|
Post by enigma on Feb 11, 2018 21:06:29 GMT -5
Agreed. That's why I've resisted defining suffering in the past, but that's just an invitation to misuse the term anyway. Always eventually a double bind slowly emerging from the swamp somewhere all wet and draped with dead vegetation and stuff.
|
|
|
Post by enigma on Feb 11, 2018 21:54:47 GMT -5
Generally, I see baby crying as a spontaneous, present moment, uncensored response to (mostly) low levels of discomfort. Because there is no conceptual 'me' structure, there are no 'me' referenced thoughts about the implications of the pain, which is the source of psychological suffering. Well, yes, but to me, saying 'me structure' is so arbitrary I don't even know what it means, so I mention more specific aspects such as volition, aversion/desire dynamics, or the Buddhist reference 'craving', because these are tangible noticeable things. It's true enough to say that an infant experiences sensation without 'other' references, though. What I mean by a 'me' structure is anything beyond a sense of self, which I would equate to a sense of existence, or sense of 'I am'. This would be a conceptual structure about the person assumed to exist. I say it's not a natural thing for and infant as it is for an adult, and it requires some cognitive sophistication.
|
|
|
Post by enigma on Feb 11, 2018 21:59:45 GMT -5
It's not the flip side. It's the underlying agenda for needing to be able to identify suffering through "intuitive, innate, pre-conceptual, empathic, paternal and maternal recognition". If your intuition were functioning without that bias, it would tell you what mine is telling me, which is not to be careless and uncompassionate but rather there is something important to understand about how suffering takes place. I'm not quite sure exactly what you are telling me. Are you telling me that the intuitive and instinctive sense that a baby or animal is suffering is wrong? To me, that is actually spirituality gone wrong, because you are having to argue or 'distance' yourself from something that is inescapably evident. Hey, I have no issues with talking about a particular kind of human struggle, but wholly disagree with the hijacking of the definition of 'suffering' so that babies and animals in pain is now no problem. Not only does it ignore the physiological benefit of 'suffering' which says 'take action', but the moral implications are horrendous. You see, the consequence of recognizing suffering in another, is that YOU will suffer too, at least a bit...and of course, who wants to suffer? I'm sure you don't. But in my opinion, spirituality is about accepting all of life, and at the moment, that includes the suffering of babies and animals. That acceptance isn't going to eliminate the suffering, but there is a directness to the acceptance, and it creates the opportunity for intelligent responses. And that's the agenda, but in order to understand suffering, we have to set the agendas to the side and see what's really going on.
|
|
|
Post by enigma on Feb 11, 2018 22:01:22 GMT -5
The persona is part of the structure that causes injury. How is it in a position to deflect injury? It creates a kind of block to emotional pain. In most cultures in our world, we experience rejection and abandonment when we are born and raised. Even hospitals are barbaric in their own way (though the intention of them might be honourable). It's hard enough as an adult experiencing the intensity of feeling, for a baby/infant...it's just not appropriate to feel the full force of the collective pain and suffering of the world. Okay, I guess I can see that.
|
|
|
Post by enigma on Feb 11, 2018 22:04:46 GMT -5
[/b]unconscious sense of itself, and therefore although pain is experienced differently by babies (to older humans), there is still an apparent sufferer. [/quote]A sense of self is not a 'me' structure in the mind. A sense of self does not lead to suffering. Your premise was that ''pain is just sensation until it is attached to a 'me' structure and it becomes suffering''. I'm saying that GIVEN that premise, the baby must be suffering because there IS a 'me' structure, just not an abstract conceptual structure.
We are moved to comfort simply because we believe it is suffering because it is acting like we do when we suffer. I'm suggesting we're missing something about how suffering happens. [/quote] Well it would be interesting to see if one would be moved to provide comfort to an AI robot when they demonstrated that they were responding to pain. [/quote] ------------------------------------------ Andy:Your premise was that ''pain is just sensation until it is attached to a 'me' structure and it becomes suffering''. I'm saying that GIVEN that premise, the baby must be suffering because there IS a 'me' structure, just not an abstract conceptual structure. And I'm saying there isn't a 'me' structure in the infant. Andy:Well it would be interesting to see if one would be moved to provide comfort to an AI robot when they demonstrated that they were responding to pain. Not if you knew it was a robot and that robots can't feel pain. What did I miss? [/quote] Well, you are missing the point that there is a 'me' structure in a baby, and this 'me' structure is the difference between AI robot and intelligent being. Apparently the AI robot can artificially 'experience' sensation, such as pain. They can be given artificial sensors apparently. [/quote] How do you figure I missed that point? I addressed it directly? [/quote] If a baby has no me structure of any kind, then it is the same as an AI bot. The 'me' structure becomes conceptual as we develop, but in essence it is just a primal and preconceptual sense of self. This is what differs to the AI bot, it has no 'me' structure. You have yet to explain to me what you see as the difference between a baby and an AI bot. [/quote] Without a 'me' structure, the baby becomes a robot? [/quote] That's not what I said lol. A baby has a 'me' structure (a primal and preconceptual sense of self), but a robot does not. [/quote] You said "If a baby has no me structure of any kind, then it is the same as an AI bot". How does that differ from, if the baby has no 'me' structure it's an AI bot?
|
|
|
Post by enigma on Feb 11, 2018 22:08:44 GMT -5
You have assassinated suffering by making it the same as pain. No, suffering is the result of pain. It is the suffering that prompts action. Eating too much, pain in belly, slight suffering, stop eating. If pain always results in suffering, the word 'pain' can also be used to refer to suffering, and the suffering word becomes obsolete. That's how assassinations work.
|
|
|
Post by enigma on Feb 11, 2018 22:21:56 GMT -5
[/b]unconscious sense of itself, and therefore although pain is experienced differently by babies (to older humans), there is still an apparent sufferer. [/quote]A sense of self is not a 'me' structure in the mind. A sense of self does not lead to suffering. Your premise was that ''pain is just sensation until it is attached to a 'me' structure and it becomes suffering''. I'm saying that GIVEN that premise, the baby must be suffering because there IS a 'me' structure, just not an abstract conceptual structure.
We are moved to comfort simply because we believe it is suffering because it is acting like we do when we suffer. I'm suggesting we're missing something about how suffering happens. [/quote] Well it would be interesting to see if one would be moved to provide comfort to an AI robot when they demonstrated that they were responding to pain. [/quote] ------------------------------------------ Andy:Your premise was that ''pain is just sensation until it is attached to a 'me' structure and it becomes suffering''. I'm saying that GIVEN that premise, the baby must be suffering because there IS a 'me' structure, just not an abstract conceptual structure. And I'm saying there isn't a 'me' structure in the infant. Andy:Well it would be interesting to see if one would be moved to provide comfort to an AI robot when they demonstrated that they were responding to pain. Not if you knew it was a robot and that robots can't feel pain. What did I miss? [/quote] Well, you are missing the point that there is a 'me' structure in a baby, and this 'me' structure is the difference between AI robot and intelligent being. Apparently the AI robot can artificially 'experience' sensation, such as pain. They can be given artificial sensors apparently. [/quote] How do you figure I missed that point? I addressed it directly? [/quote] I'm going to have to agree with andrew, from what I recall you never give an indication there is a 'self' (a me structure) until about the age of 2. [/quote] Right, no 'me' structure until it can be conceptualized. This is the reason for the 'terrible twos', when everything becomes 'ME!' and 'MINE!' [/quote] That stage is when the preconceptual sense of self becomes more conceptual and abstract. At this point the persona is developing more strongly, and the sense of being apparently separate is more pronounced. It is a development process, it's not that something magically appears at two. [/quote] There's a point at which the concept of 'me' becomes understandable. Once that happens, there's the potential for every experience to be filtered through that idea, which quickly becomes very significant. It is kind of magical, in a way. The child has tasted the apple for the first time.
|
|
|
Post by enigma on Feb 11, 2018 22:24:05 GMT -5
If pain is suffering, then there is no way out of suffering, and teachers have lied to us for thousands of years. You guys both okay with that? Pretty much. I'm still not going to stub my toe deliberately, and I would prefer if we, as a creative species, were less 'dramatic' in our creations. So what are you saying? That for you those things are suffering?
|
|
|
Post by enigma on Feb 11, 2018 22:25:46 GMT -5
I was pointing away from the idea of a personal self born with propensities and such, or a personal self on any one of the other cake levels. There IS an imaginer, which we call Awareness, Consciousness, Intelligence. Okay, but you demonstrated that you were fine with the third layer too. You spoke of an imagined self, an individual with propensities, and presumably a source from which the individual is expressed. None of which is a self.
|
|
|
Post by lolly on Feb 11, 2018 23:30:29 GMT -5
Well, yes, but to me, saying 'me structure' is so arbitrary I don't even know what it means, so I mention more specific aspects such as volition, aversion/desire dynamics, or the Buddhist reference 'craving', because these are tangible noticeable things. It's true enough to say that an infant experiences sensation without 'other' references, though. What I mean by a 'me' structure is anything beyond a sense of self, which I would equate to a sense of existence, or sense of 'I am'. This would be a conceptual structure about the person assumed to exist. I say it's not a natural thing for and infant as it is for an adult, and it requires some cognitive sophistication. So it really amounts to a thought that represents or references self, like a self image, or even just a story that concludes with identification. I usually point out the mechanism by which this is perpetuated, because the mechanism is not other than the thing itself. The main reason is people can see fairly easily the reactivity when pain arises and quite easily understand that what occurs in addition to the sensation is causing a lot of suffering. We can fairly easily notice these additions, and hence see 'the cause' of misery and how we generate it for ourselves. The caveat is, there is a body/mind central to identity, so lolly does have to see himself relative to the experience, just as you imagine a lolly whom you address and I imagine an Enigma respectively, and all this has some limitation, which can't endure anything and still survive. When the experience reaches a certain extreme, the reactivity befuddles the conscious aspect so the experience is 'cut off' so to speak. This is why we take things to their limitations and have to keep an even keel, so we can endure greater extremes henceforth. Would this apply to the energy flows you experience? In the case of an infant, it is the same in the sense that at a high degree of extreme sensation the reactive dynamic kicks in, as an infant isn't really the 'idealised being' we tend to example them as. They still have disturbed minds and they still perpetuate that self from moment to moment, or even from the last life to the next. It's just that they haven't formed the memory in their neural systems of the infant body in terms of 'known imagery'. The thing is, it's all perpetuated in an energy. The structure itself isn't continuous as such, as no part of it endures from one moment to the next, but the force which created the last body/mind also creates the current, so the present lolly bears characteristics of that just expired. Thus even though it's a whole new lolly, the past lollies amounted to it. I'm only the byproduct of all my past, and the will to live, the 'craving' to experience, perpetuates such a regeneration. For this reason I think awareness of the volition (which is awareness of the reactivities - action/reaction) is the best form of self awareness. In the meditation, then, whatever sensation arises, just know it as it is - and if (or I should say 'when') reactivity arises, then notice how it 'disturbs' the tranquility of inner space, and how such disturbance is the essence of suffering. For most it should be really easy because the mind is reacting non stop, continually making self references, and people will find as they are the one aware, and not the one reacting, it isn't really themselves which reacts, and subsequentially, acts. Then one might suddenly realise the one who reacts only exists in the aftermath of sensation, and this is what sustains that 'me structure'.
|
|
|
Post by enigma on Feb 11, 2018 23:44:55 GMT -5
No, suffering is the result of pain. It is the suffering that prompts action. Eating too much, pain in belly, slight suffering, stop eating. Well then, is the only way to end suffering to end pain? I'm thinkin drugs is the answer, right?
|
|
|
Post by enigma on Feb 11, 2018 23:55:32 GMT -5
To clarify a particular point, although I see suffering as a physiologically necessary component of pain, suffering can arise in other ways too. For example, certain kinds of suffering are a result of mental problems or chemical imbalances in the brain, there is no 'physical' pain as such. Mental torment basically. I'd call that pain. I'd say that emotional pain that isn't from a physical sensation is pain as well, and not imagined pain, just pain. To clarify one more point, suffering doesn't have to have a particular intensity to it in order for it to be 'suffering'. For example, to recognize that another is suffering, requires us to recognize suffering in ourselves. We don't have to deeply engage with that suffering in ourselves, just that single moment can be enough. I suspect that this is how it is for many of the 'enlightened', in that they recognize suffering in others, and therefore themselves, but the movement that follows isn't to explore their own potential for suffering...in fact, exploring our own potential for suffering is a very egocentric thing to do in some situations. I am reminded of Tolle again. He tells a story about his post awakening experience. There was a time, a few months after I think, when the idea to return to the academic world presented itself. On consideration, he could see that to take that route would be to take him back to unconsciousness. He chose a different path. I would say that in that moment he found the potential for suffering within himself, and moved away from it (wisely). It's not that suffering was eliminated in the awakening, it's that the movement to explore that inner capacity was no longer necessary. But that capacity remains in such way that the suffering in other sentient beings can still be recognized. Not interested in agreeing to disagree, eh? The memory of what it was like to suffer suffices, and anyone who thinks they're "enlightened" but still suffering isn't really in a position to point others toward "enlightenment". Tolle actually did continue on with his post grad work. I'm not sure for how long (as I recall, not long) but there is a gap in his story from the preface of "The Power of Now" up until his time on the park benches. You can find that gap explained in old interviews -- or that material used to be out there anyway. Jed wrote about how he was losing touch with what it felt like as time went on in his fist book, and I've never really been able to relate to that. Like I said, I've got no theory to present to try to change your mind. Try to come up with a layer cake theory. He'll eat that up.
|
|
|
Post by enigma on Feb 12, 2018 0:15:55 GMT -5
At the moment, we're not talking about compassion. We're talking about the nature of suffering, and this involves seeing through illusions of experience. Post all the heart wrenching videos you want. Send me off to Google past lives and pre-birth experience. Bake all the conceptual layer cakes you want, but experience is illusion. Understanding comes from within. What are you saying here? You aren't stating your points clearly in relation to the subject. Unless you are a psychopath (and I very much doubt you are), there are photos and videos that could be posted that would undoubtedly instantly trigger an internal reaction in you. That internal reaction is a response to the suffering you see in the photos/videos. I suspect that seeing an adult human suffering is probably easier than seeing a baby or animal suffering, because we know that babies/animals have no developed persona, thus there is a sense of 'innocence' to them. It makes sense to me why one would want to NOT see suffering in babies/animals, but your gut will tell you the painful truth. It's in response to what I imagine is happening internally in the characters I see, not in response to the suffering I see. I can't see suffering in another, I can only imagine it. Then I can call it intuition of gut or obvious truth or whatever floats my little row boat.
|
|
|
Post by Reefs on Feb 12, 2018 0:21:01 GMT -5
The personality is there at the moment of birth and will remain post SR. So personality and suffering are not related. It has something to do with perspective. A-H once defined suffering as depriving yourself of the fullness that you are. So it is basically an extreme case of misidentification or being out of alignment. Just my perspective. I would say essence is there at birth (the definition of essence in the 4th Way, what we are born with[as]). Living completely through essence would therefore mean "the fullness that you are". This self that begins when one is about 2/3 is defined in the 4th Way, as personality, it's just a word so defined (and I've used many terms here on ST's, ego/cultural self/conditioned self/false (sense of) self/mask/persona). Ego/personality/cultural self almost inevitably forms, and covers-over our essence. This, is as you say, misidentification, being out of alignment (because one can't be both simultaneously the true sense of self and the false sense of self). So what you say fits perfectly the 4th Way teaching. I could draw a few more arrows...but I've done so previously...[The purpose of the formation of "self", is to protect essence/true self. Part of this is Reich's body armor. But what happens is that when the "self" is mostly formed, instead of protecting essence, there is an unconscious shift of identity, the child takes-its-self-to-be that which was supposed to be its protection, it "~ becomes~" the formed false sense of "self", essence is covered over, lost, still there, but ~forgotten~]. And so when ZD says that there is no separate self, it's illusory, that's an absolute fact, this false sense of self IS a fiction. A-H and Seth teach the blending of the outer self (ego) and the inner self (Inner Being). So in that context, I'd say the ego is there from birth but it is almost perfectly blending with the Inner Being. So it may seem that there is no ego. That's why babies can suffer (as can animals) but rarely do and if they do then not for long because there's almost zero tolerance. The way I see the ego (and it's extension the physical body) is similar to how Icke explained it. The purpose of the ego/body (or body/mind) is to give a very specific kind of experience by translating/interpreting energy in a very specific (and limited) way. The result is the consensus trance (or time-space-reality). Which means the ego's purpose is not to protect but to direct (focus). That's why A-H say we are on the leading edge here, where expansion happens.
|
|
|
Post by enigma on Feb 12, 2018 0:23:02 GMT -5
So you changed your mind and agree that babies suffer. No
|
|