|
Post by enigma on Mar 2, 2018 12:46:22 GMT -5
It's discovering that what you desired can't happen, same as choosing one desire and 'discovering' that the contradictory one can't be fulfilled. It would be insane for the child to continue to want to meet Santa, but children aren't as insane as adults. Well again, an animal would not have the thought...'that CAN'T be fulfilled'. That would actually be an example of 'psychological suffering' I would say. But if you DO have that thought, then I can see why there would then be a movement to try and let the desire go. The cat doesn't want to be both outside and inside at the same time. How about you? Ever want that 3 layer cake and also want to lose weight at the same time? Ever want to leave the forum and also stay at the same time? Cats are also more sane than you.
|
|
|
Post by stardustpilgrim on Mar 2, 2018 12:47:27 GMT -5
Not necessarily. I have never had a snake, lizard or iguana as a pet, but they don't have emotional centers, they are one-brained. So I would dare to guess, reptiles don't have a self, and would fit E's definition of not-suffering. I meant humans really, but to be clear I meant 'feeling' rather than 'emotion'. For example, there are many things that can be fitted with 'sensors', but have no sentience, no ability to 'feel'. I would be surprised if a snake doesn't 'feel' what it senses...even if it doesn't 'emote'. Ok. English should not have the same word for two different functions. (I'm just trying to invite E to see the difference between feeling/emotions OTOH and thinking OToH. Some good help in this today).
|
|
|
Post by enigma on Mar 2, 2018 12:52:34 GMT -5
How hard is it to check and see if you're resisting lifting the cup to your lips? Or is it hidden away in the unconscious because it's just too terrible to face? I quite often find it kinda hard work to get the cup from the table and put it too my lips I'm lost as to what we are arguing actually. So can I check something here....is your argument still that babies and animals cannot suffer? If not, can you clarify your argument and I'm sure the movement will support me in going there with you hehe. Currently, we're arguing whether all resistance is suffering, though really you lost that argument a long time ago and you haven't let go of the desire to be right, so you suffer as you hoist the cup of tea to your lips.
|
|
|
Post by enigma on Mar 2, 2018 12:54:08 GMT -5
Look like you may have the makings for a 3-layer cake if you mix it really well. yeah, that's definitely a 3 layer cake recipe, but to be fair, a three layer cake can be more appetizing than a 2 layer cake at times. Apparently.
|
|
|
Post by andrew on Mar 2, 2018 12:54:17 GMT -5
Yes I think there's a large amount of truth in that, though if I have a reservation, it's that my experience is that emotions/feelings which are often seen as 'lower', can exist alongside those emotions/feeling which are seen as 'higher'. To give an example, one of our guinea pigs died a few weeks ago, and over the years, there's nothing that brings up stronger feelings in me, than witnessing the passing of a guinea pig. There can be intense love, joy, gratitude and yet also helplessness, frustration and intense sadness. I have no power over of these emotions/feelings, the only thing I can do is 'stay with them' until it all passes. In one way 'focus' is a luxury we have when we aren't passing through an emotional storm! Precisely. [And this shows the difference (meaning, distinctness, distinct functions) between the thinking mind, and the emotional mind. You can think-about anything that comes to mind or is brought to mind. But you can't feel what you want to feel, or turn off what you don't want to feel]. Right. If the thinking mind is in the head, it seems to me that the emotional mind is in the body, and when it has something to 'say', it is is far more potent than the thinking or cognitive mind (though that's not to say that I think that emotion has no accompanying thought or cognitive movement at all). There are times when I have seen Byron Katie work with people at the level of the thinking mind, and it creates powerful emotional shifts, but it is rarely (if ever) when they are in the middle OF the emotion. Same with faster EFT, I have seen incredible shifts in emotion, and with faster eft, it requires them to step into the emotion to release it.....but it is still done with hindsight, which is different to being in the middle of the situation itself.
|
|
|
Post by stardustpilgrim on Mar 2, 2018 12:54:32 GMT -5
Well again, an animal would not have the thought...'that CAN'T be fulfilled'. That would actually be an example of 'psychological suffering' I would say. But if you DO have that thought, then I can see why there would then be a movement to try and let the desire go. The cat doesn't want to be both outside and inside at the same time. How about you? Ever want that 3 layer cake and also want to lose weight at the same time? Ever want to leave the forum and also stay at the same time? Cats are also more sane than you. Buridan's ass has been popped up in electrical engineering...... io9.gizmodo.com/a-2000-year-old-philosophical-problem-that-stumps-moder-509000438
|
|
|
Post by enigma on Mar 2, 2018 12:59:30 GMT -5
So, yeah, the challenged belief system can feel provoked if it is identified with, right? If there is a central character (thing) of self that is unconsciously believed to be at the core of - the thought structure (via memory/wired synapses of the brain) and
- felt existence (wired synapses of the hormone system/body)
to which things happen.... Well I think there's a number of factors in why/when a challenge can be experienced as a provocation. First and foremost, there has to be belief that ideas have some sort of value (personally, I believe they do). Secondly, there has to be a belief that what the challenger is saying has some kind of negative consequence, and this negative consequence is measured in terms of the individual's values. Simply, all humans have values, and when their values are challenged, it can get emotional. HOW emotional it gets will depend on what those values are. Rather, how attached you are to them.
|
|
|
Post by andrew on Mar 2, 2018 13:00:42 GMT -5
Well again, an animal would not have the thought...'that CAN'T be fulfilled'. That would actually be an example of 'psychological suffering' I would say. But if you DO have that thought, then I can see why there would then be a movement to try and let the desire go. The cat doesn't want to be both outside and inside at the same time. How about you? Ever want that 3 layer cake and also want to lose weight at the same time? Ever want to leave the forum and also stay at the same time? Cats are also more sane than you. It's the same process for humans. For the cat, there are two energies (or desires) present, but one is dominant, and then the other, and then the other, and then the other. The cat has no problem with the process though. I also don't have a problem with the process of resolving two conflicting movements. There have been odd occasions when I have written something to post on the internet, and been 'undecided' as to whether to post it. The movement will be to post it, then abandon it, post it, then abandon....and I just witness it playing itself out within me. Eventually one movement becomes sufficiently strong and then the action happens. If I don't post it, I may still post it later. It's not a problem for me because I don't devalue the process, and equally I don't place value on 'committing to a decision'. Seems to me that 'confusion' is one of the great human fears, but it's only because we believe we have something more important to do
|
|
|
Post by enigma on Mar 2, 2018 13:02:58 GMT -5
I am offended by some of the positions taken on this forum and regardless of whether I consider myself a separate self or whether I step back and say hey I am offended by myself, causing my own offense here, fool, and laugh, I still feel that little nudge of displeasure at what that part of me wants to label "arrogance." Basically, what I've done is divided reality in two yet again. Which me, well of course, the mind, not the True Self. Bummer. I strongly suspect I am not alone. That positions here prick notions of what we hold to be true. And we defend these notions tooth and nail. I have a strong suspicion that all notions or ideas about reality ultimately fail. This is a lesson I am learning. The camps here, on this forum, as in my mind, are clearly delineated. So I hear my "sensei" long dead say. "O bakatari" whenever we tried to "discuss' notions of enlightenment, SR. And things get split yet again. "Chop wood, carry water." And shut up, not to you folks, but to myself. Maybe, but for some one at my stage of "evolving" if there is such a thing, even if there is such a thing as enlightenment. It's better to stay focused on the simple, every day things. It feels freeing. Not to say I'm not drawn to this type of discourse. I am. Figure that, but as in my zazen whenever these kinds of notion come up, I revert to focusing on my breath. In my practice, without me even thinking about it, I have gradually developed great skepticism at the notion that I will ever "figure it all out." Or even that it will somehow make sense.
That's my experience (the bolded) The only thing I ever have figured out are tangible things like...how to use the remote control lol. Same really for 'making sense'....I can understand what people say and mean, I can even have insights about the nature of life that make sense in the moment. But then it's gone, because it was just in that moment. I don't think 'it' is MEANT to be figured out and make sense. It's a constant moment by moment fumble. Preferably an enjoyable one I guess. You're not nearly as honest with yourself as you think you are. "To thine own self be true. And it follows as night the day that thou canst then be false to any man."
|
|
|
Post by andrew on Mar 2, 2018 13:06:18 GMT -5
I quite often find it kinda hard work to get the cup from the table and put it too my lips I'm lost as to what we are arguing actually. So can I check something here....is your argument still that babies and animals cannot suffer? If not, can you clarify your argument and I'm sure the movement will support me in going there with you hehe. Currently, we're arguing whether all resistance is suffering, though really you lost that argument a long time ago and you haven't let go of the desire to be right, so you suffer as you hoist the cup of tea to your lips. Okay, then I will clarify. Ultimately, all resistance is suffering, yes, because all resistance is 'against the flow'. Hence it can be said that life has two intrinsic aspects...harmony (ease) and resistance (suffering). With that said, I actually consider that to be a 'spiritual' definition of suffering, which...like your definition of suffering...is really only of value in spiritual conversations. It's not an intuitive and instinctive definition of suffering (and neither is yours).
|
|
|
Post by andrew on Mar 2, 2018 13:08:16 GMT -5
Well I think there's a number of factors in why/when a challenge can be experienced as a provocation. First and foremost, there has to be belief that ideas have some sort of value (personally, I believe they do). Secondly, there has to be a belief that what the challenger is saying has some kind of negative consequence, and this negative consequence is measured in terms of the individual's values. Simply, all humans have values, and when their values are challenged, it can get emotional. HOW emotional it gets will depend on what those values are. Rather, how attached you are to them. To have values IS to be attached to them. It should be clear to you that you wouldn't spend a lot of time arguing ideas on forums if you weren't attached to your values. I'm not saying that's a problem. We argue a fair bit because our values conflict.
|
|
|
Post by andrew on Mar 2, 2018 13:10:01 GMT -5
That's my experience (the bolded) The only thing I ever have figured out are tangible things like...how to use the remote control lol. Same really for 'making sense'....I can understand what people say and mean, I can even have insights about the nature of life that make sense in the moment. But then it's gone, because it was just in that moment. I don't think 'it' is MEANT to be figured out and make sense. It's a constant moment by moment fumble. Preferably an enjoyable one I guess. You're not nearly as honest with yourself as you think you are. "To thine own self be true. And it follows as night the day that thou canst then be false to any man." I'm not sure how what you said here relates to what I said.
|
|
|
Post by enigma on Mar 2, 2018 13:24:33 GMT -5
Emotions aren't formed in the mind? Like and dislike aren't formed in the mind? The human body/brain is formed on-top-of what is (maybe falsely) called Darwinian evolution. All life is based on the same genetic structure. So human brain structure is based on that which came-before. We know reptiles 'came first'. Part of our own human brain, is based upon the reptilian brain. This is our spinal column which connects with the base of the brain. All the function reptiles have, we also have, this brain is responsible for sensing and walking and running, etc. Next came the mammalian brain, or the limbic system. Reptiles don't have emotions as they have no mammalian brain. Mammals have emotions, if you've ever had a pet you know this. Mammals do not abstract. And so covering the two lower brains is in humans the neocortex, responsible for abstract thought (and the fore-brain also responsible for the monkey-mind/roof brain chatter/the internal dialogue). So, we have three "minds", so yes, like and dislike are formed in the mind, but in the mammalian "mind"(brain). The fact that mammals have emotions should show anyone that there is a distinct difference in function between emotions and abstract thought (which mammals don't have, they "think" [and they do think] by representations, images). Like and dislike come from the mammalian brain, the emotional brain. www.interaction-design.org/literature/topics/triune-brain***Laboriuosly takes another drink of coffee***
|
|
|
Post by enigma on Mar 2, 2018 13:27:08 GMT -5
I will delete my copy, if you want me to. .....But I think this not being able to prove the existence of God, is deliberate (on "God's" part). The individually subjectively objective simply means you can prove it to yourself, but you can't demonstrate it to others. And thanks about QM, I love the exploration, of. Please delete it. I agree with you. The probability that a valid proof for the existence of God is out there and no one has set upon is close to zero.The other possibility is that there isn't one.
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Mar 2, 2018 13:30:41 GMT -5
Tolle is always a source of insight, and I like his interpretation of the prodigal son .. but wow .. .. telling Andrew Cohen that the purpose of the world is so that peeps can suffer enough to wake up ?? .. Suffering is an undeniable part of many folks path stories. But. It's really, always, quite optional. I think he got that from new age books. Same with the pain body stuff. Sure sure, well, not all of the new-age is balhooey, after all. ... they was on to somethin' ..
|
|