We are not always thinking

Discussion of the nature of Ultimate Reality and the path to Enlightenment.
Pye
Posts: 1065
Joined: Tue Jan 17, 2006 1:45 pm

Re: We are not always thinking

Post by Pye »

Pye wrote: There is a qualitative difference between feeling emotion and being emotional, just as there is a palpable gap between the rational and rationalization.
Now there's a moment to elaborate . . . .

Take a less-fanged word morph like commercial ------> to commercialize.

In the first, we have named thing or quality, neutral in that sense; and in the second, we have the thing or quality turned back upon itself as its own raison d'etre; its own activity; for its own sake. The noun-like descriptive quality of 'commercial' becomes a verb-like self-circular activity; its own justification. At least that's how I see the linguistic pathology here.

The same thing happens when you move from rational -------> to rationalize. The descriptive nature has become self-prescriptive, and in this sense, closed off to any further dynamic but itself.

And of course, from emotion to emotionalize . . . .

That gap, or rather, that pathology, that dynamic taking place between the thing, and the self-justified thing, I like to call clinging . . . . in the brightest of buddha-sense, if you like.
Pye
Posts: 1065
Joined: Tue Jan 17, 2006 1:45 pm

Re: We are not always thinking

Post by Pye »

Thinking and feeling are the verbs, the movement of ourselves, of existence, and thoughts or feelings are not 'things' in this sense (much less, entirely separable), but points along this moving scale, the music of the spheres.

Cleaving unto the thoughts and feelings themselves renders us with the false-sense of having stopped along the way; having secured some sense of Being i.e. completion or substantiation, as opposed to the eternal becoming-ness of all existence.

Seeing thoughts and feelings as the scale of being in relation to one another can bring them closer to the thing that they are. We cannot measure the authenticity of any thought without its also making sense; and we cannot make sense of our feeling lives without understanding relationship to its reasons (causes).

Surely one time or another, one has experienced the bright burst of joy, the deep sense of peace from their greatest understanding; surely one's own 'vegetable joy' is often bourne in upon us on the wings of a perfect thought . . . .
Pam Seeback
Posts: 2619
Joined: Mon Oct 08, 2007 10:40 pm

Re: We are not always thinking

Post by Pam Seeback »

To me the reasoning mind has also its currents, sea monsters, eddies and bioluminescence. Not just the repetitive waves: that's shallow consciousness to me. And yes, I do realize I'm extending "reason" to what many do not consider reasoning. But I think they should try and understand there's intelligence there ready to roll if the coast is clear.
An interesting nondual view of reasoning. What immediately comes to mind is union of logos (rationality) and eros (life energy).
Dennis Mahar
Posts: 4082
Joined: Thu Jul 29, 2010 9:03 pm

Re: We are not always thinking

Post by Dennis Mahar »

Is what you are getting at here,

thought/feeling as what is given, present at hand, possibility.

Ready to hand or taken up.

flying a kite theoretical before flying a kite practical.
.
Coming at 'shovelling snow' is a possibility of 'nuisance or chore'.
Coming at 'shovelling snow' is a possibility of wonderfulness.

Meaningmaker
Dennis Mahar
Posts: 4082
Joined: Thu Jul 29, 2010 9:03 pm

Re: We are not always thinking

Post by Dennis Mahar »

When Nietzsche first visioned eternal recurrence he felt perped, victimised and sought a rescuer. He was aghast, horrified.
Dwelling on it he realised a possibility.
I make it mean what it means.
the ethic meaningmaker called up as distinction.
Pam Seeback
Posts: 2619
Joined: Mon Oct 08, 2007 10:40 pm

Re: We are not always thinking

Post by Pam Seeback »

Pye: Surely one time or another, one has experienced the bright burst of joy, the deep sense of peace from their greatest understanding; surely one's own 'vegetable joy' is often bourne in upon us on the wings of a perfect thought . . . .
Indeed, are we not the product of our own desire to understand who and what we are? Is it not when our tuning fork of naked receptivity is hit with just the right hammer and weight of word and feeling that we are given, in that moment, our most perfect resonance of Self knowing?

When one first begins their travels on the road to "reasoning the things of God", it is necessary to leave emotion behind. For so long she was the albatross of ego, crying for all to hear "love me, hate me, accept me, reject me!" But emotion, being the very energy stuff of consciousness, will not stand to be laid aside indefinitely. In some unplanned moment when reasoning declares "this is what I am, not what I do", emotion rises up and gives herself to wisdom; henceforth, as one they are moved, as one they speak, as one they are known. What (the nondual) God has joined, let no man tear asunder.

So says Pam's meaning maker. Thanks Pye for the lift. :-)
Pam Seeback
Posts: 2619
Joined: Mon Oct 08, 2007 10:40 pm

Re: We are not always thinking

Post by Pam Seeback »

Dennis Mahar wrote:When Nietzsche first visioned eternal recurrence he felt perped, victimised and sought a rescuer. He was aghast, horrified.
Dwelling on it he realised a possibility.
I make it mean what it means.
the ethic meaningmaker called up as distinction.
Why not an unethical meaningmaker?
Dennis Mahar
Posts: 4082
Joined: Thu Jul 29, 2010 9:03 pm

Re: We are not always thinking

Post by Dennis Mahar »

Ignorance is suffering (not-bliss).
Dennis Mahar
Posts: 4082
Joined: Thu Jul 29, 2010 9:03 pm

Re: We are not always thinking

Post by Dennis Mahar »

This name and form you advertise (GOD) is merely imputed.
a conventional designation.
knock yourself out.
Dennis Mahar
Posts: 4082
Joined: Thu Jul 29, 2010 9:03 pm

Re: We are not always thinking

Post by Dennis Mahar »

Pye was trying to convey perfect wisdom earlier Pam.

a thing is said to exist if it has a logical coherent structure in language
it may well exist
but the evidence is clear that its not existing independent of languaging.
Pye
Posts: 1065
Joined: Tue Jan 17, 2006 1:45 pm

Re: We are not always thinking

Post by Pye »

movingalways writes: Is it not when our tuning fork of naked receptivity is hit with just the right hammer and weight of word and feeling that we are given, in that moment, our most perfect resonance of Self knowing?
hah! :) Your italicized phrase is precisely what I came back to make sure I had sufficiently implied about the 'wings' of a perfect thought . . . .
Dennis writes (of movingalways/above): This name and form you advertise (GOD) is merely imputed.
I don't have a problem with Pam's language of God; she's taught us how she means/uses it, and I've been listening, and for any of us to understand any other of us, we all have to think multi-lingually.
Dennis Mahar
Posts: 4082
Joined: Thu Jul 29, 2010 9:03 pm

Re: We are not always thinking

Post by Dennis Mahar »

Conventional designation only in any shape or form or colouring.
empty.
Pam Seeback
Posts: 2619
Joined: Mon Oct 08, 2007 10:40 pm

Re: We are not always thinking

Post by Pam Seeback »

A thought that came to me just a few moments ago is that the language of reasoning is the language of identity, the language of Self. I can tell you I am a mother but that is a dead wood, a nothingness thought. Now, if you ask me why I had children, or why did I have two children and not ten children and I choose to answer you, all of a sudden, I come alive, I am reasoning (languaging) Pam-as-a-mother into reality. And, included in that reasoning-reality, and perhaps Diebert this is what you were getting at with your capstone-pyramid-image, is everything contained in consciousness that supports that particular revelatory moment of Pam-as-mother: feelings, memories, projections, etc. A revelatory moment of unseen causes and conditions that of course can never be duplicated, this is the wonder and glory of the language of reasoning: no two are alike.

What I posit from the above is that the language of reasoning has nothing to do with truth and everything to do with what is being made real. In other words, when you give me your reasons, you are giving me your reality. It could be said that a conversation between two reasoning minds enlightened as to the true nature of reasoning is having fantabulous mental sex and that every reason given is a beloved child born of perfect love.
Dennis Mahar
Posts: 4082
Joined: Thu Jul 29, 2010 9:03 pm

Re: We are not always thinking

Post by Dennis Mahar »

Ponzi scheme?
User avatar
Cahoot
Posts: 1573
Joined: Wed Apr 22, 2009 12:02 am

Re: We are not always thinking

Post by Cahoot »

There is only one reality.

Memories are changing constructs.

Memories of intent are interpretations relative to the one reality, and reasoning applied to memory provides the interpretation, which affects cognition of the present.
Pye
Posts: 1065
Joined: Tue Jan 17, 2006 1:45 pm

Re: We are not always thinking

Post by Pye »

Dennis writes (re: GOD): Conventional designation only in any shape or form or colouring.
But that's just it - "conventional" is the problem. Denotes static meaning. Goodness, how could any of us have read any Heidegger if we did not let him define his terms as he went along, and we did not accept them as we follow.
Dennis:
Coming at 'shovelling snow' is a possibility of 'nuisance or chore'.
Coming at 'shovelling snow' is a possibility of wonderfulness.
well, snow shoveling isn't always whee!-making for me, but yes, the possibility (and fruition) was/is there.

I see from another poem on another thread that the buddha was full of wonderful whee!-joy in this task. Wish I could say I dug it every time as much as the buddha would-have, but it is always dependent upon conditions, yes? - myself included in those.
Dennis Mahar
Posts: 4082
Joined: Thu Jul 29, 2010 9:03 pm

Re: We are not always thinking

Post by Dennis Mahar »

Spirit is always/already prior to meaningmaker.

this imputing mind we share that generates environment, body. Pleasures, activities has to be grokked as machinery.
Pam's right about the possibility for conversation to generate well-being.

'Being there' contextually
In order to?
For the ultimate sake of?

What gives?
Pam Seeback
Posts: 2619
Joined: Mon Oct 08, 2007 10:40 pm

Re: We are not always thinking

Post by Pam Seeback »

Dennis Mahar wrote:Spirit is always/already prior to meaningmaker.

this imputing mind we share that generates environment, body. Pleasures, activities has to be grokked as machinery.
Pam's right about the possibility for conversation to generate well-being.

'Being there' contextually
In order to?
For the ultimate sake of?

What gives?
It would seem that Spirit is hard-wired for contrast. No contrast, no consciousness, no meaning-maker. Even when it sees through its own ignorance of belief that contrast is external to itself (and oh what a bounty of contrast doth ignorance make!) it cannot stop making contrast. For this reason, the Masculine never stops being conscious of the Feminine whether it has the balls to acknowledge it or not. Of course, the reverse applies as well.

Contrast R Us :-)
Dennis Mahar
Posts: 4082
Joined: Thu Jul 29, 2010 9:03 pm

Re: We are not always thinking

Post by Dennis Mahar »

That stuff you chucked out is conceptualising mind.
it goes to sleep and world disappears.
dreaming mind appears, another conceptualising mind.
it goes to sleep and that world disappears.
void or nonceptual mind enters where the healing or purification takes place.
that wakes up and world is remembered as roles and practices.

Often, you'll wake fresh with insight experiencing bliss and you'll language it and lose it to concept.
Pam Seeback
Posts: 2619
Joined: Mon Oct 08, 2007 10:40 pm

Re: We are not always thinking

Post by Pam Seeback »

Dennis, I cannot tell if you are acknowledging contrast or not. If you had not seen with your eyes of sense my words on the screen, contrast, you would not have been able to respond to me.
Dennis Mahar
Posts: 4082
Joined: Thu Jul 29, 2010 9:03 pm

Re: We are not always thinking

Post by Dennis Mahar »

Emptiness is a nonconceptual understanding.

You'll 'see'
Every move you make

Self protection/other protection.
survival options
desire to be do have
care care care
Dennis Mahar
Posts: 4082
Joined: Thu Jul 29, 2010 9:03 pm

Re: We are not always thinking

Post by Dennis Mahar »

I would just like to say,
You'd been mulling over concepts.
went to sleep
entered void where it untangles and purifies
woke up with fresh insight/bliss.
Can you keep on generating bliss from it and be your comportment in the world.
Pam Seeback
Posts: 2619
Joined: Mon Oct 08, 2007 10:40 pm

Re: We are not always thinking

Post by Pam Seeback »

Bliss as bhakti or divine love? Realization of union with all things?
Pam Seeback
Posts: 2619
Joined: Mon Oct 08, 2007 10:40 pm

Re: We are not always thinking

Post by Pam Seeback »

Which is inseparable from jnana, wisdom of emptiness?

Can we say that enlightenment is both things? Bhakti and jnana, divine love in concert with divine knowledge?
Dennis Mahar
Posts: 4082
Joined: Thu Jul 29, 2010 9:03 pm

Re: We are not always thinking

Post by Dennis Mahar »

Those concepts point to it.
the experience of it is not the concept.
don't tell anyone you experience pure mind from time to time.
they'll rip your guts out and you'll get on a treadmill of justifiers
carry the wisdom in your bearing or how you comport yourself..
normally, our I is imputed on body/mind
that is refuted as empty
bliss/emptiness is now the base of imputation for enlightened being.
Locked