|
|
Post by stardustpilgrim on Jan 30, 2017 12:27:23 GMT -5
What is the [technical] meaning of the word identification? (I am confident nobody here will know). Identification = Ahamkara (sanskrit) = I-maker (a function) = a particular I-consciousness = The I becomes self-referencial and mirrors itself in/through/via an object it perceives as being the same and/or equvalent with the object. Basically: I am .... (insert object into the blank.) Edit: If one would program a character in a computer-game, I assume it goes like this in programmer-language (which I know nothing about but give it a try): If confused and/or the course of action isn't clear, go to......(insert object a, b, c, d, etc.), become the object, then pursue while driven/moved by the object, which is now the I-maker (ahamkara). Note: Object does not neccessarily mean an object like a table or a chair. I can be character-qualities, arche-types, principles, etc. Pretty good also, but not precise. |
|
|
|
Post by alertpeaceeternal on Jan 30, 2017 12:38:14 GMT -5
Identification = Ahamkara (sanskrit) = I-maker (a function) = a particular I-consciousness = The I becomes self-referencial and mirrors itself in/through/via an object it perceives as being the same and/or equvalent with the object. Basically: I am .... (insert object into the blank.) Edit: If one would program a character in a computer-game, I assume it goes like this in programmer-language (which I know nothing about but give it a try): If confused and/or the course of action isn't clear, go to......(insert object a, b, c, d, etc.), become the object, then pursue while driven/moved by the object, which is now the I-maker (ahamkara). Note: Object does not neccessarily mean an object like a table or a chair. I can be character-qualities, arche-types, principles, etc. Pretty good also, but not precise. Okay, then....but what's wrong with this then, to begin with? Why and what for even asking such question on a spiritual forum? www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/identification |
|
|
|
Post by stardustpilgrim on Jan 30, 2017 13:04:42 GMT -5
There's nothing wrong with what you wrote, I said, pretty good (but not precise). Why ask this on a spiritual forum? Identification keeps one from being 'spiritual', it's a major obstacle. It keeps one from being authentic, you have mistakeningly ~put~ yourself in the ~wrong place~. It's difficult to ~be spiritual~ if you don't know who you are. It's probably the most important question anyone can ask. (The OP, not exactly the thread title). "Who Am I"? Sri Ramana Maharshi |
|
|
|
Post by alertpeaceeternal on Jan 30, 2017 13:21:22 GMT -5
There's nothing wrong with what you wrote, I said, pretty good (but not precise). Why ask this on a spiritual forum? Identification keeps one from being 'spiritual', it's a major obstacle. It keeps one from being authentic, you have mistakeningly ~put~ yourself in the ~wrong place~. It's difficult to ~be spiritual~ if you don't know who you are. It's probably the most important question anyone can ask. (The OP, not exactly the thread title). "Who Am I"? Sri Ramana Maharshi A better question would be "Who/what am I?" and also a good one is "when am I what and/or who?" (but that's an advanced one). Ramana also recommended to ask, "where am I?" (that's a good one too). P.S.: My favourite movie is still Local Hero, if I only have to choose one. |
|
|
|
Post by stardustpilgrim on Jan 30, 2017 13:39:06 GMT -5
There's nothing wrong with what you wrote, I said, pretty good (but not precise). Why ask this on a spiritual forum? Identification keeps one from being 'spiritual', it's a major obstacle. It keeps one from being authentic, you have mistakeningly ~put~ yourself in the ~wrong place~. It's difficult to ~be spiritual~ if you don't know who you are. It's probably the most important question anyone can ask. (The OP, not exactly the thread title). "Who Am I"? Sri Ramana Maharshi A better question would be "Who/what am I?" and also a good one is "when am I what and/or who?" (but that's an advanced one). Ramana also recommended to ask, "where am I?" (that's a good one too). P.S.: My favourite movie is still Local Hero, if I only have to choose one. Yes, all good. ~Where~ am I, especially good. (I did a thread essentially on this once, I'll bump it, since you know this question you may know the answer, IN ATA-MT, Where are ~you~? ATA-MT, attending the actual minus thought [now ATA-T]). Yes, I know the movie Local Hero, saw it in the theater many years ago. Some kind of company is 'invading' and taking over a small town in Ireland? Scotland? Somebody gets a conscience? There is a certain 'secret'? A certain woman is ~extraordinary~? But in the end, the hero is a hero. I remember liking it, but don't remember much about it. It's Hero vs big corporation. And what many think is good is not really good? I may have to rent it again to enjoy it again like for the first time, again. Thanks. |
|
|
|
Post by conradg on Jan 30, 2017 16:42:23 GMT -5
contraction of the infinite self into a form, name, substance, or point Yes, that's pretty good, but not precise. You want a zip code too? Okay, how about this: fearful contraction of the infinite self into a form, name, substance, or point through the imagined assumption of limitation |
|
|
|
Post by stardustpilgrim on Jan 30, 2017 18:55:11 GMT -5
Yes, that's pretty good, but not precise. You want a zip code too? Okay, how about this: fearful contraction of the infinite self into a form, name, substance, or point through the imagined assumption of limitation That's pretty good too, but not precise. (Zip codes do not apply). |
|
|
|
Post by conradg on Jan 31, 2017 17:31:17 GMT -5
You want a zip code too? Okay, how about this: fearful contraction of the infinite self into a form, name, substance, or point through the imagined assumption of limitation That's pretty good too, but not precise. (Zip codes do not apply). Define precise |
|
|
|
Post by stardustpilgrim on Jan 31, 2017 18:43:33 GMT -5
That's pretty good too, but not precise. (Zip codes do not apply). Define precise Metaphorically, if you are trying to traverse a 100' chasm, don't use a 95' rope. Close only counts in horseshoes and hand grenades. If you were traveling 100 miles across a desert and needed to hit an oasis 1/2 way across, has a 2' watering hole with only small shrubs surrounding it, find it or else you die, if you begin even 1/2 degree off, in 50 miles you will miss the oasis altogether, and die. Say you have x number of points on you DL, only two more points puts you over the limit and you will lose your DL, and this will cost you your job as a long distance truck driver. You are on an Interstate with a speed limit of 75MPH. You know you can drive 79-80 and pretty-much be OK. But do you chance driving 81? You are doing the pendulum experiment where you keep your head perfectly still and let go of a 50 lb pendulum on a 50 cable that goes across a room, and back of course. You know from physics that if you hold the ball at your chin and just let go, not pushing it whatsoever, and keep your head precisely still, the 50 lb. ball will not hit your chin on the return. But if you move your head forward even a little or give the ball even a small push, you get a new dimple in your chin. Comprende? Or if you have a brain tumor and you know it's the Doctor's first brain surgery on a live patient ( there is a first for every Doctor)..... |
|
|
|
Post by conradg on Jan 31, 2017 21:27:35 GMT -5
Metaphorically, if you are trying to traverse a 100' chasm, don't use a 95' rope. Close only counts in horseshoes and hand grenades. If you were traveling 100 miles across a desert and needed to hit an oasis 1/2 way across, has a 2' watering hole with only small shrubs surrounding it, find it or else you die, if you begin even 1/2 degree off, in 50 miles you will miss the oasis altogether, and die. Say you have x number of points on you DL, only two more points puts you over the limit and you will lose your DL, and this will cost you your job as a long distance truck driver. You are on an Interstate with a speed limit of 75MPH. You know you can drive 79-80 and pretty-much be OK. But do you chance driving 81? You are doing the pendulum experiment where you keep your head perfectly still and let go of a 50 lb pendulum on a 50 cable that goes across a room, and back of course. You know from physics that if you hold the ball at your chin and just let go, not pushing it whatsoever, and keep your head precisely still, the 50 lb. ball will not hit your chin on the return. But if you move your head forward even a little or give the ball even a small push, you get a new dimple in your chin. Comprende? Or if you have a brain tumor and you know it's the Doctor's first brain surgery on a live patient ( there is a first for every Doctor)..... No, I don't comprende. All your examples of "precise" have to do with physical objects in space whose movements can be defined by mathematical formula and observational measurement. Are you suggesting that identification is an objectively defined mathematical process in the physical world like that? Sounds to me like you are stuck in a category error of epic proportions. |
|
|
|
Post by stardustpilgrim on Jan 31, 2017 22:02:06 GMT -5
Metaphorically, if you are trying to traverse a 100' chasm, don't use a 95' rope. Close only counts in horseshoes and hand grenades. If you were traveling 100 miles across a desert and needed to hit an oasis 1/2 way across, has a 2' watering hole with only small shrubs surrounding it, find it or else you die, if you begin even 1/2 degree off, in 50 miles you will miss the oasis altogether, and die. Say you have x number of points on you DL, only two more points puts you over the limit and you will lose your DL, and this will cost you your job as a long distance truck driver. You are on an Interstate with a speed limit of 75MPH. You know you can drive 79-80 and pretty-much be OK. But do you chance driving 81? You are doing the pendulum experiment where you keep your head perfectly still and let go of a 50 lb pendulum on a 50 cable that goes across a room, and back of course. You know from physics that if you hold the ball at your chin and just let go, not pushing it whatsoever, and keep your head precisely still, the 50 lb. ball will not hit your chin on the return. But if you move your head forward even a little or give the ball even a small push, you get a new dimple in your chin. Comprende? Or if you have a brain tumor and you know it's the Doctor's first brain surgery on a live patient ( there is a first for every Doctor)..... No, I don't comprende. All your examples of "precise" have to do with physical objects in space whose movements can be defined by mathematical formula and observational measurement. Are you suggesting that identification is an objectively defined mathematical process in the physical world like that? Sounds to me like you are stuck in a category error of epic proportions. You asked for my definition of precise, and I took it to mean in relation to the question. So my answer is yes, what the OP is asking for is very-near just as you imply. However, the answer is what you might call subjectively objective. IOW, you know it objectively, for yourself, but nobody else could ~participate~ in that knowing. But then the answer to the question would be (should be) understandable to almost anyone. (But being happy with the answer might be ~another thing~). Precise means precise. |
|
|
|
Post by conradg on Feb 1, 2017 1:00:32 GMT -5
No, I don't comprende. All your examples of "precise" have to do with physical objects in space whose movements can be defined by mathematical formula and observational measurement. Are you suggesting that identification is an objectively defined mathematical process in the physical world like that? Sounds to me like you are stuck in a category error of epic proportions. You asked for my definition of precise, and I took it to mean in relation to the question. So my answer is yes, what the OP is asking for is very-near just as you imply. However, the answer is what you might call subjectively objective. IOW, you know it objectively, for yourself, but nobody else could ~participate~ in that knowing. But then the answer to the question would be (should be) understandable to almost anyone. (But being happy with the answer might be ~another thing~). Precise means precise. No, precise doesn't mean precise. That's a meaningless tautology. You still haven't defined precise, you've only given examples that don't apply to the issue in question. I want an actual definition of precise that I can apply to the definition of "identification", which is the OP. It sounds like you don't have one. Why am I not surprised? |
|
|
|
Post by conradg on Feb 1, 2017 2:43:15 GMT -5
Of course, thinking about this reminded me that the definition of "Maya", or illusion, is "to measure". The idea that "precision" in this context means some sort of exact measurement is exactly the problem with identification. So I'll modify my definition accordingly:
Fearful contraction of the infinite self into a form, name, substance, or point by the imagined assumption of a measurable limitation in that self.
|
|
|
|
Post by stardustpilgrim on Feb 1, 2017 10:20:28 GMT -5
You asked for my definition of precise, and I took it to mean in relation to the question. So my answer is yes, what the OP is asking for is very-near just as you imply. However, the answer is what you might call subjectively objective. IOW, you know it objectively, for yourself, but nobody else could ~participate~ in that knowing. But then the answer to the question would be (should be) understandable to almost anyone. (But being happy with the answer might be ~another thing~). Precise means precise. No, precise doesn't mean precise. That's a meaningless tautology. You still haven't defined precise, you've only given examples that don't apply to the issue in question. I want an actual definition of precise that I can apply to the definition of "identification", which is the OP. It sounds like you don't have one. Why am I not surprised? Precise means there is one and only one answer to the question. I can give the meaning precisely in 16 words. The gist in seven words, the essential meaning in ten words. |
|
|
|
Post by conradg on Feb 1, 2017 21:01:50 GMT -5
No, precise doesn't mean precise. That's a meaningless tautology. You still haven't defined precise, you've only given examples that don't apply to the issue in question. I want an actual definition of precise that I can apply to the definition of "identification", which is the OP. It sounds like you don't have one. Why am I not surprised? Precise means there is one and only one answer to the question. I can give the meaning precisely in 16 words. The gist in seven words, the essential meaning in ten words. Then by all means give us your precise definition. People in religious or psychological matters who think there's only one definition of anything are amusing to watch in action. |
|
