|
Post by enigma on Mar 4, 2018 0:04:40 GMT -5
The sage and seeker will never hear each other say that because they're camped on different mountains, and separated by another. Wow, great metaphor. You should write poetry! I think I might steal that one day, are you comfy with that? Steal away!
|
|
|
Post by enigma on Mar 4, 2018 0:48:31 GMT -5
Why? It was just a fleeting thought. Anybody with the basic view of solipsism, has a broken telescope...and the instrument used to tell if the telescope is broken, or not, is also broken. ...In Beelzebub's Tales, Beelzebub, exiled for a mistake, to our solar system, made his primary abode on Mars (but visited earth on six occasions), and there built an observatory whereby he observed the goings-on on earth, it became famous throughout the galaxy. You used the 's' word!
|
|
|
Post by Reefs on Mar 4, 2018 1:12:54 GMT -5
I think I might have started it. We'll see. I'll move all those posts into a new thread and whoever is going to occupy the OP spot in that new thread gets all the blame, hehe. I can't in good conscience let you take the blame for that. Pretty sure it was me back here. Might wanna move that one as well. So it was you all along? Shame on you. Well, it wasn't your main point and Enigma didn't bite, so I'm not going to move it.
|
|
|
Post by enigma on Mar 4, 2018 1:14:14 GMT -5
I've not taken a hard line on intense physical pain, only suggested that it's the mind that makes it intolerable. That's why there is a time factor. I will just keep saying, you've never experienced unbearable pain. (I've never passed out from pain, but I know this is possible. In those cases, the pain became intolerable for the mind. This also happens psychologically. In multiple personality disorder, the person experiences such psychological suffering [almost invariably from physical abuse] that another persona pops out of the mind, two or more personas inhabit the same body. [Thus the 'originating' persona, ceases to suffer, that is, they don't remember ~what happened~]). You don't understand that what I'm talking about is not meant to describe the average person's everyday experience, and so what you see happening, and the stories they tell and the videotape evidence and movies are not valid ways of proving me wrong. I understand the human condition is such that unbearable pain happens. I'd be willing to bet I've come closer to passing out from pain than you have (so there!), and have wished for death, so stop condescending to me please. What I'm suggesting is that suffering has a deep root in the false self, and the end of the false self is the practical end of suffering. Not the end of pain or fear or sorrow or resistance or unpleasantness, but the end of suffering. They are not the same. A master sufferer like you should know that.
|
|
|
Post by Reefs on Mar 4, 2018 1:21:52 GMT -5
Right. Without the emotions, usually not much happens because there's no momentum behind it. The emotions indicate that momentum (and its strength). Which also explains why when emotions are running high it's hard to abruptly make a change of direction. That's why A-H say, if you are jumping out of an airplane without a parachute your only option is to hang on because it will be over soon. Yes. Gurdjieff described a human being as, carriage (body), horses, the driver (mind) and the master (the [not present] "owner"). The horses that pull the carriage are the emotions. When I hear you talking about Gurdjieff it always seems as if what he has to say I have read or heard somewhere else before. What would you say, how much of what he taught is genuine Gurdjieff?
|
|
|
Post by Reefs on Mar 4, 2018 1:23:50 GMT -5
Why? It was just a fleeting thought. Anybody with the basic view of solipsism, has a broken telescope...and the instrument used to tell if the telescope is broken, or not, is also broken. ... That's a good analogy. One day I might steal that one too.
|
|
|
Post by Reefs on Mar 4, 2018 1:28:52 GMT -5
The other possibility is that there isn't one. "Q:To become an engineer I must learn engineering. To become God, what must I learn?
M: You must unlearn everything. God is the end of all desire and knowledge." Niz
What!? * starts shredding extensive Niz library *
|
|
|
Post by Reefs on Mar 4, 2018 1:32:54 GMT -5
Yeah, it basically comes down to 3 kinds of suffering: 1) existential 2) physical and 3) psychological. #2 and #3 are similar in that they can be dealt with by applying deliberate focusing. That doesn't work for #1 though. #1 requires a realization. Which means #1 has a definite end. Once that's done it's done. #2 and #3 are have to be dealt with on a moment to moment basis. Animals and humans share the experience of #2. But animals (and babies and sages) don't experience #1. Babies have the capacity to focus deliberately and therefore they also have the capacity to experience #3 even though its highly unlikely because they are still very much grounded in a feeling of general well-being. Now, I'd argue the same theoretically applies to some animals, especially pets. But as we've worked out here, it depends on the level of sophistication the animal is showing in terms of self-perception and range of deliberate focus. A-H often say that the main difference between animals and humans is that humans have way more latitude in terms of focus and choice making. So by default, the human can get way more out of alignment than the animal. But they also say that animals that choose to live with humans very often start behaving like humans and also show the same symptoms. So maybe we should limit #3 to pets only. I don't see it as likely that the animals in the wild would experience #3. But then again, we've only been talking about bunnies. What about primates? Anybody here in the know about primates? yeah, in terms of the distinctions, that all works for me. Did you ever see the monkeys sit the 'fairness' test? It goes something like this. 2 monkeys sit the same test, and when they both get the answers right, they get rewarded, but one gets their favourite food and the other gets some kind of crappy bit of food. After this happens a couple of times, the latter monkey is having a proper tantrum at what he sees as 'unfair' reward. So yeah, I would say they can psychologically suffer. Haha, cool! And here's some video evidence for Engima:
|
|
|
Post by Reefs on Mar 4, 2018 1:55:34 GMT -5
What he is essentially saying is that he has no actual power of focus. Which, fortunately, is not the case. Your emotions follow your focus, even when it seems as if your focus follows your emotions. I think that's Andrew describing there. You can let circumstances direct your focus or you can let your focus direct circumstances. We always have that choice. One is living as a reactionary to circumstances, the other is living as a creator of circumstances. Usually we live a mixture of both. Well, I think Andrew was right, in most cases and for most people. (For most people their attention/focus is always ~captured~ by the event or emotion. This is what Gurdjieff meant by mechanicalness, being mechanical; acting mechanical, thinking mechanical, mechanical feelings). But Andrew is not absolutely correct, because you (Reefs) are correct (with a little tweaking). We have a choice but most people do not know about and therefore do not/cannot exercise the choice. I had this discussion with maxprophet before, he got it. To keep it simple, I'll discuss....Zen and the Art of Archery. Now, in learning any skill most teachers are going to tell you to focus on little aspects, learn little aspects, hold the bow just right, show them how, hold the arrow just right, place the eye just right in relation to the string and arrow and target, etc., etc., etc. But the Zen Master just says, don't worry about any of that, just focus and shoot. Eventually, over time, the student hits the target without knowing how he or she did it. Going to leave that example... Let's discuss watching a movie in a movie theater (as an example). Most of the time your focus is going-in-to the movie, on-to the screen. This is Andrew's description, his focus is going into life circumstances, the emotion, that is, captured and held. During most of the movie we are likewise, the action (on the screen) holds our focus/attention. But then Reefs says, not necessarily so, we can place our focus upon circumstances (people, places, things; thoughts, feelings, actions). The former (Andrew's statement) is what Gurdjieff called a mechanical effort, the latter (Reefs) is what Gurdjieff called a conscious effort. Mechanically, one always lives "reactionary to circumstances". A conscious effort results in circumstances changing (that's the little tweaking I mentioned, Reefs says by one's effort we can be the creator of circumstances, I say it might be a little more complicated than that, the ~principle of nonvolition~ is involved here. [This is where Andrew is essentially correct, we can't just control, circumstances, events, have to play themselves out]. Eventually, down the road, yes, control is possible, but in the beginning, FAIAP, any control is indirect. But the point is, via observation changes occur. No observation, things happen as they always did. An analogy is the observation in Quantum physics, observe a quantum event, a change occurs, the "wave function collapses", the superposition (spread-out-ness) collapses into an actual place/position or momentum (but never both simultaneously). One can ~practice~ in a movie theater, for life. One can ~practice~ on simple body movements, or more simple yet, on sensations. In life and during life situations, one's attention/focus goes-in-to life, it's exceptionally more-difficult to observe oneself in-the-midst of life happening. But you have to get even just a sense of the difference Reefs is talking about here, then try it. Success (in making the attempt), is what Gurdjieff called making a conscious effort. (Consciousness cannot be developed unconsciously [that is, mechanically], but by [conscious] effort). Essentially, "One can use life or be used by it". (The quote of Reefs on the top of page 64 also goes into this). That was a good summary, SDP.
|
|
|
Post by Reefs on Mar 4, 2018 1:59:49 GMT -5
Actually, it's not an interesting topic, never was, and I've already mentioned that I'm tired of conversations being derailed with the solipsism stick. It's just the momentum of the desire energy playing itself out. I'm just looking at the slightly conflicting movements to go over to the new thread and continue On one hand, I feel a heavinenss and sense of uninspiredness, on the other hand, the movement to go to war on the subject is slightly there At the moment (and to quote Willy Wonka)...''there's no earthly way of knowing, which direction we are going!'' Suppose there's a war and no one shows up. Then what? BTW how did that landlord situation you mentioned a few days ago turn out? Exactly as you predicted?
|
|
|
Post by Reefs on Mar 4, 2018 2:02:43 GMT -5
Yes, it is entirely possible to have no recollection of many years of your life if, during those years, you were another persona. There's lot of stories of that these days, of people 'waking up' at around the age of 30 and having to try and piece together what's happened in their lives. I'm not a huge fan of Adam Sandler, but a very interesting and informative and relevant movie, Click. (He obtains a remote control where he can fast forward through boring life-stuff, but with the consequences, which he is warned of in advance, he cannot [later] remember thus fast-forwarded through events). I'd say anybody here on ST's could profit from it. Oh, I know that movie. It's a bit trashy but has a very powerful message.
|
|
|
Post by Reefs on Mar 4, 2018 2:08:48 GMT -5
So does an amoeba have a sense of self? 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. According to Seth, even electrons have a sense of self.
|
|
|
Post by enigma on Mar 4, 2018 2:24:38 GMT -5
Yes, they have a sense of self. Then I don't understand your argument (against animal's suffering). The sense of self is what suffers. Finally, we get to a point where we can actually discuss. All creatures are born with a sense of self, a sense of existing, the sense of 'I am'. This makes it possible for creatures to function in the world. Even the mosquito has a sense of existing, but it is very simple. It's not a concept or a thought, and so does not lend itself to self referential conclusions and stories. You also have a sense of self, and around it you've developed all manner of stories about what that sense refers to; what it is that exists. A person with a body and a mind and likes and dislikes and hopes and fears and needs. A complex self image, the tendency to analyze the past and predict future scenarios, etc. This is the source of all psychological suffering, and most of your physical suffering. What I call the point of suffering is a critical point at which non-problematic fear and resistance turn to suffering. That point is different for everyone, but it's critical in understanding how and why suffering comes to be, and offers a clue about how to end it. I contend that most of the lower animals (and infants) have no such story telling ability, and do not experience the suffering associated with it. In every animal, physical pain and fear serve to protect the creature, but when an animal without a story telling ability responds in that mode, it shouldn't be assumed that all the human stories that usually accompany that behavior are also present. Running is not suffering, fear is not suffering, crying out is not suffering, resistance is not suffering. The point of suffering is hidden from the adult because we don't know something unnatural has taken place in our minds.
|
|
|
Post by enigma on Mar 4, 2018 2:30:28 GMT -5
They would not function without a sense of self. Tenka can explain that to you. So does an amoeba have a sense of self? I'm pretty sure even plants have a sense of self, but I wouldn't bet Gopal's life on it.
|
|
|
Post by enigma on Mar 4, 2018 2:42:55 GMT -5
All that is required for suffering is a sense of self (which you admitted exists in animals). Yeah I agree. And 'a sense of self' is actually my definition of ego, although it just so happens it can get blown out of all proportion in humans, and that's the sense it's usually talked about in. You're born with a sense of existing long before you associate that sense with a body and a mind.
|
|