|
Post by enigma on Feb 28, 2018 20:03:18 GMT -5
Why do you choose to do that? It's ugly and serves no purpose. Nonvolition doesn't mean you can't choose. If you don't believe me, pay attention the next time you make a choice, which should be in a second or two. I didn't say there's no apparent choice made. I did say I don't make a choice and let another one go. Choices are apparently made, but they're not technically 'choices' if what we are doing is following movements. I didn't say you did.
|
|
|
Post by enigma on Feb 28, 2018 20:11:05 GMT -5
You could say that you have no choice about the choice you make, or that a separate volitional person choosing is illusion, but it's not so that choice is not involved (you) or that a choice can't be made (Andy). Choices happen, and they are made on the basis of experience.(conditioning) In this scenario that you're imagining in which there is choice, what is that choice based on other than experience? Can you see that, rather than being left without a choice, the whole question of choosing in the absence of an experience used to derive that choice from, is misconceived? You and Andy are using a false notion of 'no choice' to change your choices in your life, and you clearly don't understand what's going on. What nonvolition is trying to point to is that there is no independent self here, false or otherwise, not that choices can't be made. There's some misrepresenting happening here. I have said that choices are apparently made, but there's no 'letting one go'. When did you last see an animal 'let a desire or other choice go'? To 'let go of a desire or choice' is a rational, independent/separate self thing to do....and actually I would say that what happens is that the energy of the other desire is suppressed temporarily. How the heck would I know if they let the other choice (the one they didn't make) go? For that matter, how do you know?
|
|
|
Post by enigma on Feb 28, 2018 20:26:11 GMT -5
They're relating the ideas to their past experiences of their own stories that create the suffering to begin with, and all they can come up with are more stories to hold it in place. I say stop trying to correlate a new potential insight about the problematic nature of the stories to the stories that are causing the problem. (I have endured more pain than you, and it was unavoidable and isn't my fault, and you should feel compassion for me as I do for all the small creatures of the forest, and my goldfish.) Trash the stories and come fresh, come empty. I would like folks to feel alone and foolish in their suffering, and I know this is a lot to ask. I would like them to see that nature is not cruel and lacking in compassion or trying to teach them something, and that they are the only ones who have found a way to suffer in heaven. Bad, evil frog! I don't deny this scenario you've described happens, but it seems to me to be a tale of a mind quite unconscious of it's own content. From some of my dialogs here, I'd say that in a few cases at least there's something far simpler happening. Peeps are just skeptical about the idea of the end of suffering. They don't believe you or me if we say that it's not happening for us. That's enough (sadly), in it's own right, for them to start writing about torture. That said, my gabweasel flip-side opinion about this is that there's really not much difference between an enlightened peep who thinks that they're now forever free of intolerable pain and a perpetugastic giraffe-herder. I'll fess up to my evil frogness if you cop to your evil gabweaselness.
|
|
|
Post by enigma on Feb 28, 2018 21:04:04 GMT -5
There's no such thing as an unconditioned impulse; one that is not triggered by you experience. When you call experience programmed conditioning, and you call your thoughts and feelings about your experience 'energy playing out', you fail to encounter life intelligently and lock yourself into whatever pattern drives you unconsciously. You DO make a choice, just an unconscious one. Well, no, there can also be a witnessing of the energies playing out....and that's something that developed for me as the ability to 'commit to a choice' and 'let go of a desire' began to fall away. When there is conflict between energies, sometimes there's not much to do but just observe it happening. Beyond that, one can engage consciously and intelligently with the movements, work with the desires rather than trying to control them. I guess your experience is that a desire can be dropped, or let go of, hence why it is not 'bigger' than you. Generally, we have no control over desires. We've been talking about choosing one of two mutually exclusive desires, and letting the other one go. This should happen naturally and effortlessly. If you had a desire to meet Santa, and then found out there was no Santa, the desire to meet him should fall away. It shouldn't 'play out' like some energy that has to exhaust itself.
|
|
|
Post by enigma on Feb 28, 2018 21:06:06 GMT -5
Nobody's suggesting they're not feeling, just that they're not feeling two feelings at once. One mind, one state. I'm not sure what you mean by 'state' here, but a physiological state can be complex. Well I don't mean Oklahoma if that's what you're thinking.
|
|
|
Post by enigma on Feb 28, 2018 21:10:02 GMT -5
You haven't said anything yet. That's what you've been saying all along. How is spiritual thinking involved with this alleged new definition? The new definition IS the spiritual thinking. Getting lost in the spiritual thinking would be a failure to recognize that the new definition applies only with a small context in which the body and mind are assumed to be disconnected. I'm going to assume that your whole idea of connecting it to a spiritual idea was based on a poorly conceived guess. We can drop it.
|
|
|
Post by enigma on Feb 28, 2018 21:13:47 GMT -5
Or maybe there's no psychological resistance there to pay attention to. Doesn't psychological resistance have to be paid attention to in order to be able call it psychological? Well first off I am saying that ultimately there is no psychological resistance AND body resistance. I'm saying that resistance is associated with the body-mind as a whole. If the body resists, the mind resists. If the mind resists, the body resists. Hence why, if you change something in mind, that will reflect in the body, but also....if you change you body, your thoughts will also change. It's one system. So, notice that in what you replied to...I didn't speak of 'psychological' resistance, I spoke of 'resistance'. Otherwise, no, resistance doesn't have to be paid attention to, in order to call it resistance. Obviously not so, as demonstrated with the tea drinking example, but keep saying it because you might make it true.
|
|
|
Post by enigma on Feb 28, 2018 21:18:40 GMT -5
Hey guys! I see this thread is still going strong (50 pages!). This can only mean you guys haven't found a general solution yet. Looks like I have to spend the rest of the week reading in order to ketchup with the conversation. I've been vacationing in the land of plenty for the last 2 1/2 weeks and while on the road the thought occurred that tourism may be a key to world peace and the end of global suffering. We've been on the verge of coming to a mutual agreement several times, but we kept it spinning just for you.
|
|
|
Post by stardustpilgrim on Feb 28, 2018 21:31:55 GMT -5
Your 'intent' is to allow desires to play out. "Goal" must have triggered some resistance. Desires form in your mind according to conditioning. They aren't bigger than you. I don't recall using 'committing', but If I did it was probly a poor choice of words. I don't mean making a decision and sticking to it. I mean choosing one and letting the other go. Of course you're frightened of suffering. But that's not my intent. Desires play themselves out whether I like it or not, I have no particular interest in 'allowing' desires to play out, they do anyway, and all the time. Making choices apparently happens, but I am never 'letting the other go'. Is that what you do? I would say the specific form that desires take is formed in mind according to conditioning, but 'desire' itself isn't formed in mind. This is actually an interesting issue. What is 'desire'? Desire is based on attraction via like or repulsion via dislike, emotional. Most "decisions" are emotional, and the job of the intellect is to supply reasons, ex post facto. (Of course all of this is done unconsciously, that is, subconsciously, the meaning behind "nonvolition").
|
|
|
Post by stardustpilgrim on Feb 28, 2018 21:38:19 GMT -5
Well, no, there can also be a witnessing of the energies playing out....and that's something that developed for me as the ability to 'commit to a choice' and 'let go of a desire' began to fall away. When there is conflict between energies, sometimes there's not much to do but just observe it happening. Beyond that, one can engage consciously and intelligently with the movements, work with the desires rather than trying to control them. I guess your experience is that a desire can be dropped, or let go of, hence why it is not 'bigger' than you. Generally, we have no control over desires. We've been talking about choosing one of two mutually exclusive desires, and letting the other one go. This should happen naturally and effortlessly. If you had a desire to meet Santa, and then found out there was no Santa, the desire to meet him should fall away. It shouldn't 'play out' like some energy that has to exhaust itself. Bingo, generally we have no control of desires, that says everything. Desires rule, override reason. Emotion rules. Don't you see this conflicts with your definition of nonvolition?
|
|
|
Post by stardustpilgrim on Feb 28, 2018 21:43:35 GMT -5
Why do you choose to do that? It's ugly and serves no purpose. Nonvolition doesn't mean you can't choose. If you don't believe me, pay attention the next time you make a choice, which should be in a second or two. I didn't say there's no apparent choice made. I did say I don't make a choice and let another one go. Choices are apparently made, but they're not technically 'choices' if what we are doing is following movements. Bingo.
|
|
|
Post by enigma on Feb 28, 2018 22:53:15 GMT -5
But that's not my intent. Desires play themselves out whether I like it or not, I have no particular interest in 'allowing' desires to play out, they do anyway, and all the time. Making choices apparently happens, but I am never 'letting the other go'. Is that what you do? I would say the specific form that desires take is formed in mind according to conditioning, but 'desire' itself isn't formed in mind. This is actually an interesting issue. What is 'desire'? Desire is based on attraction via like or repulsion via dislike, emotional. Most "decisions" are emotional, and the job of the intellect is to supply reasons, ex post facto. (Of course all of this is done unconsciously, that is, subconsciously, the meaning behind "nonvolition"). Emotions aren't formed in the mind? Like and dislike aren't formed in the mind?
|
|
|
Post by enigma on Feb 28, 2018 22:59:46 GMT -5
Generally, we have no control over desires. We've been talking about choosing one of two mutually exclusive desires, and letting the other one go. This should happen naturally and effortlessly. If you had a desire to meet Santa, and then found out there was no Santa, the desire to meet him should fall away. It shouldn't 'play out' like some energy that has to exhaust itself. Bingo, generally we have no control of desires, that says everything. Desires rule, override reason. Emotion rules. Don't you see this conflicts with your definition of nonvolition?No. You and Andy haven't been listening to me, and you still aren't. You heard 'let go of the other desire' and you stopped listening and ran with it.
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Mar 1, 2018 1:26:34 GMT -5
Bad, evil frog! I don't deny this scenario you've described happens, but it seems to me to be a tale of a mind quite unconscious of it's own content. From some of my dialogs here, I'd say that in a few cases at least there's something far simpler happening. Peeps are just skeptical about the idea of the end of suffering. They don't believe you or me if we say that it's not happening for us. That's enough (sadly), in it's own right, for them to start writing about torture. That said, my gabweasel flip-side opinion about this is that there's really not much difference between an enlightened peep who thinks that they're now forever free of intolerable pain and a perpetugastic giraffe-herder. I believe that suffering isn't happening for you, as you define it. But I also don't think it is a holistic definition, I see it as an intellectual definition.
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Mar 1, 2018 1:30:04 GMT -5
Bad, evil frog! I don't deny this scenario you've described happens, but it seems to me to be a tale of a mind quite unconscious of it's own content. From some of my dialogs here, I'd say that in a few cases at least there's something far simpler happening. Peeps are just skeptical about the idea of the end of suffering. They don't believe you or me if we say that it's not happening for us. That's enough (sadly), in it's own right, for them to start writing about torture. That said, my gabweasel flip-side opinion about this is that there's really not much difference between an enlightened peep who thinks that they're now forever free of intolerable pain and a perpetugastic giraffe-herder. I'll fess up to my evil frogness if you cop to your evil gabweaselness.
|
|