|
Post by enigma on Mar 7, 2018 19:35:30 GMT -5
Fine, then I'll make another comparison. For many, prison is a fate worse than death, and when you want to punish a prisoner you put him in solitary confinement. Maybe he misses the love and nurturing of his mommy? Life must be engaged. It's a matter of life and death. You weren't talking to me, but I can't work out what you are saying here. I assume your argument is that an unloved baby doesn't suffer, but how does the prison relate? I would say that the absence of unconditional love is the first existential crisis that a human experiences and it lays the pathway for identification with the I-concept (or the 'persona') as the child develops. My argument is that it's not about love and nurturing so much as engagement with life.
|
|
|
Post by enigma on Mar 7, 2018 19:39:41 GMT -5
Love and affection is great, but that's not what keeps babies alive. It's about engagement with life. Okay, it seems I am definitely confused about your point. It's a very simple point, clearly stated. What's the problem?
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Mar 7, 2018 19:39:50 GMT -5
That is really beautiful and picking that apart by the mind would seem to miss the point. But I wouldn't underestimate the reach of the mathematicians and modeler's in this instance. There's likely a few simple rules that could explain the cloud with the right equations to fill in the details. Something like, "most birds don't want to be on the edge of the cloud and tend to follow those around them". I'm pretty sure if navigation were left up to the birds, there would be massive bird collisions and it would be raining starlings. Are you familiar with the Monarch migrations from the US/Canada to a small grove of trees in Mexico? It's 3000 miles or so and the round trip takes, like, 3 generations. Got an equation for that? Well that's the thingy about equations and models .. yes, someone probly does.. And even a philosopher/scientist/mathematician would agree with you that the navigation of the whole isn't up to the individual starlings. All they have to do (which is implicit in the model), is not crash into each other. They would say that the beautiful order of of the cloud emerges from the apparent chaos of the constantly and rapidly changing individual paths. This is very similar to their idea of the origins of consciousness.
|
|
|
Post by andrew on Mar 7, 2018 19:48:55 GMT -5
You weren't talking to me, but I can't work out what you are saying here. I assume your argument is that an unloved baby doesn't suffer, but how does the prison relate? I would say that the absence of unconditional love is the first existential crisis that a human experiences and it lays the pathway for identification with the I-concept (or the 'persona') as the child develops. My argument is that it's not about love and nurturing so much as engagement with life. That WHAT is about love/nurturing as much as engagement with life? Are you saying the babies died, not because of the absence of love/nurture, but because of the absence of desire to engage with life? If that's the case, then it would be because of the absence of love/nurture that there is no desire to engage with life. That's the existential crisis a baby goes through. An absence of vitality and well-being, probably a sense of emptiness and loneliness.
|
|
|
Post by andrew on Mar 7, 2018 19:49:26 GMT -5
Okay, it seems I am definitely confused about your point. It's a very simple point, clearly stated. What's the problem? Okay, I think I am getting your point now (see above).
|
|
|
Post by Reefs on Mar 7, 2018 20:04:05 GMT -5
I don't really know what a sense of identity is. Is it body identification or something else? Regardless, all that is needed in order to differentiate is the ability to differentiate. The ability to differentiate requires a sense of self that can differentiate . The moment you identify / notice / acknowledge something you have identified that something in reflection of yourself . You don't appear to understand how that works . Even floaters go around saying they are awareness and don't have an identity of sorts as spoken about on the other forums. Peeps don't seem to understand that in order to self relate what they are with or too requires that sense of self identity . If a peep or a bunny had no sense of self identity they wouldn't be able to tell the difference between themselves and something else that is perceived . They wouldn't be able to relate to what is perceived as something else other than themselves . How can they? It doesn't require a self-referential self to engage with the world. And a proper sentence structure in any language requires a subject, a predicate and an object. That's why as soon as you open your mouth and talk about it, it is already lost. The best thing that can be done is pointing. But since what is pointed to refers to something prior to conceptual thinking and the self-referential self, the pointers can only be understood by those who also have a reference for what is prior to conceptual thinking and prior to the self-referential self.
|
|
|
Post by Reefs on Mar 7, 2018 20:22:52 GMT -5
It's Andrew's wording and that's how I understood it. Maybe I'm wrong. What does it have to do with spiritual thinking? (It's deja vu all over again) Spiritual thinking is a mental position. Just look at the sentence structure of some folks. Every sentence is teeming with highly abstract nouns (and of which no one knows their exact definition) - that's how you spot the spiritual thinker.
|
|
|
Post by Reefs on Mar 7, 2018 20:35:45 GMT -5
And why isn't the baby engaging with life? Why is there no reason to live? I say because the circumstances are such that the the minimum requirement in terms of life quality just isn't there. And when that happens, that's what is called suffering. Is that really so difficult to understand? I'm surprised we are still talking about this. I mean I get your point about taking a step back from oversentimentality but I think you are overdoing it. It's really not that complicated. Everything comes with a purpose into being. When that purpose has no chance of being realized, consciousness withdraws and tries another approach. I wouldn't call it quality of life. The baby is stuck in a crib unable to move about, rarely interacted with, and nothing happening. That's why the baby isn't engaged with life. Without said engagement, there is no reason to live. Is that really so difficult to understand? The physical needs were meticulously provided, and we're still discussing what the non-physical needs might be. Suffering is subjective and you don't know the subjective experience of the infant, so you can't talk like suffering is a no-brainer. You are basically just repeating my point. Obviously we agree that basic requirements aren't met. But we disagree slightly on what these requirements actually are and what happens in the process of realizing that these basic requirements aren't met. You seem to be saying that the baby is having a good time until it gets bored and then the baby dies seemingly peacefully. I am saying that the baby is having a good time until it doesn't and then what we call suffering happens and then the baby dies seemingly peacefully. So we are mostly in agreement. We just disagree on the actual effect of living (over a longer period of time) without means to engage with life, without a sense of purpose or hope that things may change for the better. I say this causes suffering because that's the very definition of suffering. You say this causes boredom.
|
|
|
Post by Reefs on Mar 7, 2018 20:37:39 GMT -5
I'd expect the driver to reveal Himself. Really? You mean, like, honk the horn or sumthin? And booming voices and stuff.
|
|
|
Post by enigma on Mar 7, 2018 20:45:12 GMT -5
Right, dream evidence. That's why I point out the limitations of video evidence. However, for the most part I'm equally unimpressed with peeps intuitive evidence. This isn't about prove-ability though. I'm not trying to PROVE to you that a baby suffers....I couldn't prove it. I can't prove that adult humans suffer either. But you do accept that adult humans suffer, right? That's the context we're talking in... the assumption is that suffering happens. You know that suffering has happened to you! It's on the short list of things you can't not know.
|
|
|
Post by enigma on Mar 7, 2018 20:50:48 GMT -5
Love and affection is great, but that's not what keeps babies alive. It's about engagement with life. "Engagement with life" is a solid pointing, but "reason to live" is abstract and implicates personal purpose. People peeps might think of it as "will to live", and they're mistaken about the source of that "will". Well, for now the point is simply that life has to be found sufficiently interesting to keep us alive.
|
|
|
Post by enigma on Mar 7, 2018 20:59:20 GMT -5
No, you can know something unequivocally and it still doesn't mean it is true, or unquestionable, or absolute. There's a lot of stuff that you know unequivocally....that a screaming baby is suffering, that you love Marie, that Marie is perceiving. All these things CAN be questioned, but that won't change the knowing of them.In the case of 'you know you exist', the solipsism discussion has revealed the problem of not investigating this statement. After all, you would say that you know you exist, but you don't know that I exist, right? Whereas I would say that I know I exist AND I know you exist. OR I would say the knowing that I exist and the knowing that you exist is equally illusion. I don't see my knowing that I exist as more or less unquestionable than my knowing that you exist. Right. Instead of asking "How could you know?" you might as well ask "How could you not know?!" And what about all the squirrel satsang stories? Let's replace 'baby' with Marie and 'suffering' with 'love' or 'mutual understanding' and see how that conversation goes. I'm pretty confident when it comes to arguing the opposite end of the stick that he has argued the exact opposite position. So I'm not really sure what he is doing here. I don't get your point.
|
|
|
Post by Reefs on Mar 7, 2018 21:30:15 GMT -5
The dreamworld, or the realm of the psyche or the unknown reality as Seth sometimes calls it has little to do with what we usually mean when we use that word. What we usually refer to as dreams or dream content or dream experience is already an interpretation into the physical consensus trance format (or else we couldn't remember it). So the way Seth uses the term, it is basically what A-H call the non-physical which is basically what we used to call the impersonal. I call physicality a dream. Not related directly to the psyche. The psyche here isn't the psyche of the psychologists. I thought I made that clear. And I agree, it is a dream of sorts, everything is an interpretation.
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Mar 7, 2018 21:38:46 GMT -5
"Engagement with life" is a solid pointing, but "reason to live" is abstract and implicates personal purpose. People peeps might think of it as "will to live", and they're mistaken about the source of that "will". Well, for now the point is simply that life has to be found sufficiently interesting to keep us alive. Without validating any of the positions you've been arguing against I'd say that's shadable and jadable. I think "interesting" could be defined in such a way to support either side of the debate.
|
|
|
Post by someNOTHING! on Mar 7, 2018 21:44:40 GMT -5
Yeah, doesn't work out so well, although there's the same outcome for the body. Such a drama If you look at his body language, there's no doubt that he's very much afraid of the bears. But he's drowning that out with lots of mental noise. Just compare the shots where he's playing with the foxes with the shots where he's playing (or attempting to play) with the bears. So, as most of the guys involved in that story have said, it's not a surprise that it ended as it did. Ironically, he found his calling and meaning in life in "saving the bears", and then they ate him. Projection is a kind of context mix. Know thy conditioning.
|
|