|
|
Post by someNOTHING! on Jan 2, 2024 20:49:43 GMT -5
Yes, in a sense it is awkward, much like paradoxes. But for some 'reason', with certain realizations, that sense of being a 'separate entity' gets severely challenged from within/prior to the structure, and it can be a VERY destabilizing time. It certainly ain't Truth, but I'm sure you've had a sense of something 'else' seemingly taking over when you may have been locked in with no clue of what to do. Outta thin air. I suppose it is what amounts to Noetic/Intelligence per the model I've been poking around on. Does that make sense? Yes! Those are the bestest times. When you see plainly you're not in control or what you think is you is not in control. It's a clear message. So I see your point. I've never been a control freak so am not confused or befuddled rather amused, enjoying the ride when that happens. I've always been eager to try ayahuasca or lsd, but it has never been opportune. I realize now I really don't need to. I'm a lunatic trapped in a logic bubble. Just having fun, every day, everywhere. Maybe I'm off my meds. Who knows?!! You know that talking about this shit, thinking some absolute truth will pop out is like expecting a rhinoplasty with a stone axe to go well.  Simplicity beyond measure is a weird one, yep. Have always had a soft spot for certain heretical lunatics.  |
|
|
|
Post by stardustpilgrim on Jan 2, 2024 21:19:13 GMT -5
Thanks inavalan. 1 `eventually' or `finally' When something happens after a lot of delays or problems, you can say that it eventually happens or that it finally happens. You use eventually when you want to emphasize that there were a lot of problems. You use finally when you want to emphasize the amount of time it took. Eventually they got to the hospital. I found Victoria Avenue eventually. When John finally arrived, he said he'd lost his way. 2 `finally' You can also use finally to show that something happens last in a series of events. The sky turned red, then purple, and finally black. Don't use `eventually' with this meaning, unless you want to emphasize that it happened after a lot of delays or problems. You can also use finally to introduce a final point, ask a final question, or mention a final item. Finally, Carol, can you tell us why you want this job? Combine the flour and the cheese, and finally, add the milk. |
|
|
|
Post by someNOTHING! on Jan 2, 2024 21:27:54 GMT -5
We'll get back to this. Yes, the Neo-platonic model shows up everywhere and is not really anything new. It's just a simple visual to show flow/direction/qualitative aspects. It seemed plausible that it might help smoothen out some of the potential misunderstandings in our board discussions. Don't feel obligated, of course. I'm just trying to point out that the negating/transcending-including is kinda how it looks to play out directionally (per the flow chart in the model) as the search (i.e., for SELF/TRUTH); whereas, what is emanating as life is treated quite differently, especially if grounded in/as ________ (whatever you wanna call it). Some read long with a right/wrong mindset, and this can be misleading without knowing what SELF/TRUTH/______ (as concepts) point to, especially when trust issues abound. It's understandable. The Gnostics are also one of those monolithic groups with a lot of diversity of thought amongst their numbers. I once read it as mitigated dualism within a monad, so even their interpretations of who/what Jesus was seem varied and contentious. Sounds like a logical outcome, as just saying 'I don't really know, and it doesn't really matter' seems far fetched  . Plenty of existential weeds to wander off into, roll around with, and pull up though! Existential beliefs come into perspective off the top of the flag pole. It's how I was able to appreciate the Catholic Mass. Didn't matter to me what they believed or didn't believe anymore. It's the same with this idea of levels of consciousness and non-locality, and direct experience is a whole other dimension on the entire affair. Before Tolle I just scoffed at any unrealistic, unexplainable happenings. Typical secular humanist mind. So the statement of a belief in something like, the oversoul, for instance .. it's smoke, but it's indeterminate as to what the individual may or may not have realized of the existential truth. Sometimes the smoke gets in your eyes, and it's irritating! Right, the danger of introducing levels is that they potentially give the mind yet another toe hold, a life raft, or set of reasons to work with. I prefer to think of them as aspects of the Whole shebang for the sake of discussion to see if a qualitative shift in the inquiry is possible. It might help to triangulate all the vocabulary folks use to describe this or that idea and/or whether they're discussing something from some personal/impersonal/metaphysical/ND perspective. The smoke and mirrors involved in looking for what is looking... whew. |
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Jan 3, 2024 15:12:29 GMT -5
Existential beliefs come into perspective off the top of the flag pole. It's how I was able to appreciate the Catholic Mass. Didn't matter to me what they believed or didn't believe anymore. It's the same with this idea of levels of consciousness and non-locality, and direct experience is a whole other dimension on the entire affair. Before Tolle I just scoffed at any unrealistic, unexplainable happenings. Typical secular humanist mind. So the statement of a belief in something like, the oversoul, for instance .. it's smoke, but it's indeterminate as to what the individual may or may not have realized of the existential truth. Sometimes the smoke gets in your eyes, and it's irritating! Right, the danger of introducing levels is that they potentially give the mind yet another toe hold, a life raft, or set of reasons to work with. I prefer to think of them as aspects of the Whole shebang for the sake of discussion to see if a qualitative shift in the inquiry is possible. It might help to triangulate all the vocabulary folks use to describe this or that idea and/or whether they're discussing something from some personal/impersonal/metaphysical/ND perspective. The smoke and mirrors involved in looking for what is looking... whew. On the flagpole top I had to question evolution, the processes of formation of cosmic bodies, and essentially, any material claim as to cause and effect. After the step, all of that stuff was placed into a new perspective. Mind became informed that those models are relative, and material. Not untrue, just not existentially relevant. What I've read of the noetic models hints at something similar: they might hint at some relative movements that are not necessarily illusion per se, but form the core of the existential illusion. Similar to the secular humanist idea of consciousness arising from the brain, just a different and more expansive version of the story. The personalized identity. One aspect of the secular humanist model that I now appreciate is how cold and impersonal it is. This has a negative of potentially leading to nihilism - which seems to me is quite rampant these days - but the upside is that the footholds for a basis of the personal illusion are few and slippery. |
|
|
|
Post by someNOTHING! on Jan 3, 2024 19:33:45 GMT -5
Right, the danger of introducing levels is that they potentially give the mind yet another toe hold, a life raft, or set of reasons to work with. I prefer to think of them as aspects of the Whole shebang for the sake of discussion to see if a qualitative shift in the inquiry is possible. It might help to triangulate all the vocabulary folks use to describe this or that idea and/or whether they're discussing something from some personal/impersonal/metaphysical/ND perspective. The smoke and mirrors involved in looking for what is looking... whew. On the flagpole top I had to question evolution, the processes of formation of cosmic bodies, and essentially, any material claim as to cause and effect. After the step, all of that stuff was placed into a new perspective. Mind became informed that those models are relative, and material. Not untrue, just not existentially relevant. What I've read of the noetic models hints at something similar: they might hint at some relative movements that are not necessarily illusion per se, but form the core of the existential illusion. Similar to the secular humanist idea of consciousness arising from the brain, just a different and more expansive version of the story. The personalized identity. One aspect of the secular humanist model that I now appreciate is how cold and impersonal it is. This has a negative of potentially leading to nihilism - which seems to me is quite rampant these days - but the upside is that the footholds for a basis of the personal illusion are few and slippery. , that's purddy much how I see it. And, sure, such models might be of interest and/or serve relative value, but one also is aware of where they stand in the existential scheme of things. But yes, the illusion of apparent otherness can fall further and further into abstraction as the story develops in its cavernous ways with lots of twists and turns with respect to mind's reasoning. Nothing wrong with any of it per se, but letting it all go in order to see it more clearly is always a nice option. Agreed on the benefits that sprung from the secular humanist model. I haven't listened to him in a while, but I remember Chomsky giving a chat that highlighted some key aspects of it and it's relation to democratic challenges. He never gets into any of this stuff, but I'll see if I can run it down. Yeah, that is the difficulty with ALL the various interpretations of different schools of thought that are available via the internet; how they are presented by a writer/scholar/influenzacer is often corrupted and depreciated to utter nonsense. For example, Buddhism is often presented as either a religion or as a nihilistic tradition, while at others it is so superficially understood that it has very little to offer to even move someone up the pole. I guess the same could be said for a lot of Christian thought, to be fair. Thanks for taking the time. |
|
|
|
Post by justlikeyou on Jan 3, 2024 21:21:29 GMT -5
The mind needing to be informed that it's not a separate entity is a bit awkward, right? An informed mind simply means that the mind of the person role you play in the world learns its lessons, however mundane or Cosmic they may be. |
|
|
|
Post by inavalan on Jan 3, 2024 23:34:49 GMT -5
The mind needing to be informed that it's not a separate entity is a bit awkward, right? An informed mind simply means that the mind of the person role you play in the world learns its lessons, however mundane or Cosmic they may be. To use stardustpilgrim 's analogy (to which I subscribe only somewhat), what you wrote is like Marlon Brando's accepting to play Don Corleone (in Godfather), having the only purpose of Don Corleone's learning his lessons (mundane or cosmic). From this perspective it doesn't make sense to me. |
|
|
|
Post by justlikeyou on Jan 3, 2024 23:38:35 GMT -5
An informed mind simply means that the mind of the person role you play in the world learns its lessons, however mundane or Cosmic they may be. To use stardustpilgrim 's analogy (to which I subscribe only somewhat), what you wrote is like Marlon Brando's accepting to play Don Corleone (in Godfather), having the only purpose of Don Corleone's learning his lessons (mundane or cosmic). From this perspective it doesn't make sense to me. I guess you have never hit your thumb with a hammer. |
|
|
|
Post by zazeniac on Jan 4, 2024 0:01:53 GMT -5
The mind needing to be informed that it's not a separate entity is a bit awkward, right? An informed mind simply means that the mind of the person role you play in the world learns its lessons, however mundane or Cosmic they may be. I used to have dozens of praying mantisses in my garden over time there'd be fewer and fewer. I think they ate each other. I loved watching them. Of course, the numbers would always come back. Once you realize the person is an illusion, there is no person needing to be informed. |
|
|
|
Post by inavalan on Jan 4, 2024 0:08:39 GMT -5
To use stardustpilgrim 's analogy (to which I subscribe only somewhat), what you wrote is like Marlon Brando's accepting to play Don Corleone (in Godfather), having the only purpose of Don Corleone's learning his lessons (mundane or cosmic). From this perspective it doesn't make sense to me. I guess you have never hit your thumb with a hammer. That isn't an argument for anything. You know that you can easily be hypnotized to feel pain, or not to feel pain. Your perceptions aren't reliable. You rely on them to participate in the scenarios you signed up for, but that doesn't mean that they are more than the result of your beliefs. I guess you recall some of your dreams, and you recall believing that you are awake, feeling and doing with the same conviction of reality as in your awake state. |
|
|
|
Post by justlikeyou on Jan 4, 2024 0:09:15 GMT -5
An informed mind simply means that the mind of the person role you play in the world learns its lessons, however mundane or Cosmic they may be. I used to have dozens of praying mantisses in my garden over time there'd be fewer and fewer. I think they ate each other. I loved watching them. Of course, the numbers would always come back. Once you realize the person is an illusion, there is no person needing to be informed. Mind is inseparable from information. How did you know that the numbers always come back? |
|
|
|
Post by zazeniac on Jan 4, 2024 1:31:05 GMT -5
I used to have dozens of praying mantisses in my garden over time there'd be fewer and fewer. I think they ate each other. I loved watching them. Of course, the numbers would always come back. Once you realize the person is an illusion, there is no person needing to be informed. Mind is inseparable from information. How did you know that the numbers always come back? It was a yearly thing, they'd be gone and then the garden would be full again. Probably eggs hatching. They say the mind has a root thought. The I-thought. The conclusion that you are a separate, autonomous entity. You remove that conclusion, dispel that belief and it is gone, that sense of self. You are jnana, the absolute, awareness, sat-chit-ananda, not mind(ego) in the vernacular of RM and some advaita folk. Though some buddhist call what we here call awareness mind or big mind. By informing mind I don't think folks are talking about reading thhe newspaper or taking a course in Thermodynamics, but rather about the very nature of reality. If we are Reality then what informatiin about THIS would we need? I'm all talked out on this topic. So I'll listen to what you have to say and move on. |
|
|
|
Post by andrew on Jan 4, 2024 1:56:44 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 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.
Yes. I see two sides to the issue, thought they are connected. The first is the ideology, the second is the practical. Personally, I find the ideology side a more engaging discussion, but the practical side matters. The difficulty is that there seems to be 2 groups as well. There are those that are genuinely experiencing an identity crisis...dysphoria, often from childhood. Then there are the less 'authentic' types who have different motives (and I guess these vary) |
|
|
|
Post by andrew on Jan 4, 2024 2:01:50 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. Adventurous! You can sometimes be a very patient man.  Lol yes....sometimes! As I'm now in Oregon for a while...famously woke as I'm sure you know (there are exceptions, and I guess you can think of one).... I guess it's also fair to say that I've been becoming acquainted with the new waters I find myself swimming in! |
|
|
|
Post by andrew on Jan 4, 2024 2:08:30 GMT -5
Mind is inseparable from information. How did you know that the numbers always come back? It was a yearly thing, they'd be gone and then the garden would be full again. Probably eggs hatching. They say the mind has a root thought. The I-thought. The conclusion that you are a separate, autonomous entity. You remove that conclusion, dispel that belief and it is gone, that sense of self. You are jnana, the absolute, awareness, sat-chit-ananda, not mind(ego) in the vernacular of RM and some advaita folk. Though some buddhist call what we here call awareness mind or big mind. By informing mind I don't think folks are talking about reading thhe newspaper or taking a course in Thermodynamics, but rather about the very nature of reality. If we are Reality then what informatiin about THIS would we need? I'm all talked out on this topic. So I'll listen to what you have to say and move on. Goes back to Tenka's point that mind comes with a self reference (information is meaningful to a meaningful 'I') though it's my experience too that the 'sense' of self is not required, even if the self reference is. |
|
. Plenty of existential weeds to wander off into, roll around with, and pull up though! 
