Re: Interesting conversations (Was: Re: 5 spiritual ingredients)


"Nuala" <nuala-news@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:4db090b34bnuala-news@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> In article <_DgXe.61255$SL.923694@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>,
> Phoenix <Dong@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>> "Nuala" <nuala-news@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
<snip>
>> <smile>.. it's not unusual to have an extension clause..
>
> <chuckles>
>
> You don't believe a Trickster God would keep His word?

I don't personally believe in gods, in the generally accepted meaning of
that term.
However, such a God would be likely to keep their word to a believer.
The question that arises is... 'would the believer *fully understand the
meaning, or intent, behind that word?'.. :-)

> <twinkly grin>

(O)~~~~~~~~^,
''''''''''''''''''''''''

<snip>
>> Think about demands, responsibilities and disadvantages that can
>> result
>> from choice(s).
>
> Ah. I believe I've confirmed why you're not hearing me.
>
> I'm saying that in that fleeting moment that is the present, we would
> need
> Divine Power to see all possible choices, losses, sacrifices, gains,
> you
> name it. And therefore, being human, we cannot.

We're pretty much agreed on that.. as I said below [*1*], present is of
such a fleeting nature that it's not possible to make a choice within
its bounds, with the possible exception of a reflex action.
Future is the place where choices are of necessity made.
Past is the place where the results of individual choices may be
examined and brought to bear on future decisions.

> There is always a cost after the fact, but it isn't possible to see
> that cost.

I'd disagree.. it's not difficult to see the cost after the fact.
However, I think you were referring to it being impossible to see the
cost at the time a choice is made. If that's the case I'd partially
agree. When considering potential choices their anticipated cost is a
key factor in the choice that's finally made. Anticipated cost can only
be 'best guess', as it's not yet reached the reality of present, but
it's frequently a fairly accurate 'best guess'.

> So there's an extent to which it's not worth the worry.

True and I worry little. I'm not sure, but I think this line of
discussion originated in my saying that I paid most attention to
beginnings and consideration of associated future choices?

>> >> Choice implies decision at fork in road.
>
>> > How do you have time to make everything a conscious choice? This is
>> > what I was trying, and failing I think, to ask janet. There are so
>> > many tiny points along the path where one might go this way or
>> > another. I appreciate that not everyone sees them all[1], but,
>> > well,
>> > some people see more than others. That's just how life is.
>
>> > I think I'm inelegantly trying to ask: what value do you put on
>> > each
>> > passing second of your life? What would cause anyone to want to
>> > spend
>> > any more time than is strictly[2] necessary thinking about the
>> > future
>> > when they are missing their present?
>
>> Think about the fleeting nature of 'present'.
>> It is only *the* 'present' for less than milliseconds at a time.
>
> Ah. The present is where I am required to work professionally, plus it
> makes much sense spiritually to see/feel the line between past,
> present
> and future, and yes, I'm talking subjectively here. This is a skill
> which
> can be developed: I can now almost always see when someone has left
> the
> present and is thinking. They are distracted, and anything I say will
> slip
> into their subconsciousness much more easily. Professionally, I make
> constant invitations to live in the present. That way, all sensations
> may
> be tied up together with what is *actually* happening, not what has
> happened or what might happen. I am calling this 'mindfulness in the
> void', for want of a better term. It is a very particular state of
> being.

Are you sure about the viability of living and working in the 'present'?
You said:
"I'm saying that in that fleeting moment that is the present, we would
need
Divine Power to see all possible choices, losses, sacrifices, gains, you
name it. And therefore, being human, we cannot. "

What I'm suggesting is that, like myself, you live and work in the
future, where memory of past 'presents', (together with the choices that
created them), are utilized in reaching those future choices that will
eventually register on the nanosecond which we're calling 'present'.
Spirituality, I consider to operate on a different level from day-to-day
living.

>> [*1*] That which surrounds this tiny module is past and potential
>> futures.
>> I'm suggesting that we rarely experience 'present'; other than memory
>> of
>> past 'present' and anticipation of future 'presents'.
>
> I spend my life helping people to do just this. I'm not sure yet why
> you'd
> choose otherwise.

Perhaps you could clarify what it is that you believe "choose otherwise"
is referring to in my case? I'm wondering if we're chasing shadows here.

> I usually find that doing otherwise tends to make folk
> rather easier to entrance than they might otherwise be. Thinking, for
> example, takes us out of the present by up to half a second, and I can
> be
> doing all sorts of stuff to someone's head in that time.

I'd suggest that forward thinking can take us out of present by much
more than half a second... likewise with thoughts of the past..

> Are there occasions where you would choose to slow time, like I was
> mentioning to Jymn? Or speed it up?

Yes, but I'd consider differing speeds of time more closely related to
which segment of reality I'd chosen to occupy, rather than a decision
specifically related to time itself.

> I can see that our paths are similar but not (well, obviously :)
> identical,

I've observed that a measure of similiarity is quite common in our type
of path... I suspect that identical doesn't exist, in the true sense of
the word.

> and there is an interesting and consistent difference in how we
> describe the world. I suspect that this hinders conversation because
> of
> how we're each choosing to use language,

Agreed.. You seemingly pay more attention to specific words than
myself. For example 'should', (which I think you look on as a form of
binding word), is no more important than any other word to myself. It
takes much more than a single written word, or words, to bind, imo..
Also, I tend to think in a pictorial manner... maybe that's part of the
difference..

> and I also suspect that this
> wouldn't be much of a handicap if this was an enjoyable chat in a pub
> somewhere.

I think so too.. the written word is ever prone to be misleading? :-)

> (I've been musing this afternoon on relationships, power and hidden
> languages.)

[2]

> [snip]
>> > Existentialism suggests that all fears are fear of death. I like
>> > existentialism. I respect it.
>
>> I don't believe that, but respect your right to do so.. :-)
>
> I said I respected the viewpoint. I didn't say I necessarily agreed.

OK...

> [snip]
>> > Whose choice is it if sometimes I wear the mask that others give
>> > me?
>> > What would cause me to want to do so? (Or what cause would want me
>> > to
>> > do so?) What if the mask just looked interesting, or there was some
>> > other reason like, 'it amused me to do so' or 'because I could'?
>
>> > Whose mistaken perception is it? Whose mask?
>
>> Whose? I suspect responsibility rests with both sides of that
>> equation..
>
> It remains my choice to wear the mask.

Not necessarily.. there are times when you will be attributed a mask by
others. That mask wont necessarily be one of your choice, it probably
wont reflect reality, but it will be there nevertheless.

> The mistaken perception of the
> other could be that I am actually what I appear to be, but since I
> cannot
> *know* this for sure, there's not much point my trying. What I *can*
> know,
> well or well enough, is what caused me to wear the proffered mask.

In the whirling miasma of self created realities, does anything appear
as it really is? :-)

> So there is a part of the universe that I can come to understand
> intimately, and that allows me to see the pattern in the rest of the
> universe.

[2]

<snip>
>> > But really, either are slippy things; if you want to get attached
>> > to
>> > them, you do so at your own peril.
>
>> Attached?
>
> Seeing the truth as real and reality as the truth. Attaching meaning
> rather than observing. That kind of thing.

hmmm.. truth and reality are variables that depend, to some extent, on
where you're standing at the time.. point taken. :-)

<snip>
>> Reality is that fleeting 'present'... part of my concerns with future
>> are not wishing to fall behind where reality, ('present'), is
>> concerned.
>> :-)
>
> Does that not lead to your anticipating futures that may never exist?

If it can be imagined, or anticipated, then it exists. The fact that I
may never visit that particular reality doesn't deny it existence.

<snip>
>> 'crow magic'?
>
> I have a half finished thread sitting here. Don't be holding your
> breath
> now. <g>

Awight.. :-) [2]

>> <snip>
>> Sorry dear, but that was actually a reference to my "Yes".
>
> 'Yes' was the kind thought?
>
> How's that work, then?

It indicated my acceptance of your "kind of nice" comment at face value.
:-)

>> Not that I'd want to infer that you aren't a 'kind' person.. :-)
>
> When I am good, I am very, very good...?

N'yerse.. :-)

<snip>
>> On that basis, I'll comment that I don't personally find you 'scary'.
>
> I didn't imagine that you would.
>
> I'm making an observation about labels that others regularly use to
> describe me. I find this to be, um, fascinating, considering that I'm
> five
> foot and a whisker tall and about 119 pounds soaking wet. The thing
> is,
> professionally I'm required to see through their eyes, and if I'm to
> do
> this accurately, I have to see myself as frightening.
>
> To do otherwise would be to deny a client's reality, and quite enough
> people will already have done that to some extent or other. So I've
> decided that I like mirrors more than I like labels, especially the
> through the looking glass kind.

"client's reality".. hmmm.. I see your point.

> (Since, obviously, I'm getting much nearer
> to my *spiritual* practice, and that's an interesting line to walk,
> let me
> tell you.)

"let me tell you.".. OK. :-) [2]

> There are similarities and differences between how you and I see the
> world
> and the longer we 'talk', the closer we are to seeing through the
> other's
> eyes, and that means we'll have reached the point at which we can have
> a
> whole different level of conversation.

Agreed.... [2]

<snip>
>> I'd agree that they're pretty worthless, other than perhaps saving a
>> great many descriptive words at times.
>
> For what reason would you choose to describe yourself?

Self description provides a whole range of useful masks. These may be
used, or not, according to who one is talking to, etc.

> I have to say that I don't usually bother, as some of my friends have
> started to notice. <wicked chuckle>

I rarely bother myself.. hence the usefulness of a convenient label when
asked.
How others see me is of little real value, in general terms, unless some
form of interaction is to occur.

<snip>
>> Chaos is an essential factor in change.. bit like scenary changes
>> between performances.
>
> <muses>
> Change, chaos, loss and death; of self or of physical shell...
>
> I have to say that I've grown accustomed to the chaos. <g>

It makes sense to do so. Chaos, is seemingly here to stay. :-)

<snip>
>> hmmm... very bitty.. perhaps trying to go in too many directions at
>> once.
>
> I love conversations like that though.

Ditto... but... [2]

> And I was meaning that I was near the point where I wouldn't continue
> with
> this section of the conversation on Usenet.
<snip>
>> Maybe we should move towards its conclusion?
>
> For what reason 'should' we do any such thing?

Haha!.. a word pounce.. please note it was softened by "Maybe".. :-)
See also [2]

<snip>
>> No problem.. I've little interest in controlling minds... other than
>> my
>> own that is. :-)
>
> I am greatly interested.
>
> Then such control comes under my consciousness and thus becomes my
> choice.
> So I can choose not to control, and know that I am doing that 'well
> enough' not to be exerting undue influence on an undeveloped psyche.
>
> My point is that those who sit next to me at some workshops *are*
> choosing
> to control others' minds, and if I am to undo this programming/soul
> intrusion I must learn to do the same. Curse to cure. Cure to curse.

Yes.. I can see your point, in relation to "clients".
I don't have clients, in the same way that you do, so that's possibly
one reason I'd allocate less importance to such control.

<snip>
>> > We can but hope. And I've set myself to find help in that too. <g>
>
>> Care to expand on that in a seperate thread?
>
> That would be where this thread would depart for the Live Journal
> conversation...

[2]

> 'I don't plan. I mitigate for unforeseen circumstances.'
> - Anonymous Associate

Plan and mitigate are not that dissimilar, eh?.

[2].. This conversation could continue for quite some time and drift
into all sorts of areas.
However, I think it's reaching/reached it's limits for this venue.
I'm not a great fan of live journal, for such conversations, as I find
it somewhat cumbersome. However, there are alternatives...
--
P


.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: 5 spiritual ingredients was Re: Burning Times
    ... >> Price implies comparative cost of choices. ... > so far behind reality. ...
    (uk.religion.pagan)
  • Re: "Forbidden" science
    ... toss out _all_ religion and toss out spiritual ... to me that if God has given us the principle of the harmony of faith   ... the only reality. ...
    (soc.religion.bahai)
  • Re: "Forbidden" science
    ... toss out _all_ religion and toss out spiritual ... to me that if God has given us the principle of the harmony of faith   ... the only reality. ...
    (soc.religion.bahai)
  • Re: Proving hydrogen and physical models
    ... >> What evidence suggests that there is any deeper reality? ... > hypothetical objects that live in hypothetical deep reality! ... > You have the wrong idea of instrumentalism. ...
    (sci.physics.relativity)
  • Re: Plane may help overcome Cubas `news blockade
    ... You are the fraud. ... You aim to reduce reality to a couple of lines and snippets in your ... Tony with your mix of subtle rhetoric and crude lies / misquotes. ...
    (soc.culture.cuba)