|
Post by laughter on Feb 24, 2018 17:39:38 GMT -5
I think it was ZD who said it was a matter of semantics whether pain is suffering, so we'll leave it the dictionary then: "the state of undergoing pain, distress or hardship." this convo is primarily about definitions, and definitions are extremely artificial and rather rigidly bounded. In the real world definitions become less important than direct experience.
|
|
|
Post by justlikeyou on Feb 24, 2018 17:40:41 GMT -5
No outlook expressed here. Only the bare bottom fact for SDP to find. Making simple-simple of the words in this case just makes it easy for him not to look. This is a rug that demands pulling. Ah, but there are also cracks in the floor under the rug. One never knows what might slip through. :-)
|
|
|
Post by enigma on Feb 24, 2018 18:57:19 GMT -5
No. It's common to feel guilty about resisting or try to stop resisting because peeps are very creative sufferers, but these are just additional ways to suffer. There can be resistance without suffering, which is mostly what makes observing resistance in others and calling it suffering problematic. well, as I said, I would say all resistance contains a slight element of suffering, but I'm also saying that this isn't necessarily a problem. I would rather suffer for a moment when eating a bad prawn, and spit it out, than not suffer in that moment, and then suffer in the bathroom later that day hehe. I guess you see suffering as 'always a problem'. I don't. Sometimes it is, sometimes it isn't. By definition, suffering is a problem for the sufferer. That's why he calls it suffering instead of 'having a really good time'.
|
|
|
Post by enigma on Feb 24, 2018 19:00:07 GMT -5
This is an example of how mind deceives itself. When you stop 'resisting the resistance', you're just not resisting so much anymore. It's extremely difficult for peeps to end the resistance completely just by trying to end it, (it's a split mind game) so some resistance remains, and you imagine this is a different resistance that you have no control over as opposed to the other resistance that you do have some control over. Animals don't play these games. In the 9th minute (9:40) of the video it shows a horse afraid of a cowboy with a black hat, the same horse has no problem with a cowboy with a white hat. Figure it out. (same link given earlier) www.ted.com/talks/temple_grandin_the_world_needs_all_kinds_of_minds?language=enAnd it relates to resisting resistance how?
|
|
|
Post by enigma on Feb 24, 2018 19:10:12 GMT -5
It's just a childish wanting to have your cake and eat it too. Make up your mind if you want to have the prostate exam done or not. If not, don't go. If so, go. Simples. Where is there a proper place for resistance? Ah...'make up your mind'. That's like saying, 'commit to the decision'. Unfortunately it's not always as simple as that. One can 'make up their mind' to do something, and there still be a lack of congruence in regard to the decision. I rarely 'make up my mind' or 'commit to decisions'. It's barely even true to say that I make a decision, it's more true to say that 'decisions happen'. But if I make a decision and then there is incongruence, it will be noticed and experienced and I might continue with the decision.....of if the incongruence becomes too intense, then it will be noticed, experienced and a different decision is made. It sounds like you can use the energy of 'commitment' to over-ride incongruence, which is fine, and what most people do. Most folks are able to apply 'rationality'. I don't have that capacity (though I did once). I would be a TERRIBLE employee (in fact, I could never be one again). It's not about committing to a decision. Sometimes it makes sense to change your mind, and even if it doesn't, it's fine. It's about making one decision at a time instead of two conflicting ones. The latter predictably leads to conflict.
|
|
|
Post by andrew on Feb 24, 2018 19:36:42 GMT -5
well, as I said, I would say all resistance contains a slight element of suffering, but I'm also saying that this isn't necessarily a problem. I would rather suffer for a moment when eating a bad prawn, and spit it out, than not suffer in that moment, and then suffer in the bathroom later that day hehe. I guess you see suffering as 'always a problem'. I don't. Sometimes it is, sometimes it isn't. By definition, suffering is a problem for the sufferer. That's why he calls it suffering instead of 'having a really good time'. I think I mentioned once that I took drugs of different kinds in my late adolescence. There were times when the bliss and the love was so very intense, that it actually did come with a quality of suffering. It was just too much. I was still 'having a good time' though. Feelings, emotions and experience in general is just messier than you are portraying, but I understand there is value in simplifying the subject too.
|
|
|
Post by enigma on Feb 24, 2018 19:36:59 GMT -5
Existential suffering, or more generally, mental suffering, is the idea 'this shouldn't be happening to me'. It's critical to note that this requires an imagined me. I'm saying animals that don't have self awareness don't have a me around which to form that statement. Well I agree that that is a key aspect of human suffering, but I would say that animals do have that story in a VERY basic, pre-conceptual and rudimentary form. Nevertheless, as humans we do have the ability to challenge and question that story, and I would agree with you that it is a good one to challenge, and I agree that investigating the nature of the apparent 'self' that suffers is good. At this point I'm tempted to discuss the difference between pre and post enlightenment in terms of that personal story. Assuming post enlightenment means not suffering, there is still a personal story there that we can say is at least involved as that of the animals, and a sense of self. What there is not is mind/body identification.
|
|
|
Post by andrew on Feb 24, 2018 19:45:44 GMT -5
Ah...'make up your mind'. That's like saying, 'commit to the decision'. Unfortunately it's not always as simple as that. One can 'make up their mind' to do something, and there still be a lack of congruence in regard to the decision. I rarely 'make up my mind' or 'commit to decisions'. It's barely even true to say that I make a decision, it's more true to say that 'decisions happen'. But if I make a decision and then there is incongruence, it will be noticed and experienced and I might continue with the decision.....of if the incongruence becomes too intense, then it will be noticed, experienced and a different decision is made. It sounds like you can use the energy of 'commitment' to over-ride incongruence, which is fine, and what most people do. Most folks are able to apply 'rationality'. I don't have that capacity (though I did once). I would be a TERRIBLE employee (in fact, I could never be one again). It's not about committing to a decision. Sometimes it makes sense to change your mind, and even if it doesn't, it's fine. It's about making one decision at a time instead of two conflicting ones. The latter predictably leads to conflict. right, but very rarely do changes of mind just instantly happen out of the blue. Most often there is a build up in the level of incongruence with the current decision. In two days, I have to let my landlady know if I want to stay on another month. I have made no decision, the two potentials play around my mind a bit in a semi-confusing way, though I sense in my heart what will unfold. In fact, that decision will never actually get made. What will happen is, she comes to see me, and then I tell her what I tell her, and then that's that. At no point will there have been an actual decision. The only thing I am ever really doing these days is 'reading the flow' and acting on that reading. So when someone asks me about a future decision, I will tend to say something like...''this is what I guess will happen''.
|
|
|
Post by andrew on Feb 24, 2018 19:47:35 GMT -5
Well I agree that that is a key aspect of human suffering, but I would say that animals do have that story in a VERY basic, pre-conceptual and rudimentary form. Nevertheless, as humans we do have the ability to challenge and question that story, and I would agree with you that it is a good one to challenge, and I agree that investigating the nature of the apparent 'self' that suffers is good. At this point I'm tempted to discuss the difference between pre and post enlightenment in terms of that personal story. Assuming post enlightenment means not suffering, there is still a personal story there that we can say is at least involved as that of the animals, and a sense of self. What there is not is mind/body identification. Agree largely with the bolded. In my words, we no longer believe that we are principally a body/mind.
|
|
|
Post by enigma on Feb 24, 2018 20:02:28 GMT -5
I didn't ask you to restate your conclusion. I asked to explain how you came to it. How is it spiritual thinking? I thought I did answer it. Okay. It is spiritual thinking because intuitively and instinctively, we know when an animal or baby is suffering. Spirituality invites us to reframe and redefine our definition of suffering, so as to investigate the internal processes that cause suffering (whereas our conditioning tends to say that outside processes cause suffering). We have to use our mind in a rational manner to reframe and redefine the definition of suffering, and there is value to this. Ultimately though, they are both true. Internal and external processes cause suffering (and you don't have to tell me at this point that Consciousness is the cause). Someone overly focused on the external cause, might benefit from looking at internal processes. Someone overly focused on the internal causes, might do well to look at their life and take some action (like leave an abusive partner). So the 'spiritual thinking that we get lost in' is intuition and instinct? That doesn't make sense to me.
|
|
|
Post by enigma on Feb 24, 2018 20:04:32 GMT -5
In that instance then, your assertion is just another opinion. Of course, anything written is merely an opinion. (The Tao that can be put into words, is not the Tao. chapter one, first line). To know the truth you have to become the truth. (And you have to cease to be what isn't true. In the Tao, every day, something is lost). Indeed. Would you say that's your path?
|
|
|
Post by stardustpilgrim on Feb 24, 2018 20:33:41 GMT -5
And it relates to resisting resistance how? In the presence of the white hat cowboy, no suffering. In the presence of the black hat cowboy, the horse suffers (because of its memory).
|
|
|
Post by lolly on Feb 24, 2018 20:34:45 GMT -5
It's infinitely regressive to resist the resistance to resistance to resista... even a bunny girl can't go that deep! When you are lifting a heavy weight, you experience a sense of resistance, right? Your body is saying....'put it down, it's heavy!'. But the apparent chooser says...'No, I desire to lift this weight'. That's a positive example of resisting the resistance. You see value in lifting the heavy weight, so you over-ride the resistance, and I guess your muscles grow as a result. I see value in most exercise partly because it teaches 'self'-discipline and mastery of mind. When you do something that extends your limitations everything stops and there is only this lift. There is significant pain but the skill is being conscious of the body sans the adverse reaction. If the mind gets in the way, you become very miserable and quit training. It is very difficult to continually progress because the overload has to continually increase to stimulate further adaption. Getting stronger is only an adaption to stress. Sometime a lifter will reach a 'plateau', and regardless of diligent training, can not increase the weight lifted. They then have to examine their training program and make alterations to shock the body in new ways to create just the right kind of stress to force an adaption. The mistake you are making is equating 'resistance training' with psychological resistance. Resistance training is finding ways to produce the stress which best forces an adaption - and a significant reduction in psychological resistance is integral to that end. In the lifting game, pain is gain. In the psychological game resistance to pain is the avoidance of suffering - and that backfires every time.
|
|
|
Post by stardustpilgrim on Feb 24, 2018 20:51:40 GMT -5
Of course, anything written is merely an opinion. (The Tao that can be put into words, is not the Tao. chapter one, first line). To know the truth you have to become the truth. (And you have to cease to be what isn't true. In the Tao, every day, something is lost). Indeed. Would you say that's your path? Merely 1/2 the path. That which needs to be lost is an obstruction to what-can-be (but not now is). It's a matter of energy. To maintain the false requires energy and superfluously wastes energy, this takes place unconsciously. This ~decreation~ (Simone Weil's word, she knew of Gurdjieff's teaching through Madame de Salzmann, and most of her mysticism is based on-this. See her Gravity & Grace) necessarily takes place only consciously. The ~new~ is built from this energy, transformed (In Alchemy this is symbolized as turning lead into gold). Without this transformation deconstruction In and of Itself means nothing.
|
|
|
Post by stardustpilgrim on Feb 24, 2018 20:55:15 GMT -5
When you are lifting a heavy weight, you experience a sense of resistance, right? Your body is saying....'put it down, it's heavy!'. But the apparent chooser says...'No, I desire to lift this weight'. That's a positive example of resisting the resistance. You see value in lifting the heavy weight, so you over-ride the resistance, and I guess your muscles grow as a result. I see value in most exercise partly because it teaches 'self'-discipline and mastery of mind. When you do something that extends your limitations everything stops and there is only this lift. There is significant pain but the skill is being conscious of the body sans the adverse reaction. If the mind gets in the way, you become very miserable and quit training. It is very difficult to continually progress because the overload has to continually increase to stimulate further adaption. Getting stronger is only an adaption to stress. Sometime a lifter will reach a 'plateau', and regardless of diligent training, can not increase the weight lifted. They then have to examine their training program and make alterations to shock the body in new ways to create just the right kind of stress to force an adaption. The mistake you are making is equating 'resistance training' with psychological resistance. Resistance training is finding ways to produce the resistance that best forces and adaption - and a significant reduction in psychological resistance is integral to that end. In the lifting game, pain is gain. In the psychological game resistance to pain is the avoidance of suffering - and that backfires every time. There is a hidden jewel in your post. (Of course to you it's not hidden).
|
|