|
|
Post by stardustpilgrim on Jan 2, 2017 17:12:07 GMT -5
What is the [technical] meaning of the word identification?
(I am confident nobody here will know).
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 3, 2017 3:40:06 GMT -5
What is the [technical] meaning of the word identification? (I am confident nobody here will know). recognition |
|
|
|
Post by bluey on Jan 3, 2017 8:58:19 GMT -5
What is the [technical] meaning of the word identification? (I am confident nobody here will know). Attachment of being lost in things, A false freedom, a false sense of self, a limitation of being caught up, lost in the identifying in the story of me. Like being confident instead of Being. Where Being is beyond identification in the sense of being lost in confidence as the more conscious you become, less identified of being lost or finding identification in things takes place. |
|
|
|
Post by penny on Jan 3, 2017 14:49:12 GMT -5
Probably something like proprioception.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 3, 2017 14:51:37 GMT -5
What is the [technical] meaning of the word identification? (I am confident nobody here will know). A mistake  |
|
|
|
Post by stardustpilgrim on Jan 4, 2017 12:55:17 GMT -5
What is the [technical] meaning of the word identification? (I am confident nobody here will know). Attachment of being lost in things, A false freedom, a false sense of self, a limitation of being caught up, lost in the identifying in the story of me. Like being confident instead of Being. Where Being is beyond identification in the sense of being lost in confidence as the more conscious you become, less identified of being lost or finding identification in things takes place. yes. but the key word is technical. That's still not answered. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 4, 2017 13:05:31 GMT -5
Attachment of being lost in things, A false freedom, a false sense of self, a limitation of being caught up, lost in the identifying in the story of me. Like being confident instead of Being. Where Being is beyond identification in the sense of being lost in confidence as the more conscious you become, less identified of being lost or finding identification in things takes place. yes. but the key word is technical. That's still not answered. A technical mistake  |
|
|
|
Post by figgles on Jan 4, 2017 13:16:55 GMT -5
What is the [technical] meaning of the word identification? (I am confident nobody here will know). The way I use the term, Identification refers to a fundamental, pervasive sense/belief/knowing, that I am a particular some thing. To 'identify' is to equate beingness with thing-ness. Therefore, an absence of identification means that there is no sense of being a particular some'thing'.....just unfettered being, absent any idea or question as to 'what-ness.' |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 4, 2017 13:33:55 GMT -5
Probably something like proprioception. I'll have to look that one up. |
|
|
|
Post by penny on Jan 4, 2017 13:55:47 GMT -5
It's basically your sense of your physical location in space.
|
|
|
|
Post by bluey on Jan 4, 2017 15:14:43 GMT -5
Attachment of being lost in things, A false freedom, a false sense of self, a limitation of being caught up, lost in the identifying in the story of me. Like being confident instead of Being. Where Being is beyond identification in the sense of being lost in confidence as the more conscious you become, less identified of being lost or finding identification in things takes place. yes. but the key word is technical. That's still not answered. I know Bennett, Gurdjieff, Ouspensky talked much of identification as being in the way. Technical, I don't know what you mean by it. On identification What limits one from the real understanding It is not a very good word, but in English there is none better. The idea of identification exists in Indian writings and the Buddhists speak of attachment and non-attachment. These words seem to me even less satisfactory because, before meeting this system, I read these words and did not understand—or rather I understood but took the idea intellectually. I understood fully only when I found the same idea expressed in Russian and in Greek by early Christian writers. We try to understand the idea not by definition but by observation. It is a certain quality of attachment—of being lost in things. ~ P. D. Ouspensky |
|
|
|
Post by stardustpilgrim on Jan 4, 2017 16:21:27 GMT -5
yes. but the key word is technical. That's still not answered. I know Bennett, Gurdjieff, Ouspensky talked much of identification as being in the way. Technical, I don't know what you mean by it. On identification What limits one from the real understanding It is not a very good word, but in English there is none better. The idea of identification exists in Indian writings and the Buddhists speak of attachment and non-attachment. These words seem to me even less satisfactory because, before meeting this system, I read these words and did not understand—or rather I understood but took the idea intellectually. I understood fully only when I found the same idea expressed in Russian and in Greek by early Christian writers. We try to understand the idea not by definition but by observation. It is a certain quality of attachment—of being lost in things. ~ P. D. Ouspensky Yes, correct. (But still not the answer). Technical means precise. (Last sentence of the Ouspensky quote is very close, but not precise). |
|
|
|
Post by bluey on Jan 4, 2017 16:46:31 GMT -5
I know Bennett, Gurdjieff, Ouspensky talked much of identification as being in the way. Technical, I don't know what you mean by it. On identification What limits one from the real understanding It is not a very good word, but in English there is none better. The idea of identification exists in Indian writings and the Buddhists speak of attachment and non-attachment. These words seem to me even less satisfactory because, before meeting this system, I read these words and did not understand—or rather I understood but took the idea intellectually. I understood fully only when I found the same idea expressed in Russian and in Greek by early Christian writers. We try to understand the idea not by definition but by observation. It is a certain quality of attachment—of being lost in things. ~ P. D. Ouspensky Yes, correct. (But still not the answer). Technical means precise. (Last sentence of the Ouspensky quote is very close, but not precise). I'm going to have to sit with this stardust nothing is arising, no identification. x |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 4, 2017 17:00:56 GMT -5
I know Bennett, Gurdjieff, Ouspensky talked much of identification as being in the way. Technical, I don't know what you mean by it. On identification What limits one from the real understanding It is not a very good word, but in English there is none better. The idea of identification exists in Indian writings and the Buddhists speak of attachment and non-attachment. These words seem to me even less satisfactory because, before meeting this system, I read these words and did not understand—or rather I understood but took the idea intellectually. I understood fully only when I found the same idea expressed in Russian and in Greek by early Christian writers. We try to understand the idea not by definition but by observation. It is a certain quality of attachment—of being lost in things. ~ P. D. Ouspensky Yes, correct. (But still not the answer). Technical means precise. (Last sentence of the Ouspensky quote is very close, but not precise). I still say it's a mistake..being lost is a mistake but I can be mistaken if so I am lost to the attachment of the question |
|
|
|
Post by figgles on Jan 4, 2017 17:52:52 GMT -5
Yes, correct. (But still not the answer). Technical means precise. (Last sentence of the Ouspensky quote is very close, but not precise). I still say it's a mistake..being lost is a mistake but I can be mistaken if so I am lost to the attachment of the question That pretty much does sum it up. In identification, (with any thing....any thing, at all) there is a mis-taking beingness for something tangible and objectifiable. |
|
