|
Post by enigma on Mar 4, 2018 2:47:36 GMT -5
You've never used imagination to bring about a feeling, or come to a new understanding about an event that changes how you feel about it? Sure, actors do it all the time, but to what end? Yes, but I wouldn't say the purpose was to change the emotion, that's just a byproduct. Yes, thoughts, feelings and actions interlink, almost always (what you do to one effects the other two). All I'm saying is that emotions are a distinct function. You said you can't feel what you want to feel. I say to a great extent that's not so, at least for short periods of time. For example, if you want to feel superior, think of me. Hehe.
|
|
|
Post by enigma on Mar 4, 2018 2:49:26 GMT -5
You're trying to get me to see the difference between feeling and thinking? You've never admitted (although we've had this discussion numerous times) that emotion is a distinct function separate from thinking. A distinct function? Obviously. It never would have occurred to me to 'admit' it. But separate from thinking? Obviously not. Haven't you 'admitted' the inter-relationship yourself?
|
|
|
Post by enigma on Mar 4, 2018 2:56:12 GMT -5
Yeah, as Seth says, the point of power is in the present. And from there you can change past, present and future. And that's how it is done. Changing your past will change your future and vice versa. Thanks, I didn't think what I said (what Gurdjieff said) was that complicated. It wasn't. It was you putting that label on L's story that brought your comment into question, and deeper into question when you said you don't really remember the story. Your story is the interesting one.
|
|
|
Post by enigma on Mar 4, 2018 3:03:59 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. Prolly so. chimpanzees
|
|
|
Post by enigma on Mar 4, 2018 3:13:53 GMT -5
The feeling component of sensation is already part of mind's 'abstract story' telling. An odor can smell good or bad, or a touch can feel pleasant or painful depending on our experience with similar odors and touches. Yes, though I wouldn't describe it as an 'abstract' story telling because animals and babies are also 'feeling' their sensations. In one way, you can take away a sentient being's sight, sound, smell, touch, etc, but you can't take away their capacity to 'feel'. We 'feel' our aliveness. Also, our physiology determines to at least some extent the story. It doesn't matter how accustomed one is to eating fiery chillis, even the most hardened chilli eater is going to feel the heat (and pain) of a ghost chilli. Our physiology makes feeling 'objective' to at least some extent (I'm also not denying the subjective nature of them). Yeah, that sounds fair to say.
|
|
|
Post by enigma on Mar 4, 2018 3:17:29 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!'' That's honest, and seems right.
|
|
|
Post by enigma on Mar 4, 2018 3:31:30 GMT -5
Bingo. (Anybody that has ever had a pet, knows animals (mammals) have a self). This is why behaviour expressed holds merit in regards to a sense of self identity had . . Why? Because self identity implies certain behavior which implies self identity which implies certain behavior?
|
|
|
Post by enigma on Mar 4, 2018 3:34:49 GMT -5
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...? I'm gonna vote rhetorical.
|
|
|
Post by tenka on Mar 4, 2018 4:34:32 GMT -5
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...? From the perspective that there is only what you are .. all life forms experience . I was pointing towards the reason for experiencing .. If there was no sense of the experience had in reflection of what you are, then there would be no point manifesting as this or that . I think some peeps see a sense of self or what you are as something different from a self identity . There are different levels at play for sure regarding identifying self butt when a bunny defends it's space it does so because the sense of itself is identified otherwise it wouldn't behave as it does . An amoeba that feeds, move, reproduces I would say has it's own self identifying experience .
|
|
|
Post by tenka on Mar 4, 2018 4:37:10 GMT -5
This is why behaviour expressed holds merit in regards to a sense of self identity had . . Why? Because self identity implies certain behavior which implies self identity which implies certain behavior? It stands to reason that a life form behaves in a certain way because it has a sense of itself that is identified . If it didn't identify itself it wouldn't identify something else . You don't buy into behaviour as an indicator butt you don't explain why a bunny would behave in a defensive manner even though it doesn't recognise it's own reflection in the mirror . How does it recognise another bunny bouncing around in the fields when it supposedly doesn't even identify with itself?
|
|
|
Post by Reefs on Mar 4, 2018 6:02:33 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. Which means the ego is there from birth, not just from age two.
|
|
|
Post by Reefs on Mar 4, 2018 6:07:26 GMT -5
For me, life/experience is the balance of both. We are chooser and chosen, user and used. I guess I just do what I can to walk the line between them. There is some truth to this if we look at this in the outer self (ego) vs. inner self (inner being) context.
|
|
|
Post by Reefs on Mar 4, 2018 6:17:34 GMT -5
For me, life/experience is the balance of both. We are chooser and chosen, user and used. I guess I just do what I can to walk the line between them. The main point is one has to see a difference, for a choice to even be possible. By default, no (unconscious, mechanical) choices are possible. Choice always begins with what Reefs describes, which is a conscious effort. All efforts not so chosen, are mechanical and [relatively] unconscious. I think I get it now what Andrew was trying to describe earlier and what looks to us like indecision or overthinking. It is actually what A-H call sorting and sifting, the chewing on the data of experience, the ruminating - which eventually leads to a decision. And that's essentially the job of the ego. Usually this happens more or less unconsciously in the background but in this case it seems to happen fully conscious.
|
|
|
Post by lolly on Mar 4, 2018 6:19:09 GMT -5
There isn't a difference between the desire to end pain or the desire to get pleasure. It just means you hate pain and crave pleasure basically because people think pain = unhappiness and pleasure = happiness, which makes happiness conditional on sensation - which is suffering because no sensation has any endurance and can't held onto, but there still there can be clinging as we may believe sensation endures - i.e suffering. But then there is desire in another way which is the desire for truth, and this is oxymoronic because the truth is regardless of anything anybody wants. It's not oxymoronic. One's life can correspond to truth or falsehood. To strive to know what the truth is, if the plan is to live via it, is a worthy goal. Most people live by haphazard whims (of course most would not say this). It's oxymoronic because there's desire for a truth which is regardless of what you want.
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Mar 4, 2018 6:27:26 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. According to Seth, even electrons have a sense of self. Seeing as how absolute video proof of how we're all made of electrons is a slam dunk that I don't even have to post it seems that we have an explanation for how there can be apparently many minds in one person.
|
|