One

[organic born]

Originally Posted by KevinO

And, if life is simply a point in existence, why decide it is any more important that anything else? What if abandonment is the "best" way to live? I could make a case for it.

Genius. I would love to hear you make this case! I'm currently bobbling in the vat of "mindfulness" as per the Buddhist approach, but there are complications that I see in this regard. There seems to be a lot of "letting go" that comes with the mindfulness manor-of-being. It begins looking like we're "retreating" too far back from where the rubber hits the road when it comes to daily attentiveness.

I've long been a fan of abandonment but I clearly see the desire to maintain, and expound-on, serious undertakings that tend to go with physical participation. Nothing specific comes to mind, but just wanting the overall since of freedom that comes with the playing around with perspectives and approaches.

Originally Posted by KevinO

I agree that we process consciously only a small subset of ambient wavelength (which includes potential existence). I would say the brain is a part of the system, but can be separated from the more one sees of how the overall system works, and is of course discarded when the current life ends. The question is how to deal with this place to one's idea of maximum benefit.

I love how you worded that!

Let me offer a possible alternative view:
You said. "but (the brain) can be separated from the more one sees of how the overall system works"

I hung-up on the word "separated". I'm not sure that this is the approach we want to be taking. I've long labored and now enjoy the process of "moving through things" to get to the heart of their composition. So in this case we shouldn't want to separate ourselves from our brains effects to the point of an unconscious "feeling" of alienation. Like "we" are this and the "brain" is that. They appear too commingled for us to get away with that without creating some kind of existential distraction.

And then you said this:
" The question is how to deal with this place to one's idea of maximum benefit."

Would you not have to be "continually" defining and re-defining what "maximum benefit" is? We may start with a certain precept, but we're "wanting a change" so a great deal of that precept will need to be changed along-side our evolving inner model of reality?

Quote from organic boom: 'You said. "but (the brain) can be separated from the more one sees of how the overall system works"

"I hung-up on the word "separated". I'm not sure that this is the approach we want to be taking. I've long labored and now enjoy the process of "moving through things" to get to the heart of their composition. So in this case we shouldn't want to separate ourselves from our brains effects to the point of an unconscious "feeling" of alienation. Like "we" are this and the "brain" is that. They appear too commingled for us to get away with that without creating some kind of existential distraction.

And then you said this:
" The question is how to deal with this place to one's idea of maximum benefit."

Would you not have to be "continually" defining and re-defining what "maximum benefit" is? We may start with a certain precept, but we're "wanting a change" so a great deal of that precept will need to be changed along-side our evolving inner model of reality?"' End quote

Thank you for making interesting points I would never have thought of!

I think knowing is the final "cure", so knowing where one is does not necessarily delineate a separation, but a pronouncement. However I do see what you mean (I think) and how responsible one is for one's immediate life is not something I have looked over. There may be something there.

Maximum benefit may have been a poor choice of words, although I believe it still applies. This is a motion universe and to exist within means one adapts in some way to the motion, which means, to seeming change. The observation, the reality, of balance to both observe change and exist within it is no small chore at a human level. Like the Red Queen, we run full out just to stay in the same place.

I hope I am responding in ways that make sense.

[organic born]

Originally Posted by KevinO

I hope I am responding in ways that make sense.

You're making wonderful sense, and you do so in a workable manor.

It has long become evident to me that "framing" is everything. How we bracket our thoughts will help determine the depth and the scope of associative investigations. And please understand I'm not finding fault with your observations, I feel we're both hovering along at a similar pace. I'm simply building on things that you've said.

So with "framing" in mind lets look at these two words, "final" and "cure" in the following sentence you'd written: "I think knowing is the final "cure" ".

I currently dip in and out of the kindle version of Frank DeMarco's book "The Cosmic Internet". In it his "guides" said something quite interesting. It seems that "they" don't know where "they" are heading toward either. They're in a much better place than we currently are when it comes to observational integrity, but even at that there is still this mystery as to where we're headed from even that more lofty perspective.

So what chance do we have of cracking this final cure if clearly we're involved in a far more denser environment? Realizing this truly loosens the reigns on that sense of seriousness that seems to go with some need to transcend. We may indeed be able to dramatically "improve upon" our perceptions and ability to perceive, but it's clearly available that we "lighten up" when it comes to feeling our way among the overall implications of being human.

We are channeling nearly everything through 5 senses. This is what we find ourselves doing. So to me this suggests that we roll with this theme and learn to perfect what we find ourselves involved in. Now I'm a big enjoyer of that which we often think of as psychic events. I personally embrace the insight I receive from dreams, precognitive dreaming, lucid dreaming, OBE's as personal and worthwhile tools, but mostly in regards to how they assist us in getting a good grip on what we find ourselves currently involved in. The idea that we can extend much beyond that, from this current perspective, is likely a royal waste of time. When we die, then POOF, we find ourselves "there", and so from "that" perspective we are then to proceed. Seeing ourselves in this regard does take a lot of pressure off this idea that we "gotta get it right" as a prime objective.

You also said: "Maximum benefit may have been a poor choice of words, although I believe it still applies. "

Without pause, I agree! The observation here is to not set a goal and then bind ourselves to that goal as our exposures begin to suggest otherwise. :)

[organic born]

Originally Posted by KevinO

This is a motion universe and to exist within means one adapts in some way to the motion, which means, to seeming change. The observation, the reality, of balance to both observe change and exist within it is no small chore at a human level. Like the Red Queen, we run full out just to stay in the same place.
.

Let me add to this here Kevin with the following. Just ran across it tonight in my reading. This from Frank DeMarco's book "The Cosmic Internet", and helps describe the conundrum we face in this regard. A bit of synchronicity at play:

"Rita said that if, in order to understand A, you have to first understand B, but in order to understand B, you have to first understand A, all you can do is to keep approaching the subject, correcting previous misunderstandings or deepening your insights as each successive thing gets cleared up. Thus, you have to go through a series of wrong understandings, not because anyone wants to deceive you but because that’s the only way you can build the necessary scaffolding, which then gets discarded in favor of new scaffolding which is still not right, but is at least farther along."

Originally Posted by organic born

Let me add to this here Kevin with the following. Just ran across it tonight in my reading. This from Frank DeMarco's book "The Cosmic Internet", and helps describe the conundrum we face in this regard. A bit of synchronicity at play:

"Rita said that if, in order to understand A, you have to first understand B, but in order to understand B, you have to first understand A, all you can do is to keep approaching the subject, correcting previous misunderstandings or deepening your insights as each successive thing gets cleared up. Thus, you have to go through a series of wrong understandings, not because anyone wants to deceive you but because that’s the only way you can build the necessary scaffolding, which then gets discarded in favor of new scaffolding which is still not right, but is at least farther along."

Thank you, it appears to be saying the same thing in a very different way. I appreciate the referral to Mr. Demarco! I also suggest it can be useful to look at any viewpoint one has as right, since it firmly occupies space in this place, but incomplete as it does not occupy all space.