|
|
Post by enigma on May 8, 2016 0:05:51 GMT -5
That idea is too far down the bunny hole for me to deal with.  Those don't work. The dang batteries fail before I get to the bottom of the hole.  |
|
|
|
Post by enigma on May 8, 2016 0:07:59 GMT -5
 It's actually the same way one feels victimized by a monkey mind that is just following one's interest in the thoughts. It becomes an 'involuntary' mind. Or the way one feels in a dissatisfying relationship or a job they don't like. I got familiar with the idea of a "default mode network" from causally reading watching Gary Weber. The default mode is split mind.  Sounds right, which explains why most peeps don't recognize the split mind. |
|
|
|
Post by enigma on May 8, 2016 0:26:56 GMT -5
sorry, but again, it just sounds like arguing for the sake of arguing. I'm not sure what the issue is anymore. Really? It sounds like a perfectly viable explanation to me. Issue is how we frame 'responsibility' in order to give it meaning. For example, I'm sure "I wish people would take responsibility for what they think", was in some way a meaningful statement. You're saying Tenka has been talking about that? |
|
|
|
Post by andrew on May 8, 2016 2:59:25 GMT -5
yes, the same way that a born again Christians realizes that God is the Truth. I'm not saying your wrong about Oneness, but it's not 'the truth', it's just what you know/believe to be true. Same as me to be clear. So it's only a broader context than 'responsibility' IF it is true. IF it is true, (it is) then it's a broader context that donald trumps the smaller context of responsibility, which isn't really true. Even if that larger context is true, it still doesn't make it REALLY true, it's still just a contextual truth. Do you see that? But yes, that larger context would trump the smaller context. |
|
|
|
Post by andrew on May 8, 2016 3:00:40 GMT -5
I'm not following you there, but I see you have underlined that bit, so I'll expand. Seeking isn't suffering, but what a seeker of enlightenment is often told, is that seeking IS suffering. So then a seeker seeks to stop seeking and they suffer because they are in an argument with the nature of the organism. Seeking happens and is non-problematic, but attachment to the outcome OF seeking is likely to cause suffering. I'm saying the 'cause' of seeking is often suffering, so I wouldn't say there's no suffering in seeking. the cause of seeking enlightenment/SR is often suffering, yes. |
|
|
|
Post by lolly on May 8, 2016 3:12:37 GMT -5
Really? It sounds like a perfectly viable explanation to me. Issue is how we frame 'responsibility' in order to give it meaning. For example, I'm sure "I wish people would take responsibility for what they think", was in some way a meaningful statement. You're saying Tenka has been talking about that? I'm pointing out that 'responsibility' is a meaningful concept when used in the relevant context, and demonstrating that you also use it in that manner. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 8, 2016 9:31:57 GMT -5
Sounds good. Yeah it's not just the watering that is activating all that weed growth, the new light levels and disturbance of the soil, all contribute towards the germination of any seed that has ever landed in that area. So long as you don't let this season's weed go to seed, and you dig out perenials with tap root systems, completely. The area will pretty much be weed free in a couple of years. Can't go wrong with those flowering shrubs. And make sure you protect your knees. I found the peonies we planted a few years ago sprouting up yesterday morning. Transplanted them to the new garden. Sorry tomatoes, looks like it will be a flower garden. Yes, the light levels are completely different all around the house now. The pergola will instead be an arbor. Yes, kneepads will be in order. The ground cover in the woods started blossoming yesterday, and the apple and cherry trees are in full blossom. The grass has been mowed. Beautiful. Just in time for Mother's Day. Aye, it's a grand time of year. |
|
|
|
Post by laughter on May 8, 2016 15:12:10 GMT -5
Compare these two statements and ask if you're being completely honest with the 2nd one, and by way of specific example, are you familiar with story of the Flint MI water supply? I've got plenty of opinion, counterpoint and insight to offer based on some of the specific social ills you mention and particularly about this idea of comparing the different societies, but that would (mostly) be a distraction from our original point of dialog, and I find it tedious to think in terms of politics in my participation here. I recognize that movement of thought and emotion happening here that would echo quinn's sentiment with regard to your work for what it is: a product of my conditioning. That doesn't mean that I discount it, it only means that I see it for what it is as it's happening. Ok , we have a guy, Dutton, immigration minister, who has certain power, but he's a guy who does his job. The policy which confines children was written up by someone else long ago, and the narrative of sending everyone who arrives by boat to remote islands has bipartisan support. Smaller groups like the Greens oppose it, but don't have the clout to do anything. The Aussie public at large are glad and typically support it as well. Faced with that, we don't have a particular individual who 'does it'. We have a social dynamic that makes it inevitable at this point in time. What a person like me is up against, if I were involved in that area, isn't a matter of convincing Dutton, because his hands are tied, and he's just a part of what's in play. I'd be up against the social dynamic which brings about and sustains the situation. The fact that no one has a solution for the problem, because there isn't one, makes it difficult. At least politicians have to actually have something to sell - and have to actually do something. The advocates do not have something to sell, and just bleed from their hearts all over the place trying to appear compassionate or something, The churches are spouting Jesus stories as usual, and the counter policy slogan is 'Welcome" - a wonderful sentiment - but completely unworkable... everything is unworkable, and that is the anxiety... I'll Google the Flint Water Supply. I'm looking at ethics. Laffy insists it's all about will and volition and responsibility, and I agree that is the necessarily the case in law. I'm pointing out how ethics is founded in the reality of benefit and harm, and how the determinants of that are interwoven throughout social dynamics. Your explanation of the situation is a sophisticated and sane human adult perspective on it, and isn't it interesting how that moves away from the idea of holding someone in particular specifically responsible? |
|
|
|
Post by laughter on May 8, 2016 15:20:30 GMT -5
sorry, but again, it just sounds like arguing for the sake of arguing. I'm not sure what the issue is anymore. Really? It sounds like a perfectly viable explanation to me. Issue is how we frame 'responsibility' in order to give it meaning. For example, I'm sure "I wish people would take responsibility for what they think", was in some way a meaningful statement. It's just a comment on how if people would subjectively investigate the source of their thoughts they'd find that they're not really at the mercy of something other than themselves as to what arises. It's also just as useful to notice that none of these thoughts are really their own. A peep who is sure of her ownership of her own thoughts and perceives that some of them aren't her responsibility is quite obviously personally identified, and it's an illusion. |
|
|
|
Post by laughter on May 8, 2016 15:24:22 GMT -5
Or the way one feels in a dissatisfying relationship or a job they don't like. I got familiar with the idea of a "default mode network" from causally reading watching Gary Weber. The default mode is split mind. Sounds right, which explains why most peeps don't recognize the split mind. You're really just going to have to change your screen name to Cassandra. |
|
|
|
Post by enigma on May 9, 2016 0:21:54 GMT -5
IF it is true, (it is) then it's a broader context that donald trumps the smaller context of responsibility, which isn't really true. Even if that larger context is true, it still doesn't make it REALLY true, it's still just a contextual truth. Do you see that? But yes, that larger context would trump the smaller context. Thank you. |
|
|
|
Post by enigma on May 9, 2016 0:23:09 GMT -5
I'm saying the 'cause' of seeking is often suffering, so I wouldn't say there's no suffering in seeking. the cause of seeking enlightenment/SR is often suffering, yes. So why would you say there is no suffering in seeking? |
|
|
|
Post by enigma on May 9, 2016 0:24:31 GMT -5
You're saying Tenka has been talking about that? I'm pointing out that 'responsibility' is a meaningful concept when used in the relevant context, and demonstrating that you also use it in that manner. I know that. What I don't know is what in blazes Tenka is talking about. |
|
|
|
Post by lolly on May 9, 2016 3:10:44 GMT -5
Ok , we have a guy, Dutton, immigration minister, who has certain power, but he's a guy who does his job. The policy which confines children was written up by someone else long ago, and the narrative of sending everyone who arrives by boat to remote islands has bipartisan support. Smaller groups like the Greens oppose it, but don't have the clout to do anything. The Aussie public at large are glad and typically support it as well. Faced with that, we don't have a particular individual who 'does it'. We have a social dynamic that makes it inevitable at this point in time. What a person like me is up against, if I were involved in that area, isn't a matter of convincing Dutton, because his hands are tied, and he's just a part of what's in play. I'd be up against the social dynamic which brings about and sustains the situation. The fact that no one has a solution for the problem, because there isn't one, makes it difficult. At least politicians have to actually have something to sell - and have to actually do something. The advocates do not have something to sell, and just bleed from their hearts all over the place trying to appear compassionate or something, The churches are spouting Jesus stories as usual, and the counter policy slogan is 'Welcome" - a wonderful sentiment - but completely unworkable... everything is unworkable, and that is the anxiety... I'll Google the Flint Water Supply. I'm looking at ethics. Laffy insists it's all about will and volition and responsibility, and I agree that is the necessarily the case in law. I'm pointing out how ethics is founded in the reality of benefit and harm, and how the determinants of that are interwoven throughout social dynamics. Your explanation of the situation is a sophisticated and sane human adult perspective on it, and isn't it interesting how that moves away from the idea of holding someone in particular specifically responsible? :) Well, it is interesting, and I particularly find it interesting that I don't know solutions. I merely understand the dynamic operation of things and am myself a cog in the wheels, so to speak. Probably a more socially aware cog than most, but a cog none-the-less - or a lubricant at best. In the ethics of human rights, social justice, social rights and that area, we don't see isolated individuals as responsible agents in the sense that makes them culpable. We see individuals in their social context, as part of a bigger whole, and we have to consider the socio-cultural-political circumstance as well at their lived history. Responsibility doesn't make sense in that context, but there are other ethically framed things like duty of care, client self-determination (which implies empowerment) and confidentiality (implies protection), and we have a responsibility to all of those things. People who try to assert truth about responsibility simply don't understand context, and this is the mechanism we use for that, "perhaps I'll explain it to you sometime". Hahaha. |
|
|
|
Post by lolly on May 9, 2016 3:20:09 GMT -5
Really? It sounds like a perfectly viable explanation to me. Issue is how we frame 'responsibility' in order to give it meaning. For example, I'm sure "I wish people would take responsibility for what they think", was in some way a meaningful statement. It's just a comment on how if people would subjectively investigate the source of their thoughts they'd find that they're not really at the mercy of something other than themselves as to what arises. It's also just as useful to notice that none of these thoughts are really their own. :) A peep who is sure of her ownership of her own thoughts and perceives that some of them aren't her responsibility is quite obviously personally identified, and it's an illusion. Well, in that context responsibility isn't particularly meaningful, but it still makes sense to say I wish people would take responsibility for what they think. It doesn't relate to what's 'true'. It only relates to how it's meant and how it's understood. |
|
