|
I was responding to Jim responding
to Lup responding to god knows what. What's your name again? I always thought
Akasha was a woman. Are you a man now?
----- Original Message -----
Sent: Wednesday, May 11, 2005 9:26
PM
Subject: [FairfieldLife] Re:
Individuality: Outward Projection vs. Inner Subjective Sense of No Indiv.
Do
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!'
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
|
