--- In [email protected], t3rinity <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > --- In [email protected], "authfriend" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > --- In [email protected], t3rinity <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > <snip> > > > Lots of conditioning in the 2nd lecture (Bubble diagram) 2nd > > > day-checking (Theory of Stress-release), group-effect. > > > enlightenment, 'scientific validation', everything, every little > > > thing is conditioning. You will realize this only when you leave TM > > > or join a different group with different spiritual ideas. > > > Conditioning is not always bad, one kind of conditioning can undo > > > another kind (thorn removes thorn) > > > > Depending on exactly how you're defining > > "conditioning," I would question whether > > you can't become aware of conditioning > > unless you leave the source. > > You could, but generally you aren't. This is just my experience. This > has to do with being in a group, or even if it isn't physical, of > conforming to a group idea. > > > > I would also question whether coming to > > believe that something one has been taught > > is true is always a function of conditioning. > > Again, maybe it depends on how you're defining > > the term, but you seem to be ruling out the > > possibility that one can be taught something, > > accept it provisionally (or even remain > > skeptical) for a time, and only become > > convinced of it on the basis of one's own > > experience and observation. > > See, we maybe conditioned to stop the car when the traffic lights turn > red. You can provisionally accept it, validate it as true, based on > observation etc. The conditioning is that you connect two facts, the > red traffic lights, and the need to stop the car.
But that's a different type of conditioning; that's more like Pavlov's dogs. I was talking (and thought you were talking) about becoming convinced that something is true. If you are convinced just because it's what you were told, I would call that conditioning. I guess one way to make the distinction I'm trying to get at would be to ask whether one might have arrived at the same conclusion based on one's own experience and observation, without ever having been taught it. If that's the case, then it's not clear conditioning is involved, even if you were taught it. You have to look further to see what mental processes were involved after you were taught. In that sense, the red light = stop equation could even be something you come to on your own without having to be told. Even if you were never told to stop at a red light, if every time you arrive at a red light, you see traffic or pedestrians in your way, you would quickly learn you'd better stop if you don't want to have an accident. Conditioning, to me, implies a belief or response that is imposed by someone else that you accept without question. <snip> > > If one arrives at a conclusion by such a > > process, I wouldn't call it conditioning. > > I would. You can only know how opinions direct and limit your mind, > when you are free of those very opinions. True, you can only know for sure when you're free of them. My point is that just because something has been taught to you doesn't necessarily mean the only basis for your conviction that it's correct is conditioning. 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/
