|
|
Post by laughter on Dec 30, 2022 16:31:49 GMT -5
This is only a trap for people who imagine that they are SVP's. Discovering what Jesus called "the living truth" results in freedom from ideas like "acceptance," "your situation," "your problem," "traps," "something that needs fixing," etc.  I fixed a leaky pipe the other day. The traps are a common source of leaks because the connections are necessarily weak compared to other DWV components. This is because of the need for dimensional flexibility in the run close to the appliance termination.  |
|
|
|
Post by inavalan on Dec 30, 2022 16:56:58 GMT -5
As I intuitively understand it, everything is consciousness, and it is structured in gestalts, that are nested, disjunct, overlapped, in continuos change. To some degree, each element affects and is affected by its gestalt. This allows limited free will both at element and at gestalt levels. When the disagreement exceeded a threshold, the element is too out of "alignment" with its gestalt, it leaves it and associates with another gestalt with which is more in tune. This is transparent both for the element and for the gestalt. I am having trouble with your use of the term 'gestalt'. If you mean by that entity, then I agree. But you seem to use it more in the gestalt psychology sense, based on the definition you provided here. - gestalt = a structure, arrangement, or pattern of physical, biological, or psychological phenomena so integrated as to constitute a functional unit with properties not derivable by summation of its parts
This definition reflects well what I mean. An entity is one example of gestalt of consciousness. The human body, both at consciousness and physical levels are examples too. Gestalys can be nested like: person, family, town, ... They can somewhat overlap: men, Caucasians, Americans, democrats, vaccinated, ... They can be disjunctive too. They can be more or less complex. Gestalts are functional units with properties not derivable by summation of its parts. This allows for freedom at element level, and at gestalt level. Surely, there is limited freedom, and limited influence in both directions. At consciousness level, there is more mobility than at the apparent physical-level. Association with a gestalt depends on the "alignment" with the characteristics of that gestalt. When an element changes, and moves out of alignment, it naturally dissociates from that gestalt, and associates with a gestalt that the changed element is more aligned with. For example ... A cell in a body "chooses" to become carcinogenic (to experience that, or as a reaction, whatever ...). Until that moment, at consciousness level, it belonged to a particular body, as an element of that gestalt. If that body is a guru who believes that he should accept and experience whatever comes, including cancer, then the carcinogenic cell develops, other cells (gestalt elements) might get converted too, the body eventually becomes a cancer patient, ... But, if that body is an individual who believes in his body ability of self-healing, who doesn't accept that its condition is determined by God or by factors external to its own beliefs, who believes in his free-will of choice, then the cell isn't in alignment with that gestalt (body, individual) anymore, and at consciousness level, it dissociates from that gestalt and associates with another gestalt, where it continues its evolution as carcinogenic cell, while the body continues to be cancer-free. |
|
|
|
Post by stardustpilgrim on Dec 30, 2022 23:56:36 GMT -5
I disagree with your post. Language matters: it affects our experience, and it reflects it. You tell those things to you, that's what you'll experience. Yes, that's the LOA/deliberate creation angle. However, what Gopal is probably getting at is the problem of volition. If you analyze it thoroughly, the logical conclusion has to be that you don't have free will. And yet, with every fiber of your being, you feel you actually have free will. And that dilemma is impossible to resolve intellectually. It takes a realization to resolve that. And it will result in a (visceral) understanding of what choicelessness and non-action means. There are several different issues here. Rather than analysis, I'd say if you observe what you think, feel and do, that's a quicker route to seeing you don't have free will. We think we have free will because it seems we can make choices. Am I going to eat at McDonald's or Taco Bell? Am I going to get a hair cut today or tomorrow? Will I marry "Margaret or not? But what determines your choice? What determined the small s self in the first place, what determined the "determiner"? What do we mean by I? And because we don't have free will today, does that mean we never will in the future? Yes, what we think and feel and do effects what happens to us. But are we locked into perpetual repeating feedback loops? If we can't control what we think and feel and do (nonvolition), then are we forever helpless? And what if what you want leads down a rabbit hole making things worse? |
|
|
|
Post by inavalan on Dec 31, 2022 4:30:29 GMT -5
Yes, that's the LOA/deliberate creation angle. However, what Gopal is probably getting at is the problem of volition. If you analyze it thoroughly, the logical conclusion has to be that you don't have free will. And yet, with every fiber of your being, you feel you actually have free will. And that dilemma is impossible to resolve intellectually. It takes a realization to resolve that. And it will result in a (visceral) understanding of what choicelessness and non-action means. There are several different issues here. Rather than analysis, I'd say if you observe what you think, feel and do, that's a quicker route to seeing you don't have free will. We think we have free will because it seems we can make choices. Am I going to eat at McDonald's or Taco Bell? Am I going to get a hair cut today or tomorrow? Will I marry "Margaret or not? But what determines your choice? What determined the small s self in the first place, what determined the "determiner"? What do we mean by I? And because we don't have free will today, does that mean we never will in the future? Yes, what we think and feel and do effects what happens to us. But are we locked into perpetual repeating feedback loops? If we can't control what we think and feel and do (nonvolition), then are we forever helpless? And what if what you want leads down a rabbit hole making things worse? The questions we ask reflect our beliefs and expectations, so they distort the answers we get. |
|
|
|
Post by Reefs on Dec 31, 2022 10:10:03 GMT -5
Yes, that's the LOA/deliberate creation angle. However, what Gopal is probably getting at is the problem of volition. If you analyze it thoroughly, the logical conclusion has to be that you don't have free will. And yet, with every fiber of your being, you feel you actually have free will. And that dilemma is impossible to resolve intellectually. It takes a realization to resolve that. And it will result in a (visceral) understanding of what choicelessness and non-action means. There are several different issues here. Rather than analysis, I'd say if you observe what you think, feel and do, that's a quicker route to seeing you don't have free will. We think we have free will because it seems we can make choices. Am I going to eat at McDonald's or Taco Bell? Am I going to get a hair cut today or tomorrow? Will I marry "Margaret or not? But what determines your choice? What determined the small s self in the first place, what determined the "determiner"? What do we mean by I? And because we don't have free will today, does that mean we never will in the future? Yes, what we think and feel and do effects what happens to us. But are we locked into perpetual repeating feedback loops? If we can't control what we think and feel and do (nonvolition), then are we forever helpless? And what if what you want leads down a rabbit hole making things worse? "Man can do what he wants but cannot want what he wants." - Arthur Schopenhauer |
|
|
|
Post by stardustpilgrim on Dec 31, 2022 10:18:43 GMT -5
There are several different issues here. Rather than analysis, I'd say if you observe what you think, feel and do, that's a quicker route to seeing you don't have free will. We think we have free will because it seems we can make choices. Am I going to eat at McDonald's or Taco Bell? Am I going to get a hair cut today or tomorrow? Will I marry "Margaret or not? But what determines your choice? What determined the small s self in the first place, what determined the "determiner"? What do we mean by I? And because we don't have free will today, does that mean we never will in the future? Yes, what we think and feel and do effects what happens to us. But are we locked into perpetual repeating feedback loops? If we can't control what we think and feel and do (nonvolition), then are we forever helpless? And what if what you want leads down a rabbit hole making things worse? "Man can do what he wants but cannot want what he wants." - Arthur Schopenhauer Exactly. Is there a way to get around that? (Almost everybody I read here on ST's brings me back to that question). |
|
|
|
Post by stardustpilgrim on Dec 31, 2022 10:22:05 GMT -5
There are several different issues here. Rather than analysis, I'd say if you observe what you think, feel and do, that's a quicker route to seeing you don't have free will. We think we have free will because it seems we can make choices. Am I going to eat at McDonald's or Taco Bell? Am I going to get a hair cut today or tomorrow? Will I marry "Margaret or not? But what determines your choice? What determined the small s self in the first place, what determined the "determiner"? What do we mean by I? And because we don't have free will today, does that mean we never will in the future? Yes, what we think and feel and do effects what happens to us. But are we locked into perpetual repeating feedback loops? If we can't control what we think and feel and do (nonvolition), then are we forever helpless? And what if what you want leads down a rabbit hole making things worse? The questions we ask reflect our beliefs and expectations, so they distort the answers we get. Yes. Someone once said, we can ask what we want, but we can't will the question we should be asking, instead of the one we ask. |
|
|
|
Post by Reefs on Dec 31, 2022 10:29:07 GMT -5
"Man can do what he wants but cannot want what he wants." - Arthur Schopenhauer Exactly. Is there a way to get around that? (Almost everybody I read here on ST's brings me back to that question). 'Get around' meaning what? I've been saying something similar for years, that you cannot choose your desires. |
|
|
|
Post by stardustpilgrim on Dec 31, 2022 10:37:35 GMT -5
Exactly. Is there a way to get around that? (Almost everybody I read here on ST's brings me back to that question). 'Get around' meaning what? I've been saying something similar for years, that you cannot choose your desires. I'm asking, how does change take place? We have thoughts, feelings, body-actions (and sensations). What we are it seems, is a strange loop. Our thoughts, feelings, bodily actions result from past thoughts, feelings, actions, and our thoughts, feelings, bodily actions plant the seeds for future "harvesting". We have a repeating cycle. If one cannot choose their desires, then are we doomed to be a repeating strange loop? How does one come to truth? How can one get beyond self? |
|
|
|
Post by zendancer on Dec 31, 2022 12:43:14 GMT -5
'Get around' meaning what? I've been saying something similar for years, that you cannot choose your desires. I'm asking, how does change take place? We have thoughts, feelings, body-actions (and sensations). What we are it seems, is a strange loop. Our thoughts, feelings, bodily actions result from past thoughts, feelings, actions, and our thoughts, feelings, bodily actions plant the seeds for future "harvesting". We have a repeating cycle. If one cannot choose their desires, then are we doomed to be a repeating strange loop? How does one come to truth? How can one get beyond self? "How can one get beyond self?" Who/what is it that asks this question? The question is based upon the idea that there is something separate that can cease to be separate. How would that be possible? The SVP cannot get beyond the SVP because the SVP, itself, is an illusion. Whether that illusion gets penetrated is solely a function of the unfolding of THIS. Imagine that two people listen to Niz's advice to "go beyond the mind." One person ignores the advice and the other person follows the advice and wakes up to THIS. What determined either outcome when there's nothing separate from THIS? If there is no thought of selfhood, does a sense of selfhood remain? Does the sense of selfhood not come and go dependent upon reflective thoughts? |
|
|
|
Post by Reefs on Dec 31, 2022 12:46:35 GMT -5
'Get around' meaning what? I've been saying something similar for years, that you cannot choose your desires. I'm asking, how does change take place? We have thoughts, feelings, body-actions (and sensations). What we are it seems, is a strange loop. Our thoughts, feelings, bodily actions result from past thoughts, feelings, actions, and our thoughts, feelings, bodily actions plant the seeds for future "harvesting". We have a repeating cycle. If one cannot choose their desires, then are we doomed to be a repeating strange loop? How does one come to truth? How can one get beyond self? By seeing the world thru the eyes of Source. Then these questions will disappear because the answer is so utterly obvious. |
|
|
|
Post by Reefs on Dec 31, 2022 13:06:52 GMT -5
I'm asking, how does change take place? We have thoughts, feelings, body-actions (and sensations). What we are it seems, is a strange loop. Our thoughts, feelings, bodily actions result from past thoughts, feelings, actions, and our thoughts, feelings, bodily actions plant the seeds for future "harvesting". We have a repeating cycle. If one cannot choose their desires, then are we doomed to be a repeating strange loop? How does one come to truth? How can one get beyond self? "How can one get beyond self?" Who/what is it that asks this question? The question is based upon the idea that there is something separate that can cease to be separate. How would that be possible? The SVP cannot get beyond the SVP because the SVP, itself, is an illusion. Whether that illusion gets penetrated is solely a function of the unfolding of THIS. Imagine that two people listen to Niz's advice to "go beyond the mind." One person ignores the advice and the other person follows the advice and wakes up to THIS. What determined either outcome when there's nothing separate from THIS? If there is no thought of selfhood, does a sense of selfhood remain? Does the sense of selfhood not come and go dependent upon reflective thoughts? Yes, in the context that question is asked, there is no answer to that question. |
|
|
|
Post by inavalan on Dec 31, 2022 13:33:41 GMT -5
"Man can do what he wants but cannot want what he wants." - Arthur Schopenhauer Exactly. Is there a way to get around that? (Almost everybody I read here on ST's brings me back to that question). Sorry. I don't understand that assertion. You seem to say, as per Schopenhauer's quote, that your ego's wish comes from somewhere else. What makes you say that? Where do your ego's wishes come from? From whom? I think that your ego wishes whatever it wants (a.k.a. free-will) in the frame of its beliefs, as result of its perceptions of the reality created by your subconscious, to the extent of its abilities to respond instinctually, emotionally, intellectually, intuitionally. |
|
|
|
Post by inavalan on Dec 31, 2022 13:36:14 GMT -5
The questions we ask reflect our beliefs and expectations, so they distort the answers we get. Yes. Someone once said, we can ask what we want, but we can't will the question we should be asking, instead of the one we ask. If you leave aside your beliefs and expectations for a moment, you can firstly intuitionally ask, and learn "what you should ask". I do it often. |
|
|
|
Post by stardustpilgrim on Dec 31, 2022 13:55:46 GMT -5
I'm asking, how does change take place? We have thoughts, feelings, body-actions (and sensations). What we are it seems, is a strange loop. Our thoughts, feelings, bodily actions result from past thoughts, feelings, actions, and our thoughts, feelings, bodily actions plant the seeds for future "harvesting". We have a repeating cycle. If one cannot choose their desires, then are we doomed to be a repeating strange loop? How does one come to truth? How can one get beyond self? "How can one get beyond self?" Who/what is it that asks this question? The question is based upon the idea that there is something separate that can cease to be separate. How would that be possible? The SVP cannot get beyond the SVP because the SVP, itself, is an illusion. Whether that illusion gets penetrated is solely a function of the unfolding of THIS. Imagine that two people listen to Niz's advice to "go beyond the mind." One person ignores the advice and the other person follows the advice and wakes up to THIS. What determined either outcome when there's nothing separate from THIS? If there is no thought of selfhood, does a sense of selfhood remain? Does the sense of selfhood not come and go dependent upon reflective thoughts? I accept that the so-called SVP is illusory, that nonvolition is correct, there isn't a SVP that does anything. The (so-called) SVP consists of recordings, programming, a matrix of associations in the neural network, the so-called SVP is the conditioning. The eyes and neural structure act as a video camera, the ears and neural structure act as a audio recorder. So we have thousands and thousands of "tape recordings" stored in the brain-body. They overlap and mingle and form gestalts, and seem very alive. When we encounter people and circumstances, the appropriate response is pulled up and gets *played back*. We in fact pass the "Turing Test" hundreds of times every day. This is your so-called SVP, no, it does not exist as a living-breathing person. I can direct quote you in several places where ~we~ call the (so-called) SVP, Imaginary I. It is unequivocally imaginary, it's no more alive than the TV program on your TV screen. And, laughter absolutely hates the term, mechanical, but the so-called SVP is just that, a machine, a very complicated machine. But we are born as essence, and as the so-called SVP forms, it covers over essence, and in a very real sense suffocates essence. In most people such a hard shell forms over essence that it never manifests again, it becomes unreachable. So for most people, the information which enters through the senses is intercepted by the matrix in the neural structure, and they never reach the living essence. The question is, is your attention and awareness captured and held captive by thinking, feeling/emotions and bodily actions, which interpret the incoming info (basically, people, places, things) according to ~what it is~ (the matrix-mechanism), or can they reach the living essence? The spiritual path is about recovering and once again living through essence, as we did as a child. Now, I can see that we agree on most matters up to here, we just use different terms. But I say that what is experiencing, now, is not the Whole, but essence is the true individuation, better put, the possibility of individuation. (This is primarily where we differ). I find all the common ground I can with the rest of you here. But I say behind the programs that constitute the so-called SVP, underneath, is living essence. For me it's a clearer picture of what's occurring. And all this is not theory to sdp, it's been verified the last 45+ years. I will continue in reply to Reefs. |
|
