|
Post by laughter on Mar 4, 2018 23:48:22 GMT -5
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. That's what they all say. 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. And I can see that clearly now. I'm just more familiar with talking about the other end of the stick, i.e. thriving and well-being. And that end of the stick seems a lot more clear-cut (at least to me). But the conversation so far was quite enlightening. So, thanks for all the new insights. ur welcome! .. gotta' do something when my attention to work breaks down but I gotta' stay at the keyboard till I refocus after all.
|
|
|
Post by enigma on Mar 4, 2018 23:50:10 GMT -5
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. I don't get that you don't get that I don't get that, though this is the first I've heard of it. Hehe. So, there has to be suffering before there can be suffering? Do I really need to point out the problem with that?
|
|
|
Post by enigma on Mar 4, 2018 23:59:07 GMT -5
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. I'm talking about this: "when it has something to 'say', it is is far more potent than the thinking or cognitive mind" That's separating it from the cognitive mind and personalizing it. As you say here, there's an underlying thought that triggers it. It doesn't have something to say beyond that thought that precedes it, and it's not more potent than the thought that follows it.
|
|
|
Post by enigma on Mar 5, 2018 0:03:35 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). Fine, but remaining immobile at the end of the driveway for an extended period of time waiting for one option to outweigh the other is not a rational option, so by some means a decision is made. Everyone knows this from their own experience so I don't understand how anyone sees a paradox.
|
|
|
Post by enigma on Mar 5, 2018 0:05:49 GMT -5
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. No, not a problem at all.
|
|
|
Post by enigma on Mar 5, 2018 0:09:19 GMT -5
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. okay, then I will clarify. I'm not the least bit confused about where you stand.
|
|
|
Post by enigma on Mar 5, 2018 0:16:21 GMT -5
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. So what you call values is when you value something? Doing something?... Okay, I smell rabbit, so lets let that one go.
|
|
|
Post by enigma on Mar 5, 2018 0:18:01 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. I would say you could take that one to the bank.
|
|
|
Post by enigma on Mar 5, 2018 0:26:45 GMT -5
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. So would you say you approach discussion here in an open-ended, flexible sort of way?
|
|
|
Post by enigma on Mar 5, 2018 0:31:48 GMT -5
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. Ego forms when the child fully grasps the idea and implications of 'me' vs 'you'.
|
|
|
Post by enigma on Mar 5, 2018 0:36:05 GMT -5
According to Seth, even electrons have a sense of self. I can't get on board with Seth's use of language there, but I am on board with the 'sentiment' of it. What's the sentiment of it?
|
|
|
Post by enigma on Mar 5, 2018 0:43:57 GMT -5
Ants! Didn't see that coming. Me neither. That blew my self aware mind. We currently have an ant problem here and we've been murdering self aware ants by the hundreds. It got me to pondering the deeper implications of the hive mind. Is a collective mind somehow self aware?
|
|
|
Post by Reefs on Mar 5, 2018 0:52:55 GMT -5
Ants! Didn't see that coming. Oops! I missed that post. I guess there goes our 'sophistication' theory right out the window.
|
|
|
Post by Reefs on Mar 5, 2018 0:58:11 GMT -5
Wait...what?! They halted the experiment after half the infants died? Did they figure they had enough data at that point? But what does that experiment indicate regarding your (non-)suffering theory about babies?
|
|
|
Post by Reefs on Mar 5, 2018 1:04:13 GMT -5
Ants! Didn't see that coming. Me neither. That blew my self aware mind. We currently have an ant problem here and we've been murdering self aware ants by the hundreds. It also brings us one step closer to seeing the truth about Seth's self-aware electrons. It got me to pondering the deeper implications of the hive mind. Is a collective mind somehow self aware? You mean like facebook and ST are self-aware?
|
|