Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Baile
Horace, this is what I saw: One view was posted expressing the idea that human history - what came before, what happened in the past - makes no difference to one's self-development path, here in the present moment. And another view was expressed, the idea that to ignore human history and so forth, renders the life journey meaningless. One reason I haven't replied is because I honestly believe these are two different topics. I acknowledge that history is relevant, sure. The question for me though is, in relation to which specific questions? Relevant to one's self-development? I would say no to that. For me it's a simple matter, and I don't see any connection to the idea that human history somehow affects my self-development and life journey.
I know some spiritual scientific philosophies make a big deal of human history, and state that our collective evolution is tied to both our spiritual (karmic) past, and what humanity chooses to do with that knowledge in the future. The idea being that certain evolutionary impulses won't come about unless humankind wakes up to their responsibility in this regard. But I don't believe that either, this to me is just a variation of religious punishment or apocalyptic belief.
|
what i saw:
the thread begins with a recognition that society is driven by insane impulses.
this societal mindset is described as "trash"; a matrix programming.
there are truths as yet untapped by mankind:
"There are certain things that exist in mind, imagination, and visual
contributions that we do not currently experience.
My post was about diving into this realm because it is meant to be explored."
i voice support of the OP
you voice opposition... you defend the systems in place.
you then suggest that it is wise to "Question everything and accept nothing."
[have you accepted doubt as a firm foundation for knowledge i wonder?]
ob speaks of training, semantics, assumptions, and finding agreement...
all of which brings him into societal captivity.
he (or she?) proclaims that the majority of thoughts are irrelevant.
he speaks of thinking in abstractions, and developing a dream about living.
it's a game wherein people project ideas onto others...
concluding: "it makes and keeps us insane"
the OP returns and speaks of ancient cultures... mentioning the loss of some
portion of records due to the destruction of a library. there is also this:
"Now we [are] all being pushed to believe in a God that is not native to our culture."
i introduce the word "Atlantis", in response to:
"What really happened before the time of the Greeks?"
ob states that there is no value in the explorations that the OP has begun.
ob then describes the OP as lacking in wisdom (while praising your dedication and application).
semantics is referenced, without using the word.
i call ob's bluff.
you back obs position, providing him support
[while speaking of your "lifelong occupation" in dealing with "personal antipathy"]
you opine that your "personal development path" is independent from historical context.
[what society is at present, and where it has been has no bearing on you.]
you further state that personal development is not dependent upon a persons beliefs.
[you are NOT saying that personal development is independent of some other
persons beliefs, although you may have tricked yourself into thinking you have]
ob pretends to be in agreement with you. but he then speaks of gradually
losing his sense of well-being if he eats 'poorly'... which appears contrary to
"Your moment to moment experience is your own private connection with your
day to day feeling-of-self" [post #9].
ob then addresses me. he posits a thing that i have previously declared as
a non-intent for me [usurping my power?] he claims knowledge of my
upbringing and the scope of my understandings. he tells me that "'meaning'
is conditional" [i.e., it requires context?] and subtextually suggests that i am
uncommon (which i may yet decide is flattering, lol).
i pointedly address
six questions to ob (all of which may be reasonably
considered as rhetorical, since logical answers for them would
be elusive or 'self-incriminating' for him -- they were meant to stir his thoughts).
i show that i am aware of his attempted manipulations with a Shakespeare quote.
i make a post intending to clear a misconception that you appear to hold
regarding my thoughts. agree or disagree, my thinking is clearly expressed
in post #17.
i link Carly Simon's
the Right Thing to Do, as demonstration that i am
committed to loving irregardless of the circumstances that i am in.
specifically, i am showing love to the posters in this thread, although they
are not recognizing it, nor returning it.
ob brings up two postings of mine, erroneously presupposing that they are
contrary to one another. he suggests that i am opportunistic? or flighty?...
he uses the word "suspiciously" (as a condemnation?)
i state my position. i express non-understanding for ob's confusion.
ob catches me in a poorly worded statement.
[he is irritated that i wish for him to be empowered... he wants to do it himself]
ob echoes your philosophy of doubt [not skeptical inquiry mind you,
but full boar flat out perpetual doubt].
he shares that he feels free in this way, and not "frozen" into beliefs.
he speaks of certainty as a curse... (any certainty, or that particular certainty
is unclear). he reposts my two statements, and provides no insight as to
the discrepancies he imagines.
i backpeddle and rephrase the "i desire to empower people" as
"i truly wish that people realize that they are empowered beings".
i acknowledge ob's inalienable power of choice.
i strongly suggest that his (and your) position of perpetual doubt must be
uncomfortable; but not with certainty. i ask
2 questions of ob; the
first is rendered moot by the answering of the second. (which never happens!)
i show where ob has made judgement of another, and ask if it applies to him.
i share a link to
Could We Start Again Please?... [flag of truce?]
ob's response is no truce. the judgment is extended to me. the philosophy
of
unknowingness is touted as the one true way. ob lives in a dream.
ob admits to thinking me an idiot.
i draw attention the the fact that ob has yet to respond to my questions.
[what kind of discussion ignores inquiry?] i make a public apology to the OP,
who has been absent since his second post on this thread (and total on SF)...
highlighting my displeasure at ob's judgments [which may have served to
chase the OP off of the forum(?)].
i post a link to
Goodbye Blue Sky, a song which speaks of a beautiful
world being transformed into a place of death and ugliness.
ob responds to a question! he states that everyone is stupid. he states that
his declaration of incompetence against the OP was simply questioning of him.
[in his dreams it may be construed as such]. he states that i have
questioned his wisdom, and awaits apology. he then mentions ego.
you respond to the OP [again]. you say that you read history almost exclusively...
not to understand yourself, but to acquaint yourself with personalities.
the "meaning" of you is seen as independent from the context
of your environment (so you say). you speak thoughts which
"sound meaningful and profound", but are based on the ego's understandings
and meant to provide it comfort [i.e., not truly insightful]. you speak of
freeing yourself from this modality, as if it were a done deal.
[which you
know i do not believe of you].
i link
The Moody Blues ~
Question, and ask
9 questions of ob.
i state the obvious -- that ob has (repeatedly) avoided explaining his
understanding of my surmised inner conflict.
i share with you an observation concerning your use of ego as being "out of the norm".
i share a weariness; a sense that this entire thread may tend
towards useless mental activity (insanity).
another voice enters, to urge peaceful exchange.
ob speaks of lucid dreaming, and professes deep admiration for you.
you respond to the voice for peaceful exchange. you say: everything's okay here,
i'm efforting to assist the OP. you suggest(?) that ego is responsible for arguments,
and essentially 'argue' that ego may be in the eye of the beholder.
you respond to ob's lucid dream post, and claim a kinship with the OP.
[metaphorically speaking]
i bemoan ignorance.
you respond to post #1, again! you claim (with certainty!) that particular
beliefs are "not reality". you claim that an outlook is "influenced" (to a large degree!)
by what is ingested both physically and mentally [
not independent of the environment
(when it suits your purpose?)]. you advise the OP to eat healthy, and he'll grow to appreciate the status quo.
you respond to my bemoanment, as quoted above. you have misrepresented my position;
"And another view was expressed, the idea that to ignore human history and so forth,
renders the life journey meaningless" is
not what i'd said.
i have stated that history provides context for understanding,
not that it is determinative to present beingness.
your position is of ignorance [to put it bluntly] -- ignore the past, who cares?,
there's nothing in there that can be helpful to us. but that's not precisely
your position, since you "acknowledge that history is relevant, sure". the
contradictions that ob has claimed to see in my thoughts (but been unwilling
to expound upon) are evident to me in both yours and his posts.
other posts have followed...
namaste, H:O:R:A:C:E
We all start seeking, and so we should continue, IMHO.
Linear Mode
