On Aug 22, 9:01 pm, Executive Function
hotmail.com> wrote:> On 22 Aug, 15:17, Erwin Hessle
erwinhessle.com> wrote:>> On Aug 21, 12:32 pm, Executive Function
>>> I lose time sense and the ability to process thoughts when I have
>>> overload, so most of my experience of 'living in the now' comes from
>>> that. I don't know anyone who has cultivated thier awareness through
>>> practise to such an extent that they never forget thier thoughts are
>>> simply representations of the world.
>
>> Well, now you do.
>
> That's quite a claim.
Take it or leave it, makes no difference to me.
>>> I suspect that such practises
>>> become part of an internal narrative over time, becoming part of the
>>> delusion that they're 'getting somewhere', and actually I wonder what
>>> the fuss is about?
>
>> This is possibly the largest part of your problem - you merely
>> "suspect", but you try to convince yourself that you *know*. This is
>> why you talk about someone "who has cultivated thier awareness through
>> practise to such an extent that they never forget thier thoughts are
>> simply representations of the world" as if it's some kind of weird and
>> lofty attainment, and try to project this incessant "internal
>> narrative" that you suffer from onto other people.
>
> That's an observation culled from buddhist talks, both Zen and
> Theravadan.
I don't give a rat's ass what you heard in some talk somewhere. If you
want to converse meaningfully with me, then tell me what you think,
not what some other twat thought once. Don't start getting into this
"I didn't really mean it, I was just quoting others" nonsense. If you
want to make an observation, make one of your own. You're never going
to impress me in a million years, so there's no point telling me
something you think I might find cool. Say something useful instead by
taking it out of your own mind.
> This is a guy who has spent his life in 'practise'
You can't blame me for someone else practising the wrong things. It's
not as if I don't tell people not to do that frequently enough.
>> Being aware of - on a day-to-day basis - the unreality of your
>> thoughts is like learning that Santa Claus doesn't exist, or the tooth
>> fairy. Once the illusion has been completely dissipated, then it's
>> gone, permanently. Once you stop believing in the tooth fairy, you
>> don't need some kind of permanent effort or "internal narrative" to
>> prevent yourself from falling back into such a belief; it just never
>> occurs to you to believe in that silliness anymore.
>
> I have to say that Bassos has a point regarding 'habit' in this
> regard. I'm not sure that you fully understand how much people get
> caught up in habitual thinking cycles, even when they know they are
> inappropriate and silly.
It's not that I don't understand - I just don't care. What I've just
told you is true, and it remains true however many "habitual thinking
cycles" any number of people might get caught up in. Either stick to
the point or develop it, don't go off on wild tangents.
> Just remember that there are 'real' people
> responding to you when you're off on a crusade? :)
Yes - real people who need things beaten into them, not real people
who need to be told how "valid" they are all the time.
>> If you are in that category, then you need to pay attention and
>> realise how much crap you talk, instead of trying to defend your
>> silliness all the time.
>
> I'm not playing chess.
Not in this post, maybe.
None of what I say is accidental, you know.
>>> It's certainly helpful to recall that reality is not the imaginary
>>> construct our brains have concocted - periodically and when we can,
>>> but if we cannot hold onto that perception given the linear nature of
>>> the conscious rational mind, and that's just the reality, then surely
>>> it is of more consequence what you actually do to capitalise on the
>>> perception when it comes around?
>
>> See? There you go with those suspicions of yours again. You can't
>> sensibly sit around and pontificate upon what is "surely...of more
>> consequence" until you understand what you're talking about.
>
>> Let me put it to you again simply. If you believe in the reality of
>> the thought world, then what you "perceive" is *imaginary*.
>
> Let me put this to you - there is no need to preface the thought world
> with the catagory of imaginary.
It doesn't matter whether or not there is a "need" - I don't describe
it as "imaginary" because I need to, but because it *is*. It consists
of imagination. When I'm trying to convey the point that the thought
world is an imaginary world, I find it useful to employ the term
"imaginary". Call me old-fashioned for that, if you like.
> It has it's own criteria of
> existance,
Yes, the imagination exists - this is not being disputed here.
> and can be either useful or useless depending on how we use
> the tool.
Again, enough with the tangents. The point at hand is descriptive
accuracy, not "usefulness". It is only useful to mistake fantasy for
reality in a limited subset of cases - namely the ones in which it
conveys an evolutionary advantage, which is why people do it. See
http://www.erwinhessle.com/blog/?p=112 for more on this.
If you are referring to this ridiculous notion that "adopting beliefs"
at will or deliberately succumbing to "self suggestion" is useful,
then I'm afraid you're mistaken. What people mistakenly believe to be
"the power of self suggestion" actually turns out to be the power of
ceasing to suggest to yourself what you normally do, or of temporarily
blocking that stuff out by making even more noise. It's better not to
cut yourself in the first place than to keep patching yourself up with
sticking plasters.
> Did you forget what Crowley exemplified best? The best lessons in
> life are those learned on the most visceral levels, and sometimes that
> means getting your feet wet.
This sounds nice and fluffy, but a good lesson learned badly is not
much better than a poor lesson not learned at all. Anyone who really
wants to benefit from this type of lesson has to sort their brain out
sooner or later. I'm sure it was a "visceral" lesson that taught Paul
that his God really spoke to him, and look how that turned out.
> It just said 'Perhaps you should simply
> advise me to "be more practical woman!". :)
Except that isn't what I'm saying. I say what I do in the way that I
say it because that's the best way of communicating it. It's generally
helpful to not speculate about what else I might mean.
This was better than before, but you're just hiding in this post. That
won't be of much more help to you, either, but little steps are better
than none.
Erwin Hessle, 8=3
