|
|
Post by someNOTHING! on Dec 31, 2023 17:11:32 GMT -5
I have no problem with your paradigm. NDists simplify everything down, it's not actually simple. A human being is complicated, {Say we are an Oversoul. [But also *we are* a soul (which is part of the Oversoul). (But we are born as a individual-body with a skin-suit). The (individual) forms a personality])}. The Oversoul ~contains~ it all. The soul contains the (individual-body)personality. The personality does not contain the soul or the Oversoul. The Higher contains the lower but the lower does not contain the Higher. {That's a metaphor for pan entheism}. But yes, personality is part of the expression. But it's complicated. Read ZDs last post, explanation. inavalan has a nice paradigm also. It can be a messy affair if one's beliefs don't stretch too far. I haven't a clue for example what non dualists believe when there physical body experience ends. I never hear anyone speak along the lines of the spirit or the soul or life after physical death. I haven't a clue if they think that their individual blob of awareness just merges with the ocean and that is the end of that. I have the advantage of interacting with the so called deceased so I know the self personality - personhood continues without a brain. A brain that is somehow used as a way of explaining the dynamics of things. It's good to have a comparison from one plane of existence to another. Otherwise non dualists can just relate the physical world with beyond and nothing in-between. I know your belief system stretches further than the hard core nd peep that doesn't even believe someone is even here. The personality is part of the expression we agree, and there cannot be just an expression without the individual spirit - soul present. The person is so much more than just a label, a self reference for something that one is. This is why there is such a misconception about there is no doer and that is because peeps think the person is just a name. It seems you are confusing here with Here, that little-explored space (by most of humanity, anyway) prior to engaging mind. Maybe you can ask the 'so called deceased' about it, since they might express something closer to your liking, or in Tenka Talk. Just an idea. If you are an expression of what YOU are, then it seems you would get that that is what the dream metaphor is about. Maybe you already get that and just enjoy poopooing figurative language as an expression. I remember you saying you hate metaphors.  Dunno, and it's not my problem. Applying to Plotinus Model (As an ongoing attempt to clarify misunderstandings. I can drop it altogether if it is not of any help. Not a problem; just an attempt. I understand most attempts fail miserably.  ) 1- self (most are SVP-identified in this area, and haven't ever transcended the limited POV), while some struggle with the realizations of 'beyond' and still get confused via the conditioned thoughts. 2- My general idea of 'so called deceased', though I haven't lucidly had a chat with them outside of dreams with them. I can expand on my own 'experiences' as such though. Maybe you can provide some insight on the kinds of things they say; I'd be curious to hear it. Note: Shady blueish vertical lines- Where communication with these 'so called deceased' might be on such a model. Maybe you have a better idea... 3- Where 'individuation' begins in a theoretical sense, and continues emanating further down into 'mind'. It's all ND, and the distinctions are made within mind in the emanations from Source. Dunno if this helps. Provide feedback if you like. Platonism is mostly dual, but Plotinus is considered the grandaddy of NeoPlatonism and is considered a bit more on the ND side of things by some. I'm just playing with the concepts here. But again, I can just drop it.  |
|
|
|
Post by inavalan on Dec 31, 2023 19:45:29 GMT -5
Soz Pilgrim, give it to me in Tenka Terms and Conditions .. You imagined you were in an ice box, and you saw that you needed air and oxygen so from that you concluded there was no separation. This is based upon the human organism needs oxygen in order to survive the human experience? There was a oneness between you and the need for oxygen? Going to go red faced in shame here if what you said was abundantly clear Yes. And then I extrapolated that to the deepest aspect of our being. We-can't-exist unless we are tied-to-Source. ND. I wonder ... Being a student in the first grade, would you call the kid that you are when at home, or between classes, "the deepest aspect of your being"? I wouldn't. Most of us when we ask "Who am I?", or say "Know yourself!", go way too far without firstly attempting to know "what is this that I am aware of now", as a basis of exploration. Even worse, foolishly we wish to destroy this that we are aware of, based on others' opinions. I think the right path is not to destroy this, but to become lucid, to straddle this and that, the student and the kid that is that student. Somebody was recalling that his mother used to ask him, when he argued that other children had done the same stupid thing as he had done: if they told you to jump out the window, would you jump? |
|
|
|
Post by lolly on Dec 31, 2023 19:49:53 GMT -5
I think it's a matter of distinguishing what is observable from what is imaginary. Some might say what is observable is imagined. I think it's more a matter of what one is aware of and take it from there. If they are not aware of being an individual peep then there isn't a thought of it to then distinguish that from anything else. This is why peeps can renounce their selfhood, because it's something to be aware of in the first instance. It's like my niece, who I'm now obliged to imagine as my nephew, brought a friend over to Christmas dinner, who is observably a man, but was introduced as 'she' and I was told she's a woman. Maybe they think what they imagine is observable because they are mentally ill, but everyone else is just pretending. I've assessed it's probably better for me to pretend as well because I don't want to create rifts in the family, but I know how the male/female thing works in nature, and that woman busts nuts.
Most people, if not all, undergo the delusion that what they take-to-be-themselves is actually themselves, but one day they notice, That's not me after all. Hence they understand the self-delusion and grok what has to be renounced. If a person has not noticed that, it's hard to understand because they can't fully distinguish the one aware from the one who they are convinced is 'me'. |
|
|
|
Post by andrew on Dec 31, 2023 20:09:08 GMT -5
Some might say what is observable is imagined. I think it's more a matter of what one is aware of and take it from there. If they are not aware of being an individual peep then there isn't a thought of it to then distinguish that from anything else. This is why peeps can renounce their selfhood, because it's something to be aware of in the first instance. It's like my niece, who I'm now obligated to imagine as my nephew, brought a friend over to Christmas dinner, who is observably a man, but was introduced as 'she' and I was told she's a woman. Maybe they think what they imagine is observable because they are mentally ill, but everyone else is just pretending. I've assessed it's probably better for me to pretend as well because I don't want to create rifts in the family, but I know how the male/female thing works in nature, and that woman busts nuts.
Most people, if not all, undergo the delusion that what they take-to-be-themselves is actually themselves, but one day they notice, That's not me after all. Hence they understand the self-delusion and grok what has to be renounced. If a person has not noticed that, it's hard to understand because they can't fully distinguish the one aware from the one who they are convinced is 'me'. I've had long, and generally amicable, conversations with several transpeople on twitter recently. I am sensitive to what's going on with them, and choose my language carefully. It doesn't always go well, but you can't win them all. The subject fascinates me because it is centred around the idea of 'identity', a conversation we have here very often. Their philosophy is very convoluted, very confusing, and if they weren't "allied" with each other, they would notice that their narratives often don't match up. I've generally tried to talk a bit about how categories are created, how we identify with those categories, and form a personal sense of 'who we are' based on that identification. One very interesting and smart person agreed with me, but believed that this 'sense' is utterly fixed....i.e there's nothing we can do about it, and medical transition is the solution, if their 'fixed sense' doesn't match their biology. I went on to talk a bit about my experience with advaita, Buddhism etc in relation to identification, the volitional 'I' etc. She was balanced enough to listen, but there's a bit of irony in the scepticism shown towards my own subjective experience. I'm sure you made the right choice in going along with it. |
|
|
|
Post by andrew on Dec 31, 2023 20:15:05 GMT -5
If thoughts create feeling, then thoughts aren't just menu. A loving thought creates a loving feeling, an appreciative thought that creates an appreciative feeling (and then a feeling can trigger another thought too). In this sense, thoughts would be the cooking process. Whether the plate of food tastes good or not, depends on how well it's cooked. Also nothing that has ever be created, has been created without imagination. I think there's a danger of throwing out the baby with the bathwater...thoughts are creative, and express energy. With that said, logically it's true that if one wants to know 'only Being', then in that moment, mind has to be 'destroyed'. But why is that the goal? Thoughts don't create anything because they are objects of experience. An object cannot create another object. A thought doesn't create another thought. A tree doesn't create a car. If you experience an abstract thought then that's what you experience. If you experience a feeling then that's what you experience and so on. Ah, that's the 'there are no causes and there is no creation' context. There's also a context for 'i fancy a bit of toast, so I'm going to create that by putting some bread in the toaster, pushing the thing down, and waiting 5 minutes coz the heat causes the bread to crisp up (hopefully not too much)' But I guess the causeless one is a more interesting one in that it challenges our conditioned assumptions and attachments. |
|
|
|
Post by andrew on Dec 31, 2023 20:23:28 GMT -5
Thanks, yeah. I read your reply around half an hour ago and let it percolate around a bit while doing other things. And then a Niz quote sprung to mind, I'm going to paraphrase it. Also, whenever I quote Niz, I like to acknowledge that he said different things at different times, so I'm never sure if I'm misrepresenting him, but still....what sprung to mind was something like... 'I reside at the border between Being and Non-Being'. And I get what he means by that. It represents my 'position' pretty well. Except I can also be a drifter at times. I can drift into deep 'void' states of non-being (in which there's no sense of knowing I exist) , and I can drift into Beingness, and even into strong personhood at times too, depending on context. I don't feel like I 'choose' it, and none of it 'sticks' much. Whether it's personhood, border, or void, it all comes and goes without too much fuss. Maybe there will come a day when there is some kind of absolute stability, but in the meantime, there is stability in the absence of attachment to the movements, and that's fine. Cool. Yeah, I was just feeling out what you were referring to based on my own experience. I do not know who/what Niz was referring to in that context either, but I suspect it is something along the same lines of, “Wisdom tells me I am nothing. Love tells me I am everything. And between the two my life flows.” I've always rezzed with it, anyway. The quote you provide reminds me more of standing in the doorway of Plato's Cave, reminiscent of something McKenna expressed.The only question one might ask oneself at that point is whether they have been outside the cave, or are curious enough to give the attention for the attempt, or are just fine with the state/as things are, as you stated. Willingness for trying to have a look is often driven by necessity, and contentedness a state of mind on either side of realization. I understand how you've explained the drift, choicelessness, and non-attachment. Have there ever been any sort of recognition that you can recall in such 'void' states? Your mention of 'absolute stability' gives me pause for some reason, but I'm not sure what you mean by it. I WOULD say that there CAN be an attachment to nothingness (i.e., as some ideal state at the expense of actually living), and I would never condone such nonsense. Sometimes I sense that is what SDP thinks some are 'pointing to', or maybe even idealizes as the basis for his counter arguments. The Niz quote above, in the way I read/interpret it, would require at least a realization of said nothing iftruly spoken from the heart. There's an exhibited respect for both aspects/wings that contribute to its flight as a Whole. The body of his work seems to express the profound shift that puts mind in its place and continues to inform it of its status. I tend to give him benefit of the doubt, but yes, it's important to pay attention to contexts of any utterance. Yeah, attachment can happen to preferred or idealised states for sure. I'm not wholly immune to that, but generally, they are pretty free to come and go. The body can be very habitual, and even unpleasant states can be attached to, if they eventually become comfortable through habit. I think I'm correct that this is how people survive extreme brutal conditions. The body/brain seems to have a magnificent capacity for finding a bit of comfort in suffering of all kinds. Also one of the themes of Shawshank Redemption...how we become institutionalised by our perceived limits. I'm just chatting really, I have a cat on my lap, a phone in my hand, and I'm passing the time. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 31, 2023 20:26:33 GMT -5
Thoughts don't create anything because they are objects of experience. An object cannot create another object. A thought doesn't create another thought. A tree doesn't create a car. If you experience an abstract thought then that's what you experience. If you experience a feeling then that's what you experience and so on. Ah, that's the 'there are no causes and there is no creation' context. There's also a context for 'i fancy a bit of toast, so I'm going to create that by putting some bread in the toaster, pushing the thing down, and waiting 5 minutes coz the heat causes the bread to crisp up (hopefully not too much)' But I guess the causeless one is a more interesting one in that it challenges our conditioned assumptions and attachments. It's not a context. It's just what's happening. The thought "I fancy a bit of toast" spontaneously popped into your mind. That's what actually happened. Theories and speculation about why it happened and where the thought came from doesn't change the fact that "I fancy a bit of toast" just spontaneously popped into your mind. Isn't that enough? Happy New Year. |
|
|
|
Post by stardustpilgrim on Dec 31, 2023 20:27:03 GMT -5
Yes. And then I extrapolated that to the deepest aspect of our being. We-can't-exist unless we are tied-to-Source. ND. I wonder ... Being a student in the first grade, would you call the kid that you are when at home, or between classes, "the deepest aspect of your being"? I wouldn't. Most of us when we ask "Who am I?", or say "Know yourself!", go way too far without firstly attempting to know "what is this that I am aware of now", as a basis of exploration. Even worse, foolishly we wish to destroy this that we are aware of, based on others' opinions. I think the right path is not to destroy this, but to become lucid, to straddle this and that, the student and the kid that is that student. Somebody was recalling that his mother used to ask him, when he argued that other children had done the same stupid thing as he had done: if they told you to jump out the window, would you jump? I didn't define in any way the deepest aspect of being. |
|
|
|
Post by andrew on Dec 31, 2023 20:36:21 GMT -5
Ah, that's the 'there are no causes and there is no creation' context. There's also a context for 'i fancy a bit of toast, so I'm going to create that by putting some bread in the toaster, pushing the thing down, and waiting 5 minutes coz the heat causes the bread to crisp up (hopefully not too much)' But I guess the causeless one is a more interesting one in that it challenges ur conditioned assumptions and attachments. It's not a context. It's just what's happening. The thought "I fancy a bit of toast" spontaneously popped into your mind. That's what actually happened. Theories and speculation about why it happened and where the thought came from doesn't change the fact that "I fancy a bit of toast" just spontaneously popped into your mind. Isn't that enough? Happy New Year. Cheers! Happy New Year to you and everyone. Yeah, all 'whys' or 'cause-effect' are theories/beliefs/ideas when we get to the nitty gritty of it. But for someone that's terrible with tools, I'm quite practical in other ways, and I believe the idea of 'what works' is a useful one. |
|
|
|
Post by stardustpilgrim on Dec 31, 2023 20:39:10 GMT -5
It's like my niece, who I'm now obligated to imagine as my nephew, brought a friend over to Christmas dinner, who is observably a man, but was introduced as 'she' and I was told she's a woman. Maybe they think what they imagine is observable because they are mentally ill, but everyone else is just pretending. I've assessed it's probably better for me to pretend as well because I don't want to create rifts in the family, but I know how the male/female thing works in nature, and that woman busts nuts.
Most people, if not all, undergo the delusion that what they take-to-be-themselves is actually themselves, but one day they notice, That's not me after all. Hence they understand the self-delusion and grok what has to be renounced. If a person has not noticed that, it's hard to understand because they can't fully distinguish the one aware from the one who they are convinced is 'me'. I've had long, and generally amicable, conversations with several transpeople on twitter recently. I am sensitive to what's going on with them, and choose my language carefully. It doesn't always go well, but you can't win them all. The subject fascinates me because it is centred around the idea of 'identity', a conversation we have here very often. Their philosophy is very convoluted, very confusing, and if they weren't "allied" with each other, they would notice that their narratives often don't match up. I've generally tried to talk a bit about how categories are created, how we identify with those categories, and form a personal sense of 'who we are' based on that identification. One very interesting and smart person agreed with me, but believed that this 'sense' is utterly fixed....i.e there's nothing we can do about it, and medical transition is the solution, if their 'fixed sense' doesn't match their biology. I went on to talk a bit about my experience with advaita, Buddhism etc in relation to identification, the volitional 'I' etc. She was balanced enough to listen, but there's a bit of irony in the scepticism shown towards my own subjective experience. I'm sure you made the right choice in going along with it. I've considered this somewhat. I figure maybe the "male" who is actually-biologically a female, and vice versa, was maybe the opposite in the last life, and it's bleeding over. I also considered the following years ago, but never had a place to discuss it. It makes zero sense that anyone is born genetically gay. If that were the case then *gay genes* would have been lost long ago, as there would be no way for them to be passed on. So whatever it is, it's not biological. But neither is it cultural, it's not conditionally "contagious". |
|
|
|
Post by andrew on Dec 31, 2023 21:19:40 GMT -5
I've had long, and generally amicable, conversations with several transpeople on twitter recently. I am sensitive to what's going on with them, and choose my language carefully. It doesn't always go well, but you can't win them all. The subject fascinates me because it is centred around the idea of 'identity', a conversation we have here very often. Their philosophy is very convoluted, very confusing, and if they weren't "allied" with each other, they would notice that their narratives often don't match up. I've generally tried to talk a bit about how categories are created, how we identify with those categories, and form a personal sense of 'who we are' based on that identification. One very interesting and smart person agreed with me, but believed that this 'sense' is utterly fixed....i.e there's nothing we can do about it, and medical transition is the solution, if their 'fixed sense' doesn't match their biology. I went on to talk a bit about my experience with advaita, Buddhism etc in relation to identification, the volitional 'I' etc. She was balanced enough to listen, but there's a bit of irony in the scepticism shown towards my own subjective experience. I'm sure you made the right choice in going along with it. I've considered this somewhat. I figure maybe the "male" who is actually-biologically a female, and vice versa, was maybe the opposite in the last life, and it's bleeding over. I also considered the following years ago, but never had a place to discuss it. It makes zero sense that anyone is born genetically gay. If that were the case then *gay genes* would have been lost long ago, as there would be no way for them to be passed on. So whatever it is, it's not biological. But neither is it cultural, it's not conditionally "contagious". Yes I've also had the thought that it might relate to past life, or even a parallel life or something of the sort. I've talked to these folks enough to know that their sense of 'what they are' runs very deep, and often from early age. A persistent thought I have though, is that if this kind of identity crisis is something that even kids experience, then kids should be learning about the nature of identity and how identities are formed. At the moment,it seems to me just very few have much understanding of this at all....it's stuff we all talk about every day here. I've wondered about how sexual orientation happens too. I had lots of gay friends in my 20s who talked about their lives a lot, and I listened with interest to their life experiences. Ive seen lots of ideas on how it happens, some better than others, but I'm cautious of any idea that lends itself to 'conversion therapy', which is terrible by all accounts I've seen. To be clear, I'm not saying that your view lends itself to that. From what I understand, gender dysphoria can be a terribly stubborn condition, also immune to therapy. With that said, there's a lot of atrocious therapists around! But as the condition revolves around 'identity', I do at least see value in people being educated on the kinds of subjects we discuss, perhaps from an early age. It seems to me that the long term solution would be loosening our grip on identities, rather than trying to physically conform to match them. |
|
|
|
Post by sharon on Dec 31, 2023 23:04:37 GMT -5
Some might say what is observable is imagined. I think it's more a matter of what one is aware of and take it from there. If they are not aware of being an individual peep then there isn't a thought of it to then distinguish that from anything else. This is why peeps can renounce their selfhood, because it's something to be aware of in the first instance. It's like my niece, who I'm now obliged to imagine as my nephew, brought a friend over to Christmas dinner, who is observably a man, but was introduced as 'she' and I was told she's a woman. Maybe they think what they imagine is observable because they are mentally ill, but everyone else is just pretending. I've assessed it's probably better for me to pretend as well because I don't want to create rifts in the family, but I know how the male/female thing works in nature, and that woman busts nuts.
Most people, if not all, undergo the delusion that what they take-to-be-themselves is actually themselves, but one day they notice, That's not me after all. Hence they understand the self-delusion and grok what has to be renounced. If a person has not noticed that, it's hard to understand because they can't fully distinguish the one aware from the one who they are convinced is 'me'. Women giving up their womanhood so that they can love men that are women. |
|
|
|
Post by lolly on Jan 1, 2024 3:55:41 GMT -5
It's like my niece, who I'm now obligated to imagine as my nephew, brought a friend over to Christmas dinner, who is observably a man, but was introduced as 'she' and I was told she's a woman. Maybe they think what they imagine is observable because they are mentally ill, but everyone else is just pretending. I've assessed it's probably better for me to pretend as well because I don't want to create rifts in the family, but I know how the male/female thing works in nature, and that woman busts nuts.
Most people, if not all, undergo the delusion that what they take-to-be-themselves is actually themselves, but one day they notice, That's not me after all. Hence they understand the self-delusion and grok what has to be renounced. If a person has not noticed that, it's hard to understand because they can't fully distinguish the one aware from the one who they are convinced is 'me'. I've had long, and generally amicable, conversations with several transpeople on twitter recently. I am sensitive to what's going on with them, and choose my language carefully. It doesn't always go well, but you can't win them all. The subject fascinates me because it is centred around the idea of 'identity', a conversation we have here very often. Their philosophy is very convoluted, very confusing, and if they weren't "allied" with each other, they would notice that their narratives often don't match up. I've generally tried to talk a bit about how categories are created, how we identify with those categories, and form a personal sense of 'who we are' based on that identification. One very interesting and smart person agreed with me, but believed that this 'sense' is utterly fixed....i.e there's nothing we can do about it, and medical transition is the solution, if their 'fixed sense' doesn't match their biology. I went on to talk a bit about my experience with advaita, Buddhism etc in relation to identification, the volitional 'I' etc. She was balanced enough to listen, but there's a bit of irony in the scepticism shown towards my own subjective experience. I'm sure you made the right choice in going along with it. I think they get the idea that there is someone who is something and that someone is misrepresented by the body, but my main contact with trans-woman is in sports where you have blokes who seem to actually believe they qualify as females. Than's when you have tell a bloke "No".
Otherwise, if a guy wants to do the lady-boy thing, it's still delusional but it's fine and I like it - until the guy is like, I'm a real woman, and the rest of us pretend we believe it's true
Better we know there's real woman who are born that way, there's trans-women who are males and these are NOT the same thing. It's that simple.
I state the obvious, but people out there are trying to convince others that it makes no difference. In most situations it doesn't, but when it's plain physical contest, it's not on, and also other female spaces, houses, clubs and groups etc where it's 'no boys allowed'.
Trans-woman is a category of male. Other definitions only work to the exclusion of the body itself, and that makes so sense whatsoever, but particularly when it comes to sports.
|
|
|
|
Post by tenka on Jan 1, 2024 6:17:26 GMT -5
Soz Pilgrim, give it to me in Tenka Terms and Conditions .. You imagined you were in an ice box, and you saw that you needed air and oxygen so from that you concluded there was no separation. This is based upon the human organism needs oxygen in order to survive the human experience? There was a oneness between you and the need for oxygen? Going to go red faced in shame here if what you said was abundantly clear Yes. And then I extrapolated that to the deepest aspect of our being. We-can't-exist unless we are tied-to-Source. ND. Ok, so it was like some type of domino effect that took you deeper and deeper, associating what you are to all things. |
|
|
|
Post by tenka on Jan 1, 2024 6:29:00 GMT -5
Some might say what is observable is imagined. I think it's more a matter of what one is aware of and take it from there. If they are not aware of being an individual peep then there isn't a thought of it to then distinguish that from anything else. This is why peeps can renounce their selfhood, because it's something to be aware of in the first instance. It's like my niece, who I'm now obliged to imagine as my nephew, brought a friend over to Christmas dinner, who is observably a man, but was introduced as 'she' and I was told she's a woman. Maybe they think what they imagine is observable because they are mentally ill, but everyone else is just pretending. I've assessed it's probably better for me to pretend as well because I don't want to create rifts in the family, but I know how the male/female thing works in nature, and that woman busts nuts.
Most people, if not all, undergo the delusion that what they take-to-be-themselves is actually themselves, but one day they notice, That's not me after all. Hence they understand the self-delusion and grok what has to be renounced. If a person has not noticed that, it's hard to understand because they can't fully distinguish the one aware from the one who they are convinced is 'me'. The thing about gender identification and swapping it around like there is no tomorrow is if we use these instances as ways and means to illustrate self delusion through imagination then one has to first self identify with being something that can self delude in the first instance. You see everything boils back to what one believes themselves to be. What do you self identify with being that entertains a potential self deluded imagined thought about what you are? Some believe they are dream characters, some don't believe there is anyone-thing here per se, some might believe they are pure awareness, some consciousness. Depending on what that is one would have a belief system that reflects all those self references. At times some self references won't reflect or support the foundation of their beliefs. In regards to the whole topic of gender, I understand that what we are as individuals prior to being born of a specific gender have qualities that are both masculine and feminine. These qualities are present within our life experiences. The spirit plane experiences doesn't entertain the sex organs that attribute to the gender but will still be able to identify with being a mother or a father, a sister or a brother in the life that was prior to transcending. Maybe it is the case for some that do not self identify as being a male in this life time have a strong feminine energy about them. Some I dare say are not mentally sound and are not quite sure of what is going on. |
|
)
