To which Prick are you referring? Neither is a Tom to my knowledge. (There are so many anons who would know if one were Tom.) And Akasha is not a Tom.
Regardless, your comments bear at least a slight sense of irony. --- In [email protected], "Llundrub" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Tom you think you're such a fucking expert about everything. But you know what? You're more miserable than you were two years ago. You used to not be a know it all and you were nice. Now you're a know it all and you're a prick. Surely enlightenment didn't result in more thorns? > ----- Original Message ----- > From: akasha_108 > To: [email protected] > Sent: Wednesday, May 11, 2005 8:29 PM > Subject: [FairfieldLife] Re: Individuality: Outward Projection vs. Inner Subjective Sense of No Indiv. Do > > > --- In [email protected], anonymousff <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > In my experience, it is fun to contemplate such issues. And thank > > you to each and every one of you who contributed to this thread. > > > > But, having noticed that even deep immersement in these ideas over a > > period of years has not resulted in a gestalt awakening to what is > > really happening here, I go about my business as usual. Such > > metaphysical questions appear to get burnt up in the searing heat of > > life lived in the present. > > > > I have heard that some do awaken to the true nature of things as a > > result of this kind of self-inquiry, and so, do not condemn it > > outright. But I wonder sometimes at its utility. In under an hour, I > > am sure that someone familiar with the various conceptual nuances > > and schools of thought on the topics of I, ego, doer, individuality, > > self etc., could lay them all out so that anyone of reasonably > > developed intellect could grasp the ideas and check on how well they > > relate to their own experience. After that, what is the point, > > unless it is to check in once every few years to see if one's > > perspective has changed due to the clearing of fog or the shifting > > of mirrors? > > (Sorry Akasha for this linear thinking, non-gestalt > > conclusion - I don't fully mean it...am just stating how I feel at > > the moment.) > > > For the most part, the intellect thinks in a sequential, linear > fashion. I am not advocating anyone to try to abondon that at all -- I > don't think thats possible. What does occur at times though, is that > after examining various parts of a puzzle, in a systematic, linear > fashion, the various parts can "flash" -- fuse in new ways, providing > new insight. > > Sometimes the linear analysis and (sometimes) subsequent "flash" are > based on symbolic processing -- that is, its a logical refinement and > manipulation of concepts / abstractions -- sort of like solving an > algebraic equations where the variables are concepts. Concepts and > abstractions are the "content" of the processing. > > On the other hand, a different type of linear processing can occur, > also resulting in a, often later, gestalt-typr flash. However, now the > elements being processed, the content, the data being crunched, is > experiential. Or, sometimes a mixture of conceptual elelments and > experiential elements. The post linear analysis phase, the "flash" -- > fuses concepts and/or experience in new relationships and can result > in a new experiential foundation. > > The best analogy I can think of to explain the fusion of conceptual > and experiential elements -- each originally approached in very linear > systematic fashion, and it is only an analogy, is in learning a new > skill or sport. For example, for those that play tennis, a top-spin > serve becomes a valuable tool -- particularly as a second serve. It > almost always goes in, even when hit full force, and can be made to > bounce so high to an opponent's weaker side that it is hard to return > -- and further, can get the opponent out of position. > > When I was a kid and a teacher explained the top-spin serve to me, I > didnt get it. I got the concept, I got the mechanics. But I could not > "do it", I couldn't make it an experience. Later, some time later, > fooling around, I found I could make my serves really "kick" by doing > this "thing" that I could not explain, but could do. Some time later, > the concept and the experience fused in a flash, and I tealized what > I was doing was a self-learned top-spin serve. I then reused the > conceptual understanding of top-spin to refine and clarify the > mechanics of the "experience" and the feel of doing it. Soon, it was > just locked in. > > The point is, you don't attempt to think gestaltly, nonlinearly. I > don't know how to do that -- other than to set up the conditions that > let that happen. And that is to sharply look at different parts of an > issue or problem in a linear systematic fashion. And then, in a sense, > let go. And in time, sometimes, or often, a more holistic, > multi-component (symbols and /or experiential elements) creat a > "flash" of insight, almost as if the fusion of the elements creates > energy and light. > > The broader point is that I have found that periodically > systematically and intensely examining the components of the identity > / ownership / ego / consciousness puzzle, looking at and questioning > different views, various conceptual elements begand to flash / fuse -- > and over time these "insights" flashed/fused with experiential > elements. The result is that it is a clear experience that there is no > driver to this machine, no-doer in charge of this apparatus > (intellect, mind, senses, motor skills): that the apparati are > intelligent self-adaptive, ever learning, ever-correcting, > self-suficient, yet intertwined, interacting elements. > > This process is not adharmic, its not a muddle. > > And in particular that the decider, the intellect, the buddhi, the > pre-frontal cortex mechanisms, are not in charge. Nothing is. Other > than the design of the apparati. Which may be "intelligent design" or > "evolutionary design" -- it doesn't matter. The point is the apparati > has an inherently powerful design that dynamically moves forward, and > self-corrects, by many means, many learned -- and thus (its > corrective,self-balancing mechanisms) are expanding and becoming more > subtle and natural. > > What remains, beyond the apparati unfolding according to its nature > and design, is that glow/light of awareness -- devoid of content, > self-sufficient. > > This all may have nothing to do with the awakening or realization that > others report. It may have little to do with what various texts > report. However, it is a clear experience of no-doer, no driver to > this machine, and an awareness of awareness which is not distorted by > what is seen, or done or thought. > > The process that cultivated this is not adharmic, its not a muddle, it > is not a waste of time. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > To subscribe, send a message to: > [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > Or go to: > http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/ > and click 'Join This Group!' > > > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ > Yahoo! Groups Links > > a.. To visit your group on the web, go to: > http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/ > > b.. To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: > [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > c.. Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service. To subscribe, send a message to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Or go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/ and click 'Join This Group!' Yahoo! Groups Links <*> To visit your group on the web, go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/ <*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] <*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to: http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
