|
Post by laughter on Apr 1, 2021 23:11:32 GMT -5
As always. The wrong means can never be used to achieve the right results. The war will never end. Each side knows they are correct (which isn't possible). I am exceptionally disappointed in the last 4 years. After the first couple of weeks of Trump taking office, I never expected anything from him ever again, contention gets nobody anywhere, and that's all Trump is, CONTENTION (I should have realized that the art of the deal for Trump only means getting what I want). My disappoint is with Republican leadership who went along with him...and those that still do. I think in politics, my heart will now forever rule my head. I will mostly likely never vote for a Republican ever again in any election. The problem, Democrats are going to join the Dark Side (concerning means). I may never vote again, period. Politics in a Democracy/Republic can only function with compromise, and balance. I put it on Republicans for destroying that. Payback will be hell. It has started. The pendulum always swings. Politics is not war. Those who think it is will always be the losers in the end. The truth will always win in the end. The first countermove threat, the threat to move the MLB All Star game from Atlanta. Fairness cannot be built upon lies. As you are somewhat suggesting, I think more than anything, what the world would benefit from most right now, is truthfulness. And I think we are ripe for that truthfulness, and yet the ripeness won't protect many from the hurt and the pain of that truth. I agree that there are lies on all sides. I also won't vote again. I didn't vote between the years of 1997-2017 (though I could have done). I somewhat uncomfortably voted in 2017-19 here in the UK, but I'm done with it again now. Not to question your choice not to vote - I completely understand, and you're following your gut. But, I just have to point out: this is precisely the outcome the kleptocrats prefer. I've voted in most elections, trying to pick the worst of the bad options, as a sort of conscious, rebellious defiance of that.
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Apr 1, 2021 23:18:34 GMT -5
As you are somewhat suggesting, I think more than anything, what the world would benefit from most right now, is truthfulness. And I think we are ripe for that truthfulness, and yet the ripeness won't protect many from the hurt and the pain of that truth. I agree that there are lies on all sides. I also won't vote again. I didn't vote between the years of 1997-2017 (though I could have done). I somewhat uncomfortably voted in 2017-19 here in the UK, but I'm done with it again now. Yes, wholeheartedly agree. But the 'sides' cannot agree on what the truth is, what actuality is. The false sense of self, the small s self, filters the truth according to its constitution. Both sides, all sides, sincerely believe their POV is the truth. That's why the primary operating principle must necessarily be compromise. No, it doesn't seem that way to me, not at all. I'm nothing but a gadfly on the topic, but it seems to me that most people who succeed in politics are cynical magicians.
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Apr 1, 2021 23:33:20 GMT -5
I was reflecting on something similar this morning. I tend to make genuine efforts to see things from other people's point of view when discussing issues. After all, nobody acts without good reason (from within their model). And I also ask myself, how could I possibly challenge that person's values and beliefs without first understanding their good reason for doing what they do? Of course, sometimes I make the effort to understand and then decide that their model is 'unchallengeable'. There are psychopaths in the world too, how do you explain the value of empathy to someone, when they have such little reference for it? In those situations, I find it useful to remember that nature itself is beautiful in its incredible diversity. Perhaps it also goes back to what you used to say about Hawkins....we tend to talk to people either '2 steps above or 2 steps below'. I think you used to say that, I could be wrong. Very nice post andrew, you have always been the peacemaker around here, not easy. I have read a little Hawkins, I agree with that quote but I don't think I would have quoted him. We can't see what's above our understanding, we usually don't think there is anything above what we can see. But there always is, there is always further. The higher always reconciles the opposites. What I have posted more than once is, one cannot know what's above one's level of being. And, the higher knows the lower but the lower cannot know the higher. Abbot's Flatland is a good description of these principles. A 2-dimensional being is limited to comprehending 2D. We are 3D-4D beings living in a 5D universe, inside a 6D universe, inside a 7D universe (maybe even in an 8-D universe, all that's necessary, as the 8th is a repeating octave, forming an Ouroboros). The film Interstellar is a very good try at showing what's possible. Jesus, Lao Tzu, Buddha, many more, examples of what-we-can-be. A " subjective reality" if there ever was one.
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Apr 1, 2021 23:59:13 GMT -5
I just noticed that. I don't disagree with someone else's subjective reality. I have no access to anybody else's subjective reality (under normal states of consciousness). I react to my subjective reality, created by my subconscious, and perceived through my physical senses. It is similar with me-in-my-dream that doesn't have access to others' dreams (again, under normal states of consciousness). In my dream I react to whatever dream characters and dream situations, when I am not lucid. I'm not disagreeing or arguing, but I have a question. I don't understand how this idea that everybody creates their own reality works. (I understand it arises out of the unconscious). Example, two people pursue the same objective. An election, or, two men like the same lady, two people want to be president of a company, two countries want to occupy the same territory, I could probably give 100 examples. Both sides cannot win. Another example, coming up to a traffic light, one street gets a green light, another gets a red light. We have to agree that red means stop green means go, otherwise two views of reality result in a crash. Do you care to explain further? I don't see any way to get around the fact we all in some sense live in an objective reality. (Nonduality gets around it by saying there is only one actor, so contradictions don't exist/can't exist, but I am not a nondualist, without qualification). If we conceive of consciousness in purely mechanical terms, and use the consensus assumption that consciousness emerges from the physical structure of the brain, then it becomes clear everything we take as what we sense can be defined in terms of information. The information, as represented by the electrochemical processes happening in the brain. We can replace the assumption of consciousness emerging from the physical structure with the opposite: the physical structure arising from some sort of - as yet not fully understood and defined - higher-dimensional, apparently non-physical process (such as the one you described). Either way, it should be clear that no two sets of sensations are ever exactly alike, and we can even see this from the simple act of perspective and the nature of time: no two people ever see the Moon from exactly the same angle at exactly the same time. Your taste of honey, is not exactly the same, as my taste of honey. We can agree that the light is red, but that's an approximation, a gloss, as your red is not exactly the same, as my red. In any event, that's the basis for the notion of subjective reality, although the first version - where consciousness is an effect of the physical cause - requires an objective physical reality within which these all occur. But you see, 'pilgrim, all of this misses the point. It's a focus on the mechanics of the situation. You, however, cannot be defined in mechanical terms - and despite what you might otherwise feel and believe, your multi-dimensional model is still a rendering, in mechanical terms. All of these details can be interesting - practical even. But all of the dialog here is really only tangentially driven by those practical interests. Ultimately, these models are people expressing their curiosity about the world and themselves, a curiosity that can only ever be satisfied if one stops looking for the answer in terms of those models. No, "non-duality" doesn't say that there is only one actor - NOT in the terms that you're imagining people pointing with that idea to mean. It's not meant as a model that can explain and predict the way appearances appear. Neither assumption about the cause of consciousness is applicable, as, consciousness is, ultimately, uncaused. The intellect demands otherwise, and this is an existential falsity.
|
|
|
Post by stardustpilgrim on Apr 2, 2021 6:35:24 GMT -5
Very nice post andrew, you have always been the peacemaker around here, not easy. I have read a little Hawkins, I agree with that quote but I don't think I would have quoted him. We can't see what's above our understanding, we usually don't think there is anything above what we can see. But there always is, there is always further. The higher always reconciles the opposites. What I have posted more than once is, one cannot know what's above one's level of being. And, the higher knows the lower but the lower cannot know the higher. Abbot's Flatland is a good description of these principles. A 2-dimensional being is limited to comprehending 2D. We are 3D-4D beings living in a 5D universe, inside a 6D universe, inside a 7D universe (maybe even in an 8-D universe, all that's necessary, as the 8th is a repeating octave, forming an Ouroboros). The film Interstellar is a very good try at showing what's possible. Jesus, Lao Tzu, Buddha, many more, examples of what-we-can-be. A " subjective reality" if there ever was one. Andrew has been THE one person around here to have stretched himself to see both sides of an issue.
|
|
|
Post by andrew on Apr 2, 2021 6:36:35 GMT -5
As you are somewhat suggesting, I think more than anything, what the world would benefit from most right now, is truthfulness. And I think we are ripe for that truthfulness, and yet the ripeness won't protect many from the hurt and the pain of that truth. I agree that there are lies on all sides. I also won't vote again. I didn't vote between the years of 1997-2017 (though I could have done). I somewhat uncomfortably voted in 2017-19 here in the UK, but I'm done with it again now. Yes, wholeheartedly agree. But the 'sides' cannot agree on what the truth is, what actuality is. The false sense of self, the small s self, filters the truth according to its constitution. Both sides, all sides, sincerely believe their POV is the truth. That's why the primary operating principle must necessarily be compromise. The way I see it, and based on far too much discussion on twitter in recent years, the majority of people don't take the time to look very closely at their values. I remember being young and someone asking me what my values were, and I think I probably answered 'family and friends', which strikes me now as a typical consensus answer, given by someone that has never considered the question before. So I'm not judging people for not looking at, or knowing their values, but I really think this is the kind of thing that should be taught in schools. And as a result of many people not really knowing what their values are, our world is full of people that spout their beliefs very noisily, without really knowing why they choose to hold those beliefs. And of course, they are often VERY VERY attached to those beliefs. Personally, I'm not a huge fan of compromise. Even in my own small family, we negotiate excellently, but we don't compromise much. The way we do it is a bit like this...Jenn....''I'd like chicken for dinner''. Me ''I'd like steak for dinner. How much do you want the chicken?'' Jenn...''I'm a 10/10 for chicken''. Me...''Okay, well I'm an 8 for steak, and I'm okay with chicken, so let's do chicken''. For me, that's not a compromise, that's a negotiation. I don't say, ''well then we must have steak tomorrow''. Instead, we just go through the same process the next day. It requires trust that the other person is being honest, which we have. Sometimes we have different dinners and that's okay too. So, I think honesty and negotiation is really important, but honesty is a hard thing for many people, because they don't self-examine, and they have 'shadow self' issues and stuff like that. In some regards, I imagine that the way my family makes decisions could look kind of brutal to others, because we don't pander to each other. Honesty can be uncomfortable to those that aren't used to it. So as usual, I come back to the idea that for the world to improve, each of us must be looking within fundamentally, which I'm sure is something that's easy for us all to agree with.
|
|
|
Post by andrew on Apr 2, 2021 6:38:04 GMT -5
Lao Tzu: 三十八章 上德不德,是以有德;下德不失德,是以无德。 上德无为而无以为;下德无为而有以为。 Chapter 38 The man of high virtue is not aware of his own virtue and therefore has (real) virtue; The man of low virtue tries hard not to lose his own virtue and therefore has no (real) virtue. The man of high virtue does nothing to show off his virtue; The man of low virtue does nothing yet tries to show off his virtue. yeeeah that's cool. I don't know Alan's history but I think he was quite studious in his studies, I can well imagine he looked at Lao Tzu.
|
|
|
Post by stardustpilgrim on Apr 2, 2021 6:42:26 GMT -5
I'm not disagreeing or arguing, but I have a question. I don't understand how this idea that everybody creates their own reality works. (I understand it arises out of the unconscious). Example, two people pursue the same objective. An election, or, two men like the same lady, two people want to be president of a company, two countries want to occupy the same territory, I could probably give 100 examples. Both sides cannot win. Another example, coming up to a traffic light, one street gets a green light, another gets a red light. We have to agree that red means stop green means go, otherwise two views of reality result in a crash. Do you care to explain further? I don't see any way to get around the fact we all in some sense live in an objective reality. (Nonduality gets around it by saying there is only one actor, so contradictions don't exist/can't exist, but I am not a nondualist, without qualification). If we conceive of consciousness in purely mechanical terms, and use the consensus assumption that consciousness emerges from the physical structure of the brain, then it becomes clear everything we take as what we sense can be defined in terms of information. The information, as represented by the electrochemical processes happening in the brain. We can replace the assumption of consciousness emerging from the physical structure with the opposite: the physical structure arising from some sort of - as yet not fully understood and defined - higher-dimensional, apparently non-physical process (such as the one you described). Either way, it should be clear that no two sets of sensations are ever exactly alike, and we can even see this from the simple act of perspective and the nature of time: no two people ever see the Moon from exactly the same angle at exactly the same time. Your taste of honey, is not exactly the same, as my taste of honey. We can agree that the light is red, but that's an approximation, a gloss, as your red is not exactly the same, as my red. In any event, that's the basis for the notion of subjective reality, although the first version - where consciousness is an effect of the physical cause - requires an objective physical reality within which these all occur. But you see, 'pilgrim, all of this misses the point. It's a focus on the mechanics of the situation. You, however, cannot be defined in mechanical terms - and despite what you might otherwise feel and believe, your multi-dimensional model is still a rendering, in mechanical terms. All of these details can be interesting - practical even. But all of the dialog here is really only tangentially driven by those practical interests. Ultimately, these models are people expressing their curiosity about the world and themselves, a curiosity that can only ever be satisfied if one stops looking for the answer in terms of those models. No, "non-duality" doesn't say that there is only one actor - NOT in the terms that you're imagining people pointing with that idea to mean. It's not meant as a model that can explain and predict the way appearances appear. Neither assumption about the cause of consciousness is applicable, as, consciousness is, ultimately, uncaused. The intellect demands otherwise, and this is an existential falsity. I can accept most everything here except consciousness is uncaused. If there is anything consciousness is not, it's being uncaused.
|
|
|
Post by andrew on Apr 2, 2021 6:49:27 GMT -5
In the days in which I suffered great mental distress, I would contemplate suicide. I would find that the moment that I decided that it was a genuine option for me, that there was a letting go, a peace would rush in, and there was no longer a movement to contemplate it. This decision and letting go couldn't be 'manufactured', I couldn't make it happen. It had to happen of its own accord i.e I had to experience it as a genuine option. I came to strongly know through these experiences that 'something' does not dies. I don't mean this in a non-dual way, it's more a new age thing (but I understand the non-dual sense too). While I can say I 'know' this, I can't say I know what happens, I 'believe' that there are many different paths. Some might 'dissolve' fully into pure awareness. For others there might be a retaining of 'consciousness' in some way i.e other dimensions of experience. I don't know, but I think lots of potentials. I read a book last year called, ''The Afterlife of Billy Fingers''. I'd known about it for many years, and had read quotes from it, but on reading, discovered it was quite a different book to what I had expected. If you are bored one day, I'd recommend it. I didn't just find it interesting, it actually 'stretched' me. Were you aware of the parallels between what you experienced and Ramana Maharishi's story? Hmmm I hadn't considered it, but now you mention it, yes I can see some parallels. Fair to say that we both shared a deep contemplation and acceptance of dying. I think overall, he handled it all better than me I guess one of the benefits of being in India, is that these kinds of internal insights, changes and awakenings are part of the tradition. You aren't necessarily seen as 'crazy' or 'having a mental breakdown', in fact, I guess it's all seen as a positive thing, and there's a general level of support. Here in the UK (and west in general), the best advice I could really hope for was, 'man up, have a whisky, and go and get a job' I guess things have changed since then for the better to some extent, though the emphasis remains on the idea that 'what you are going through is a bad thing'
|
|
|
Post by andrew on Apr 2, 2021 6:52:39 GMT -5
Very nice post andrew, you have always been the peacemaker around here, not easy. I have read a little Hawkins, I agree with that quote but I don't think I would have quoted him. We can't see what's above our understanding, we usually don't think there is anything above what we can see. But there always is, there is always further. The higher always reconciles the opposites. What I have posted more than once is, one cannot know what's above one's level of being. And, the higher knows the lower but the lower cannot know the higher. Abbot's Flatland is a good description of these principles. A 2-dimensional being is limited to comprehending 2D. We are 3D-4D beings living in a 5D universe, inside a 6D universe, inside a 7D universe (maybe even in an 8-D universe, all that's necessary, as the 8th is a repeating octave, forming an Ouroboros). The film Interstellar is a very good try at showing what's possible. Jesus, Lao Tzu, Buddha, many more, examples of what-we-can-be. A " subjective reality" if there ever was one. I definitely appreciated what SDP said, but I think there's a very tiny chance that there was a time when I was slightly less inclined towards peacemaking here
|
|
|
Post by stardustpilgrim on Apr 2, 2021 7:01:36 GMT -5
Yes, wholeheartedly agree. But the 'sides' cannot agree on what the truth is, what actuality is. The false sense of self, the small s self, filters the truth according to its constitution. Both sides, all sides, sincerely believe their POV is the truth. That's why the primary operating principle must necessarily be compromise. The way I see it, and based on far too much discussion on twitter in recent years, the majority of people don't take the time to look very closely at their values. I remember being young and someone asking me what my values were, and I think I probably answered 'family and friends', which strikes me now as a typical consensus answer, given by someone that has never considered the question before. So I'm not judging people for not looking at, or knowing their values, but I really think this is the kind of thing that should be taught in schools. And as a result of many people not really knowing what their values are, our world is full of people that spout their beliefs very noisily, without really knowing why they choose to hold those beliefs. And of course, they are often VERY VERY attached to those beliefs. Personally, I'm not a huge fan of compromise. Even in my own small family, we negotiate excellently, but we don't compromise much. The way we do it is a bit like this...Jenn....''I'd like chicken for dinner''. Me ''I'd like steak for dinner. How much do you want the chicken?'' Jenn...''I'm a 10/10 for chicken''. Me...''Okay, well I'm an 8 for steak, and I'm okay with chicken, so let's do chicken''. For me, that's not a compromise, that's a negotiation. I don't say, ''well then we must have steak tomorrow''. Instead, we just go through the same process the next day. It requires trust that the other person is being honest, which we have. Sometimes we have different dinners and that's okay too. So, I think honesty and negotiation is really important, but honesty is a hard thing for many people, because they don't self-examine, and they have 'shadow self' issues and stuff like that. In some regards, I imagine that the way my family makes decisions could look kind of brutal to others, because we don't pander to each other. Honesty can be uncomfortable to those that aren't used to it. So as usual, I come back to the idea that for the world to improve, each of us must be looking within fundamentally, which I'm sure is something that's easy for us all to agree with. with chicken, so let's do chicken''. I meant compromise has to be the operating principle in politics. What one values has to be the primary operating principle concerning what's personal. I began to see this at least as a teenager, becoming a teenager. I agree, most people take themselves for granted. I was never really what could be called a success in life because most of my time and energy was spent upon examining my self and my values. I basically did only enough to survive. But at 69 I consider all that has paid off. I look forward to another 35 years. I remember a favorite song when it came out, Peggy Lee, Is That All There Is? I was never a that's all there is person. For me now, the essence of living is to put the other first. You can never lose putting the other first. (If you choose) "Thorns outside, (you will have) roses inside". As every stick has two ends, it always pays to choose the sh**ty end of the stick (the roses end inevitably arrives). Agree last paragraph.
|
|
|
Post by andrew on Apr 2, 2021 7:02:48 GMT -5
A " subjective reality" if there ever was one. Andrew has been THE one person around here to have stretched himself to see both sides of an issue. Appreciate reading you say that. Thanks. I think I've got better at it over the years. Spiritualteachers has served me in many unexpected ways, and it's always a pleasure to pop back here for a bit after a period of thrashing around on shark infested social media.
|
|
|
Post by stardustpilgrim on Apr 2, 2021 7:04:57 GMT -5
Lao Tzu: 三十八章 上德不德,是以有德;下德不失德,是以无德。 上德无为而无以为;下德无为而有以为。 Chapter 38 The man of high virtue is not aware of his own virtue and therefore has (real) virtue; The man of low virtue tries hard not to lose his own virtue and therefore has no (real) virtue. The man of high virtue does nothing to show off his virtue; The man of low virtue does nothing yet tries to show off his virtue. yeeeah that's cool. I don't know Alan's history but I think he was quite studious in his studies, I can well imagine he looked at Lao Tzu. Yes, he might have been primarily a Taoist. He was a modern Chuang Tzu.
|
|
|
Post by stardustpilgrim on Apr 2, 2021 7:09:00 GMT -5
Reincarnation is essentially a non-issue, it's very complicated. The self we consider ourselves to be, the small s self, doesn't reincarnate, it dies in the Bardo. Our unprocessed energy gets another go, but 99.999% of people have zero direct knowledge or experience of 'who/what' incarnates. A completely new cultural self is formed upon incarnation. So, in one sense there is no reincarnation and in another sense, there is. Why is it a non-issue? "Liberation" occurs in only-one-particular-life. In a certain sense it is a timeless phenomenon, time is a factor, until it isn't. Basically, all the energy of the samskaras and the vasanas has to be transformed. Until that occurs the journey is not over. We can live in imagination and think the journey has ended... Never took any notion of it on board myself. From the outside looking in, it would seem to me that any belief related to the potential continuity of the limited, unique perspective would be worth examining as possibly founded, perhaps unconsciously, on the fear of death. At a particularly day of crisis in May 1975, a firm conviction in the truth of reincarnation is the only thing that kept me from suicide. I sincerely longed for death for about 4 hours.
|
|
|
Post by andrew on Apr 2, 2021 7:15:57 GMT -5
The way I see it, and based on far too much discussion on twitter in recent years, the majority of people don't take the time to look very closely at their values. I remember being young and someone asking me what my values were, and I think I probably answered 'family and friends', which strikes me now as a typical consensus answer, given by someone that has never considered the question before. So I'm not judging people for not looking at, or knowing their values, but I really think this is the kind of thing that should be taught in schools. And as a result of many people not really knowing what their values are, our world is full of people that spout their beliefs very noisily, without really knowing why they choose to hold those beliefs. And of course, they are often VERY VERY attached to those beliefs. Personally, I'm not a huge fan of compromise. Even in my own small family, we negotiate excellently, but we don't compromise much. The way we do it is a bit like this...Jenn....''I'd like chicken for dinner''. Me ''I'd like steak for dinner. How much do you want the chicken?'' Jenn...''I'm a 10/10 for chicken''. Me...''Okay, well I'm an 8 for steak, and I'm okay with chicken, so let's do chicken''. For me, that's not a compromise, that's a negotiation. I don't say, ''well then we must have steak tomorrow''. Instead, we just go through the same process the next day. It requires trust that the other person is being honest, which we have. Sometimes we have different dinners and that's okay too. So, I think honesty and negotiation is really important, but honesty is a hard thing for many people, because they don't self-examine, and they have 'shadow self' issues and stuff like that. In some regards, I imagine that the way my family makes decisions could look kind of brutal to others, because we don't pander to each other. Honesty can be uncomfortable to those that aren't used to it. So as usual, I come back to the idea that for the world to improve, each of us must be looking within fundamentally, which I'm sure is something that's easy for us all to agree with. with chicken, so let's do chicken''. I meant compromise has to be the operating principle in politics. What one values has to be the primary operating principle concerning what's personal. I began to see this at least as a teenager, becoming a teenager. I agree, most people take themselves for granted. I was never really what could be called a success in life because most of my time and energy was spent upon examining my self and my values. I basically did only enough to survive. But at 69 I consider all that has paid off. I look forward to another 35 years. I remember a favorite song when it came out, Peggy Lee, Is That All There Is? I was never a that's all there is person. For me now, the essence of living is to put the other first. You can never lose putting the other first. (If you choose) "Thorns outside, (you will have) roses inside". As every stick has two ends, it always pays to choose the sh**ty end of the stick (the roses end inevitably arrives). Agree last paragraph. Great song, and in a different culture, what you have achieved would be considered a great success. Western culture is not an easy one to be doing what you, and all of us here, have been doing. I'm sure you will continue to bear fruit for 35 years or longer (let's not give you a deadline ) Yes, for me too, 'service to all' is paramount, and ultimately this serves I (as an individual). Though I encounter an interesting paradox with that at times, in which the highest form of service can be a stark 'putting oneself first'. Abraham-Hicks has ebbed and waned in my life for about 15 years now, and I notice that in those phases of 'putting oneself first as the most appropriate form of service', that their teachings and reminders become relevant in my life again.
|
|