Re: Daily Meditation (Som)

[LoveChld11]

>Bob: I understand the personal nature of all that, >and I am not questioning that aspect of it. > >But if it is personal, that is, your own conditioning, Som: Not conditioning, my friend, but my own understanding as I mentioned earlier also. Bob: Right: "my own understanding", not some inevitable truth which defines the basis for the actions of others. >there is no need to bring K into your discussion with >another and to determine for the other, regarding his >statements, that "which wasn't his [K's] intention (s)." >You don't know what K's intentions were, or if he >even had any. That is what I meant when I said that >you are interpreting K in your own way and attempt- >ing to use your own highly personalized theories of >human behavior in a way which gives them, through >associating them with K's words, some kind of K-de- >rived legitimacy or authority. Som: That appears to be your personal, and most likely unfounded, theory. Yours truly, in his very humble opinion, doesn't need any legitimacy from anyone, my friend. Bob: You mean to say that your "own understanding" of K's words is actually what K meant, and that I am making an "unfounded theory" when I suggest that it is impossible for you to know what K meant, since you weren't K? I have never heard a "humble opinion". I don't know what that could possibly mean. But when you insist that your interpretation of K is what he ac- tually meant, I can see no other reason for your doing that but your seeking to legitimize what you say. ------------ He relies on his own understanding, and if someone else's views seem to help that understanding, he welcomes them. He also examines views contrary to his own and tries to learn from them as well. Bob: That is quite different from insisting that your opinions or views of what another has said actually represent the truth of what he said. I would even go further and question whether understanding has any- thing to do at all with one's "views". >I am not criticizing you, >however. I'm just wondering if you see what you are >doing and how it obstructs earnest communication. Som: It appears that so far communication (between you and me) has go on fine. We will worry about reasons for obstruction (of communication) if and when that happens. What do you say? Bob: Although worry is unnecessary, and for me, unlikely, as I see it, there is obstruction when there is the belief that one's opinion of another's words are actually what another meant. But there is a possibility that such a belief may be questioned by oneself as the discussion proceeds, though that is not a demand. ---- Back to the issue at hand: [A] A person pushing him/herself to do the best is acting intelligently. [B] When the ego takes over ("I am the best") then s/he is not acting intelligently. [C] An indolent, complacent person is not acting intelligently to begin with. Way of intelligence is to pursue [A] and avoid [B] and [C]. Makes sense, at least a little? Bob: To me it makes no sense at all. I see it as just plans, a map, an intellectual, logical progression of psychological beliefs which, although they may achieve some kind of re- sult, have nothing to do with first-hand living, that is, with a discovery by oneself of one's a- bility to respond in life originally and insight- fully. The terms, "pursue" and "avoid" are hints that one is acting from a program, as one can only pursue and avoid, what one has already accepted as the truth and the lie.