|
Post by ouroboros on Jun 1, 2023 7:22:49 GMT -5
That is one way of looking at it. Another is that he was using a bit of poetic licence in an attempt to express something actually quite profound. And if you had been in the circle and responded by asking about paperclips as perceivers, I'm pretty sure you would've got a beedie flicked at your head! Edit- although I suppose you might class that as twisting/evasion. Well, in the case of this discussion, no beedie flicking, just a very succint, concrete, affirmative answer of "yes, even paperclips are experiencers/perceivings, having their own unique experience."
If you are simply looking for an unequivocal answer to that, my answer would be no. At least with the way you are phrasing it. Although I have previously talked something along the lines that I consider the fundamental attractive/repulsive forces of 'atoms' and the way even they 'interact with their environment' as a rudimentary form of perception. That, in a manner of speaking they act Intelligently. Obviously that's all part of a wider process though. 'Intelligent expression'. Personally I would tend to go with something more along the lines of, I am supremely confident that the other is every bit as much a perceiver, or not as the case may be, as I am. But to be clear, that is in the context of mind-body expressions.
Third mountain requires a pretty deft and balanced touch. You've mentioned pointers a lot, and good quality third mountain can get pretty pointy. Either that or you've got to start giving a bit of licence. I don't really grok this 'arising to Awareness' dichotomy either, which does the rounds. If you don't mind, I shall defer this one for the time being.
|
|
|
Post by stardustpilgrim on Jun 1, 2023 7:24:32 GMT -5
I read the first Jed book in the early 2000's just before the second book came out. I chanced on it in a Barnes & Noble. I'll give a book about 30-40 seconds browse, it either keeps me or not. I browsed 5 minutes, 10, I was hooked. (I've read all 3 and then The Theory of..., then some of Play, A Play [liked the first play], none of The Talk books). I thoroughly enjoyed the first book (enjoyed the next 3 also). I found him closely akin to my POV, [he's] not wholly ND. Where do you think he 'sways' outside of Nonduality. It sounds as though you're very familiar with his stuff, so am curious to hear your opinion on this. I sure don't consider waking up/SR to be the 'end' of the experiential journey....life continues on and there's still stuff to learn....growth in terms of emotions/relationships, etc. It's just that ND/SR puts certain previously held beliefs/ideas that pertain to existential questions, in their place. For example, once actual "causation" has been through, existential ideas/beliefs...."law" of Attraction being one of them, no longer has any legs.....so it becomes impossible to keep practicing and giving air time to something like that. A VERY good thing. A very RARE thing too, it would seem. Truly "good" honorable, integral people, who cannot lie, who remain sincere and honest even under pressure, hard to find and the world would be a better place with more of 'em for sure. This makes sense now. At times I did notice that you seemed to have a very strong grasp on the points of ND. And I wouldn't even say that for you there is necessarily a full on erroneously imagined SVP in play, because you do acknowledge the distinction between (s)elf and (S)elf...I think you just still somehow have a very strong (stronger!) interest in focusing back into the personal experience, (s)elf aspect than the (S)elf....? It's true....the experience of the me character continues on after the locus of seeing shifts to predominantly beyond the personal to the impersonal....and there's still interest in the me character and all it's affairs following SR. It's been a while since I read the books, I can't really say. The first book seemed genuine. It wasn't long after reading the first book I checked further, got the second book, where he spilled the beans. I had a good little chuckle, he was a fake, a kind of genuine fake. So then I just went along for the ride. But...there is a kind of ~formula~ for the ND teachers, like you send off to Battle Creek, Michigan and get a ND writing kit, enclose a box top or a reasonable facsimile thereof, and enclose $.10. Jed wasn't boring. Maybe I'll explain a little more below. (I read your post late last night just before sleep was calling me, but I was too tired to reply). Jed doesn't exactly fit my paradigm, or I would have remembered him better. There's a few who fit pretty well. I discovered Sri Aurobindo before encountering him in Ken Wilber, he fits pretty well. Don Miguel Ruiz (and sons), who I don't think I've ever seen mentioned here. He's kind of a genuine Carlos Castaneda. There's another guy never been mentioned here, surprised Reefs hasn't mentioned, __ ___ __, I'll keep him in my back pocket, he wouldn't be appreciated here anyway. Crap, this is getting long, my bane. Of course I don't get the giving up on existential questions. I'm with inavalan, this world (look around) is a kind of school. The ND view is that this world ISN'T a school. So in that I find SR suspect. (And I can feel the head-shaking when I write stuff like that, you poor guy). It's a good thing you think there is more to learn after SR, this puts you more in my camp, so to speak. Correct, I have ~*seen through*~ the SVP. 47 years ago I was taught the SVP is the false sense of self, an acquired illusory parasite (Don Miguel's word) "zombie" (my word). The SVP is a construct formed from conditioning-learning-imitation of other people. We are born as True Self and very early acquire this masquerading thief who jumps in and pretends to be us. I saw quickly, theoretically, this is the case. And then I was given practice/methods whereby to see through the mask. It's not easy. I've used the story of the ugly ducking to describe it here before, it's a good analogy. We're a swan who got raised as a duck and we think we're a duck, we got the duck-conditioning, but underneath we're a swan. But the difference for me, True Self is not the Whole, True Self is the true individuation. So, for 47 years I've known I was not a "SVP". And through the practices there is a slow movement discovering what True Self IS, and living through True Self, becoming True Self. And behind True Self, is Self (pretty close to Ramana's sense, ~we~ call it Real I). But, the false self is pretty crafty, here enters Reefs identity poker. Basically, the SVP/false self is anything you think (mostly in the negative sense) or feel or do, learned stuff stored in the neural structure, IOW, not nothing, it's an illusory something. So I agree, there isn't a SVP, but it leads ~us~ around like a bull with a ring in its nose. But, eventually, following the "rules", the light comes on. But it's on a dimmer switch, so the lights come up slowly. So, then, ~I~ know what's what, and how to live through True self. So I "*~wear~*" the SVP very loosely. It's nice that you picked up on that. So, a lot of stuff overlaps with ND, but not precisely, but enough for me to stick around here. But I cannot not-see that my view is more-correct, in relation to everything. I *~*believe in*~* explanation, meaning, peeking into the black box, getting answers, evolving bla, bla, bla. ND to me is like a magic trick, and SR shares the secret and you don't belong because you don't know the secret and you don't know the secret password and the secret handshake. That what figgles gets too, gets blasted, figgles doesn't know the secret handshake, so, of course you are not SR. That's why I keep telling them I'm not interested in SR. OK, the difference. The SVP can't do ANYTHING, I agree on that. But the True Self can do. But, in the beginning and for a long time, the only thing (and I mean only thing) True Self can do is be aware and be attentive. So awareness and attention is the path. However, the SVP lives off our attention and awareness, takes it all, all the time. That's why Don Miguel calls it a parasite, sdp calls it a "zombie", it's the living dead. As (almost) always, sdp gets long, so I'll end there. But, True Self is the missing link. It explains true individuation. But you still need an "avatar", so, then, you wear the mask of SVP, but are- not-it. Otherwise, your friends and family think your ____ing crazy. Sometimes, well, many times, the old programs can jump in and take control, we can get caught in the old mask, and ____ up. If any thing, person, place, event, thought, feeling or action takes your attention-awareness, you're back stuck.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 1, 2023 7:31:13 GMT -5
Some suggestions / questions...
1. Can we stop posting ChatGPT answers here? It's a large-language-model. Its language skill is impressive, but it's not that "smart". Posting its full answers is like posting the text of wikipedia articles. Maybe make a dedicated thread for it if a few people think it's fascinating. Stackoverflow and other forums have a "no ChatGPT" rule.
2. About Figgles. If you don't want to answer her questions, say something simple and kind like: "Figgles, I don't want to answer most of your questions, so I'm going to ignore most of them. Take care." See. No need to lecture her about how she is "uncivilized", "insane", "malicious troll" loser at the bottom of some imaginary scale of humanity, etc. Then, if she persists in spamming the forum with tons of questions that are being ignored, okay, that probably requires moderator action at some point, later. Maybe she won't spam the forum like that, because she has her own blog/forum for that kind of thing.
3. About Reefs' identity, or Figgles opinions about it. Again, it's not that important. Zendancer and some others here have online identities with photos, videos. You can talk to them in person at retreats. On my part, I really like that, and I like the personal stories that (for me) give authenticity to the whole thing. (The impersonal + the personal; the archetype + individual.) But with some others, like Reefs, you have no idea who they are unless you trust his or her word on it. Fine. That's okay. Who cares. Misgendering Reefs should not be bannable offense.
I'm not defending everything Figgles might do or did in the past. But don't invite someone back and then immediately berate them, and then ban them before giving things a chance to calm down.
edit: misgendering someone a couple times should not be a bannable offense. Repeatedly doing it on purpose, after the person says they are a he or a she... that I have no opinion on. It gets into the whole trans thing, and I didn't mean to do that. 🤦♂️. I'm not learning ze/zer pronounces and all that! Haha.
edit2: apologies to wikipedia. Their articles are written by humans and are usually higher quality than ChatGPT answers. But you get my point.
|
|
|
Post by ouroboros on Jun 1, 2023 7:33:30 GMT -5
That doesn't seem to leave a lot of room for 'others may or may not be real perceivers', or however you want to phrase it. It's only really ever been the case that, in whatever context you want to work in, there has to be consistency. Yes. "They may or may not be" is of the relative context only. All questions and wondering pertaining to this issue, relative context only.
Well, I want to say it's of the mentation context only, hehe. I'm not sure it is anyway. Of one context I mean. Because the knowing yourself as perceiver part strays into absolute context stuff. You can call it direct if you like. But it could be argued that the niz quote and the stance we take on perceivers also mixes contexts if I'm honest. It's just that I'd argue it does it in a more consistent way. I guess that will either been seen and grokked or it won't. The way I see it, the not knowing position only serves to highlight the limitations of monkey-mind. Limits which are real enough. Or apparent if you would prefer. I like the last bit.
|
|
|
Post by ouroboros on Jun 1, 2023 7:44:38 GMT -5
I know, some people go through a "dark night of the soul," or become suicidally distressed prior to a breakthrough, but I could probably name dozens of people for whom nothing like that that was ever the case. In most cases there was simply frustration caused by an inability to understand, and in some cases not even that. Perhaps their 'breakthrough' is still only surface deep? What I have observed is that most folks are absolute A-okay with the relinquishing of certain ideas/beliefs, but it's when they begin to get the memo that ALL of it...even the most sacred of ideas....even the most sacred seeming of experiences, is ultimately, empty, that they begin to get their hair in a knot.
And that's really what that 'dark night' business is all about....fighting tooth and nail to try to hang on to the person's most cherished notions about himself...about life.....about what is True.
Yes. Or perhaps theirs was in a nuther life.
|
|
|
Post by ouroboros on Jun 1, 2023 7:47:02 GMT -5
Yes. No, not memory because it isn't knowledge. We are using pointers here, don't we? You are trying to lick the pointer by being too literal. I don't know if you do this unconsciously or on purpose, but it's at the root of these boring perpetual discussions with you that don't go anywhere and have no actual content other than parsing words. Let's not do this anymore, okay? It's the "utterly familiar" bit combined with the "re-cognition" bit that had me asking.
For one who has been seeking/suffering his entire life and then wakes up, "utterly familiar" does not very aptly describe things at all.
How bout ... intimately familiar?
|
|
|
Post by stardustpilgrim on Jun 1, 2023 8:05:48 GMT -5
Some suggestions / questions... 1. Can we stop posting ChatGPT answers here? It's a large-language-model. It's language skill is impressive, but it's not that "smart". It's like posting full text of wikipedia articles. Maybe make a dedicated thread for it if a few people think it's fascinating. Stackoverflow and other forums have a "no ChatGPT" rule. 2. About Figgles. If you don't want to answer her questions, say something simple and kind like: "Figgles, I don't want to answer most of your questions, so I'm going to ignore most of them. Take care." See. No need to lecture her about how she is "uncivilized", "insane", "malicious troll" loser at the bottom of some imaginary scale of humanity, etc. Then, if she persists in spamming the forum with tons of questions that are being ignored, okay, that probably requires moderator action at some point, later. Maybe she won't spam the forum like that, because she has her own blog/forum for that kind of thing. 3. About Reefs' identity, or Figgles opinions about it. Again, it's not that important. Zendancer and some others here have online identities with photos, videos. You can talk to them in person at retreats. On my part, I really like that, and I like the personal stories that (for me) give authenticity to the whole thing. (The impersonal + the personal; the archetype + individual.) But with some others, like Reefs, you have no idea who they are unless you trust his or her word on it. Fine. That's okay. Who cares. Misgendering Reefs should not be bannable offense. I'm not defending everything Figgles might do or did in the past. But don't invite someone back and then immediately berate them, and then ban them before giving things a chance to calm down. edit: misgendering someone a couple times should not be a bannable offense. Repeatedly doing it on purpose, after the person says they are a he or a she... that I have no opinion on. It gets into the whole trans thing, and I didn't mean to do that. 🤦♂️. I'm not learning ze/zer pronounces and all that! Haha. edit2: apologies to wikipedia. Their articles are written by humans and are usually higher quality than ChatGPT answers. But you get my point. Yes, some sanity. I don't know why figgles thinks it's important to challenge Reefs gender, on and on. Truth is not so easy to come by, it only matters to some one, truth can't really be shared, we can't drill a hole into someone's head and pour in truth. And then too, why does it bother Reefs? What you think of me is none of my business. That appeared on my FB screen once upon a time, or maybe I wrote it on my FB screen, I think I read it somewhere once. Pretty good and succinct to live by. I think I'll add it to my signature. Solves a lot of problems.
|
|
|
Post by ouroboros on Jun 1, 2023 8:17:19 GMT -5
She thinks you are a female masquerading as a male. She's said so on occasion. It might be an hommage ... and lately it is fashionable to attribute feminine pronouns to gods and supreme powers Probably, frig just intends to annoy him. She has issues. That's done as a playful way of challenging preconceptions. Well, and it annoys Gopal.
|
|
|
Post by stardustpilgrim on Jun 1, 2023 8:23:11 GMT -5
A distinction of what, from what? The process is an energy gradient, with no independent origination. The way points along the gradient are arbitrary. The process by which distinctiveness itself arises. The path it takes. I'm just saying that distinction is a natural part of the process of expression unfolding as a whole. Regardless of whether or not any extraneous mental overlay arises. Possibly a bit vague, idk. But I can't really talk in terms of boundaries when it comes to impressions, i.e distinctiveness. It might seem odd to talk about impression and distinctiveness in the same breath. But perception is an unfathomable (and predominantly subconscious) process of differentiation. A cascade from vague to acute. In terms of expression, that encompasses 'the conditioned'. So ocean as a whole, and wave-like individuated aspects.
When I'm talking about vagueness, I should probably mention that I do absolutely grok ATA, which is an alert and therefore vivid state of direct sensory perception absent mental overlay or narrative. I'm sure that's been clear anyway. But maintain that a process of distinction or differentiation is still going on in such a state, in the form of subconscious mental processing. Which is one of the reasons I tend to employ a broader conception of mind than others it seems. Although I do understand the way they use mind to point to those surface level aspects which are quiescent. .. but see that as merely the cessation of 'monkey-mind'.
I got a new book yesterday, it came yesterday. It's a ND-Enlightenment book. (Yes, I keep trying). Oddly, he emphasizes the word distinction. No, I don't get ZD's ontology, I'm sure it's consistent, within his mind. I think ZD accepts an exterior world (acknowledging for him there isn't an inner and an outer). But, he is a contractor, you kind of have to. E used to drive me bananas, he seemed to *believe* the whole universe arises anew from nothing at every moment. That loses me. So I don't get ZD's use of the word distinction (he wrote about it a couple of days ago). But the new book-guy basically says when the unmanifest makes one distinction, the manifest world begins. That sounds pretty sane in my book. So for me, rocks and water and s__t and stuff has existed for 13.8 billion years. New book-guy doesn't say it (about 1/2 done, big letters), but the Big Bang could be called the first distinction. IOW, the mind can't make distinctions unless they already exist. I even think that's the whole point of G Spencer Brown's Laws of Form. (But haven't read it in years).
|
|
|
Post by ouroboros on Jun 1, 2023 8:29:44 GMT -5
... It's just that ND/SR puts certain previously held beliefs/ideas that pertain to existential questions, in their place. For example, once actual "causation" has been through, existential ideas/beliefs...."law" of Attraction being one of them, no longer has any legs.....so it becomes impossible to keep practicing and giving air time to something like that. ... Yeah, in many respects I consider what's pointed to by SR as merely 'access to reality'. There's much more to be not done in the bigger picture. Regarding causality, perhaps consider substituting 'conditionality' for that particular phrase/conception. I suggest it will prove to be more helpful when working with 3rd mountain conceptions, rather than dismissing or negating it entirely. As I said before, a deft and balanced touch is required. It's quite nuanced.
|
|
|
Post by stardustpilgrim on Jun 1, 2023 8:35:57 GMT -5
Word lawyering about the word "law". Aces. Hey, you know, an impersonal portrait ain't so impersonal if everyone knows who you're referring to. Correct. Basically it is just switching from being openly aggressive to being passively aggressive. There is no actual change in terms of level of aggression, only in form of aggression. Which does contribute nothing in terms of less contentious relationships. It does, however, give the (false) impression of civility. OK, my most fitting perfect film clip (that means alert, extreme violence). No civility, the appearance of civility: This, set that up. Bridget is an assassin-in-training, her first day on the job. Not at her choice, she learns, or she dies. The clip leaves out: This could save your life some day. Learning the appearance of civility in a non-civility situation. PG, no violence:
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 1, 2023 8:39:26 GMT -5
It might be an hommage ... and lately it is fashionable to attribute feminine pronouns to gods and supreme powers Probably, frig just intends to annoy him. She has issues. That's done as a playful way of challenging preconceptions. Well, and it annoys Gopal. Exactly. Sometimes grammar forces me to pick between: It, He, She. I don't think I should always pick the same one.
|
|
|
Post by andrew on Jun 1, 2023 8:57:21 GMT -5
It might be an hommage ... and lately it is fashionable to attribute feminine pronouns to gods and supreme powers Probably, frig just intends to annoy him. She has issues. That's done as a playful way of challenging preconceptions. Well, and it annoys Gopal. Duly noted
|
|
|
Post by ouroboros on Jun 1, 2023 9:00:44 GMT -5
If I recall correctly, the last expression of the "reefs is sharon" conspiracy theory was within the last year over on gab, and I think even within the last 4 months. I actually didn't want to go there, but it seems circumstances force me to address this matter anyway, because there is some moderator action required. I just haven't made up my mind yet what it will be. For those who don't know what's going on here, the chronological sequence of events: 1) Nancy: Many years ago Figgles claimed someone who knew Reefs from the Abeforum with the name Nancy contacted her and told her all kinds of personal details about Reefs. But truth is, I never knew any Nancy on the Abeforum, let alone discussed personal details there with anybody. Figgles never accepted that. 2) Sharon: Next Figgles started claiming that Sharon and Reefs are actually one and the same person, using different accounts simultaneously. She came to that conclusion because Reefs and Sharon seemed to have identical interests in music, namely dubstep. Truth is, while I like electronic music, I hate dubstep. Another similarity she noticed was the shared interest in the Seth books. Figgles even went so far to hunt down Sharon on facebook based on these two data points. However, Peter clarified that based on login details that it was virtually impossible that Sharon could actually be Reefs. Figgles never accepted that. 3) She: The next step on the escalation escalator was Figgles' claim that Reefs has been lying about his gender all along, his marital status and children, that he was actually a she instead of a he, single and had no children. I corrected her on that. Figgles never accepted that. 4) Tegan: The latest now is Reefs being a woman named Tegan who allegedly posted on reddit (?) all kinds of sad details about her sad life. And these personal details, Figgles seems to now have incorporated into her latest straw Reefs version. So this saga is getting crazier and crazier by the year and facts to the contrary don't seem to matter to Figgles. It almost seems as if she has lost control of her own story and her story has a life of its own now and actually dictates what Figgles thinks and does. Now, looking at this as a moderator, Figgles' unusual behavior poses an interesting dilemma from a game theory perspective. Because the question I need to find an answer to in order to make the next mod decision is this: Is there a rationale behind what Figgles does? Or to put it more bluntly: Is Figgles just acting crazy or is she actually crazy? The answer to that question will determine my next mod move. If she only acts crazy, then she can be reasoned with and I can rely on her word and there's a chance that she will adjust her behavior in order to fit in here. If she actually is crazy, then she cannot be reasoned with and her word I cannot rely on and there's no chance that she can adjust her behavior so that she fits in here, because she is not in control of her thoughts, words and actions. So her good will and assurances wouldn't mean anything. =========== So, open question to the forum. What do you guys think I should do? 1) Should I read Figgles the riot act again in hope that she may finally come to her senses and actually makes an effort to fit in here? 2) Or should I just ban her like any other malicious troll, because she can't be reasoned with anyway and apparently isn't in control of her own thoughts and behavior either? I am leaning towards a permanent ban, because I see zero interest on her part to fit in. It is only going to get worse from here on. She'll paint herself as an innocent victim of an evil moderator crew. Let me know what you think. I will consider all your input in my final decision. Thank you. ============ I try not to get too involved in forum politics, but it seems like a storm in a teacup. Much ado about nothing. Your male energy couldn't be any clearer to me. So I consider that if figs really buys into all that then she probably isn't very perceptive and deluded in that respect. If she's just poking then it's no real biggie either. Just ignore it. It's not really hurtin anyone. Also, I think Tegan is a lovely name. I don't know if you have deed poll over there, but if you're name isn't Tegan you should seriously consider changing it to that. I know I am!
|
|
|
Post by ouroboros on Jun 1, 2023 9:11:05 GMT -5
The process by which distinctiveness itself arises. The path it takes. I'm just saying that distinction is a natural part of the process of expression unfolding as a whole. Regardless of whether or not any extraneous mental overlay arises. Possibly a bit vague, idk. But I can't really talk in terms of boundaries when it comes to impressions, i.e distinctiveness. It might seem odd to talk about impression and distinctiveness in the same breath. But perception is an unfathomable (and predominantly subconscious) process of differentiation. A cascade from vague to acute. In terms of expression, that encompasses 'the conditioned'. So ocean as a whole, and wave-like individuated aspects.
When I'm talking about vagueness, I should probably mention that I do absolutely grok ATA, which is an alert and therefore vivid state of direct sensory perception absent mental overlay or narrative. I'm sure that's been clear anyway. But maintain that a process of distinction or differentiation is still going on in such a state, in the form of subconscious mental processing. Which is one of the reasons I tend to employ a broader conception of mind than others it seems. Although I do understand the way they use mind to point to those surface level aspects which are quiescent. .. but see that as merely the cessation of 'monkey-mind'.
I got a new book yesterday, it came yesterday. It's a ND-Enlightenment book. (Yes, I keep trying). Oddly, he emphasizes the word distinction. No, I don't get ZD's ontology, I'm sure it's consistent, within his mind. I think ZD accepts an exterior world (acknowledging for him there isn't an inner and an outer). But, he is a contractor, you kind of have to. E used to drive me bananas, he seemed to *believe* the whole universe arises anew from nothing at every moment. That loses me. So I don't get ZD's use of the word distinction (he wrote about it a couple of days ago). But the new book-guy basically says when the unmanifest makes one distinction, the manifest world begins. That sounds pretty sane in my book. So for me, rocks and water and s__t and stuff has existed for 13.8 billion years. New book-guy doesn't say it (about 1/2 done, big letters), but the Big Bang could be called the first distinction. IOW, the mind can't make distinctions unless they already exist. I even think that's the whole point of G Spencer Brown's Laws of Form. (But haven't read it in years). Yes, they talk about the first cut being the deepest. But also in terms of I-I and wotnot. And I don't think that's strictly a personal distinction.
|
|