|
|
Post by justlikeyou on Jun 3, 2023 12:32:25 GMT -5
Question: In terms of non-duality and the underlaying Consciousness of all, can it be said that the dream or illusion of manifestations in consciousness are without aliveness, if not the ability to perceive and experience?
ChatGPT: From a non-dual perspective, the dream or illusion of manifestations in consciousness is not seen as devoid of aliveness or the ability to perceive and experience. Non-dual teachings emphasize the inherent vitality and aliveness of consciousness itself, which is considered the fundamental essence of all phenomena.
In non-dual understanding, all manifestations within consciousness, including thoughts, emotions, sensations, and the world of appearances, are considered expressions of the underlying consciousness. They are not separate from consciousness but arise within it and are intimately interconnected with it.
While it is recognized that the appearances within consciousness are transient and may be seen as illusory in their nature, this does not negate their inherent aliveness or the capacity to perceive and experience. The dynamic interplay of consciousness gives rise to a seemingly infinite variety of phenomena, all of which possess a certain quality of aliveness and the potential for perception and experience.
In the non-dual view, the aliveness and the ability to perceive and experience are not limited to individual entities or separate beings but are understood as attributes of consciousness itself. The underlying consciousness is considered the source and container of all perceptions and experiences, and it is the very fabric that animates and manifests the appearances within it.
Therefore, from a non-dual perspective, the dream or illusion of manifestations in consciousness is not seen as lifeless or devoid of the ability to perceive and experience. Instead, it is recognized as a dynamic play of consciousness, where the appearances arise and dissolve within the vastness of awareness.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Thoughts?
|
|
|
|
Post by ouroboros on Jun 3, 2023 14:31:21 GMT -5
Question: In terms of non-duality and the underlaying Consciousness of all, can it be said that the dream or illusion of manifestations in consciousness are without aliveness, if not the ? ChatGPT: From a non-dual perspective, the dream or illusion of manifestations in consciousness is not seen as devoid of aliveness or the ability to perceive and experience. Non-dual teachings emphasize the inherent vitality and aliveness of consciousness itself, which is considered the fundamental essence of all phenomena. In non-dual understanding, all manifestations within consciousness, including thoughts, emotions, sensations, and the world of appearances, are considered expressions of the underlying consciousness. They are not separate from consciousness but arise within it and are intimately interconnected with it. While it is recognized that the appearances within consciousness are transient and may be seen as illusory in their nature, this does not negate their inherent aliveness or the capacity to perceive and experience. The dynamic interplay of consciousness gives rise to a seemingly infinite variety of phenomena, all of which possess a certain quality of aliveness and the potential for perception and experience. In the non-dual view, the aliveness and the ability to perceive and experience are not limited to individual entities or separate beings but are understood as attributes of consciousness itself. The underlying consciousness is considered the source and container of all perceptions and experiences, and it is the very fabric that animates and manifests the appearances within it. Therefore, from a non-dual perspective, the dream or illusion of manifestations in consciousness is not seen as lifeless or devoid of the ability to perceive and experience. Instead, it is recognized as a dynamic play of consciousness, where the appearances arise and dissolve within the vastness of awareness. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Thoughts? I think it's a pretty good answer in the main. But regardless of whether you grok the answers or not, what really amazes me it's its ability to provide seemingly relevant answers to just about any question put to it. I mean they're pretty complex questions being posed and often in quite a convoluted way. So you would think if it has no real understanding or sense of what's behind the question and is only compiling it's answers by cross-referencing and associating terms and phrases in its databanks with those in the question posed, then you would expect some of the answers to such questions to have gone astray. Yet it's answers always seem to be pretty relevant to the questions.
This bit stood out actually. Maybe ask it if that applies to paperclips. I.e. bearing in mind it's assertion, can paperclips be classed as being alive and having the ability to perceive and experience? That should be a tester for it. |
|
|
|
Post by justlikeyou on Jun 3, 2023 20:13:54 GMT -5
Maybe ask it if that applies to paperclips. I.e. bearing in mind it's assertion, can paperclips be classed as being alive and having the ability to perceive and experience? That should be a tester for it. Question: The non-dual teacher Eckhart Tolle said in part "even a stone has rudimentary consciousness". How does this conform to the overall non-dual perspective of one Consciousness underlying the all. Could we speculate that rocks, paperclips and other inanimate objects are in some way alive or conscious? ChatGPT: Eckhart Tolle's statement that even a stone has rudimentary consciousness aligns with the non-dual perspective of one underlying Consciousness that permeates all of existence. From a non-dual standpoint, the idea is that there is a fundamental unity and interconnectedness of all things, where everything arises from and is imbued with consciousness. When Tolle suggests that even a stone has rudimentary consciousness, he is pointing to the understanding that all manifestations within consciousness, including seemingly inanimate objects, are expressions of the underlying Consciousness. While the consciousness in a stone may be very subtle or rudimentary compared to the consciousness in a sentient being, the non-dual perspective invites a broader definition of consciousness beyond traditional notions. In the non-dual view, consciousness is not limited to human or animal experience but is considered the essence that animates and sustains all forms of existence. It is the very foundation from which all phenomena arise. In this sense, one can speculate that rocks, paperclips, and other inanimate objects, in their own unique way, participate in the underlying consciousness. However, it's important to note that when we talk about consciousness in inanimate objects, we are not implying the same level of consciousness as in sentient beings. The consciousness in a stone or a paperclip is not comparable to the self-reflective awareness found in human beings or the complex cognitive abilities of animals. The use of the term "consciousness" in this context may be more metaphorical or symbolic, emphasizing the interconnection and aliveness of all things rather than a direct equivalence to human or animal consciousness. It points to the non-dual understanding that there is a unifying essence that pervades all forms of existence. |
|
|
|
Post by Reefs on Jun 3, 2023 22:39:51 GMT -5
Question: In terms of non-duality and the underlaying Consciousness of all, can it be said that the dream or illusion of manifestations in consciousness are without aliveness, if not the ability to perceive and experience? ChatGPT: From a non-dual perspective, the dream or illusion of manifestations in consciousness is not seen as devoid of aliveness or the ability to perceive and experience. Non-dual teachings emphasize the inherent vitality and aliveness of consciousness itself, which is considered the fundamental essence of all phenomena. In non-dual understanding, all manifestations within consciousness, including thoughts, emotions, sensations, and the world of appearances, are considered expressions of the underlying consciousness. They are not separate from consciousness but arise within it and are intimately interconnected with it. While it is recognized that the appearances within consciousness are transient and may be seen as illusory in their nature, this does not negate their inherent aliveness or the capacity to perceive and experience. The dynamic interplay of consciousness gives rise to a seemingly infinite variety of phenomena, all of which possess a certain quality of aliveness and the potential for perception and experience. In the non-dual view, the aliveness and the ability to perceive and experience are not limited to individual entities or separate beings but are understood as attributes of consciousness itself. The underlying consciousness is considered the source and container of all perceptions and experiences, and it is the very fabric that animates and manifests the appearances within it. Therefore, from a non-dual perspective, the dream or illusion of manifestations in consciousness is not seen as lifeless or devoid of the ability to perceive and experience. Instead, it is recognized as a dynamic play of consciousness, where the appearances arise and dissolve within the vastness of awareness. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Thoughts? That's pretty good. Because if you take true nature and aliveness out of non-duality, you get metaphysical solipsism (Enigma). And if you take the impersonal perspective out of metaphysical solipsism, you get epistemological solipsism (Gopal). However, aliveness in the non-dual context is not a quality, because what non-duality is pointing to is without attributes or qualities, which is exactly why it cannot be talked about directly, only indirectly, i.e. you cannot say what it is, only what it is not. And when you've exhausted that route, what then remains, that's IT! |
|
|
|
Post by Reefs on Jun 3, 2023 22:44:13 GMT -5
I think it's a pretty good answer in the main. But regardless of whether you grok the answers or not, what really amazes me it's its ability to provide seemingly relevant answers to just about any question put to it. I mean they're pretty complex questions being posed and often in quite a convoluted way. So you would think if it has no real understanding or sense of what's behind the question and is only compiling it's answers by cross-referencing and associating terms and phrases in its databanks with those in the question posed, then you would expect some of the answers to such questions to have gone astray. Yet it's answers always seem to be pretty relevant to the questions. This bit stood out actually. Maybe ask it if that applies to paperclips. I.e. bearing in mind it's assertion, can paperclips be classed as being alive and having the ability to perceive and experience? That should be a tester for it. Yes, those answers are all pretty good, and ChatGPT certainly gives the erroneous impression of knowing its stuff. So people may get a bit complacent and accept those answers at face value. But you have to read carefully and pay attention to the details as I've just pointed out. What comes across as smooth and deep and comprehensive knowledge in terms of presentation may actually just be gibberish in terms of content. So beware! |
|
|
|
Post by ouroboros on Jun 4, 2023 10:21:46 GMT -5
Maybe ask it if that applies to paperclips. I.e. bearing in mind it's assertion, can paperclips be classed as being alive and having the ability to perceive and experience? That should be a tester for it. Question: The non-dual teacher Eckhart Tolle said in part "even a stone has rudimentary consciousness". How does this conform to the overall non-dual perspective of one Consciousness underlying the all. Could we speculate that rocks, paperclips and other inanimate objects are in some way alive or conscious? ChatGPT: Eckhart Tolle's statement that even a stone has rudimentary consciousness aligns with the non-dual perspective of one underlying Consciousness that permeates all of existence. From a non-dual standpoint, the idea is that there is a fundamental unity and interconnectedness of all things, where everything arises from and is imbued with consciousness. When Tolle suggests that even a stone has rudimentary consciousness, he is pointing to the understanding that all manifestations within consciousness, including seemingly inanimate objects, are expressions of the underlying Consciousness. While the consciousness in a stone may be very subtle or rudimentary compared to the consciousness in a sentient being, the non-dual perspective invites a broader definition of consciousness beyond traditional notions. In the non-dual view, consciousness is not limited to human or animal experience but is considered the essence that animates and sustains all forms of existence. It is the very foundation from which all phenomena arise. In this sense, one can speculate that rocks, paperclips, and other inanimate objects, in their own unique way, participate in the underlying consciousness. However, it's important to note that when we talk about consciousness in inanimate objects, we are not implying the same level of consciousness as in sentient beings. The consciousness in a stone or a paperclip is not comparable to the self-reflective awareness found in human beings or the complex cognitive abilities of animals. The use of the term "consciousness" in this context may be more metaphorical or symbolic, emphasizing the interconnection and aliveness of all things rather than a direct equivalence to human or animal consciousness. It points to the non-dual understanding that there is a unifying essence that pervades all forms of existence. It's another purdy good response. Not dissimilar to some of the points I've made on the subject over the last week. So I might be biased. I thought it might struggle with that one though, and that it's source material might be limited to ST and Gab, hehe. It seems that is not the case. |
|
|
|
Post by ouroboros on Jun 4, 2023 10:23:09 GMT -5
I think it's a pretty good answer in the main. But regardless of whether you grok the answers or not, what really amazes me it's its ability to provide seemingly relevant answers to just about any question put to it. I mean they're pretty complex questions being posed and often in quite a convoluted way. So you would think if it has no real understanding or sense of what's behind the question and is only compiling it's answers by cross-referencing and associating terms and phrases in its databanks with those in the question posed, then you would expect some of the answers to such questions to have gone astray. Yet it's answers always seem to be pretty relevant to the questions. This bit stood out actually. Maybe ask it if that applies to paperclips. I.e. bearing in mind it's assertion, can paperclips be classed as being alive and having the ability to perceive and experience? That should be a tester for it. Yes, those answers are all pretty good, and ChatGPT certainly gives the erroneous impression of knowing its stuff. So people may get a bit complacent and accept those answers at face value. But you have to read carefully and pay attention to the details as I've just pointed out. What comes across as smooth and deep and comprehensive knowledge in terms of presentation may actually just be gibberish in terms of content. So beware! Sure, but so far the content is not too bad either. A bit formulaic in its presentation, obviously, and lacks a certain authenticity. But even as merely a program, you've gotta say it's quite sophisticated to be coming up with such relevant answers, at least. |
|
|
|
Post by zendancer on Jun 4, 2023 11:11:08 GMT -5
Yes, those answers are all pretty good, and ChatGPT certainly gives the erroneous impression of knowing its stuff. So people may get a bit complacent and accept those answers at face value. But you have to read carefully and pay attention to the details as I've just pointed out. What comes across as smooth and deep and comprehensive knowledge in terms of presentation may actually just be gibberish in terms of content. So beware! Sure, but so far the content is not too bad either. A bit formulaic in its presentation, obviously, and lacks a certain authenticity. But even as merely a program, you've gotta say it's quite sophisticated to be coming up with such relevant answers, at least. Agreed. After a CC I came away with the sense that all of reality is alive in some fundamental way because the entire field of all being is a unified suchness. The thought that came to my rather boggled awestruck mind at that time was something like, "Holy cow, everything is an aspect of this aliveness, even the space between things." I looked around and thought, "even the electric poles are alive, and so is every molecule of water and air." It was rather astonishing, to say the least. This chatbot response is pointing to that same insight. I remember mentioning this to Enigma many years ago by saying something like "The whole universe is alive because we are alive," but he dismissed that as an illogical conclusion. Ironically, I wasn't trying to be logical; I was trying to convey something that is far beyond logic--that everything (every thing) is an aspect of an underlying unity that is what can be called "a living presence." One of my initial existential questions that used to bother me was, "How could life have appeared in an inanimate universe?" After the CC, I realized that the idea of the universe being a dead place of gas, dust, empty space, electro-magnetic radiation, and nuclear energy, was an erroneous idea.  |
|
|
|
Post by justlikeyou on Jun 4, 2023 11:30:27 GMT -5
Sure, but so far the content is not too bad either. A bit formulaic in its presentation, obviously, and lacks a certain authenticity. But even as merely a program, you've gotta say it's quite sophisticated to be coming up with such relevant answers, at least. Agreed. After a CC I came away with the sense that all of reality is alive in some fundamental way because the entire field of all being is a unified suchness. The thought that came to my rather boggled awestruck mind at that time was something like, "Holy cow, everything is an aspect of this aliveness, even the space between things." I looked around and thought, "even the electric poles are alive, and so is every molecule of water and air." It was rather astonishing, to say the least. This chatbot response is pointing to that same insight. I remember mentioning this to Enigma many years ago by saying something like "The whole universe is alive because we are alive," but he dismissed that as an illogical conclusion. Ironically, I wasn't trying to be logical; I was trying to convey something that is far beyond logic--that everything (every thing) is an aspect of an underlying unity that is what can be called "a living presence." One of my initial existential questions that used to bother me was, "How could life have appeared in an inanimate universe?" After the CC, I realized that the idea of the universe being a dead place of gas, dust, empty space, electro-magnetic radiation, and nuclear energy, was an erroneous idea. . Maybe I’ll write about it sometime but a similar realization was sparked (pardon the pun) by the sound of an electric drill in the neighborhood while I was meditating in my herbal medicine instructor’s garden in 2008. It wasn’t as drastic as yours ZD but it was profoundly insightful. |
|
|
|
Post by zendancer on Jun 4, 2023 12:14:55 GMT -5
Agreed. After a CC I came away with the sense that all of reality is alive in some fundamental way because the entire field of all being is a unified suchness. The thought that came to my rather boggled awestruck mind at that time was something like, "Holy cow, everything is an aspect of this aliveness, even the space between things." I looked around and thought, "even the electric poles are alive, and so is every molecule of water and air." It was rather astonishing, to say the least. This chatbot response is pointing to that same insight. I remember mentioning this to Enigma many years ago by saying something like "The whole universe is alive because we are alive," but he dismissed that as an illogical conclusion. Ironically, I wasn't trying to be logical; I was trying to convey something that is far beyond logic--that everything (every thing) is an aspect of an underlying unity that is what can be called "a living presence." One of my initial existential questions that used to bother me was, "How could life have appeared in an inanimate universe?" After the CC, I realized that the idea of the universe being a dead place of gas, dust, empty space, electro-magnetic radiation, and nuclear energy, was an erroneous idea. . Maybe I’ll write about it sometime but a similar realization was sparked (pardon the pun) by the sound of an electric drill in the neighborhood while I was meditating in my herbal medicine instructor’s garden in 2008. It wasn’t as drastic as yours ZD but it was profoundly insightful. I was on a ND zoom meeting recently when a woman mentioned that she once had a glimpse of the same thing. She was looking at some garbage on the street and suddenly saw that it was perfect just the way it was, and that it couldn't be any other way. Other people had had similar events occur, and we discussed Jill Bolte-Taylor's TED talk and book (about how, during a stroke, perception seemed to shift back and forth between a unified and divided sense of what was being experienced) and speculated that perhaps there are random shifts from the left brain hemisphere to the right brain hemisphere which generates a holistic perception of what's seen versus a separatist perception. For some people, like Tolle or Flora Courtois, the shift lasted a long time, and for other people it may just be momentary but still profound. The fact that the woman vividly remembered the event many years afterwards indicated that what she saw was not trivial. |
|
|
|
Post by tenka on Jun 4, 2023 13:40:08 GMT -5
Question: In terms of non-duality and the underlaying Consciousness of all, can it be said that the dream or illusion of manifestations in consciousness are without aliveness, if not the ? ChatGPT: From a non-dual perspective, the dream or illusion of manifestations in consciousness is not seen as devoid of aliveness or the ability to perceive and experience. Non-dual teachings emphasize the inherent vitality and aliveness of consciousness itself, which is considered the fundamental essence of all phenomena. In non-dual understanding, all manifestations within consciousness, including thoughts, emotions, sensations, and the world of appearances, are considered expressions of the underlying consciousness. They are not separate from consciousness but arise within it and are intimately interconnected with it. While it is recognized that the appearances within consciousness are transient and may be seen as illusory in their nature, this does not negate their inherent aliveness or the capacity to perceive and experience. The dynamic interplay of consciousness gives rise to a seemingly infinite variety of phenomena, all of which possess a certain quality of aliveness and the potential for perception and experience. In the non-dual view, the aliveness and the ability to perceive and experience are not limited to individual entities or separate beings but are understood as attributes of consciousness itself. The underlying consciousness is considered the source and container of all perceptions and experiences, and it is the very fabric that animates and manifests the appearances within it. Therefore, from a non-dual perspective, the dream or illusion of manifestations in consciousness is not seen as lifeless or devoid of the ability to perceive and experience. Instead, it is recognized as a dynamic play of consciousness, where the appearances arise and dissolve within the vastness of awareness. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Thoughts?
This bit stood out actually. Maybe ask it if that applies to paperclips. I.e. bearing in mind it's assertion, can paperclips be classed as being alive and having the ability to perceive and experience? That should be a tester for it. .. This is what I have been touching upon of late where peeps compare there own self awareness with something else . In my eyes it's not the correct starting point for comparison . That's why you get the remarks of 'well a paperclip isn't a perceiver' lol . A paperclip doesn't need to be a perceiver of things relative to our own perception to not be what we are . |
|
|
|
Post by inavalan on Jun 4, 2023 14:34:18 GMT -5
. Maybe I’ll write about it sometime but a similar realization was sparked (pardon the pun) by the sound of an electric drill in the neighborhood while I was meditating in my herbal medicine instructor’s garden in 2008. It wasn’t as drastic as yours ZD but it was profoundly insightful. I was on a ND zoom meeting recently when a woman mentioned that she once had a glimpse of the same thing. She was looking at some garbage on the street and suddenly saw that it was perfect just the way it was, and that it couldn't be any other way. Other people had had similar events occur, and we discussed Jill Bolte-Taylor's TED talk and book (about how, during a stroke, perception seemed to shift back and forth between a unified and divided sense of what was being experienced) and speculated that perhaps there are random shifts from the left brain hemisphere to the right brain hemisphere which generates a holistic perception of what's seen versus a separatist perception. For some people, like Tolle or Flora Courtois, the shift lasted a long time, and for other people it may just be momentary but still profound. The fact that the woman vividly remembered the event many years afterwards indicated that what she saw was not trivial. To me, that "realization" is garbage, and it isn't as it has to be. As I understand it, we aren't here to get "illuminated" about perfection, but to perceive / interpret / learn / improve, over and over. Believing that things are perfect as they are shuts down the learning and the progress. |
|
|
|
Post by ouroboros on Jun 4, 2023 14:50:35 GMT -5
Sure, but so far the content is not too bad either. A bit formulaic in its presentation, obviously, and lacks a certain authenticity. But even as merely a program, you've gotta say it's quite sophisticated to be coming up with such relevant answers, at least. Agreed. After a CC I came away with the sense that all of reality is alive in some fundamental way because the entire field of all being is a unified suchness. The thought that came to my rather boggled awestruck mind at that time was something like, "Holy cow, everything is an aspect of this aliveness, even the space between things." I looked around and thought, "even the electric poles are alive, and so is every molecule of water and air." It was rather astonishing, to say the least. This chatbot response is pointing to that same insight. I remember mentioning this to Enigma many years ago by saying something like "The whole universe is alive because we are alive," but he dismissed that as an illogical conclusion. Ironically, I wasn't trying to be logical; I was trying to convey something that is far beyond logic--that everything (every thing) is an aspect of an underlying unity that is what can be called "a living presence." One of my initial existential questions that used to bother me was, "How could life have appeared in an inanimate universe?" After the CC, I realized that the idea of the universe being a dead place of gas, dust, empty space, electro-magnetic radiation, and nuclear energy, was an erroneous idea. Yeah I grok all of that. I had the same CC experience. A while back I associated it with 'seeing the light' - that aliveness and vibrancy. It's there in the darkest dark. A sort of manifest clarity. I suspect I've heard the same situation described in terms of 'the clear light of mind' and 'the shining structure of consciousness'. It's certainly all pervasive. As a CC it was transformative tbh, and although the intensity of the CC inevitably faded it never really went away. It's Peaceful, sublime. The aspect we're talking about here though, which is essentially the extent to which Intelligence can be considered animative, seems to be in-line with what's pointed to by [the expansive 'cosmic' version of] prana. For the sake of balance though, it has to be said that the notion of inanimate objects (or expression) as perceivers, is problematic. Or at least what's traditionally conceived as inanimate versus animate, because the issue lies largely with that conception. There's a reason why sentience is notoriously hard to define, and that reason is the fact that ultimately it is derivative of that all-encompassing and underlying Intelligence. I mean to say that sentient expression is merely manifestly more complex Intelligence compared to insentient expression, yet ultimately both are Intelligent expression. Obviously yoga doesn't imply that stains on my shoe are meeting up at the bar and chatting about the game. So if you're inclined to lick the pointers it gets a bit nonsensical. |
|
|
|
Post by justlikeyou on Jun 4, 2023 15:21:18 GMT -5
I was on a ND zoom meeting recently when a woman mentioned that she once had a glimpse of the same thing. She was looking at some garbage on the street and suddenly saw that it was perfect just the way it was, and that it couldn't be any other way. Other people had had similar events occur, and we discussed Jill Bolte-Taylor's TED talk and book (about how, during a stroke, perception seemed to shift back and forth between a unified and divided sense of what was being experienced) and speculated that perhaps there are random shifts from the left brain hemisphere to the right brain hemisphere which generates a holistic perception of what's seen versus a separatist perception. For some people, like Tolle or Flora Courtois, the shift lasted a long time, and for other people it may just be momentary but still profound. The fact that the woman vividly remembered the event many years afterwards indicated that what she saw was not trivial. To me, that "realization" is garbage, and it isn't as it has to be. As I understand it, we aren't here to get "illuminated" about perfection, but to perceive / interpret / learn / improve, over and over. Believing that things are perfect as they are shuts down the learning and the progress. . Well, you know what they say. Ones man’s trash is another man’s treasure. 😎 |
|
|
|
Post by zendancer on Jun 4, 2023 16:32:15 GMT -5
I was on a ND zoom meeting recently when a woman mentioned that she once had a glimpse of the same thing. She was looking at some garbage on the street and suddenly saw that it was perfect just the way it was, and that it couldn't be any other way. Other people had had similar events occur, and we discussed Jill Bolte-Taylor's TED talk and book (about how, during a stroke, perception seemed to shift back and forth between a unified and divided sense of what was being experienced) and speculated that perhaps there are random shifts from the left brain hemisphere to the right brain hemisphere which generates a holistic perception of what's seen versus a separatist perception. For some people, like Tolle or Flora Courtois, the shift lasted a long time, and for other people it may just be momentary but still profound. The fact that the woman vividly remembered the event many years afterwards indicated that what she saw was not trivial. To me, that "realization" is garbage, and it isn't as it has to be. As I understand it, we aren't here to get "illuminated" about perfection, but to perceive / interpret / learn / improve, over and over. Believing that things are perfect as they are shuts down the learning and the progress.Not really. Admittedly the word "perfect" has an implication that "everything is wonderful just the way it is," but that's not what's being suggested. Unfortunately, we don't have a word in English that adequately captures what the insight is, and the insight has nothing to do with "shutting down learning." If there's learning, then that's just the way THIS happens to be perfectly unfolding. The idea that we're here to improve is a SVP perspective. There's nothing wrong with that perspective, but it isn't what most people on this forum have an interest in. A self-improvement forum would seem to offer a more receptive audience. |
|
