|
Post by andrew on Mar 3, 2018 15:41:18 GMT -5
An amoeba is classified as 'living' isn't it (as opposed to non-living)? To say that it has a 'sense of self' doesn't really sound right, but I might say that in a minuscule microcosmic way, the seed of the sense of self is there. Well it's worth a ponder regarding the nature of life / experience / existence . What would be the point of experiencing life as an amoeba if there was no sense had of it in reflection of what you are? There appears to be a point / reason to what is experienced . What point would there be to the experience of an amoeba if there were no associations had of what you are and the amoeba? You're not saying that an amoeba is experiencing are you? Call in the solipsists hehe. Actually, I'm not sure what you are asking me here, or is it more of a sort of rhetorical agreement with what I said...?
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Mar 3, 2018 15:48:52 GMT -5
But then again, as Ramana says, both the sage and the seeker say 'I am the body'... The sage and seeker will never hear each other say that because they're camped on different mountains, and separated by another. Dude. That's like, soooooooo 1993.
|
|
|
Post by enigma on Mar 3, 2018 19:48:12 GMT -5
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. You falsely separate emotion from the thinking mind and personalize it. I don't think your goal is to disempower yourself though that's the effect. I think you want to justify your suffering as unavoidable and your inability to control it.
|
|
|
Post by enigma on Mar 3, 2018 19:59:56 GMT -5
"If, however, the person was presented with two equally good options, they would have to stop, as objects did while under the influence of equal forces, and wait until one option became better than the other." It's clearly not so, so I don't see where anyone sees a paradox. Eventually, making one of the choices becomes a priority over making no choice, and a choice is made to make a choice.
|
|
|
Post by enigma on Mar 3, 2018 20:06:38 GMT -5
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 I don't have a problem with the process of resolving conflicting movements or not committing to a decision either. Is it possible you still don't understand what I'm saying?
|
|
|
Post by enigma on Mar 3, 2018 20:11:22 GMT -5
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). I'm curious why you felt the need to clarify in response to my post.
|
|
|
Post by enigma on Mar 3, 2018 20:22:57 GMT -5
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. I argue things here because I see it as the truth. I don't argue on the basis of my values, which has a huge potential to distort the truth. In any event, I'm not saying values shouldn't include attachment. I'm saying how much resistance there is isn't really dependent on what the values are, but on how attached you are to a given value being challenged.
|
|
|
Post by enigma on Mar 3, 2018 20:24:55 GMT -5
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. Your need to intellectualize and figure out dominates your conversations here.
|
|
|
Post by enigma on Mar 3, 2018 22:20:07 GMT -5
To me psychological suffering is just another word for the emotions at the bottom of the emotional scale. The entire emotional scale will still be available post SR as it was at birth. Is it possible for the baby to experience the bottom of the emotional scale? I'd say yes. Is it likely? No. Now replace baby with SR dude/dudette. Ok, well, despair always involves suffering for sure, but to see why I think defining suffering that way doesn't work I'd say that hopelessness might not. The distinction being one where someone concludes that something they were purposing toward is just so unlikely that they might as well give up the purpose. Negative emotions are the smoke, but there might not be any fire, and we all know where that debate leads. To me the whole notion of a six-second enlightened angry-floorburger rule just doesn't work. Something that keeps coming up for me in these discussions is that negative feelings are only negative because we suffer from them and therefore label them negative, (there's nothing inherently negative about a feeling) but low level fear can be excitement and anger can be fun drama and longing can be precious.
|
|
|
Post by enigma on Mar 3, 2018 22:22:47 GMT -5
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). A good way to look at it is resistance causes friction, friction causes heat, heat causes pain, pain causes suffering. So I agree. What if I were to say heat causes comfort? Would that disrupt the chain of logic?
|
|
|
Post by enigma on Mar 3, 2018 22:29:43 GMT -5
Hmmm, maybe we have lots of weasels here. Hey, great idea for if I ever get kicked off this place! Aces! Thanks! I notice that, since they are all frowning, they must be suffering. Absolute proof shows up in the strangest places. (If you could find a movie, it would be even more solid proof.)
|
|
|
Post by enigma on Mar 3, 2018 22:32:46 GMT -5
***Laboriuosly takes another drink of coffee*** Yes, I know I'm beating a dead horse. Well, the issue for seems to be that it's all dreamstuff.
|
|
|
Post by enigma on Mar 3, 2018 22:34:44 GMT -5
Without remembering the full story, that's the meaning of repairing the past. Do you mean that as in, the story is a favorable adjustment to what really happened? If so .. dude, really? Like. Wow. You aren't really fooling anybody, ya know. We all know how much you hate skiing.
|
|
|
Post by enigma on Mar 3, 2018 22:36:20 GMT -5
Do you mean that as in, the story is a favorable adjustment to what really happened? If so .. dude, really? Like. Wow. No, I vaguely remember the story. Repair the past doesn't mean favorable adjustment. It means the meaning of the past is changed. (If you would link me, I'd like to read it again). Favorably?
|
|
|
Post by enigma on Mar 3, 2018 23:51:40 GMT -5
No, I vaguely remember the story. Repair the past doesn't mean favorable adjustment. It means the meaning of the past is changed. (If you would link me, I'd like to read it again). It's actually quite fascinating how you'd draw that conclusion based on a vague recollection. Even more fascinating is that kitty wasn't hungry for hours after chowing down on those dots.
|
|