|
Post by enigma on Feb 26, 2018 10:28:44 GMT -5
I'm saying that ultimately, all resistance is physical-psychological resistance, yes. With that said, I also believe that speaking of physical resistance and psychological resistance as being more separated can be useful, so as to explore the workings of the psychology. EWell there's resistance like lifting weight, and resistance like the futility of trying to avoid/avert painful sensation which is present. These are not the same meaning of 'resistance', but maybe Enigma will explain context to us one day. It's on the top of my to-do list.....really!
|
|
|
Post by enigma on Feb 26, 2018 10:38:50 GMT -5
I don't know what reflections of self awareness are. The experiment is about self awareness. Bunny fails the mirror test. In a way it's good news because it means he can't suffer. Reflections of self awareness are within experience . Did you understand the structure I spoke about? Do you understand that there requires an element of self identity in order to identify with something else? How would you say the bunny identifies and differentiates food from another bunny without the use of a mirror?Bunny uses his bunny brain. There's a difference between a sense of self, and mind/body identification. The latter involves a story that forms the basis for psychological suffering.
|
|
|
Post by someNOTHING! on Feb 26, 2018 10:42:21 GMT -5
This counter is an argument that actually goes off in the wrong direction, so I won't counter it. I am aware of and know a bit about Temple Grandin. Thank you for the links; I think I've seen the TED Talk. You should also see the HBO movie with her name sake. It puts her story into a very personal light, and is enjoyable movie that exhibits tremendous courage in the face of cultural/medical boundaries through which were transcended. The question of suffering here alludes to the questionable existence of a self that suffers. Noone can give anyone the answer or prove it otherwise, but there is always the potential for that realization to come into perfect and certain clarity. It is the surrender of the self to the status of illusion. Full stop. Yes. It sounds brown bearish to say it, so I haven't, but that's the bottom line. It would be much easier to talk about existential suffering but nobody cares about that. They care about physical suffering, probly because there are lots of extreme examples to use to refute the arguments. Yeah, it does sound brown bearish on a conceptual level. I spose free will and suffering walk hand in hand for the same lack of loss. Loss, if it could only be given...
|
|
|
Post by enigma on Feb 26, 2018 10:43:26 GMT -5
You're not telling me what the spiritual thinking is that you're talking about, and since that's what I've been asking for, I find the answers unsatisfactory. I did, it is the reframing and redefinition of 'suffering' without awareness that it is being redefined for a specific context and a specific exploration. It is a temporary redefinition, because intuitively you still know that babies/animals suffer. Is that redefinition somehow culled from spirituality or spiritual thinking? (I feel like I'm pulling teeth here and I need to use the arm of the chair for leverage.)
|
|
|
Post by someNOTHING! on Feb 26, 2018 10:54:51 GMT -5
Somehow, it just seems like you are misunderstanding the intent of the discussion, and spinning it off into bettering the world. Please understand, I am not against the latter. But, it can be clearly seen that torturing animals is indicative of a peep lost in the illusion of self, is suffering, and is projecting that suffering through thought, word, and action. What might actually bring said suffering to an end? Yes. Questioning the nature of 'the self' is a useful start. I suspect that as humans, we try and 'provoke' in others what we are denying in ourselves. So the torturer is actually in a kind of denial OF his own suffering, and in witnessing that suffering in the animal, they get to see it in themselves. I wasn't aware that this discussion had a focus other than 'what is suffering'. That's what I've been addressing, I'm not denying or uninterested in the particular abstract and existential suffering that humans experience. Is that how you see and categorize all provocation, as denied suffering?
|
|
|
Post by enigma on Feb 26, 2018 10:58:37 GMT -5
There is physical resistance any time you use your muscles to walk or talk, etc. Do you find a psychological component to that? If not, then all resistance is not physical-psychological. Sure! The mind and body aren't separate at all. Hence why walking can get tough after a while and folks have thoughts of stopping. I'm obviously not talking about a long hike. I'm talking about walking across the room, lifting a cup of tea to your lips. Does that resistance constitute psychological suffering? If not, then all resistance is not physical-psychological. So let's keep the distinction between physical and psychological resistance. Don't make me write another eulogy.
|
|
|
Post by someNOTHING! on Feb 26, 2018 11:18:32 GMT -5
This counter is an argument that actually goes off in the wrong direction, so I won't counter it. I am aware of and know a bit about Temple Grandin. Thank you for the links; I think I've seen the TED Talk. You should also see the HBO movie with her name sake. It puts her story into a very personal light, and is enjoyable movie that exhibits tremendous courage in the face of cultural/medical boundaries through which were transcended. The question of suffering here alludes to the questionable existence of a self that suffers. Noone can give anyone the answer or prove it otherwise, but there is always the potential for that realization to come into perfect and certain clarity. It is the surrender of the self to the status of illusion. Full stop. Have seen the movie, yes, very good. (May come back to the other. ....If there is no suffering then all this is merely a game, we're all bots and robots and pin-balls). I wouldn't reduce realization to identifying with such mechanical cause-and-effect bound devices, no. Have you considered or thought about pure creativity in your studies? Take a look at it in the spirit of a fountain of youth kind of idea, with ALL eternally spewing forth and appearing as unique perspective to No-Thing. It's ok if, at first, mind doth protest and vague messages beginning with "But...." start appearing. That's indicative of mind's limitation. Yet, and this is important, it is still possible to do and it is ALL happening without even the slightest effort, like, all the time. Tell me if this does not make the body wiggle and, eventually, the mind giggle.
|
|
|
Post by enigma on Feb 26, 2018 11:32:28 GMT -5
What does it even mean to say 'the energy has to play itself out'? YOU are playing it out because you want to be on the forum and you don't. Since you don't want to make one choice and let the other one go, there is a 'mild suffering involved' and a need to blame your childish wants on 'an energy that needs to play out'. Hmmm how to explain this. Okay. Desires are like 'currents' in a river. When you are in a current in a river, you have to go with the current, until the current ends, and you move in a different direction. So, yes there are conflicting desires, but these desires aren't 'mine'. I can't switch them on and off. I don't choose a desire, and I don't choose to stop desiring. To an extent I can mitigate and manage a desire, so that I am working with it intelligently and responsibly, and playing out the desire in an appropriate way, but these desires are ultimately bigger and more potent than 'me', the apparent chooser and decider. So the energy (movement) of desires (and conflicting desires) is allowed to play themselves out. The conflict is not usually a big deal, it is like a river where 2 currents are intersecting, it happens as part of life. I don't have the capacity to 'make a choice' and 'let the other one go'. The apparent chooser and one that 'lets go' really only has that seeming power when it is believed in, and even then what's probably happening is more a suppression of desire. In my experience, I experience desires fully, even conflicting desire. They resolve themselves without a whole lot of 'me' getting in the way. If you notice an animal....it's never 'choosing one desire' and 'letting one go'. The desires play themselves out. Have you ever watched a cat 'undecided' whether it wants to go outside or not lol? In the end, it never 'decides'...the energy has played itself out. We are different as humans in the sense that we can work with our desires, we can be intelligent in our handling of them, we can consciously use focus and attention for our perceived benefit, but I am no longer the kind of human that 'commits' to a decision. Instead, I follow movements responsibly. And this does mean that I don't fit easily into a world, in which folks are expected constantly to 'commit' to a decision and are then judged and blamed for their seeming lack of 'commitment' to that decision. A goal to play out all of your desires, (responsibly?), is a recipe for suffering, and not only irresponsible, but childish and immature. Along with biological self awareness comes the response-ability to choose wisely and sanely so as to mitigate the suffering that inevitably results from that internal conflict. The lower animals that lack self awareness don't have that problem. You can't imitate those animals as your mind works differently, and if you try you just start behaving like an animal. You DO have the capacity to make a choice. When I have some time, I'll explain what nonvolition really means. Your desires aren't bigger than you, they are your creations. I'm not suggesting you not want what you want. I'm suggesting you can't have two mutually exclusive things at the same time. A sign of maturity is being able to choose one and let the other one go completely.
|
|
|
Post by andrew on Feb 26, 2018 11:33:59 GMT -5
I did, it is the reframing and redefinition of 'suffering' without awareness that it is being redefined for a specific context and a specific exploration. It is a temporary redefinition, because intuitively you still know that babies/animals suffer. Is that redefinition somehow culled from spirituality or spiritual thinking? (I feel like I'm pulling teeth here and I need to use the arm of the chair for leverage.) what do you mean 'culled from'? (you sound like you are suffering a bit here hehe)
|
|
|
Post by andrew on Feb 26, 2018 11:35:05 GMT -5
Yes. Questioning the nature of 'the self' is a useful start. I suspect that as humans, we try and 'provoke' in others what we are denying in ourselves. So the torturer is actually in a kind of denial OF his own suffering, and in witnessing that suffering in the animal, they get to see it in themselves. I wasn't aware that this discussion had a focus other than 'what is suffering'. That's what I've been addressing, I'm not denying or uninterested in the particular abstract and existential suffering that humans experience. Is that how you see and categorize all provocation, as denied suffering? No, I wouldn't label it all as that, 'passive anger' is another kind of provocation.
|
|
|
Post by enigma on Feb 26, 2018 11:38:58 GMT -5
EWell there's resistance like lifting weight, and resistance like the futility of trying to avoid/avert painful sensation which is present. These are not the same meaning of 'resistance', but maybe Enigma will explain context to us one day. yes I do understand the distinction and see value in it, but again, ultimately it's the same thing. There is pain for the body in lifting a weight that is too heavy and so the mind says...'this pain is unpleasant, let's do something about that pain by dropping the weight'. So then the lifter has to find the discipline of mind to shut the story up, and focusing keenly on the desire to lift the weight. Ultimately it's not the same thing. When you lift a tea cup to your lips, there's no psychological resistance created.
|
|
|
Post by andrew on Feb 26, 2018 11:40:46 GMT -5
Sure! The mind and body aren't separate at all. Hence why walking can get tough after a while and folks have thoughts of stopping. I'm obviously not talking about a long hike. I'm talking about walking across the room, lifting a cup of tea to your lips. Does that resistance constitute psychological suffering? If not, then all resistance is not physical-psychological. So let's keep the distinction between physical and psychological resistance. Don't make me write another eulogy. Well first off, I am saying that all resistance experienced is ultimately physical and psychological...the body and mind are one system (though to repeat, I do see value in breaking them apart at times to discuss the psychological aspect more deeply). But are you familiar with the idea that 'life is suffering'? I think there's something to that, in the sense that resistance is integral to life, and resistance is the seed of suffering. When we amplify that resistance, the suffering becomes more obvious and dominates the experience. But mostly folks are experiencing a ton of other stuff as well. There can be a lot of satisfaction and fulfillment even when there is suffering of different intensities.
|
|
|
Post by andrew on Feb 26, 2018 11:49:46 GMT -5
Hmmm how to explain this. Okay. Desires are like 'currents' in a river. When you are in a current in a river, you have to go with the current, until the current ends, and you move in a different direction. So, yes there are conflicting desires, but these desires aren't 'mine'. I can't switch them on and off. I don't choose a desire, and I don't choose to stop desiring. To an extent I can mitigate and manage a desire, so that I am working with it intelligently and responsibly, and playing out the desire in an appropriate way, but these desires are ultimately bigger and more potent than 'me', the apparent chooser and decider. So the energy (movement) of desires (and conflicting desires) is allowed to play themselves out. The conflict is not usually a big deal, it is like a river where 2 currents are intersecting, it happens as part of life. I don't have the capacity to 'make a choice' and 'let the other one go'. The apparent chooser and one that 'lets go' really only has that seeming power when it is believed in, and even then what's probably happening is more a suppression of desire. In my experience, I experience desires fully, even conflicting desire. They resolve themselves without a whole lot of 'me' getting in the way. If you notice an animal....it's never 'choosing one desire' and 'letting one go'. The desires play themselves out. Have you ever watched a cat 'undecided' whether it wants to go outside or not lol? In the end, it never 'decides'...the energy has played itself out. We are different as humans in the sense that we can work with our desires, we can be intelligent in our handling of them, we can consciously use focus and attention for our perceived benefit, but I am no longer the kind of human that 'commits' to a decision. Instead, I follow movements responsibly. And this does mean that I don't fit easily into a world, in which folks are expected constantly to 'commit' to a decision and are then judged and blamed for their seeming lack of 'commitment' to that decision. A goal to play out all of your desires, (responsibly?), is a recipe for suffering, and not only irresponsible, but childish and immature. Along with biological self awareness comes the response-ability to choose wisely and sanely so as to mitigate the suffering that inevitably results from that internal conflict. The lower animals that lack self awareness don't have that problem. You can't imitate those animals as your mind works differently, and if you try you just start behaving like an animal. You DO have the capacity to make a choice. When I have some time, I'll explain what nonvolition really means. Your desires aren't bigger than you, they are your creations. I'm not suggesting you not want what you want. I'm suggesting you can't have two mutually exclusive things at the same time. A sign of maturity is being able to choose one and let the other one go completely. I can seemingly 'make a choice', but ' committing to a choice' is pretty much beyond my capacity...because I don't believe in a chooser. At best, the chooser appears, it is superficial, and the energy (or motivation/desire) to maintain and perpetuate this 'chooser' isn't there. I'm not frightened of suffering, so that's just not much of an issue. I might responsibly work WITH desires to create stuff, but I don't see desires as 'my creations'. At most, if I was to create a piece of art because the desire was there, I would say the art was 'my creation', but not the desire itself. By the way, where did I say that I had 'a goal' to play out all my desires? Can you specifically quote me on that please? Or were you just generally saying that if someone had that goal it would be a recipe for suffering? It would be a very odd goal to have.
|
|
|
Post by andrew on Feb 26, 2018 12:41:32 GMT -5
yes I do understand the distinction and see value in it, but again, ultimately it's the same thing. There is pain for the body in lifting a weight that is too heavy and so the mind says...'this pain is unpleasant, let's do something about that pain by dropping the weight'. So then the lifter has to find the discipline of mind to shut the story up, and focusing keenly on the desire to lift the weight. Ultimately it's not the same thing. When you lift a tea cup to your lips, there's no psychological resistance created. Not overtly so, no, but if you make a heavy enough tea cup, you will notice the resistance more obviously. Or if you don't really want the tea, you might notice it a bit.
|
|
|
Post by someNOTHING! on Feb 26, 2018 13:12:27 GMT -5
Is that how you see and categorize all provocation, as denied suffering? No, I wouldn't label it all as that, 'passive anger' is another kind of provocation. So, all provocation is at its core and intent, unconscious and/or malicious? I suppose that is to be distinguished from challenge, yes? And then, it is all based on whether you rezz with it or not, as to how you will categorize and deal with it...
|
|