Know Thyself?

Get Email Updates Email this Topic Print this Page

manfred
 
Reply Sat 17 Oct, 2009 07:38 am
@Subjectivity9,
Well i was blessed with a short term memory,and as far as the cat gos...wait,what was i talking about?
Be good friend.
 
Caroline
 
Reply Sat 17 Oct, 2009 07:44 am
@manfred,
manfred;98011 wrote:
I know Thyself very well and im not sure i like what i found,but i can promise you one thing,on my next go round i damn sure aint looking in the mirror that close again.

If you don't like the reflection then why dont you change it.
Thanks.
 
manfred
 
Reply Sat 17 Oct, 2009 08:17 am
@Caroline,
Caroline;98067 wrote:
If you don't like the reflection then why dont you change it.
Thanks.


Like i said,im not sure i like what i found,and i wont know for certain until im dead anyway.You cant change the nature of what is until you figure out exactly what the hell it is your trying to change...hence (im not sure)
 
Caroline
 
Reply Sat 17 Oct, 2009 08:35 am
@richrf,
I guess you need to reflect some more to find out what to change.
Thanks.
 
Subjectivity9
 
Reply Sun 18 Oct, 2009 09:12 am
@richrf,
Manfred,

Why would you know about your self after you are dead. Do you believe that is when we, all, get the punch line?

What if your nature IS change? Then your would be not be able to keep from changing, (AKA becoming.) Would you?

What if an agnostic is only fooling himself into believing that he has not taken a position, and consequently does not have to live with his position?

Most people don’t know where they are going in this life (AKA don’t really adequately know what needs changing) and yet at the same time continue to pursue progress. Why?

Because, they know they don’t like where they are, as in “I’m out of here.” Or even more colorful, “Color me gone!”

The mind requires change or quickly suffers from ‘stimulation deprivation.”

Put a man into a stimulation deprivation tank and soon he will begin to hallucinate.

S9
 
manfred
 
Reply Sun 18 Oct, 2009 09:52 am
@Subjectivity9,
I will only understand the consequences of my actions after im dead,that's why.Your right,i am agnostic,but what does that have to do with the position i was assigned in this life?Im no fool,i know there is more,but to claim i have the answer is not only arrogant,it's ridiculous.I understand your point about not wanting to deal with my own inner demons,but has it ever occurred to you that perhaps some demons are better off tormenting a single individual than everyone else around that individual?And to answer you question about why peoples such as myself still pursue progress,well it's very simple,we dont have the balls to eat a bullet.Religion is a coward's way out,an eternity of self loathing has to be earned,therefore honesty is the only true god left.An eternity of self loathing?A return to the source,but you knew that's what i meant,right?Thank you for taking interest in my thoughts S9.
 
Subjectivity9
 
Reply Sun 18 Oct, 2009 12:14 pm
@richrf,
Manfred,

M: I will only understand the consequences of my actions after I'm dead, that's why.

S9: How do you know that you will still be around to know anything?

M: Your right, I am agnostic, but what does that have to do with the position I was assigned in this life?

S9: A good deal of how things go in our life has to do with how we look at them. In my way of seeing it, agnosticism isn’t a truth so much as an attitude coloring everything in your life.

M: I’m no fool.

S9: No I don’t believe that you are.

M: I know there is more.

S9: I thought agnostics didn’t know anything? You sound like my father in law who believed in God just in case, or “First of all cover your ass.”


M: But to claim I have the answer is not only arrogant, it's ridiculous.

S9: Isn’t agnosticism the answer of no answer? But they don’t just not know, do they. They know that every one else is wrong. Isn’t that a kind of arrogance? I mean this in a good way. ; ^ )

M: I understand your point about not wanting to deal with my own inner demons, but has it ever occurred to you that perhaps some demons are better off tormenting a single individual than everyone else around that individual?

S9: Demons are not good enough to stay at home in their original container. They are more like Pandora’s box only wide open. People that are in a hurt, have a tendency to spread it around. Sometimes they don’t recognize it as it dresses up in blame.


M: To answer you question about why peoples such as myself still pursue progress, well it's very simple, we don’t have the balls to eat a bullet.

S9: Are you saying that agnosticism is a slow suicide?

M: Religion is a coward's way out, an eternity of self-loathing has to be earned.

S9: Aren’t you a little ray of sunshine? LOL

M: Honesty is the only true god left.

S9: Then by all means, lets be extremely honest with each other. Go ahead, I can take it.

M: An eternity of self-loathing?

S9: Only you and all of the existentialists out there.

M: A return to the source, but you knew that's what I meant, right?

S9: Actually no. Lay it on me.

M: Thank you for taking interest in my thoughts S.

S9: No thanks necessary. You interest me.

PS: I don’t believe there is any thinking man that hasn’t contemplated suicide. It is a great beginning for a mystic. I have a very good friend, who is a very advanced mystic. His starting point was right where you are, in self loathing. But, He didn’t get there by copping out. He got there through radical honesty with himself.

Transcendence is freedom form this much loathed small self (AKA ego.)

S9
 
manfred
 
Reply Sun 18 Oct, 2009 03:32 pm
@Subjectivity9,
S9: I thought agnostics didn't know anything? You sound like my father in law who believed in God just in case, or "First of all cover your ass"

Then i must not be agnostic.
I believe"it" exist,but i dont know what it is and neither does anyone else,including you.Agnostic,religious,spiritual or mystic...semantics,these words are of no concern to me because they only represent a concept that can neither be proven nor dis-proven.

You would like my demons,that's why im keeping to myself.
later
 
Subjectivity9
 
Reply Mon 19 Oct, 2009 08:31 am
@richrf,
Manfred,

It seems to me that, if you are dancing with demons, you can make one of two choices. You can either throw them off, or you can hug them to your bosom. Call me crazy, but I kind of like the throwing them off option.

I know that some psychologists (a popular notion) tell you that the only way to throw them, there, demons off, is to face them down, but, that is a lot of crap. Most of these demons are just made up thingies that are fed by your thinking about them. If you stop thinking about them, realize how false they really are, they begin to fade like any memory. (This is a discipline of mind taught by the Buddhists.)

Thinking about your demons and ruminating on how to get rid of them constantly only reifies them. (Or feeds them/reinforces that idea that they are real and they are strong. They ARE NOT!)

Just because you don’t know what the Ultimate Is, doesn’t confirm that no one else does. All things are not equal. I play a rotten game of tennis. But that does not mean, however that no one else can play tennis well. Can you say, “sore grapes?”

There was a mystic, Ram, called the Demon Slayer. This is not a new problem. Apparently someone besides me feels the mysticism is the right medicine for what ails you, my new friend.

M: You would like my demons.

S9: I had my own demon’s to conquer. We all do. I opened myself to help from a spiritual friend. (No, not a shrink.)

M: That's why I’m keeping to myself.

S9: My guess in that, you are not ready to give them up. But troubles (demons) don’t make you special. It makes you unhappy. So chose your stimulation wisely.

“Been there, done that.”

The trancendent mystic would tell you that, "If you knew Thyself, you would realize that you are not this dream (ego) being, Manford, running away from his demons, and that in fact you could "Wake Up" from this dream." (AKA small mind.)

Shall we dance? : ^ )
S9
 
manfred
 
Reply Mon 19 Oct, 2009 09:36 am
@Subjectivity9,
I couldn't in good conscious let these demons go,they would only move onto another person,and this is just unacceptable.Let me tell you why,it's not because i feel bad for the person they will eventually attach themselves to,it's a far more selfish reason,i would have to answer for intentionally allowing my problems to be solved through a means of "catch and release"so to speak.This will never happen while im still alive.I believe you underestimate my resolve S9,i never said i was unhappy and im far from special,but your comment about "just because i cant,doesn't mean someone else hasn't"...well that's abit mosaic,no?Do you honestly believe anyone that has,is or will walk the face of this earth have anymore insight into what's truely important about life than what common sense or instincts have already provided?Your wrong about the equality of an individual's problem,because once you remove all the trivial B.S floating around inside the minds of you,me and all (X)billion people, we are left with only one decision,yes or no.The question is irrelevant S9.
On a lighter note,i cant dance...shh,dont tell nobody.
 
TickTockMan
 
Reply Mon 19 Oct, 2009 11:42 am
@Subjectivity9,
Dasein;97992 wrote:
Tick Tock;

It doesn't matter "who I am", it only matters that you "get it" for you and that you keep moving forward.

You thinking/be-ing is the only one that matters in your quest. Whether you "get it" from Heraclitus, Parmenides, or the homeless man on the corner, you are the one thinking/be-ing and your "self" is the only one you have to answer to.

Dasein


So it doesn't matter what I believe, as long as I believe something? Is that what you're saying?

This seems a tad narcissistic, don't you think?


Subjectivity9;98059 wrote:
TT Man,

In speaking with a friend, who is more of an Academic Philosopher than myself, I was informed that my previous answer to you was not as correct as it could have been. He said, in fact, that my mysticism was closer to what is he calls, extreme Idealism.


Did your friend explain what extreme Idealism entails? Is he an Idealist?
 
Subjectivity9
 
Reply Mon 19 Oct, 2009 01:59 pm
@richrf,
TT Man,

TT: Did your friend explain what extreme Idealism entails? Is he an Idealist?

S9: Yes, he was. Now he is a very advanced mystic.

This going to sound a bit like Dasein. He said, Idealism entails pretty much what I thought on a mind level. I, too, am a mystic. LOL

Okay, I’ll stop being cute.

He said, the big difference was that one was earth bound, and the other one wasn’t. Guess which one.

Empiricism depends upon the senses to study an objective out-there. They rely upon their own findings or looking directly, by use of their senses, and do not try to prove a previous premise in concept land, per say.

With Idealism, however, there is no objective out-there. Everything is “Mind Only.” Their method is similar in using both attentiveness and investigation to their surroundings, and relying up on looking directly, also. This is where I got confused with the methods being so similar.

Empiricism is closer to Materialism. Idealism is closer to Mysticism.

Why the extreme you might ask? Oh, go ahead. ; ^ )

When an Idealist has studied the mind for some time, they come to see that mind is all smoke and mirrors. They also see that they are not the mind. They also see the ‘Thyself’ is outside of mind. With this understanding in their pocket, they might chance to step outside of mind all/together, become a mystic. This is where the real magic begins.

Funny thing, it is not what you had thought this Self would be, and yet at the same time it is very familiar. Yet It is so much more.

S9
 
TickTockMan
 
Reply Mon 19 Oct, 2009 03:43 pm
@Subjectivity9,
Subjectivity9;98558 wrote:
TT Man,

TT: Did your friend explain what extreme Idealism entails? Is he an Idealist?

S9: Yes, he was. Now he is a very advanced mystic.

This going to sound a bit like Dasein. He said, Idealism entails pretty much what I thought on a mind level. I, too, am a mystic. LOL

Okay, I'll stop being cute.

He said, the big difference was that one was earth bound, and the other one wasn't. Guess which one.

Empiricism depends upon the senses to study an objective out-there. They rely upon their own findings or looking directly, by use of their senses, and do not try to prove a previous premise in concept land, per say.

With Idealism, however, there is no objective out-there. Everything is "Mind Only." Their method is similar in using both attentiveness and investigation to their surroundings, and relying up on looking directly, also. This is where I got confused with the methods being so similar.

Empiricism is closer to Materialism. Idealism is closer to Mysticism.

Why the extreme you might ask? Oh, go ahead. ; ^ )

When an Idealist has studied the mind for some time, they come to see that mind is all smoke and mirrors. They also see that they are not the mind. They also see the 'Thyself' is outside of mind. With this understanding in their pocket, they might chance to step outside of mind all/together, become a mystic. This is where the real magic begins.

Funny thing, it is not what you had thought this Self would be, and yet at the same time it is very familiar. Yet It is so much more.

S9


Okay, I'm a bit confused here . . . .

If the Idealist studies the mind for some time, then comes to the conclusion that they are not the mind, and that the mind is, in fact, all smoke and mirrors, what is it that they thought they were using to study the mind with in the first place?

Further, it would seem to me that if the Empiricist and/or the Idealist are to accept their own interpretation of whatever it is they think they are viewing, they would have to deny the possiblity that their senses are not always reliable. If they do not deny the possibility that their senses are not reliable witnesses, then it seems to me they must by default agree that there is a likelihood that they are entirely mistaken in their beliefs and have, in effect, made up their minds to accept something for which there is no evidence beyond faith or the desire that it be true.

And when you say, "step outside of the mind", is this the same thing as saying that the advanced mystic is out of his mind?
 
Dasein
 
Reply Mon 19 Oct, 2009 03:59 pm
@TickTockMan,
Tick Tock;

Quote:
So it doesn't matter what I believe, as long as I believe something? Is that what you're saying?

This seems a tad narcissistic, don't you think?


I never said or used the word "believe." You are perverting what I did say into something that fits your agenda. I assumed you were having a legitimate inquiry. I cannot and will not try to make what I'm saying fit into your thinking. Obviously you can't make it fit either. We are at an impass.

I wish you all the best.

Dasein
 
TickTockMan
 
Reply Mon 19 Oct, 2009 04:19 pm
@Dasein,
Dasein;98595 wrote:
Tick Tock;



I never said or used the word "believe." You are perverting what I did say into something that fits your agenda. I assumed you were having a legitimate inquiry. I cannot and will not try to make what I'm saying fit into your thinking. Obviously you can't make it fit either. We are at an impass.

I wish you all the best.

Dasein


You said that I need to "get it." How is this different that saying I need to believe? By referring to contradictory (at least to one another) thinkers such as Hericlitus (things change) and Parmenides (things don't change) and the homeless man (a potential smorgasbord of beliefs) on the corner, the only conclusion I could infer is that whatever I choose to "get" is irrelevant as long as it is relevant to my "self" and my "self" alone, which seems a very self-centered way of looking at things.

However, I agree that we are at an impasse.

I wish you well in your journey also.
 
Subjectivity9
 
Reply Mon 19 Oct, 2009 06:26 pm
@richrf,
TT Man,

TT: If the Idealist studies the mind for some time, then comes to the conclusion that they are not the mind, and that the mind is, in fact, all smoke and mirrors, what is it that they thought they were using to study the mind with in the first place?

S9: The mind is a very capable instrument. When it studies itself, and gets the lay of the land, and it can actually come to realize that it is just a tool. (Not in the drivers seat) This is because of its capacity for self-reflection. Mind can “NOT’ itself.

The mind is made up of a bundle of thoughts, which come and go constantly. If you watch these thoughts come out of nothing and fade back into nothing, (people usually see this during meditation), than you start to wonder what supports this display, or dream. This next step calls for some subtle investigation. This ability grows with practice, like any skill.

TT: Further, it would seem to me that if the Empiricist and/or the Idealist are to accept their own interpretation of whatever it is they think they are viewing, they would have to deny the possibility that their senses are not always reliable.

S9: Oh no, I didn’t say that your senses weren’t reliable. They too are excellent instruments. But your senses, much like your thoughts, come and go constantly, also proving themselves to be temporary or impermanent.

TT: If they do not deny the possibility that their senses are not reliable witnesses, then it seems to me they must by default agree that there is a likelihood that they are entirely mistaken in their beliefs and have, in effect, made up their minds to accept something for which there is no evidence beyond faith or the desire that it be true.

S9: This would be a mistaken notion, which could only come out of your lack of persistence, when studying these servants of the mind in some real depth.

TT: When you say, "step outside of the mind", is this the same thing as saying that the advanced mystic is out of his mind?

S9: Perhaps not really ‘out of his mind’, so much as no longer identifying his self as being the mind.

Mind is on automatic pilot, just like your nightly dreams. When you wake up, the dream no longer uses you like a hand puppet.

I know this is difficult to adjust to, esp. at first. Mind is almost in a state of hypnosis, or is under the suggestion that we are the mind. Mind sees your lack of identity with it as a kind of death.

S9

---------- Post added 10-19-2009 at 08:47 PM ----------

Manfred,

M: I couldn't in good conscious let these demons go, they would only move onto another person, and this is just unacceptable.

S9: Where did you ever get such an idea? You are not speaking of demons as metaphor are you?

M: Let me tell you why, it’s not because I feel bad for the person they will eventually attach themselves to, it’s a far more selfish reason, I would have to answer for intentionally allowing my problems to be solved through a means of "catch and release” so to speak. This will never happen while I'm still alive.

S9: Are you into Satanism?

M: I believe you underestimate my resolve S9.

S9: No, I think you got a real trip going here. Perhaps it gives your life meaning.

M: I never said I was unhappy and I’m far from special, but your comment about "just because I cant, doesn’t mean someone else hasn't"...well that's abet mosaic, no?

S9: No, I think you base what can and can’t be done on your own abilities.


M: Do you honestly believe anyone that has, is or will walk the face of this earth have anymore insight into what's truly important about life than what common sense or instincts have already provided?

S9: Yes, I Do. Instincts are a development that aids survival only. I believe that we are capable of far more than this. Just the fact that someone can write a novel proves this.


M: Your wrong about the equality of an individual's problem, because once you remove all the trivial B.S floating around inside the minds of you, me and all (X) billion people, we are left with only one decision, yes or no.

S9: I think that is only true, if you were merely a physical being. You would look around and wonder if it was worth all of the trouble.

M: The question is irrelevant S9.

S9: Which question, suicide? If it is the only question, how could it also be irrelevant?

Actually, I am a hard determinist, and believe that unless it is fated, suicide isn’t possible.

S9
 
kennethamy
 
Reply Mon 19 Oct, 2009 07:13 pm
@Subjectivity9,
Subjectivity9;98639 wrote:

S9: Which question, suicide? If it is the only question, how could it also be irrelevant?

Actually, I am a hard determinist, and believe that unless it is fated, suicide isn't possible.

S9


If I am fated to commit suicide, then that means that it isn't up to me whether or not I will commit suicide. But that isn't true. Right now, it is up to me whether I will commit suicide, and I choose not to do so. So, my suicide is possible, but it will not happen, because I will not choose to commit suicide.
 
manfred
 
Reply Mon 19 Oct, 2009 07:28 pm
@kennethamy,
S9,You obviously dont pay attention to what i write,if you did you wouldn't have asked me if i was into satanism,and yes,i was speaking in metaphors.This is one of my "demons" or problems if you will,people dont LISTEN TO WHAT I SAY,because everyone is right and no ones wrong.Now if you would have set down that gigantic intellect of yours,you would see that suicide was never mentioned in this particular post.

M: Your wrong about the equality of an individuals problem, because once you remove all the trivial B.S floating around inside the minds of you, me and all (X) billion people, we are left with only one decision, yes or no

yes or no is the answer to everything,hence:M: The question is irrelevant S9.
Funny,i thought i found someone interested in something other than themselves.Was that my ego or yours just now:tounge:
 
Arjuna
 
Reply Mon 19 Oct, 2009 07:37 pm
@kennethamy,
kennethamy;98654 wrote:
If I am fated to commit suicide, then that means that it isn't up to me whether or not I will commit suicide. But that isn't true. Right now, it is up to me whether I will commit suicide, and I choose not to do so. So, my suicide is possible, but it will not happen, because I will not choose to commit suicide.


Isn't that last sentence contradictory? If you will never choose to do something, how can your doing it still be possible?
 
kennethamy
 
Reply Mon 19 Oct, 2009 07:46 pm
@Arjuna,
Arjuna;98665 wrote:
Isn't that last sentence contradictory? If you will never choose to do something, how can your doing it still be possible?



Evan if I never choose to eat butterscotch ice-cream, why would it not still be possible for me to eat butterscotch ice-cream. After all, butterscotch ice-cream is available to me, and no one is preventing me from eating butterscotch ice-cream. In fact, I can choose to eat butterscotch ice-cream only if it is possible for me to eat butterscotch ice-cream. What would be the point of choosing to do anything unless it was possible for me to do it?
 
 

 
Copyright © 2021 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.02 seconds on 10/17/2021 at 10:41:50