burt
Member
Posts: 198
|
Post by burt on Jun 26, 2013 0:32:28 GMT -8
This can be seen all around us in so many guises.
For example, if someone tells you that you are insincere, and you don't at least consider the possibility, then at best you've passed up an opportunity for self-reflection, and at worst you're actually wrong, they're actually right, and you go on lying to yourself.
If you look and see that you are true to yourself, and you know it, you know it. The depth of the search, or conversely, the level of temporary confusion during the exploration seems to be related to the level of trust that you place in the source of the challenge.
|
|
|
|
Post by Portto on Jul 2, 2013 3:37:04 GMT -8
Hehe, I had to look it up on Wikipedia: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pascal%27s_WagerQuite interesting, though we can say it's misconceived, being based on the assumption of an immortal separate soul that somehow benefits from certain beliefs in a higher power. |
|
burt
Member
Posts: 198
|
Post by burt on Jul 2, 2013 14:29:01 GMT -8
Hehe, I had to look it up on Wikipedia: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pascal%27s_WagerQuite interesting, though we can say it's misconceived, being based on the assumption of an immortal separate soul that somehow benefits from certain beliefs in a higher power. Yes, in the form that Pascal originally posed it, no doubt. Here's another form. I see meditation and other practice as a way to address what ZD referred to as the reassertion of the dominance of mind. To be repetitive but clear here, practice to me embodies a paradox as it is of course futile, and the only practice that's worthy of the name is the practice of what we're never not, which is here and now. In this context, practice is a tuning, a training of mind to lessen the probability of the reassertion of its dominance. The practice is analogous to Pascal's belief in God -- might as well practice "just in case". |
|
|
|
Post by silvery1 on Jul 2, 2013 20:00:43 GMT -8
Hehe, I had to look it up on Wikipedia: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pascal%27s_WagerQuite interesting, though we can say it's misconceived, being based on the assumption of an immortal separate soul that somehow benefits from certain beliefs in a higher power. Morality aside, there's so much psychology and the stuff of human nature that goes into the recommendation / suggestion of burt's to ponder a bit if/when someone tells a person that they're 'XYZ'. A person might honestly, initially believe they're not what this other person claims - at some point later, they may have that delayed reaction and just stop and think and wonder. Then, too, the person telling them they're XYZ may be telling them that because (consciously or subconsciously) they're trying to manipulate the other person. Keep the change.  |
|
|
|
Post by Portto on Jul 3, 2013 5:56:51 GMT -8
Here's another form. I see meditation and other practice as a way to address what ZD referred to as the reassertion of the dominance of mind. To be repetitive but clear here, practice to me embodies a paradox as it is of course futile, and the only practice that's worthy of the name is the practice of what we're never not, which is here and now. In this context, practice is a tuning, a training of mind to lessen the probability of the reassertion of its dominance. The practice is analogous to Pascal's belief in God -- might as well practice "just in case". Practices require a lot more effort than beliefs. And beliefs require more effort than 'flowing.' Hehe, I must be getting really lazy ;D |
|
|
|
Post by Portto on Jul 3, 2013 6:01:17 GMT -8
Morality aside, there's so much psychology and the stuff of human nature that goes into the recommendation / suggestion of burt's to ponder a bit if/when someone tells a person that they're 'XYZ'. A person might honestly, initially believe they're not what this other person claims - at some point later, they may have that delayed reaction and just stop and think and wonder. Then, too, the person telling them they're XYZ may be telling them that because (consciously or subconsciously) they're trying to manipulate the other person. Keep the change. But what is a person, really? |
|
burt
Member
Posts: 198
|
Post by burt on Jul 3, 2013 11:42:59 GMT -8
Here's another form. I see meditation and other practice as a way to address what ZD referred to as the reassertion of the dominance of mind. To be repetitive but clear here, practice to me embodies a paradox as it is of course futile, and the only practice that's worthy of the name is the practice of what we're never not, which is here and now. In this context, practice is a tuning, a training of mind to lessen the probability of the reassertion of its dominance. The practice is analogous to Pascal's belief in God -- might as well practice "just in case". And beliefs require more effort than 'flowing.' Hehe, I must be getting really lazy ;D My opinion on that idea is: not necessarily.  In fact, I'd go so far as to say that if effort is perceived, then stop, 'cause that ain't the practice of what we're never not ... if it ain't effortless, it's the wrong thing! |
|
burt
Member
Posts: 198
|
Post by burt on Jul 3, 2013 11:47:31 GMT -8
Hehe, I had to look it up on Wikipedia: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pascal%27s_WagerQuite interesting, though we can say it's misconceived, being based on the assumption of an immortal separate soul that somehow benefits from certain beliefs in a higher power. Morality aside, there's so much psychology and the stuff of human nature that goes into the recommendation / suggestion of burt's to ponder a bit if/when someone tells a person that they're 'XYZ'. A person might honestly, initially believe they're not what this other person claims - at some point later, they may have that delayed reaction and just stop and think and wonder. Then, too, the person telling them they're XYZ may be telling them that because (consciously or subconsciously) they're trying to manipulate the other person. Keep the change. Telling someone what they are is quite the challenge. There's very very few descriptions of this that I've ever heard that didn't spark disagreement with the expression. Telling someone what they are not on the other hand, is a completely different matter and the only way that I can imagine morality into that scenario is if one who knows remains silent when asked about it by one that doesn't. The wager and practice don't have anything to do with this directly. |
|
|
|
Post by silvery1 on Jul 3, 2013 13:13:16 GMT -8
This can be seen all around us in so many guises. For example, if someone tells you that you are insincere, and you don't at least consider the possibility, then at best you've passed up an opportunity for self-reflection, and at worst you're actually wrong, they're actually right, and you go on lying to yourself. If you look and see that you are true to yourself, and you know it, you know it. The depth of the search, or conversely, the level of temporary confusion during the exploration seems to be related to the level of trust that you place in the source of the challenge. Is a 'someone' not a person? |
|
|
|
Post by Portto on Jul 3, 2013 14:14:37 GMT -8
My opinion on that idea is: not necessarily. In fact, I'd go so far as to say that if effort is perceived, then stop, 'cause that ain't the practice of what we're never not ... if it ain't effortless, it's the wrong thing! You mean I should give up my hourly horse stance practice? Oh man, you should've told me before I put 100,000 hrs into it...   |
|
|
|
Post by silvery1 on Jul 3, 2013 16:40:51 GMT -8
My opinion on that idea is: not necessarily. In fact, I'd go so far as to say that if effort is perceived, then stop, 'cause that ain't the practice of what we're never not ... if it ain't effortless, it's the wrong thing! You mean I should give up my hourly horse stance practice? Oh man, you should've told me before I put 100,000 hrs into it... Sooo, that's what a horse stance is. cool. Awwww, I wish I knew what you were talking about.  |
|
burt
Member
Posts: 198
|
Post by burt on Jul 4, 2013 4:03:42 GMT -8
This can be seen all around us in so many guises. For example, if someone tells you that you are insincere, and you don't at least consider the possibility, then at best you've passed up an opportunity for self-reflection, and at worst you're actually wrong, they're actually right, and you go on lying to yourself. If you look and see that you are true to yourself, and you know it, you know it. The depth of the search, or conversely, the level of temporary confusion during the exploration seems to be related to the level of trust that you place in the source of the challenge. whoooooooooooaaaa there horsey! not so fast! What Portto said is really really important here: "what is a person?" I suggest you start this way: first ask "am I a person?" If you say "yes", that's fine, that's ok. There's no wrong answer to a question like this, just the answer that you'd give. If you say "yes, I am a person", that's where some fun can begin, because now you can start asking questions about what it means to be a person ... what a person is, what a person isn't. I've seen you resonate when figgy and Andrew talk about "letting go". What I'll point out to you is that: "am I ___?" ... is "I am ____" in reverse ... now if you asked figgy and Andrew what they mean by "letting go", by "releasing an attachment", and if they were to answer free of phrogotics, they would tell you that such a release amounts to dropping something that fills in that blank: "I am strong" "I am weak" "I am vulnerable" "I am in control" So ... are you a person? |
|
burt
Member
Posts: 198
|
Post by burt on Jul 4, 2013 4:06:22 GMT -8
My opinion on that idea is: not necessarily. In fact, I'd go so far as to say that if effort is perceived, then stop, 'cause that ain't the practice of what we're never not ... if it ain't effortless, it's the wrong thing! You mean I should give up my hourly horse stance practice? Oh man, you should've told me before I put 100,000 hrs into it... I dunno  ... seems like yer doin' just fine by that pic .... looks like you're pretty much at the peace joy and ease phase there ....  Just stay there and we'll all come back tomorrow and see how yer doin'! |
|
|
|
Post by Portto on Jul 4, 2013 7:21:24 GMT -8
I dunno ... seems like yer doin' just fine by that pic .... looks like you're pretty much at the peace joy and ease phase there .... Just stay there and we'll all come back tomorrow and see how yer doin'!  |
|
|
|
Post by silvery1 on Jul 4, 2013 7:42:15 GMT -8
Is a 'someone' not a person? whoooooooooooaaaa there horsey! not so fast! What Portto said is really really important here: "what is a person?" I suggest you start this way: first ask "am I a person?" If you say "yes", that's fine, that's ok. There's no wrong answer to a question like this, just the answer that you'd give. If you say "yes, I am a person", that's where some fun can begin, because now you can start asking questions about what it means to be a person ... what a person is, what a person isn't. I've seen you resonate when figgy and Andrew talk about "letting go". What I'll point out to you is that: "am I ___?" ... is "I am ____" in reverse ... now if you asked figgy and Andrew what they mean by "letting go", by "releasing an attachment", and if they were to answer free of phrogotics, they would tell you that such a release amounts to dropping something that fills in that blank: "I am strong" "I am weak" "I am vulnerable" "I am in control" So ... are you a person? (___________)..mphgrgl? |
|
