asanerman Posted October 16, 2012 Share Posted October 16, 2012 If what you are looking for is answers from some authority outside yourself, you will never find your own inner peace. It is that simple. It has to come from within you. I'm happy you don't think I have the answers! I don't for you. You do. And the pursuit of that - is - a spiritual path. Yours. But don't ever let yourself think that you are all alone. There is nothing wrong with occasionally seeking the support of someone whose wisdom and experience you trust and can defer to, someone to help guide you through dark patches, steady you in the difficult terrain, or even antagonize you when your head gets too big to get through the door. Yes, very much so. I have those that know me that are just that for me. I know their voices, and know they know where I'm coming from. I respect their help. We all need people like this in our lives. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ouroboros Posted October 16, 2012 Share Posted October 16, 2012 Yes, very much so. I have those that know me that are just that for me. I know their voices, and know they know where I'm coming from. I respect their help. We all need people like this in our lives. I can tell you an experience that I had just a few days ago. I knew about this before, and I've had similar experiences in the past, but this recent one was very clear to me. One of my sons is a computer guy, just like me, and we're currently developing some software. We have another guy who is helping us (supposedly), but we've had some challenges. We (my son and I) tried to get the other guy to do a certain thing in the project. A simple program. We explained it several times, and it's very simple, really, but in the end, when I asked him if he understood what he was supposed to do, he still had a bunch of misconceptions. So even with all that effort, we couldn't get him to see what he was supposed to do. He's intelligent, so it's not that, but sometimes, people can't see the picture. On the other hand, when my son and I talked about the same project, and other parts, I only need to mention a fraction of an idea and he can see the whole picture. In other words, we speak the same "language". We can see the same connections, patterns, images, etc from the words and constructs we use. I even talked to my son about some things we discuss on this board, and I only need to say a half of a sentence and he gets it and can even fill in. Basically, what I'm saying is, even when we all speak English, we (as people, members on the board) don't speak the same language. And sometimes it's just impossible to overcome... but you knew this already. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Antlerman Posted October 16, 2012 Share Posted October 16, 2012 Think of it between me getting exercise by walking two miles per day, versus getting specifically working muscles groups to tone the whole body. There will be in fact a difference in experience and understanding what that does for you. I don't doubt it. But I think the point is that we're not all "runners" or "bikers" or "hackers" or whatever. We're all different. Mediation might work for most people, but I'm sure there are people who just can't deal with it. I get that. I am excited about it for myself because where it takes me and what it does for me. I have been trying to find this for the last 30 years, so naturally, I was more than ready to walk through that door. It was the one component missing, the next step beyond all the rational and intellectual work. That I feel I want to go there, is of course entirely my own path, and I'm not going to slight someone for not choosing to go there. But I'm not going to lie and say that you get the same result any other way. You just don't, but it's okay if someone doesn't care to go there. They are different modes of knowing. They do not directly compare. I wish people wouldn't take that as some sort of put down, as it isn't. I could think of many examples where this is true in many areas of our lives. Did you know what love was until you had that in a relationship with someone, for one example? That's a knowledge that only comes through direct experience, and what it opens to you in yourself can only come through that experience, and no other way. Right? Same thing. That's all I mean by this, not some judgment of people's intelligence, or any thing else. I just have to be honest in saying that we can't get the same results a different way. But, and this is where I think the problem may lay, I'm not saying you must meditate one way and one way only. There are many, many ways do to this, and that is entirely your own interior work. But interior work it has to be. Does this help? Can I find a "softer" way to say this? Perhaps? I don't know. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rev R Posted October 16, 2012 Share Posted October 16, 2012 Strip it down to the bare essentials. Drop all the talk of symbols, stages, and Divine essence. Don't be antagonistic toward their models, use them. Focus on individuals, case by case, according to the specific troubles or needs. Prescribe the medicine to the patient. 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
antix Posted October 16, 2012 Share Posted October 16, 2012 One of 2 conclusions canbe drawn from the neurosurgeons experience: 1) His brain was playing games or 2) He ended up in heaven and if it is the case, it shows you do not have to be a fundy nutcase to get in. I am leaning towards number 1. 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pandora Posted October 16, 2012 Share Posted October 16, 2012 Well put. I often think of the analogy of a computer, and how it requires many more things than just its physical parts to operate. Exactly. I used that analogy too in the past, but I was criticized for it because computers are machines, and the machine analogy is crappy... yada yada. It wasn't you. It was someone else. Anyway, the analogy works for the part of understanding that not even a computer is just parts. It's also electricity. It's also software. It's also user interaction. It's also network connectivity. It's also background processing. It's also a color screen with a certain number of pixels, a keyboard, a ... And it exists in time and do things in one sequence that is not going to be the same next time you start it up. Not even computers are the same experience from day to day. You also have upgrade. New software. Delete old. Cache and history builds up. A computer is something that exists within time, space, history, experience of users, society, culture, etc. Now, if we found that consciousness can arise from a sufficiently powerful and programmed computer, well... it wouldn't surprise me. On the other hand, it would blow my mind. I don't think it can be programmed. But it can be made to self-learn and grow it. It's like plants. We would never strive to "build" a plant, like a tomato plant with tomatoes on the vines. We, however, do strive (we, as in the industry) to change and program the DNA for the seeds that will grow to a tomato plant. Consciousness is the sum and result of the tomato plant, in time and space, and interaction with insects, pests, pesticide, dirt, water, air, ... I am on the same page, at least I think we are. That whole language thing, you know... I kind of see DNA as like the programming. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
blackpudd1n Posted October 17, 2012 Share Posted October 17, 2012 From the Collins Concise Australian Dictionary, 7th Edition, 2008: cynic (n) a person who believes the worst about people or the outcome of events. That's me. I was a cynic long before I was a sceptic. I always hope for a good outcome, or the best in people. But I am aware and I accept that there is a bad outcome and everyone has bad within them. Without being cynical, I would not prepare also for the bad, and have a back-up plan should things go bad. It's got nothing to do with being close-minded or sceptical. It's just realistic. Then a discussion is almost to the point of impossible. Think about it, if you believe the words about the other person you're discussing with and except the worse outcome from the discussion, it's bound to fail. You must have some trust in people in this thread, or you wouldn't be here even making your points. If you were fully cynical about everyone, you would already know that this discussion was a waste for you. So honestly, I think you're somewhat cynical, but not "hardcore", i.e. all the way and fully out. And it's a good thing that you're not... for us. If you accept the worst may occur, then the worst occuring does not surprise you nor upset you as much. And I am a cynic. My dear psychiatric nurse-practitioner has told me many a time. Not that he sees any issue with it, however. Because of it, I have dealt with the various traumas I have suffered very well, and failed to develop Post Traumatic Stress Disorder as a result. With my childhood, I was also a prime candidate for Borderline Personality Disorder. But I was just too cynical lol. It sure makes life easier for him- he's only got to keep tabs on one disorder, being bipolar, than a potential three disorders. You see where the cynic laughs, now? All the disasters and illnesses we've had in my family have pushed us to the brink of cynicism too. I except to have to take my son to the hospital at least twice a month. This year, he has had more infections than we can remember. And when other things in the house breaks, or family dies in our homecountry and we get to know it over Facebook instead of a phone call... and so on. You've got the wrong idea about us cynics. My personal worldview is uninterested in the validity of your claims regarding meditation or anything else. That belongs to the realm of scepticism. A cynic is not necessarily a sceptic. But a cynic can be both. Well, I think the discussion was more around cynic as used in the area of science, knowledge, etc, where a cynic is someone who is extremely skeptical about claims, to the point that he/she won't even look into them. I can see your point that cynic when it comes to people, that's kind of a different area than the category of skepticism. The main point is, though, that I am an individual. Regardless of the labels I carry, female, feminist, atheist, bipolarity, cynic, childless, animal lover, cheese lover... I am an individual. Just like every other female, feminist, atheist, bipolar, cynic, childless, animal lover, cheese lover. Someone else could hold all of those exact same labels, and still be a very different person to I. To lump any group of people together and proclaim a disliking of that group on the basis of one label they may carry is the essence of prejudice. Trying to redefine a label for one person so that you don't lump them in with all the rest and can have something to do with them is the essence of cognitive dissonance. We all have our biases and prejudices, and some are harder to overcome than others. But recognising that we hold them is the first step to overcoming them and leads to what I refer to as "enlightenment": taking each person as they come, on the basis of who they are and their actions, rather than any label they may hold. I think Antlerman was talking about cynics on a general basis, not you per se. When it comes to lumping any group together, that's why "woo" has been such a bad term to use in this particular sub-forum. This section here is for serious discussions about individual beliefs, which reflects on their personality and if they're incorrigible cynics (or anything else) or not, and therefore, "woo" labeling them is not allowed. The irony is, that after what transpired in the science forum earlier today, I am a hell of a lot more cynical right now. I'm not going to derail this topic, so I'm out. This young cynic can't pretend like nothing happened. By the way, I have not used the term "woo" to anyone but my father for a very long time, simply due to how easily it can be misinterpreted. I only use it with him because he understands the context in which I use it, usually when I can't remember the word I'm after to describe what I'm trying to discuss with him. We often do have conversations in a form of short-hand speak, but understanding that it is a loaded word, I refrain from using it elsewhere. One final thing- I only included a dictionary definition because I wanted to make sure I understood the word correctly myself. Wasn't trying to split hairs or play semantics. Anyway, this cynic is out. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Antlerman Posted October 17, 2012 Share Posted October 17, 2012 All we ask is that people use all these forums to support each other. Differences of ideas, sharing, and discussing those ideas are encouraged. The more we are able to do this with respect for one another, the stronger we are and become. The rules are setup for the benefit of everyone, no matter where they are at. It is the call of moderation staff to address issues with members in a fair manner if they arise, and take corrective actions when they then are subsequently disregarded, and then to clean up the offending posts to keep those threads clean of these messes. It is not then a matter for public debate, as the whole story is never known, nor are they chosen by the Webmaster of the site to keep his house clean and functional for its membership in addressing issues that arise. If anyone chooses to go on the attack of members personally that will be addressed by the moderation staff, first in a fair manner, and then with stronger measures if deemed necessary. Explanations of moderator actions with members are discussed privately within the moderation team, not outside of it out of respect to the parties involved. End of story. We appreciate your support of the membership and the staff of this site towards these stated goals of creating a supportive community for everyone. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Moderator Margee Posted October 17, 2012 Moderator Share Posted October 17, 2012 All we ask is that people use all these forums to support each other. Differences of ideas, sharing, and discussing those ideas are encouraged. The more we are able to do this with respect for one another, the stronger we are and become. The rules are setup for the benefit of everyone, no matter where they are at. It is the call of moderation staff to address issues with members in a fair manner if they arise, and take corrective actions when they then are subsequently disregarded, and then to clean up the offending posts to keep those threads clean of these messes. It is not then a matter for public debate, as the whole story is never known, nor are they chosen by the Webmaster of the site to keep his house clean and functional for its membership in addressing issues that arise. If anyone chooses to go on the attack of members personally that will be addressed by the moderation staff, first in a fair manner, and then with stronger measures if deemed necessary. Explanations of moderator actions with members are discussed privately within the moderation team, not outside of it out of respect to the parties involved. End of story. We appreciate your support of the membership and the staff of this site towards these stated goals of creating a supportive community for everyone. I'm thinking that this thread went nice and smooth myself... I enjoyed a lot of things that were said. I grow from reading all the different points of view (even though I am a sceptic)!! I think it was a good thread!! 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mymistake Posted October 17, 2012 Share Posted October 17, 2012 That's a knowledge that only comes through direct experience, and what it opens to you in yourself can only come through that experience, and no other way. Right? I strongly disagree. I guess I can't explain why here. It's not worth the effort anyway for it's not an impasse that can be resolved with words. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Antlerman Posted October 17, 2012 Share Posted October 17, 2012 That's a knowledge that only comes through direct experience, and what it opens to you in yourself can only come through that experience, and no other way. Right? I strongly disagree. I guess I can't explain why here. It's not worth the effort anyway for it's not an impasse that can be resolved with words. That's a fair discussion to have. I had mentioned in the other thread about clear and concise meanings, about Epistemological Pluralism*. That shows that there are, and it is necessary, to use multiple methodologies to penetrate understandings, not just a single set of tools, such as logical analysis. That is something I subscribe to in multiple areas of knowing, not just the mystical. Do you feel you can understand love, for instance, but studying it, or analyzing couples in love? I know you will gain some knowledge, but I also know you will not gain the knowledge, nor the insights that come only through the experience of actually being within a love relationship. Do you believe that is not true? *Epistemological Pluralism: This is an epistemological approach which utilizes multiple approaches to knowing and is distrustful of over-reliance on any one epistemological approach. From this position, it is believed that multiple approaches to knowing are needed to better approximate truth. (from here: http://www.postmodernpsychology.com/Postmodernism_Dictionary.html ) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
roadrunner Posted October 19, 2012 Share Posted October 19, 2012 That's a knowledge that only comes through direct experience, and what it opens to you in yourself can only come through that experience, and no other way. Right? I strongly disagree. I guess I can't explain why here. It's not worth the effort anyway for it's not an impasse that can be resolved with words. That's a fair discussion to have. I had mentioned in the other thread about clear and concise meanings, about Epistemological Pluralism*. That shows that there are, and it is necessary, to use multiple methodologies to penetrate understandings, not just a single set of tools, such as logical analysis. That is something I subscribe to in multiple areas of knowing, not just the mystical. Do you feel you can understand love, for instance, but studying it, or analyzing couples in love? I know you will gain some knowledge, but I also know you will not gain the knowledge, nor the insights that come only through the experience of actually being within a love relationship. Do you believe that is not true? *Epistemological Pluralism: This is an epistemological approach which utilizes multiple approaches to knowing and is distrustful of over-reliance on any one epistemological approach. From this position, it is believed that multiple approaches to knowing are needed to better approximate truth. (from here: http://www.postmoder...Dictionary.html ) I think it can it can be explained relatively quickly (i can elaborate later if you wish). The human mind is flawed and any "experience" contrary to logic is subject to scrutiny and rightfully so. This doesn't mean its not valid or there but it means that we can't claim them as fact without evidence especially when so many other "experiences" fall well within the confines of rational explanation and is not what the experiencers attribute them to. Ex. Prove to the guy on acid that there isn't a giant bear on the couch. You can wish to "experience" or see this bear he speaks or, but taking the acid may cause you to see a clown in the bathroom instead. My point is that the wide variety of "experience" further shows that these "experiences" are probably not of the same origin or "higher existence" that people attribute them to. Furthermore, the leaps necessary to attribute them to some "higher wisdom" are practically begging for Occam's Razor. Knowledge and information is not physical but it is contingent on the physical. Ex. I can remember a book but the words didn't make my head bigger. This is immaterial information I'm retaining but if I damage my brain I can't retrieve this information anymore. Furthermore, my information isnt the same as someone else's who read the book and when I die the information I had leaves when my brain ceases to function. The brain is a marvelous machine that struggles to make sense of what is perceives as reality. Maybe, I've heard James Randi and Michael Shermer one too many times, but I see people practically begging to make more of their existence than the physical, boring, reality they are stuck in to the point they claim alien abduction, NDE, higher knowledge, etc but we still have to debunk the idea that this isn't anything more than creativity in the imagination of the person experiencing it. Once you can marvel in the awesomeness of logic and reality I think the desire to reach beyond it goes away. BTW, Does anybody remember that neurosurgeon that spent six days in heaven 14 pages ago? 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mcdaddy Posted October 19, 2012 Share Posted October 19, 2012 A NEUROSURGEON SPENT SIX DAYS IN HEAVEN?????? HOW DID I NOT HEAR ABOUT THIS?? HEAVEN MUST BE REAL THEN!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts