimension of consciousness. (.....)
When the water becomes still, and the quiet extends to a sufficient depth, the pond begins to resonate with the longer phase pulsations originating from the ocean [God]. When stillness and activity are in proper balance, the state of the pond reflects the subtle rhythms that are ordinarily obscured and confused by surface ripples.
Using such a model, we can understand how unconsciousness and death would affect awareness. When all activity ceases completely, awareness cannot be known intellectually in the particular locale (the pond) that is the individual person because there would be no localizing activity at all."
Nice (all nice). I'm going to borrow.
|
|