|
Post by stardustpilgrim on Mar 4, 2018 14:53:11 GMT -5
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. Sure.
|
|
|
Post by stardustpilgrim on Mar 4, 2018 14:56:20 GMT -5
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. Thanks...I appreciate that....
|
|
|
Post by stardustpilgrim on Mar 4, 2018 15:02:14 GMT -5
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. I don't get that you don't get that (past) suffering is the reason for future or now suffering. If there was not origin suffering there would be no reason for later suffering.
|
|
|
Post by andrew on Mar 4, 2018 15:09:46 GMT -5
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. Well if you look at what I said again, you will see that I said 'that's not to say that emotion has no accompanying thought or cognitive movement'. So I'm definitely not separating emotion from the thinking mind. What I am saying is that what is felt is often known BEFORE the thought. You can look at something and for no apparent or obvious reason in that moment, it trigger a deep or strong emotion. If we look closely we can find a cognitive movement that went with it, but that's not the point. I'm not sure the 'mind' is only in the head, I think 'mind' might well be in every cell of the body, but there is an intensification in the head area, such that it seems like it is in the head. So sometimes, your 'gut' will react before you head. Or your heart will react before your head. But for the purposes of investigation, it is useful to look at the accompanying cognitive movements, which BK does.
|
|
|
Post by andrew on Mar 4, 2018 15:15:32 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. Sometimes I find two options to be very very equal, and it can be over something very innocuous. For example, I can pull out of the drive way and there be two equal options as to which grocer store to go to. What I do in that situation is get completely and totally out of the way and 'let the car decide'. If the car goes left, then it means I am going to Safeway. if it goes right, it means I am going to Co-Op (though occasionally this too can change before I get there).
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Mar 4, 2018 15:17:31 GMT -5
Well that was a guy who wasn't taking responsibility for obviously causing his own suffering. Amoda talks about self-honesty at one point. Do you honestly think that anyone here has taken the position that suffering is an illusion? She makes it clear that she's speaking about "energy", which is what Reefs is alluding to with the idea of "alignment". But what is realized, in self-realization, is only tangentially related to what she means by "energy". Many of us have spilled lots of ink here (in past threads), on this false expectation that "awakening" or "realization" result in an experience of permabliss. See, that's the thing: pain continues .. and noone here on this forum has recently re-advocated any version of the perpetugasm. But something does cease with the realization. And it's quite significant. Not pain, but something else, and that's what we've been calling suffering. I just see the definition for suffering narrowing to a meaningless sliver by the persistent desire to defend a notion that is plainly silly. I'm curious about the motivation. It would be simple to concede and say everyone suffers. Instead we're trapped into saying things like "pain" isn't suffering or trauma isn't suffering or animals and infants don't suffer. I'll take your word that something does cease, not being awake. It used to be that I somehow saw myself as better than my Christian, Muslim, Buddhist, non practicing, "unenlightened" folk around me. I find that in my sufering I've acquired a certain appreciation for others. For whatever it's worth I don't want to convince you of anything. Not of a conceptual point about the vocabulary, nor of some subjective personal point about myself. I am interested, though, in making clear that I don't think suffering is an illusion or that it can be defined, in narrow or any other objective terms. I haven't seen any of the others that I generally agree with here say that suffering is an illusion, and while I might disagree with them about the definition of suffering, I see that as a disagreement about the semantics of "pointing". They might be using concise terminology, but it makes reference to some heavy-duty notions that bring alot along for the ride.
|
|
|
Post by andrew on Mar 4, 2018 15:17:35 GMT -5
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? I guess so. I've been under the impression that you consider what most folks call 'indecision', or 'changes of mind', to be a problem.
|
|
|
Post by andrew on Mar 4, 2018 15:18:44 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). I'm curious why you felt the need to clarify in response to my post. Because now I know what we are arguing, I want you to know where I stand on the point.
|
|
|
Post by andrew on Mar 4, 2018 15:21:44 GMT -5
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. Then you value what you call 'the truth'. You value 'speaking the truth'. The values will also determine how attached one is to a given value. If I say to you that you have a strong attachment to what you call 'the truth', I don't mean that in a negative way, it's just that you value it highly.
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Mar 4, 2018 15:25:08 GMT -5
The real question is why you force yourself to suffer all winter, but it prolly relates to some massochistic tendencies, and that probly comes from not being loved enough as a child. Well, that's not how I remember it but no matter what I would say could be construed as a fixer-upper dealio at this point.
|
|
|
Post by andrew on Mar 4, 2018 15:30:30 GMT -5
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. Okay, I can agree, but it's because of the nature of the context here. What we do here is share ideas, and within that context, some ideas are going to be right/wrong, true/false, valid/invalid etc. We can point beyond ideas, and that's cool n' all, but even this happens from within the context of ideas. I tend to approach forum conversation quite rationally (and intellectually, yes. When I say I haven't got things figured out, I am saying I have never landed on a final answer to any deep question that I can then carry around with me in which way that makes me think or believe or feel that ''I have got life/existence/God figured out''. Any answer I have ever landed on, has been for that moment, and it can potentially change in the next moment.
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Mar 4, 2018 15:34:17 GMT -5
Fascinating take 'j. I was only interested in bridging Reefs' idea of a bogus belief with making a case for compassion for the sufferer. There's some interesting insight into the mechanics of suffering there .. but I know myself well enough to know that I'm like one of the least qualified peeps on the planet to help others mitigate their suffering. Welp, I was basically in agreement that it's virtually impossible to know how the suffering complex may play out for any one person. The world is full of surprises. On the level of projection, compensation, seeking, it's the same mechanics for everybody, and none of it works as a lasting solution. As far as mitigating suffering, I don't really know how that wouldn't require allowing others to experience the crap they're avoiding. Seems most peeps associate mitigating suffering with taking pills, not being lit on fire. Go figure heh heh .. that I can help a peep with, but the only mitigation is in the ashes.
|
|
|
Post by ouroboros on Mar 4, 2018 15:36:20 GMT -5
In its purest form I think some form a sense of self transcends birth even, but on reflection concede it would seem odd to talk about that in terms of ego. The Buddha taught conception was the point of the coming together of the aggregation we think of as the mind-body expression, but that even prior to that are propelling (kammic) forces which condition that occurrence, of which identity view is a major cause. So I'm talking about a cycle of rebirth where ultimately identity view is effectively a cause of birth, which I know is hard to get your head around. Anyway, the process of birth itself is stressful (dukkha), and we see that the first thing the baby does upon arrival is wail at the top of its lungs, as it separates from the warmth, security, and nourishment of the mother, and as if on some level it knows it's pretty much downhill all the way from there, hehe. And where birth is the cause, death is the inevitable effect, and in the meantime life is subject to struggle, ageing, dis-ease and loss of loved ones, and this happens in perpituity until true liberation. But I digress. The process at aged two seems to be more about where identification with the mind-body expression comes to fruition, which would be a requisite condition for existential angst, I suppose. Although interestingly, out of that additional fall from grace I see coming the potential for sapience, and by extension liberation. That's basically the way I see it too. The ego (perspective) is there from birth but it has not yet become a person. That happens at around age two and probably has something to do with socialization. Yes, it makes sense that social conditioning would be the main factor in the development of that.
|
|
|
Post by ouroboros on Mar 4, 2018 15:41:53 GMT -5
In its purest form I think some form a sense of self transcends birth even, but on reflection concede it would seem odd to talk about that in terms of ego. The Buddha taught conception was the point of the coming together of the aggregation we think of as the mind-body expression, but that even prior to that are propelling (kammic) forces which condition that occurrence, of which identity view is a major cause. So I'm talking about a cycle of rebirth where ultimately identity view is effectively a cause of birth, which I know is hard to get your head around. Anyway, the process of birth itself is stressful (dukkha), and we see that the first thing the baby does upon arrival is wail at the top of its lungs, as it separates from the warmth, security, and nourishment of the mother, and as if on some level it knows it's pretty much downhill all the way from there, hehe. And where birth is the cause, death is the inevitable effect, and in the meantime life is subject to struggle, ageing, dis-ease and loss of loved ones, and this happens in perpituity until true liberation. But I digress. The process at aged two seems to be more about where identification with the mind-body expression comes to fruition, which would be a requisite condition for existential angst, I suppose. Although interestingly, out of that additional fall from grace I see coming the potential for sapience, and by extension liberation. I'm sure you have video evidence to support what you say, but is it possible the infant was nonplussed by the experience of being forced through a hole the size of a grapefruit? Yeah, it suffers from that as well.
|
|
|
Post by andrew on Mar 4, 2018 15:53:09 GMT -5
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? yeah it unfolded as I had felt. If I decide to argue a subject and the other person doesn't show up, it can go different ways. In this case, it's not a strong and congruent desire, so 'no show' is fine. That's really what the capacity to argue boils down to isn't it, it's the amount of satisfaction one finds in arguing a particular point. And I guess one has to find satisfaction in arguing itself.
|
|