|
Post by andrew on Feb 13, 2018 4:13:44 GMT -5
I don't believe that you have been able to nullify the voice or feeling of your intuition altogether, but it seems that you successfully ignore it. That suffering cannot occur without a 'me' structure is the realization that started all this. That realization doesn't particularly please me and is problematic in some ways, but that's irrelevant in terms of the validity of the realization. (I don't have an agenda regarding it) Are you saying that a result of the realization is that you ignore your intuition?
|
|
|
Post by andrew on Feb 13, 2018 4:15:43 GMT -5
It is the dis-ease, dissatisfaction, discomfort that is undesirable. The absence of well-being. The 3 d's there is the general way to define suffering, so when someone sees a baby screaming, they know the baby is in a state of dis-ease, discomfort and dis-satisfaction, and that they are experiencing it very directly. My point was, we can't discuss it. I'm not seeing why the fact that babies and animals suffer, means that we couldn't discuss a particular form of adult human suffering.
|
|
|
Post by andrew on Feb 13, 2018 4:20:47 GMT -5
Tolle once said that people have only three options when they are presented with a situation that is intolerable: they can change the situation, walk away from it, or accept it. I believe that most humans are capable of all three of these option but the real stress in knowing which one to choose lol. Does a woman accept that her husband beats here? Does she try and change herself, or her husband? Or does she walk away? It's just not easy being human sometimes. I think Tolle's 3 options can get us along a little further in this discussion about suffering. Given that most people are afraid of dying, that leaves them with only 2 options - changing the situation or accepting it. And given that most also don't know how they create their own experiences, that leaves them with practically just 1 option - accepting it. And so, as Thoreau said, most people lead lives of quiet desperation. Now, the animal is not afraid of dying and the same seems to apply to babies. And as A-H and Seth assure us, from the non-physical, there are no regrets if someone should cut out early. That's why I would say even though animals have the capacity to suffer, they rarely do because they have no resistance to the walk away option. They relax into the inevitable and let nature take its course. Choosing is always easy when you are in touch with your inner guidance. But it can border on self-torture when you only have your intellect to rely on. So I would say it's easy to be a human, but not easy to be a person. I basically agree but I would say that even though animals don't have the existential fear, the suffering can be intense and pure in its form because they don't aggravate or add layers of existential fear to the suffering. It's just...suffering. It's not suffering AND mental desperation suffering. And in my words, I would say it is easy to be a human if there is no misidentification and false belief.
|
|
|
Post by andrew on Feb 13, 2018 4:26:40 GMT -5
The latter is a form or the former, and the way to end it involves removing the conditions upon which it arises. This does get into a bit of a grey area when we take it to extremes, such as, as far as a situation like liberation with life-force remaining, to say the least. But any disagreement there probably won't be about whether such a state is possible, just about what it would entail. Well, I disagree. The undeniable fact is that folks willingly endure all sorts of physical pain, and sometimes, quite joyfully so. Here, I can't resist making this point with a personal story. In my ski bum phase I had the day down to a science, especially at my favorite spot. You see, the name of the game, is, time on the slope. I had the perfect nook in the base lodge picked out for early-afternoon access to hooks so I could hang a shirt to dry, knew exactly what I was gonna have for lunch (no gratuitous fats, no sugars, just enough fluids -- but no more), had an optimized system for what I'd carry on my person, and would pattern my movements around the trail system in such a way as to maximize the chance for as many runs possible. The strategy is to get there as early as you can, take only those breaks that the body absolutely demands, and then literally race the lifts at the end of the day before they'd stop spinning. So one day near the end of my tenure it's late afternoon with less than an hour to go before closing. I have this calculus running in my head that by then was completely intuitive and required no computation: the lift with the greatest vertical took a little less than 10 minutes on the trip, and if I really pushed it I could get back down to the bottom in a little over 5. On this day I was off out on the perimeter of the place, which is quite a sprawl, and I knew it would take some time to get back to the base area. My feet were screaming, both from the confinement of the boots and the cold. My back was stiff from all the banging on the bumps, my inner layer was soaked with perspiration and on the chair, up in the wind, it took less than a minute to turn into clam-city. I was thirsty, tired, hungry, and I needed to take a leak. But I knew that stopping back at the base meant losing at least one run, maybe even two. The time it takes to kick off the ski's and walk into the place was 3 minutes in and of itself -- and that not accounting for the heightened need to lock your gear near the end of the day. There were plenty of days when the timing was just right ... where I'd go back out for that last 3/4 hour all nice and dry, comfs and recharged, and those are good memories too. But not on this day. At the top of the chair, I thought "ah ... the hell with it", started pole-ing like a fiend for the fix, and didn't stop until they roped off the line to the lift. It was glorious. Priceless. And epic. yes, there are a ton of examples of activities that come with a level of suffering, but there is also value, purpose, satisfaction, pleasure and joy in the activity. I can relate to the skiing example. Weight lifting is likely another good example. I used to suffer to an extent when playing rugby, but there was still a level of enjoyment in it. I imagine that a lot of jobs come with suffering, but the pay offs are good (I don't just mean financial pay offs).
|
|
|
Post by andrew on Feb 13, 2018 4:27:49 GMT -5
The reason Andy makes pain equal to suffering is so that we can be sure nobody dismisses another's suffering on the basis that it may be just pain sensation. I sense more than that going on with this particular assassination. But it wasn't Andy that I perceived as having stated the equation that "suffering = pain + resistance". In fact, from gab-skimming, it seemed to me that was sort of a consensus that he opposed. And it's one that I'd oppose as well, at least, if it's not first qualified to the point of shredding the relative meaning to it. yeah I don't recall ever stating that particular equation, the word 'resistance' isn't one I have used I don't think.
|
|
|
Post by andrew on Feb 13, 2018 4:34:33 GMT -5
Sure. For example, many people with illness and pain as they approach the end of their life are suffering to an extent, and yet they are still able to love and appreciate. At any given moment, one can either be suffering or experiencing joy. Not both. Well I disagree. For example, giving birth can likely come with suffering and joy (I can't personally testify though lol). There are lots of examples, but that does seem quite an obvious one. Suffering isn't the bugaboo or bogey man that it is often painted to be. It CAN be (and I can testify that for myself), particularly when it is experienced as being choiceless and without any value. At its worst, suffering is pure hell. At its most mild, it isn't much more than empathizing with someone else's suffering. I mean, our friend gopal says he suffers when he watches Game Of Thrones lol, but he also enjoys it I assume.
|
|
|
Post by andrew on Feb 13, 2018 4:35:22 GMT -5
the same as the imagined self that you said isnt a self....? You asked, what's a self, and I said a self is imagination. What kind of word games are we playing now? Yes, but previously to that, you had spoken of an imaged self. Forget it, its not worth it.
|
|
|
Post by andrew on Feb 13, 2018 4:43:39 GMT -5
well I will take a step back. What you seemed to suggest is that intuition should be ignored or discounted on the basis that it is imagination. Is that correct? Your story is that your intuition is unquestionable, and therefore mine should say the same thing, so I must be dismissing it as imagination. It's a very creative story, but it's yours, not mine. I've watched you try to use your intuition over the years, and it always seems to be used in the service of your agendas. My intuition tells me that you would be better off ignoring it all together. No, intuition CAN be wrong of course, but when intuition repeatedly and insistently says the same thing, it is silly to ignore it. Even if it WAS wrong, to ignore a persistent intuitive signal would not be of benefit. Just as you know that other humans and animals are perceiving, you know when a baby is suffering. I am often accused of over complicating, but this is one of the simplest things in the world, and anything else is intellectualizing and over-spiritualizing.
|
|
|
Post by andrew on Feb 13, 2018 4:44:40 GMT -5
I'm not clear if you think biological self awareness begins at 2 and above. Conceptual self identification seems to begin around age two. okay, so does that mean that you associate biological self awareness with conceptual self-identification? If so, which animals do you consider self-identify?
|
|
|
Post by andrew on Feb 13, 2018 4:45:24 GMT -5
If anybody questions whether animals suffer or not, watch the film Buck. (Buck has tremendous empathy with horses because he was physically and emotionally abused by his father when young, great film). And again you want to present film evidence of suffering. You can't watch an animal and know what's going on subjectively, and for the same reason you can't even know if they are experiencing at all.
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Feb 13, 2018 6:06:20 GMT -5
Well, I disagree. The undeniable fact is that folks willingly endure all sorts of physical pain, and sometimes, quite joyfully so. Here, I can't resist making this point with a personal story. In my ski bum phase I had the day down to a science, especially at my favorite spot. You see, the name of the game, is, time on the slope. I had the perfect nook in the base lodge picked out for early-afternoon access to hooks so I could hang a shirt to dry, knew exactly what I was gonna have for lunch (no gratuitous fats, no sugars, just enough fluids -- but no more), had an optimized system for what I'd carry on my person, and would pattern my movements around the trail system in such a way as to maximize the chance for as many runs possible. The strategy is to get there as early as you can, take only those breaks that the body absolutely demands, and then literally race the lifts at the end of the day before they'd stop spinning. So one day near the end of my tenure it's late afternoon with less than an hour to go before closing. I have this calculus running in my head that by then was completely intuitive and required no computation: the lift with the greatest vertical took a little less than 10 minutes on the trip, and if I really pushed it I could get back down to the bottom in a little over 5. On this day I was off out on the perimeter of the place, which is quite a sprawl, and I knew it would take some time to get back to the base area. My feet were screaming, both from the confinement of the boots and the cold. My back was stiff from all the banging on the bumps, my inner layer was soaked with perspiration and on the chair, up in the wind, it took less than a minute to turn into clam-city. I was thirsty, tired, hungry, and I needed to take a leak. But I knew that stopping back at the base meant losing at least one run, maybe even two. The time it takes to kick off the ski's and walk into the place was 3 minutes in and of itself -- and that not accounting for the heightened need to lock your gear near the end of the day. There were plenty of days when the timing was just right ... where I'd go back out for that last 3/4 hour all nice and dry, comfs and recharged, and those are good memories too. But not on this day. At the top of the chair, I thought "ah ... the hell with it", started pole-ing like a fiend for the fix, and didn't stop until they roped off the line to the lift. It was glorious. Priceless. And epic. yes, there are a ton of examples of activities that come with a level of suffering, but there is also value, purpose, satisfaction, pleasure and joy in the activity. I can relate to the skiing example. Weight lifting is likely another good example. I used to suffer to an extent when playing rugby, but there was still a level of enjoyment in it. I imagine that a lot of jobs come with suffering, but the pay offs are good (I don't just mean financial pay offs). Well, the thing is, the pain was intense, but I was oblivious to it, 'cause all I wanted to do was .. GO! There are certainly more dramatic potential examples of this type of scenario, with much more intense pain and a greater gravitas to the motivation. While I know we disagree on this point, there's no way I would describe what it felt like at the time as suffering. So I'd opine that it's an example that illustrates how pain can happen free of suffering. And I'd say that it's an example that's independent and regardless of any sort of existential realization.
|
|
|
Post by andrew on Feb 13, 2018 6:52:20 GMT -5
yes, there are a ton of examples of activities that come with a level of suffering, but there is also value, purpose, satisfaction, pleasure and joy in the activity. I can relate to the skiing example. Weight lifting is likely another good example. I used to suffer to an extent when playing rugby, but there was still a level of enjoyment in it. I imagine that a lot of jobs come with suffering, but the pay offs are good (I don't just mean financial pay offs). Well, the thing is, the pain was intense, but I was oblivious to it, 'cause all I wanted to do was .. GO! There are certainly more dramatic potential examples of this type of scenario, with much more intense pain and a greater gravitas to the motivation. While I know we disagree on this point, there's no way I would describe what it felt like at the time as suffering. So I'd opine that it's an example that illustrates how pain can happen free of suffering. And I'd say that it's an example that's independent and regardless of any sort of existential realization. Having skied myself, I get what you are saying, it can be exquisite. Nevertheless I don't think you would even recall this as an example IF there had been a total absence of suffering. It may even be that the level of suffering added something to the exquisiteness of the experience. Still I guess we disagree.
|
|
|
Post by enigma on Feb 13, 2018 10:27:15 GMT -5
The problem is that virtually no-one here believes that SR is the end of suffering resulting from the end of the belief in the sufferer. Nothing can be done about that. Pleased to make your acquaintance, Mr. Cassandra. To plagiarize Kevin, this is perfectly so, but I'd go on to opine that belief is too unsubtle a notion to completely convey the core of the illusion. A belief is what is found, what can be challenged and explored, and it's what expresses, and completely defines the existential error. But if SR were as easy as putting a not in front of it, there's be alot more "SR peeps". You mean negating beliefs? That's not easy by a long stretch. In his heart of hearts, the most devoted theist knows his beliefs have no foundation. As such, I don't really need to convince anyone here that we don't know anything. It's more about being honest with ourselves.
|
|
|
Post by enigma on Feb 13, 2018 10:49:56 GMT -5
From my perspective, it's exactly the other way around. The baby and the animal both still know very well what well-being is and feels like and they very much desire it. Keep in mind that the baby sleeps most of the time and is still mostly focused in the non-physical. That's why the baby screams like an animal when in pain because it's such an extreme contrast to what it is used to. I'd even say the desire for well-being is particularity strong in the baby as compared to the adult. And there is also no resistance to that desire. That's why such a strong desire doesn't cause any additional problems. The adult, however, that's an entirely different story. Long story short: It's natural to desire well-being because well-being is your natural state. But I agree with your point that there's a lack of imagining as in adding an extra conceptual layer to what is happening right here right now. The dynamic is more to do with the response to the real lived experience, so the question is basically, does the infant resist the painful sensation. If so it brings up the dynamic of aversion to the sensation which is the desire to not have, which is also the desire for a more pleasant alternative. I argue that the infant has very little aversion/desire in response to the sensation, and that response is what constitutes 'resistance'. What you call a 'desire for well being' is more to do with what I consider as 'metta', which is a very basic wish for the well-being of all beings. It's probably not recognisable because it's isn't a sentimental thing, but it arises through the body/mind in an absence of the polarity of love/hate or aversion/desire or other dual paradigms. Rezzing wit dat.
|
|
|
Post by enigma on Feb 13, 2018 10:51:57 GMT -5
Sorry, I didn't follow much of that. Sometimes I forget it's the twitter generation and post more that 100 wds Call me simple minded. I'm okay with that.
|
|