|
Post by sree on Sept 23, 2022 21:46:44 GMT -5
Can you remember ever being shown how to let the needs of another be more important than your own? I saw an absolutely gut wrenching movie this afternoon. It was called Going Home, 1971. I missed the first part. Robert Mitchum played a guy who killed his wife and spent 13 years in prison, and was then paroled. He has 17 more years on parole until he is completely free. He has skills as a mechanic. He gets a girlfriend, Brenda Viccaro. He finds his son who saw him kill his Mother as a kid, Jan Michael-Vincent, now 19. He tries to make a new life with son and girlfriend, but son has ulterior motives, he wants to know why his Mother was killed, and there is a hidden undercurrent of revenge. Mitchum wants to get married, but he has to have permission of the parole board, not very likely. Mitchum and Viccaro look at buying a home to have son move in, to be one happy family. On a kind of country shopping spree to buy house plants, Viccaro finds the son upstairs looking at the chickens and roosters. Son gets his hand pecked sticking it through the chicken-wire. We see he makes a decision to rape Viccaro. She can't believe what is about to happen, but he very violently rapes her. She goes back home, a mobile home. Mitchum comes in all happy, he has the envelop with permission to marry Viccaro. He is in his own little happy world, she is still visibly shaken, cannot share in his happiness. She has to go into the bathroom to hide her state of mind. Mitchum doesn't know what's wrong, he tries all manner of words to bring Viccaro out of the bathroom and recognize that yes, they are going to get married. She pulls it all together, comes out, begins planning the night of celebration, sends him out to buy food for a party with friends. She gives no hint of a problem. Mitchum wonders where son is. Mitchum comes back with beer and grocery bags. A friend tells him he has a phone call, collect, in the nearby phone booth. It's his son, he has gone back to their old home, which has become a whore house. The son tries to say he's sorry, but they get disconnected. Mitchum doesn't know what has happened. Mitchum goes to get son. We see son living in the very active whore house, in remorse, deeply. Mitchum shows up, says let's go home. Son says, I raped Viccaro, he has to tell Father because he also has to tell him he's deeply sorry. Mitchum is instantly in a rage, chases son, who runs for his life. He catches him, has his hands around his throat. He could have easily killed him, but I knew he wouldn't, he had 13 years in prison to consider the murder of the wife-Mother. He lets him go, goes back to his truck. He would have left but somebody parked behind him. Son comes back, they are forced into a conversation. Son shows his skills, and hot wires the car, and moves, it. Mitchum is leaving. Son asks, what are you going to tell Viccaro? Mitchum says, I'm going to tell her I missed you by ten minutes. Son asks: Why did you kill Mother? Mitchum just says, I was drunk, I killed her. And Mitchum again moves to leave. They each understand they are done with each other, each understand why. Son understands Father understands, you raped her, it happened (just like, I was drunk, I killed her). But the son shouts, what happens next? Mitchum tells him, next you turn 20. Movie ends there, Mitchum driving home. But the son understands, Mitchum chose not to kill him, but maybe it was not exactly forgiveness. Mitchum had pondered for 13 years in prison the killing of his wife. He had told Viccaro he kept the complete transcript of the trial under his bed in prison, over 1,000 pages. He told her she did not have to be afraid of him. He finally understood, he was just drunk, he just killed her. But that was a huge lesson. I would like to end there. But we know, surmise, that Viccaro will never tell Mitchum that son raped her, and Mitchum will never tell Viccaro that he knows his son raped her. To really love, you have to be vulnerable, and you have to love the other more than you love yourself. sree, you are avoiding the very purpose of life. Sometimes, life is just s**t, life just hurts. But you will have another birthday. You write well for an electrician. Your recap of the Mitchum movie is good. You make a good story-telling grandfather that grandkids love. Was your grandfather good at story-telling also?
|
|
|
Post by sree on Sept 23, 2022 21:57:22 GMT -5
I am reporting back now. There are no boundaries. I have no issue with your assertion. It is your lack of explanation that is problematic. Also, your usage of words is not helpful. The word "imagine" has a specific meaning and your use of it is confusing. Krishnamurti was incapable of explaining. I gave him a break because he was a flunkie at school. You are a scientist for crying out loud. Why can't you explain the nature of perception that creates the illusion of separation? I am not dismissing your assertion because it is correct and consistent with my realization of the truth about our mistaken view of reality.
Are you willing to discuss now? I am talking about the nature of perception, not when the mind is silent and empty of thought. I am talking about the nature of perception created by thought in cognitive mode. The action of thought in "imagine" mode is something else. I can imagine I am Superman. This is not the mode of thought in recognizing my wrist which is a real thing that can be slit to commit suicide.
Believing that there is anything happening outside of yourself while simultaneously accepting that all of your senses are inside of you is a primary opportunity for observation and investigation. You got it, abscissa: the senses. I don't feel the pain coming from your head you bang on the wall. I can't imagine your pain in my head. I can't imagine the swelling and the bruise. Perception of reality is a lot more than "imagine".
|
|
|
Post by stardustpilgrim on Sept 23, 2022 22:24:39 GMT -5
I saw an absolutely gut wrenching movie this afternoon. It was called Going Home, 1971. I missed the first part. Robert Mitchum played a guy who killed his wife and spent 13 years in prison, and was then paroled. He has 17 more years on parole until he is completely free. He has skills as a mechanic. He gets a girlfriend, Brenda Viccaro. He finds his son who saw him kill his Mother as a kid, Jan Michael-Vincent, now 19. He tries to make a new life with son and girlfriend, but son has ulterior motives, he wants to know why his Mother was killed, and there is a hidden undercurrent of revenge. Mitchum wants to get married, but he has to have permission of the parole board, not very likely. Mitchum and Viccaro look at buying a home to have son move in, to be one happy family. On a kind of country shopping spree to buy house plants, Viccaro finds the son upstairs looking at the chickens and roosters. Son gets his hand pecked sticking it through the chicken-wire. We see he makes a decision to rape Viccaro. She can't believe what is about to happen, but he very violently rapes her. She goes back home, a mobile home. Mitchum comes in all happy, he has the envelop with permission to marry Viccaro. He is in his own little happy world, she is still visibly shaken, cannot share in his happiness. She has to go into the bathroom to hide her state of mind. Mitchum doesn't know what's wrong, he tries all manner of words to bring Viccaro out of the bathroom and recognize that yes, they are going to get married. She pulls it all together, comes out, begins planning the night of celebration, sends him out to buy food for a party with friends. She gives no hint of a problem. Mitchum wonders where son is. Mitchum comes back with beer and grocery bags. A friend tells him he has a phone call, collect, in the nearby phone booth. It's his son, he has gone back to their old home, which has become a whore house. The son tries to say he's sorry, but they get disconnected. Mitchum doesn't know what has happened. Mitchum goes to get son. We see son living in the very active whore house, in remorse, deeply. Mitchum shows up, says let's go home. Son says, I raped Viccaro, he has to tell Father because he also has to tell him he's deeply sorry. Mitchum is instantly in a rage, chases son, who runs for his life. He catches him, has his hands around his throat. He could have easily killed him, but I knew he wouldn't, he had 13 years in prison to consider the murder of the wife-Mother. He lets him go, goes back to his truck. He would have left but somebody parked behind him. Son comes back, they are forced into a conversation. Son shows his skills, and hot wires the car, and moves, it. Mitchum is leaving. Son asks, what are you going to tell Viccaro? Mitchum says, I'm going to tell her I missed you by ten minutes. Son asks: Why did you kill Mother? Mitchum just says, I was drunk, I killed her. And Mitchum again moves to leave. They each understand they are done with each other, each understand why. Son understands Father understands, you raped her, it happened (just like, I was drunk, I killed her). But the son shouts, what happens next? Mitchum tells him, next you turn 20. Movie ends there, Mitchum driving home. But the son understands, Mitchum chose not to kill him, but maybe it was not exactly forgiveness. Mitchum had pondered for 13 years in prison the killing of his wife. He had told Viccaro he kept the complete transcript of the trial under his bed in prison, over 1,000 pages. He told her she did not have to be afraid of him. He finally understood, he was just drunk, he just killed her. But that was a huge lesson. I would like to end there. But we know, surmise, that Viccaro will never tell Mitchum that son raped her, and Mitchum will never tell Viccaro that he knows his son raped her. To really love, you have to be vulnerable, and you have to love the other more than you love yourself. sree, you are avoiding the very purpose of life. Sometimes, life is just s**t, life just hurts. But you will have another birthday. You write well for an electrician. Your recap of the Mitchum movie is good. You make a good story-telling grandfather that grandkids love. Was your grandfather good at story-telling also? Thanks. I write, I don't talk (much). Words form out of my fingers that will not form off my tongue. I don't remember Grandpa telling stories. I don't remember him at all. It was quite odd when I realized that a few years ago. I remember things that happened when I was with him, not him. I remember things he did for me, not him. I remember him being right there, but I don't remember him, I can't picture him. I remember he always drank coffee with a saucer. If the coffee was too hot, he would pour it into the saucer and then back into the cup, to cool it off. He would make coffee for me, very weak.
|
|
|
Post by sree on Sept 24, 2022 11:53:55 GMT -5
You write well for an electrician. Your recap of the Mitchum movie is good. You make a good story-telling grandfather that grandkids love. Was your grandfather good at story-telling also? Thanks. I write, I don't talk (much). Words form out of my fingers that will not form off my tongue. I don't remember Grandpa telling stories. I don't remember him at all. It was quite odd when I realized that a few years ago. I remember things that happened when I was with him, not him. I remember things he did for me, not him. I remember him being right there, but I don't remember him, I can't picture him. I remember he always drank coffee with a saucer. If the coffee was too hot, he would pour it into the saucer and then back into the cup, to cool it off. He would make coffee for me, very weak. Grandpa was a presence in your life. The personification of that vital presence was irrelevant. It's the essence that mattered, not the form.
This is why we suffer. No essence.
|
|
|
Post by sree on Sept 24, 2022 12:32:01 GMT -5
I am reporting back now. There are no boundaries. I have no issue with your assertion. It is your lack of explanation that is problematic. Also, your usage of words is not helpful. The word "imagine" has a specific meaning and your use of it is confusing. Krishnamurti was incapable of explaining. I gave him a break because he was a flunkie at school. You are a scientist for crying out loud. Why can't you explain the nature of perception that creates the illusion of separation? I am not dismissing your assertion because it is correct and consistent with my realization of the truth about our mistaken view of reality.
Are you willing to discuss now? I am talking about the nature of perception, not when the mind is silent and empty of thought. I am talking about the nature of perception created by thought in cognitive mode. The action of thought in "imagine" mode is something else. I can imagine I am Superman. This is not the mode of thought in recognizing my wrist which is a real thing that can be slit to commit suicide.
Sure. I wrote an entire book about this but never got it published and forgot that I had written it until a friend gave me a copy that I had given him many years ago. Gestalt psychology pretty well explains what happens, and everything that happens is based upon the idea of making distinctions. There's even a book titled "Laws of Form" by G. Spencer Brown that deals with the laws that precede arithmetic and spell out the process of making and manipulating distinctions in graphic terms. You probably know this already, but if we make a single distinction, say a line in the sand, we abstractly divide reality into two separate but artificial states. Every distinction is like this. If we cognize any particular thing, perhaps a chair, we psychologically divide the infinite field of reality into two abstract states--a chair and everything that is not a chair. I tend to use the word "imagine" but perhaps "cognize" is more appropriate. The human intellect is an evolutionary development that allows humans to grasp/capture/project/cognize/imagine mental images of what they see. That same ability allows the grasping/cognizing of ideas, qualities, relationships, etc. As the intellect develops, the ability to abstract more and more complex relationships continues, and symbols can be cognized that are used to represent the "concrete" images and "fluid" relationships. When that happens, we are cognizing a symbol that can represent a cognized image or idea. Eventually, via language and math, the symbolic representations (that are like a virtual reality) in the form of words, numbers, and letters are manipulated mentally, and adults live in a meta-reality created by all of those distinctions/abstractions. With algebra we have letters that represent numbers that represent images that represent what the images attempt to capture-- aspects of the infinite field of being that is seen, and directional/manipulative symbols (+, -,=, >,^,~,etc) point to how all of those abstract representations can be mentally manipulated. The average adult might as well be wearing a set of VR goggles because s/he has no awareness of the difference between what is actual and what has been cognized. The real world, the world of the actual, is non-dual, but adults do not know this because no one has ever told them about it, and they don't know how to take off the VR goggles that they're wearing. Nisargadatta once told a seeker, "You didn't get into this mess overnight." What did he mean? He meant that the process of cultural conditioning was so gradual and so unconscious that the average adult has no idea what happened on the way from childhood to adulthood until they're stuck in the "mess" of thinking that they're separate from the rest of the universe. He was also implying that it's not easy to reverse the process, but that's what meditative activities like ATA-T eventually do. Ironically, it doesn't much matter what kind of meditative activity one pursues, the key seems to be shifting attention away from thoughts, again and again, until one can look at the world and see without naming what's seen and without thinking about what's seen. As the mind becomes increasingly silent, realizations begin to occur, and those realizations inform the mind that various ideas about reality are false. In fact, the path to sagehood is a path of subtraction during which one becomes increasingly detached from thoughts. Eventually, via grace, a human realizes that who s/he thought s/he was is NOT what s/he is. I say that this happens by "grace" because whether this happens or not has nothing to do with who one thinks s/he is. The cosmic joke is that no Tom, Dick, or Harry will ever get enlightened because those seemingly separate volitional entities are a product of cognition rather than anything actual. IOW, the "me" is imaginary, and whether this is ever realized depends upon how THIS--the infinite field of all being--unfolds. Some people get free of their unique meta-reality in one big blast, but that's pretty rare. Usually, freedom and understanding occur gradually and involve sequential realizations that culminate in the realization that there is only THIS. After THIS is discovered, it no longer matters whether there is thinking or silence because it's then understood that whatever is happening is an unfolding of THIS. Zen people refer to life after SR as "non-abidance in mind" because the mind is no longer dominant in the same way as in the past. That's a short version of what's going on, but if you're mathematically inclined, you might be interested in reading "Laws of Form" or some books about gestalt psychology that would throw more light on the subject. I beg to differ - the real world is dual and actual. To me, the actual is what I can recognize (i.e. perceive) and experience with my senses. The real world is one of separation, a dimension in which humans live on planet earth. It is a world in which I relate with the postman who comes to the house I live at, and hands me the mail.
To you, the real world, the world of the actual is non-dual. Your real world is imagined; it has no separation because it is prior to conceptualization and unfragmented by thought. It is beyond form and, as such, humans and planet earth do not exist. In this real world, you cannot relate with the postman because there would neither be house nor mail to deliver at.
Have I made a correct distinction between our two parallel but non-concurrent definitions of reality? I feel that we are both expounding the same truth but in different ways. Perhaps, you could help us eliminate the confusion.
|
|
|
Post by stardustpilgrim on Sept 24, 2022 15:42:54 GMT -5
sree, You have come to another new country where you don't speak the language. In fact, there isn't conceptual language. Just something to consider until you hear from ZD, not a substitute. (You could go back and read his last posts, again).
|
|
|
Post by sree on Sept 24, 2022 15:54:28 GMT -5
sree, You have come to another new country where you don't speak the language. In fact, there isn't conceptual language. Just something to consider until you hear from ZD, not a substitute. (You could go back and read his last posts, again). I may not speak the language but I am familiar with the folks who use the lingo. No one can escape gravity no matter what language they speak.
zendancer is a scientist. He is the next best thing to David Bohm for a Krishnamurti-type spiritual discussion.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 24, 2022 17:20:55 GMT -5
sree, You have come to another new country where you don't speak the language. In fact, there isn't conceptual language. Just something to consider until you hear from ZD, not a substitute. (You could go back and read his last posts, again). I may not speak the language but I am familiar with the folks who use the lingo. No one can escape gravity no matter what language they speak.
zendancer is a scientist. He is the next best thing to David Bohm for a Krishnamurti-type spiritual discussion.
"We could say that practically all the problems of the human race are due to the fact that thought is not proprioceptive." ~ David Bohm "We are all linked by a fabric of unseen connections. This fabric is constantly changing and evolving. This field is directly structured and influenced by our behavior and by our understanding." ~ David Bohm "Space is not empty. It is full, a plenum as opposed to a vacuum, and is the ground for the existence of everything, including ourselves. The universe is not separate from this cosmic sea of energy." ~ David Bohm "Deep down the consciousness of mankind is one. This is a virtual certainty because even in the vacuum matter is one; and if we don't see this, it's because we are blinding ourselves to it." ~ David Bohm "Consciousness is much more of the implicate order than is matter... Yet at a deeper level [matter and consciousness] are actually inseparable and interwoven, just as in the computer game the player and the screen are united by participation." ~ David Bohm "The notion of a separate organism is clearly an abstraction, as is also its boundary. Underlying all this is unbroken wholeness even though our civilization has developed in such a way as to strongly emphasize the separation into parts." ~ David Bohm. "We haven't really paid much attention to thought as a process. We have engaged in thoughts, but we have only paid attention to the content, not to the process." ~ David Bohm.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 24, 2022 17:25:33 GMT -5
"When you are thinking something, you have the feeling that the thoughts do nothing except inform you the way things are and then you choose to do something and you do it. That's what people generally assume. But actually, the way you think determines the way you're going to do things. Then you don't notice a result comes back, or you don't see it as a result of what you've done, or even less do you see it as a result of how you were thinking. Is that clear?"
David Bohm.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 24, 2022 17:26:42 GMT -5
"Similarly, thought is a system. That system not only includes thought and feelings, but it includes the state of the body; it includes the whole of society - as thought is passing back and forth between people in a process by which thought evolved from ancient times."
David Bohm.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 24, 2022 17:28:14 GMT -5
"Thought is constantly creating problems that way and then trying to solve them. But as it tries to solve them it makes it worse because it doesn't notice that it's creating them, and the more it thinks, the more problems it creates."
David Bohm.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 24, 2022 17:30:27 GMT -5
"Thought reflexes get conditioned very strongly, and they are very hard to change. And they also interfere. A reflex may connect to the endorphins and produce an impulse to hold that whole pattern further. In other words, it produces a defensive reflex. Not merely is it stuck because it's chemically so well built up, but also there is a defensive reflex which defends against evidence which might weaken it. Thus it all happens, one reflex after another after another. It's just a vast system of reflexes. And they form a 'structure' as they get more rigid."
David Bohm
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 24, 2022 17:32:55 GMT -5
"We have reversed the usual classical notion that the independent "elementary parts" of the world are the fundamental reality, and that the various systems are merely particular contingent forms and arrangements of these parts. Rather, we say that inseparable quantum interconnectedness of the whole universe is the fundamental reality, and that relatively independent behaving parts are merely particular and contingent forms within this whole."
David Bohm.
|
|
|
Post by stardustpilgrim on Sept 24, 2022 18:29:10 GMT -5
What does Bohm say the solution is?
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Sept 24, 2022 19:42:35 GMT -5
Yes, it occurred to me after having written that - your meaning of "reasonable" is that a person would agree with the statement in subjective terms. "Reasonable" .. to them. Going deeper and relating it to this it would mean something like: "now that I've tasted honey it is reasonable to me to say that it is sweet". I took "reasonable" to mean something different - more along the conventional meaning of the word - as I'm sure you can infer at this point from context. To be clear, you're referring to what I wrote about reason as it relates to self-consistency? It's just that the 3 part ontological model should be imagined as 3 general aspects rather than 3 chronological steps, because during the same time as the teacher speaks or Tolle is read or whatever, all 3 aspects can occur concurrently. At times you hear bits and they don't 'fit in' so those bits remain at step 1. Other bits are heard and you see how they 'join the dots', yet they have no subjective reference and remain at step 2. Other parts are seen like, 'Yup, that happens to me,' and immediately hit step 3. Over time the aspects that remained at step one start to fall into place. You have some insight, and realise, that thing Tolle said fits in with this, so it moves within reason step two, and might soon be seen - where it falls into step 3. There is no set way the ontology plays out, so best imagine it as a single thing what has been broken into general categories for the sake of philosophical explanation. When I was taught this ontological model it came with the following parable: A mother loved her son and made his favorite rice pudding, but the child was wailing, 'It has black stones in it,' and wouldn't eat it. The mother explained, 'It's not stones. They are cardamon seeds that give the pudding a great flavour'. The child didn't understand and kept crying 'black stones black stones'. The mother figured the kid doesn't understand cardamon, so she picked them out and the child ate up the rest. Of course there came a time when the child grew older and understood cardamon, and was glad the little black seeds were included in his pudding. We were told the 'dhamma' is like that. There are bits you don't like and don't understand and don't make sense, so push them to the side and enjoy the rest. Later on you'll see the side bits are good, and then you can accept them too. If not, don't accept it.
Thanks for taking the time to write that. I can imagine it happening for millions of people in the past, it it's really quite remarkable. Now, I'll point out that to me you keep on morphing away from this first base you started on, which seemed to me to imply a process of analyzing intellectual abstractions, or, more generally, simply a way that people learn and refine their knowledge over time. In context, I'd describe your process as one that can lead to a quieter mind, a healthier body. It might lead to a person more present, less reactive, less lost in the weeds of their thinking and emoting processes. It can lead to better relationships and a more stable, centered way of life, and a lifestyle that would enhance one's ability to function, perform and produce. My value system would regard this as a better way to live than if someone were to instead never go through some sort of similar process. What seems to me to happen in the general populace is that common cultural influences lead to states and habits that are the exact opposite of a quiet mind, and rather than equanimity, cultivates impulse and conditioned response. But this issue of self-consistency sheds light on the distinction between a sudden shift in perspective as opposed to a gradual process of change over time. Seems to me your process involves, to some degree, suspension of doubt. A trust in what is yet to be revealed. So, to some degree what's happening here is an internalization of a belief system, and the kind of belief system that becomes self-reinforcing and eventually not even noticed for what it is. It's quite possible to suddenly see any and all systems of value and belief for what they are, just as it's possible to actively question any and every notion one currently would agree with as true. In this seeing it becomes quite clear that self-consistency is only ever provisional, and contextual. Not to mention, being a poor measure of reason.
|
|