|
|
Post by tenka on Oct 26, 2024 5:44:05 GMT -5
Howdy Partner  Are you speaking like an American yet?  We have to perhaps understand what it is that we are that can imagine anything. We could say that the swan imagines it's a duck butt it's still a duck regardless. So imagination in someway doesn't reflect the truth of the matter. Again to repeat the repeated it's a package deal. One isn't just a duck, one doesn't just imagine one is a duck if one knows they are a duck through a knowing that they are not also. When there is self realisation, does one still imagine they are a duck? Does one entertain an imaginary perspective of self? Why would there be an imaginary self at all? There would just be self.
Do you get me? I wouldn't say serial killers are born serial killers. They were treated harshly by some adult, and started out killing animals. So they were conditioned in-to killing. This conditioning is the false self. See the difference? Same with people with split personality disorder. They were treated very harshly as kids, beaten, so the self was divided off so that one self didn't bare all the pain. The conditioning caused the splits, the false selves. Hitler was also treated very harshly as a kid. We see how that turned out, he screwed up the whole world. Ah, okay, so you are coming from this level. Some non dualists would declare however that any self reference is imaginary, so it matters not if one is behaving like a serial killer or not through conditional experiences. This is why I thought that nailing what self and imaginary meant as a foundation. So in your eyes what would constitute a self that isn't imagined? Would you say that a peep that encapsulates S.R. into an experience of the flesh, not imagining self? It would be more of an actual self than not? Again, it depends on how a peep defines these key words. There are many levels to all this of course and touching upon 'levels' as previous posts referred too, levels don't have to reflect separation, just as the individual self doesn't. It seems to be one or the other at times when put forward in this way, so there cannot be individual levels at play. This isn't correct as I see it. There are many levels to many things, there are a multitude of vibrations and frequencies that don't reflect separation. |
|
|
|
Post by tenka on Oct 26, 2024 5:53:10 GMT -5
Howdy Partner Are you speaking like an American yet? We have to perhaps understand what it is that we are that can imagine anything. We could say that the swan imagines it's a duck butt it's still a duck regardless. So imagination in someway doesn't reflect the truth of the matter. Again to repeat the repeated it's a package deal. One isn't just a duck, one doesn't just imagine one is a duck if one knows they are a duck through a knowing that they are not also. When there is self realisation, does one still imagine they are a duck? Does one entertain an imaginary perspective of self? Why would there be an imaginary self at all? There would just be self.
Do you get me? We are all born with a unique individuality, a not-screwed up individuality. Life circumstances forms the false self. I've taken the extreme case. Some, in the Middle East, are raised from birth to hate Jews. It's a kind of cultural conditioning. Babies turned into terrorists. We've seen results of that this whole last year. Then Israel's reaction to defend itself (to a very great extent, one man), caused a big swing in the pendulum, an out of proportion reaction to obliterate Hamas. The one man also has a false self, which always distorts reality. .. For myself there is a plan already put in place to some degree based upon what one has signed up to regarding experiences that shape their self references and behaviour in their current incarnation. I dare say there are millions that experience similar experiences, but it doesn't make everyone serial killers. For some it can have the opposite effect. There are so many aspects to why we live life like we do based upon our upbringing. You're right in that we are not born screwed up although depending on our previous incarnation, some traits are already there, life just needs to unfold somewhat for them to be expressed. It is an interesting subject, but you won't get many non dualists speaking along such lines. |
|
|
|
Post by stardustpilgrim on Oct 26, 2024 7:36:53 GMT -5
I wouldn't say serial killers are born serial killers. They were treated harshly by some adult, and started out killing animals. So they were conditioned in-to killing. This conditioning is the false self. See the difference? Same with people with split personality disorder. They were treated very harshly as kids, beaten, so the self was divided off so that one self didn't bare all the pain. The conditioning caused the splits, the false selves. Hitler was also treated very harshly as a kid. We see how that turned out, he screwed up the whole world. Ah, okay, so you are coming from this level. Some non dualists would declare however that any self reference is imaginary, so it matters not if one is behaving like a serial killer or not through conditional experiences. This is why I thought that nailing what self and imaginary meant as a foundation. So in your eyes what would constitute a self that isn't imagined?Would you say that a peep that encapsulates S.R. into an experience of the flesh, not imagining self? It would be more of an actual self than not? Again, it depends on how a peep defines these key words. There are many levels to all this of course and touching upon 'levels' as previous posts referred too, levels don't have to reflect separation, just as the individual self doesn't. It seems to be one or the other at times when put forward in this way, so there cannot be individual levels at play. This isn't correct as I see it. There are many levels to many things, there are a multitude of vibrations and frequencies that don't reflect separation. I will hit a few highlights. First, I didn't create my view by hodgepodge pick and choose, cafeteria style. I recognized what came to be my view as beneficial and explanatory. I was lucky, I recognized the teaching through my teacher, I knew within a couple of weeks he was my teacher. So I didn't devise any of this. But the self that isn't imaginary, is what we were born with, or born as, it's our true individuality, our essence. You can think on those things, consider, what were we born with? For a few years our essence grows, it's fed by sensory impressions, they fall directly on essence, we are in direct contact with the world. The mind-brain-body collects data, and this data forms the basis of the conditioning. So gradually the young child loses direct contact with the world, impressions fall on the network of data which forms the false self. The conditioned self, the imaginary self, forms a filter and a barrier, most people do not live, psychologically, in contact with the world, they live through their own filters. We see this everyday in the news, and in interacting with people. Essence ceases to be fed when we live through the imaginary self, the filter. Most people about the age of six, cease to live through their individuality, they live through the false sense of self. I was given methods for self-study, to recover and once again live through essence. First, is to recognize we are two, we are that which is observed, and that which observes. What we observe is our functions, what we think, feel, do. I was told nothing else about what essence is, just told you have to discover your essence for yourself. All the practices have to do with the use of attention and/or awareness. Nothing thought, involves practice. Thought doesn't observe, it is what is observed. Feelings/emotions are observed. Especially actions are observed. The imaginary self is what is observed, the functions. In the observing and the other practices, one eventually can discover their essence. But then, essence is a seed, we were told this from the beginning. The practices reverse the process whereby the false self was formed, and one can eventually live through essence, again. This is called becoming like a little child. The only way to discern the difference between what's imaginary and what's not, is through attention and/or awareness. When impressions once again fall on essence, essence grows again. This is where sdp and (conceptual) nonduality part ways. The practices show a distinction between the world and essence. Without that distinction, essence doesn't grow, we remain only what we are. You see, without that distinction, energy is not saved, we are an open gate. We can become hermetically sealed. The whole process is about the transformation of energy, it is a digestive process, in the same manner as food is digested. In fact, air and impressions, are also food, the body is a chemical laboratory. But impressions are not transformed as a natural process. Impressions are transformed only through conscious efforts. If you are only-thinking, your attention is ~absorbed in-to~ thought, that's a state of sleep, and you are not practicing. How do you know if you are accumulating energy? It becomes perceptible. But then we can easily lose the energy we have accumulated, through waste, through only-thinking, only-feeling, only-doing. It's a struggle against entropy. Only through this finer energy do we contact that which is higher. Most people consider they are what they think, feel and do. We are not what we think we are. "A man is unable to explain what he really is". But anything we think, constitutes the imaginary self. Also, we have true genuine emotions, not-negative emotions, but when the imaginary self is formed, most of our emotions are negative. Genuine positive emotions are cognitive, they give us information. The imaginary self is acquired. Our essence just is what we are. Living through essence is called the natural state. I've never posted that here, used those words. But Gurdjieff said that 110 years ago, I can quote it directly (from Ouspensky). We are born to live in this natural state, but we are born among sleeping people, and go to sleep when the imaginary self is formed. Instead of living through the functions thought, feeling, doing, in the natural state, we live through essence, which is separate from thinking, feeling, doing. But for a long time, we can shift back and forth, more or less asleep, more or less awake. If we live on autopilot, we are asleep. For most people, their default state is to function on autopilot, it's a kind of death. When you begin to realize you're asleep, that's the beginning of awakening. But the realization that one is asleep, is not awakening. But all of this is just words, until it isn't. |
|
|
|
Post by andrew on Oct 26, 2024 8:19:00 GMT -5
That was good. It really got me thinking for a few minutes. So I don't disagree but I'm also gonna offer an alternative way of seeing it. And that is, that there are only ever imaginary selves (as long as there is experience), but that these imaginary selves 'exist' (or are 'imagined') at different ('imagined') levels of consciousness. So it's not that we discover a true self, it's that we continually upgrade to a higher (or more expanded) imaginary self. And with that said, I'm also really okay for one of the non-dualists to pull that apart and point to foundational 'Reality' instead (no levels) And let's see what Tenka says too (might have to wait a few days) Howdy Partner Are you speaking like an American yet? We have to perhaps understand what it is that we are that can imagine anything. We could say that the swan imagines it's a duck butt it's still a duck regardless. So imagination in someway doesn't reflect the truth of the matter. Again to repeat the repeated it's a package deal. One isn't just a duck, one doesn't just imagine one is a duck if one knows they are a duck through a knowing that they are not also. When there is self realisation, does one still imagine they are a duck? Does one entertain an imaginary perspective of self? Why would there be an imaginary self at all? There would just be self. Do you get me? In therapy, the counsellor used to talk about 'transactional analysis', which was a way of understanding the 'self' in terms of being a parent, an adult and a child. I think I've got that right, it's been 25 years. He encouraged me to think about the self in these terms, and I never really got on board with it, because it seemed so convoluted, and in a sense, a way of hiding from just being ourselves. I didn't want to hide behind one of these roles. Just to add that there was a lot of other stuff he said, that I did agree with a lot. Somewhat similarly, I think it's both problematic and useful to think about 'self' in terms of real and imaginary, or false and true, or conditioned and unconditioned. We really just want to 'be ourselves'. I think there is some conceptual value to these distinctions at times. They can be useful conceptual tools, and I usually agree with the way that SDP describes the difference between them..... The way I see it, we are taught as children to define ourselves by our stories about ourselves, and we attach to these stories. In terms of our experiences, our preferences, our likes/dislikes, our hobbies, the teams we support etc. And then we live/experience this definition of ourselves so fully, that the arbitrary lines that we draw around ourselves, come to seem very real. In a sense, we forget that we have drawn these lines. And so, in a sense, I think the concepts of real/imaginary, true/false etc...are a way to talk about these lines, and explore who/what we are in the absence of them. It doesn't mean that we shift from being a false self to being a true self, but it certainly can seem as if that's what is happening, as we release our attachments to the stories that we have created. So for me, these conceptual tools are like 'the thorn to remove the thorn'. Ultimately, we can hopefully dispense with them. But for as long as the process of releasing the false definitions continues, there is some use for them. |
|
|
|
Post by tenka on Oct 26, 2024 13:24:48 GMT -5
Ah, okay, so you are coming from this level. Some non dualists would declare however that any self reference is imaginary, so it matters not if one is behaving like a serial killer or not through conditional experiences. This is why I thought that nailing what self and imaginary meant as a foundation. So in your eyes what would constitute a self that isn't imagined?Would you say that a peep that encapsulates S.R. into an experience of the flesh, not imagining self? It would be more of an actual self than not? Again, it depends on how a peep defines these key words. There are many levels to all this of course and touching upon 'levels' as previous posts referred too, levels don't have to reflect separation, just as the individual self doesn't. It seems to be one or the other at times when put forward in this way, so there cannot be individual levels at play. This isn't correct as I see it. There are many levels to many things, there are a multitude of vibrations and frequencies that don't reflect separation. I will hit a few highlights. First, I didn't create my view by hodgepodge pick and choose, cafeteria style. I recognized what came to be my view as beneficial and explanatory. I was lucky, I recognized the teaching through my teacher, I knew within a couple of weeks he was my teacher. So I didn't devise any of this. But the self that isn't imaginary, is what we were born with, or born as, it's our true individuality, our essence. ... okay, it's similar to the blank canvas analogy and everything painted upon it is imaginary. I don't know for examples sake, you knowing he was your teacher is just more imagination based upon the conditioning had of what a student and teacher represents in reflection of oneself. (also being imaginary due to a thought had of it). So I suppose it depends on if what is imagined at a certain point carries any weight or not. If one paints what is imagined as dreamy and unreal or just a story then the whole relationship had based upon self and a thought goes nowhere fast. There isn't a sound foundation had in the first place as I have always pointed out to those that believe in that type of premise. Can you elaborate either way. I am quietly confident you are the type of guy to say that if you were to get hit in the face with a cricket bat, then you didn't just imagine it. So imagination built upon a thought can be perceived in many ways. I am an advocate of everything self related / experienced is in or of the mind, so I could relate to a thought of oneself as being mindful without using the term imagined. |
|
|
|
Post by tenka on Oct 26, 2024 13:36:14 GMT -5
Ah, okay, so you are coming from this level. Some non dualists would declare however that any self reference is imaginary, so it matters not if one is behaving like a serial killer or not through conditional experiences. This is why I thought that nailing what self and imaginary meant as a foundation. So in your eyes what would constitute a self that isn't imagined?Would you say that a peep that encapsulates S.R. into an experience of the flesh, not imagining self? It would be more of an actual self than not? Again, it depends on how a peep defines these key words. There are many levels to all this of course and touching upon 'levels' as previous posts referred too, levels don't have to reflect separation, just as the individual self doesn't. It seems to be one or the other at times when put forward in this way, so there cannot be individual levels at play. This isn't correct as I see it. There are many levels to many things, there are a multitude of vibrations and frequencies that don't reflect separation. But anything we think, constitutes the imaginary self. Also, we have true genuine emotions, not-negative emotions, but when the imaginary self is formed, most of our emotions are negative. Genuine positive emotions are cognitive, they give us information. The imaginary self is acquired. Our essence just is what we are. Living through essence is called the natural state. I've never posted that here, used those words. But Gurdjieff said that 110 years ago, I can quote it directly (from Ouspensky). We are born to live in this natural state, but we are born among sleeping people, and go to sleep when the imaginary self is formed. Instead of living through the functions thought, feeling, doing, in the natural state, we live through essence, which is separate from thinking, feeling, doing. But for a long time, we can shift back and forth, more or less asleep, more or less awake. If we live on autopilot, we are asleep. For most people, their default state is to function on autopilot, it's a kind of death. When you begin to realize you're asleep, that's the beginning of awakening. But the realization that one is asleep, is not awakening. But all of this is just words, until it isn't. .. Maybe equally so it could be said that we are born to live in the opposite state of what you see as natural in order to experience that, suffer that, and then make steps to return to that natural state. If the material world was different that it is now, we could possibly go from a natural state of the higher dimensions to the natural state of a lower one, not really experiencing contrast regarding what we are that is aware of what we are beyond the thought of that. Many say the Earth plane is the school of life experience to grow the soul energy. We build walls so we can knock them down. |
|
|
|
Post by inavalan on Oct 26, 2024 13:48:11 GMT -5
.. if you were to get hit in the face with a cricket bat, then you didn't just imagine it. ... If an imaginary you gets in an imaginary situation where the imaginary you gets hit with an imaginary bat by an imaginary individual, then the imaginary you feels an imaginary pain, or even an imaginary death. Imagine that ... |
|
|
|
Post by tenka on Oct 26, 2024 13:52:40 GMT -5
Howdy Partner Are you speaking like an American yet? We have to perhaps understand what it is that we are that can imagine anything. We could say that the swan imagines it's a duck butt it's still a duck regardless. So imagination in someway doesn't reflect the truth of the matter. Again to repeat the repeated it's a package deal. One isn't just a duck, one doesn't just imagine one is a duck if one knows they are a duck through a knowing that they are not also. When there is self realisation, does one still imagine they are a duck? Does one entertain an imaginary perspective of self? Why would there be an imaginary self at all? There would just be self. Do you get me? Somewhat similarly, I think it's both problematic and useful to think about 'self' in terms of real and imaginary, or false and true, or conditioned and unconditioned. We really just want to 'be ourselves'. I think there is some conceptual value to these distinctions at times. They can be useful conceptual tools, and I usually agree with the way that SDP describes the difference between them..... . For sure, its swings and roundabouts depending on where one is coming from and depending on where one is coming would support the foundation of that. It wouldn't be useful for notions of a real self had in an imaginary world that is unreal would it so it depends on the context and the situation at hand. I listened to a channeled reading with Liam Payne who died recently and he said the same in that he just wanted to be himself at the end of the day and couldn't due to the pressure of how other's wanted to perceive him. I resonated a lot with what he said and would agree that we all want to be ourselves at some point. It's like a natural magnetism that one feels just to let go of everything else that doesn't naturally reflect who we are and how we feel when all the lights are turned off. |
|
|
|
Post by tenka on Oct 26, 2024 14:00:33 GMT -5
.. if you were to get hit in the face with a cricket bat, then you didn't just imagine it. ... If an imaginary you gets in an imaginary situation where the imaginary you gets hit with an imaginary bat by an imaginary individual, then the imaginary you feels an imaginary pain, or even an imaginary death. Imagine that ... I am not sure if the imaginary you or me can actually imagine anything. What could an imaginary self actually do? Non dualists believe there is no doer anyway, so no-one can imagine anything either. I think in regards to the cricket bat analogy, one should be able to compare the differences between imaging a bat in the face and a bat in the face and an imaginary you that imagines it. Maybe there are some that can't see a difference lol. |
|
|
|
Post by tenka on Oct 26, 2024 14:08:37 GMT -5
Howdy Partner Are you speaking like an American yet? We have to perhaps understand what it is that we are that can imagine anything. We could say that the swan imagines it's a duck butt it's still a duck regardless. So imagination in someway doesn't reflect the truth of the matter. Again to repeat the repeated it's a package deal. One isn't just a duck, one doesn't just imagine one is a duck if one knows they are a duck through a knowing that they are not also. When there is self realisation, does one still imagine they are a duck? Does one entertain an imaginary perspective of self? Why would there be an imaginary self at all? There would just be self. Do you get me? And so, in a sense, I think the concepts of real/imaginary, true/false etc...are a way to talk about these lines, and explore who/what we are in the absence of them. It doesn't mean that we shift from being a false self to being a true self, but it certainly can seem as if that's what is happening, as we release our attachments to the stories that we have created. .. I used to say that there is only Self when I first came to the forums and there is no false self or lower self in actuality. I got ripped to pieces back then If Self encompasses everything, and is everything then there is no imagined self in the grand scheme of things. I like the train of thought that you shared relating to this in that there is no shift, in a way we just start to see things differently in relation to what we are. We then feel differently, think differently, and again it emphasises that it can seem as if the shifts are happening. The multitude of frequencies and vibrations that exist certainly do reflect where we are at, at the end of the day. Perhaps it's more to do with where we are at rather than anything else butt transformation happens I would say, so there are transformations that could be spoken of in terms of shifting self awareness from one set to another. I am tying my self in knots here me thinks. |
|
|
|
Post by inavalan on Oct 26, 2024 14:21:16 GMT -5
Posted this for watching especially from time stamp: 6:01
|
|
|
|
Post by stardustpilgrim on Oct 26, 2024 15:32:25 GMT -5
Posted this for watching especially from time stamp: 6:01 Fred Trump and wife went to the church of Norman Vincent Peale, so Trump was raised in this kind of atmosphere, The Power of Positive Thinking, etc. Five years later Peale changed his denominational affiliation to the Reformed Church in America in order to accept the pastorate at the Marble Collegiate Church in New York City. His dynamic sermons helped increase church membership from a few hundred to several thousand. To help with his parishioners’ many problems, Peale enlisted the aid of a psychiatrist and established a religio-psychiatric clinic; in 1951 that operation was organized as the nonprofit American Foundation of Religion and Psychiatry (now the Blanton-Peale Institute and Counseling Center), with Peale acting as president. In 1935 Peale began a weekly radio program, The Art of Living, which soon reached a national audience. After World War II Peale founded and served as editor of a weekly four-page spiritual leaflet for businessmen called Guideposts, which by the 1950s had become a widely popular monthly magazine. Peale’s first book was The Art of Living (1937), and he also wrote You Can Win (1938) and A Guide for Confident Living (1948) before the appearance of The Power of Positive Thinking. Later volumes included Six Attitudes for Winners (1989) and This Incredible Century (1991). He retired as senior pastor in 1984. Peale taught that religious faith could be tapped to improve one’s material life and that a positive mental attitude and belief in oneself are as necessary as belief in God. While his teaching gained him a large following, other Christian writers were more critical, pointing out that Peale’s philosophy neglected ideas of sin, suffering, and redemption. In addition, Peale was known for his support for conservative political causes. ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ But DJ Trump does not understand the Law of Attraction, period. Period. I'm actually surprised at the A-H video, it must be old. |
|
|
|
Post by inavalan on Oct 27, 2024 13:07:55 GMT -5
This isn't an analogy. - SO WHAT IS METHOD ACTING?
At its core, Method Acting is therefore a systematic approach to training the living material that is the actor’s “instrument,” as well as a means for preparing a role. The use of Lee Strasberg’s exercises both develop the content of the actor’s talent and provide a roadmap to the individual’s creation of a character. The use of one’s own life experiences in the creative imagination infuses each choice with genuine thought, desire, sensation, action and feeling resulting in psychologically in-depth behavior. It builds upon the work of Stanislavsky, and as Lee believed, accomplished what Stanislavsky set out to achieve.
The Method trains actors to use their physical, mental and emotional self in the creation of a character and stresses the way in which personal experience can fire the actors imagination. It eschews clichés and pursues individual authenticity and a reality deeply grounded in the given circumstances of the script.
So what is Method Acting? As Lee Strasberg said, Method Acting is what all actors have always done whenever they acted well. But The Method–it’s how you get there.
--- strasberg.edu/about/what-is-method-acting/
|
|
|
|
Post by inavalan on Oct 28, 2024 14:36:14 GMT -5
There is nothing to learn from it, and it depicts the Buddha as a heartless manipulative guru, which probably isn't accurate. Knowledge about the world really only comes from experience. It certainly depends on what meanings we give to the words we use, how carefully we use them. You don't learn through / from experience. Your experience is the gauge of what you were supposed to have already learned. |
|
|
|
Post by andrew on Nov 3, 2024 21:00:42 GMT -5
Somewhat similarly, I think it's both problematic and useful to think about 'self' in terms of real and imaginary, or false and true, or conditioned and unconditioned. We really just want to 'be ourselves'. I think there is some conceptual value to these distinctions at times. They can be useful conceptual tools, and I usually agree with the way that SDP describes the difference between them..... . For sure, its swings and roundabouts depending on where one is coming from and depending on where one is coming would support the foundation of that. It wouldn't be useful for notions of a real self had in an imaginary world that is unreal would it so it depends on the context and the situation at hand. I listened to a channeled reading with Liam Payne who died recently and he said the same in that he just wanted to be himself at the end of the day and couldn't due to the pressure of how other's wanted to perceive him. I resonated a lot with what he said and would agree that we all want to be ourselves at some point. It's like a natural magnetism that one feels just to let go of everything else that doesn't naturally reflect who we are and how we feel when all the lights are turned off. yeah, nice analogy. Is that the channeller you often listen to, can't remember her name...can you remind me please? |
|
