I do things for doing them. If anybody asks me why I truly do something, down to the core reason, I just give an infinitely regressive "Because I desire to do so."
For instance, why do you love and help people? Because my nature demands it. I feel there is no ultimate reason to do things other than doing things for the sake of doing them. You can give ultimate reasons such as love, happiness, unity... in the end, these things seem to be inherent if one chooses to embrace these things as inherent in the journey.
Meaning doesn't necessarily justify an end. An end can justify an end all by itself. A sole purpose is just a great attachment that still in the end only serves itself.
Regardless of how one answers "why do you do something" you can reduce anything into terms of desire, whether the person realizes it or not. For example, person who believes in duty as defined by society and never follows their "personal desires" is still at some level, following their desires, albeit their significantly distorted desires.
Desire is primal. The question isn't so much as to how one views oneself with respect to desire, the question is how does one resolve the apparently conflicts (the term conflict is used loosely to describe two desires that are not 100% in line with one another) between multiple desires within then. And for a positive entity, this desire resolution process extends to the desires of all other entities.
The interesting thing about desire is that discovering that following one's inner most desire is an important first step, but ultimately the real and long learning occurs when one evolves on how to go about deciding what ultimate action, thought or belief should be undertaken given the illusory appearance of an infinite amount of seemingly conflicting desires. All is one, but unless you're down in the nitty gritty and really understand and evolve your desire conflict resolution within yourself and between others in this illusion, you're not really learning how to naturally and organically unify multiple different desires in this illusion of reality. To me, it's about desire conflict resolution process that defines our evolution within this octave.
I've never really had a purpose, in that I wander from goal to goal. Not even really goals. I don't set goals for myself.
I do what's best in the moment. If it's calling for help from my social memory complex, then so be it.
I've been utilizing them a lot, when I'm especially anxious and nervous.
I used to think I had a calling to be an animator, and would draw lots, but never animate.
I don't know if purpose and calling are the same thing. A purpose seems more defined.
I've never really had a defined purpose.
(07-01-2014, 03:55 PM)xise Wrote: [ -> ]Regardless of how one answers "why do you do something" you can reduce anything into terms of desire, whether the person realizes it or not. For example, person who believes in duty as defined by society and never follows their "personal desires" is still at some level, following their desires, albeit their significantly distorted desires.
Desire is primal. The question isn't so much as to how one views oneself with respect to desire, the question is how does one resolve the apparently conflicts (the term conflict is used loosely to describe two desires that are not 100% in line with one another) between multiple desires within then. And for a positive entity, this desire resolution process extends to the desires of all other entities.
The interesting thing about desire is that discovering that following one's inner most desire is an important first step, but ultimately the real and long learning occurs when one evolves on how to go about deciding what ultimate action, thought or belief should be undertaken given the illusory appearance of an infinite amount of seemingly conflicting desires. All is one, but unless you're down in the nitty gritty and really understand and evolve your desire conflict resolution within yourself and between others in this illusion, you're not really learning how to naturally and organically unify multiple different desires in this illusion of reality. To me, it's about desire conflict resolution process that defines our evolution within this octave.
So you believe there is a purpose to reality and it's in conflict resolution? What happens when one doesn't set themselves on resolving conflicts and sees them as inherently resolved?
(07-01-2014, 04:11 PM)Adonai One Wrote: [ -> ]...What happens when one doesn't set themselves on resolving conflicts and sees them as inherently resolved?
Adonai One, may I ask if you intend on answering this question from the other thread ?
(06-30-2014, 08:58 AM)Patrick Wrote: [ -> ] (06-29-2014, 07:15 PM)Adonai One Wrote: [ -> ]...A rejection will manifest as never speaking with the party... In the worst case, attempting to control the party into submission.
If I were to stop discussing with you, it would be a rejection ?
When one stops talking to another, the reasons for such are numerous.
When one rejects another, the ceasing of communication is likely.
We can continue this discussion in the Treehouse. Feel free to respond to this post there.
Basically, you're a multidimensional entity. I think it's better to see the paradox that there are no conflicts because all is one and yet there are conflicts because we are exploring infinity as distinct free will'ed entities which means individual desires can and do conflict on a small scale. You have one piece of yourself in the ultimate reality (the big picture - all is one, there are no conflicts to be resolved), you have one piece of yourself in this illusion (there are better or worse ways to achieve harmony with others and their desires). Q'uo talks about this balancing of larger life and the lesser life.
Regardless of your perception of conflict, there are grounded in reality in a given universe-timeline, desires that not 100% the same, and there are "solutions" ("reality configurations") that seem to satisfy more or less of those desires.
For example, to take an extreme example, if someone this entire universe was destroyed by an experimental black hole weapon, we can say two things:
(1) In the big picture, there is no conflict since all is one, etc etc (I'd actually speculate this is because there are infinite versions of this octave and therefore infinite universes, and the continuation of this universe is being played out in those other versions).
(2) However, In the small picture of this illusion of this particular universe-timeline, I'd bet the reality of the sudden destruction of the universe is less in line with the majority of the desires of the entities of this universe than a reality in which it continues to exist.
We incarnate into the small picture for a reason. To study the smaller picture in addition to studying the larger picture. To ignore either the big picture of all is one or the seeming small picture that there seems to be different desires and there seem to be different reality-configurations that satisfy more or less of those desires I think is to lose out on part of what we're here to learn. So to answer your question:
(07-01-2014, 04:11 PM)Adonai One Wrote: [ -> ]So you believe there is a purpose to reality and it's in conflict resolution? What happens when one doesn't set themselves on resolving conflicts and sees them as inherently resolved?
If you see there is no conflict and sees them as inherently resolved, you're seeing the big picture. But if you're not able to see the small picture that there are more and less harmonious ways of resolving conflict in the illusion, you're losing sight of the reason we explore this illusion, you're losing sight of the paradox that we came here to understand and you're not learning as much as you could from incarnating into physical existence.
(07-01-2014, 03:55 PM)xise Wrote: [ -> ]For example, person who believes in duty as defined by society and never follows their "personal desires" is still at some level, following their desires, albeit their significantly distorted desires.
Work to me seems like a duty. The distorted desire that I feel out of it is it pays the bills. So I do it without complaining to my boss. I sometimes though try to get out of extra work if I can.
(07-01-2014, 02:45 PM)Adonai One Wrote: [ -> ]For instance, why do you love and help people? Because my nature demands it. I feel there is no ultimate reason to do things other than doing things for the sake of doing them. You can give ultimate reasons such as love, happiness, unity... in the end, these things seem to be inherent if one chooses to embrace these things as inherent in the journey.
Ra Wrote:18.5 The orientation develops due to analysis of desire. These desires become more and more distorted towards conscious application of love/light as the entity furnishes itself with distilled experience. We have found it to be inappropriate in the extreme to encourage the overcoming of any desires, except to suggest the imagination rather than the carrying out in the physical plane, as you call it, of those desires not consonant with the Law of One; this preserving the primal distortion of free will.
edit: added Ra to quote box
I highly doubt "distilled experience" is synonymous with "belief".
(07-01-2014, 05:05 PM)xise Wrote: [ -> ]...
If you see there is no conflict and sees them as inherently resolved, you're seeing the big picture. But if you're not able to see the small picture that there are more and less harmonious ways of resolving conflict in the illusion, you're losing sight of the reason we explore this illusion, you're losing sight of the paradox that we came here to understand and you're not learning as much as you could from incarnating into physical existence.
Why should I have any reason to care for that purported reason? Why should anyone? What if I am happier doing it this way? What if others are happier doing it this way?
What if I believe I didn't come here to resolve a paradox but to just enjoy it according to my set of eyes?
What if I believe learning only serves as a function of learning satisfaction?
(07-01-2014, 09:08 PM)Bring4th_Plenum Wrote: [ -> ] (07-01-2014, 02:45 PM)Adonai One Wrote: [ -> ]For instance, why do you love and help people? Because my nature demands it. I feel there is no ultimate reason to do things other than doing things for the sake of doing them. You can give ultimate reasons such as love, happiness, unity... in the end, these things seem to be inherent if one chooses to embrace these things as inherent in the journey.
Ra Wrote:18.5 The orientation develops due to analysis of desire. These desires become more and more distorted towards conscious application of love/light as the entity furnishes itself with distilled experience. We have found it to be inappropriate in the extreme to encourage the overcoming of any desires, except to suggest the imagination rather than the carrying out in the physical plane, as you call it, of those desires not consonant with the Law of One; this preserving the primal distortion of free will.
edit: added Ra to quote box
How do I suggest the overcoming of desires?
(07-02-2014, 12:52 AM)Adonai One Wrote: [ -> ] (07-01-2014, 05:05 PM)xise Wrote: [ -> ]...
If you see there is no conflict and sees them as inherently resolved, you're seeing the big picture. But if you're not able to see the small picture that there are more and less harmonious ways of resolving conflict in the illusion, you're losing sight of the reason we explore this illusion, you're losing sight of the paradox that we came here to understand and you're not learning as much as you could from incarnating into physical existence.
Why should I have any reason to care for that purported reason? Why should anyone? What if I am happier doing it this way? What if others are happier doing it this way?
What if I believe I didn't come here to resolve a paradox but to just enjoy it according to my set of eyes?
What if I believe learning only serves as a function of learning satisfaction?
"Should" doesn't enter the picture. You do it if you want to. You learn if you want to. You try out new philosophies or test out new concepts if you want to. Free will ultimately governs all.
That being said, so many people imprison themselves by not trying out new things and experiences. It's a common theme for people for stagnation, so I think there are downfalls to saying you don't desire something before you actually try it out a few times.
How do I meet the definition of stagnation and closed-mindedness with what I propose? What is wrong with being closed-minded if one is satisfied? What if your definition of open-mindedness makes people dissatisfied with life? What is it that we truly value here? What is learning truly about? Changing the self into an ideal form? What if this ideal form as it proposed is only a path of suffering?
Is it really imprisonment if one is genuinely satisfied with their prison? Why should they change?
I thought we have concluded in numerous, numerous threads that anybody can do whatever the heck they want irregardless of anything, so why do you keep making the same point rephrased in different ways?
Quote:That being said, so many people imprison themselves by not trying out new things and experiences. It's a common theme for people for stagnation, so I think there are downfalls to saying you don't desire something before you actually try it out a few times.
Exactly. This is a symptom of fear which is created by useless imagination that then forms belief. Nothing useful is created in this sense.
(07-02-2014, 03:15 AM)Tanner Wrote: [ -> ]I thought we have concluded in numerous, numerous threads that anybody can do whatever the heck they want irregardless of anything, so why do you keep making the same point rephrased in different ways?
Because others are contending that I cannot just simply do anything I want else I am purportedly stagnating, rejecting catalyst, etc. and I should not wish to do those things for some unexplained reason as they are claimed to be.
I make the same point because I still do not understand what any of you are saying. I am trying to get you guys to tell tell me why your perspective is sensible and coherent. I am trying to be potentially convinced.
Until I know you guys like I know myself, I will keep asking questions.
Why is your own perspective sensible and coherent?
Because I am at peace in what is either perceived as disharmony or harmony.
If I am to be attached to perceived harmony at any level of resistance to what is considered "disharmony," my state of peace will reflect said disharmony. If I am to be so attached to harmony at the level advocated, I will become set on consistent change of myself and people to where I will try to make perceived harmony an absolute certainty at the cost of the present moment's harmony.
Thus to remain in harmony within myself, I seek to perceive harmony in all things and seek to see change from harmony to disharmony as an illusion.
I believe progress towards harmony and satisfaction in any moment, even in the greatest conflict, is more worthwhile than seeking progress towards an absolute end of changing people and myself towards a contrived harmony.
What does that have to do with sensibility and coherency? How is your perspective more sensible or more coherent than the perspectives of others?
Both perspectives seek harmony. My perspective says harmony exists now. The other lists harmony as something that has to be attained through a process that is not clearly explained or detailed. There has been no true explanation of how the proposed harmonization process works or how it will last through time.
Is not either-or completely acceptable? That also doesn't really explain in any way how your perspective is "sensible and coherent" compared to others? Because it is not explained or detailed in regards to your own understanding? Isn't that making a fallacious assumption that others have not detailed these things for themselves by implying that the fact that since you yourself have not discerned a clear detailing or explanation, others do not possess it?
I would call the continuum fallacy here in your argument, as well as the fallacy of many questions, and the argument from silence fallacy. Also presenting a false dichotomy through reduction-ism. I don't think it is "harmony now" or "no harmony now" for many people, there is a spectrum of this idea.
Bottom line here is, why are you wanting to be convinced? Why should we have to convince you of anything? Better yet, why should we WANT to convince you of anything?
Because you want to share yourselves with me and wish me to know you. Perhaps love?
My perspective is so very simple: One can choose to be satisfied with what exists now and see that nothing needs to be changed or harmonized. Its premise is just simple, succinct satisfaction; A satisfaction that can be chosen to exist by appreciating whatever occurs, through the desires of yourself, the desires of others and the natural events of reality. In this is spontaneous harmony as one will never directly act against another with this perspective as one sees everything as satisfying.
Others have detailed their ideals but not in a way I can reasonably apply it and find satisfaction in my life using them.
Fallacies are irrelevant in the face of attempting to understand one another. My goal is simply a communion of thought.
What does any of that have to do with convincing? You can do whatever you want as far as I am concerned, I don't care what you choose to do with your life or what you believe in.
If you have already found the perfect system of thought for yourself which gives you total satisfaction, what good is it for anyone to lay their thoughts out for you? If satisfaction is the sole thing of importance to you, what could you possibly gain from perspectives which made you feel no satisfaction?
Also, if we love you, shouldn't we accept you without any desire to convince or change your perspective?
I have nothing to gain. It's not about gaining anything for me. I am just curious about knowing others. It's not about directly having my perspective changed or changing another. While these are symptoms of our discussions, they are not the truest concern for me.
I just enjoy getting to know people and in order for me to understand I must be convinced that a line of thought is practical and workable towards a certain desire. I am trying to see what you guys actually desire out of life. That is not clear to me and it seems to be not in line with what I desire out of life.
Because I naturally enjoy exchanging perspectives, even those completely different than my own, I engage not necessarily to change but just to converse in pure non-attached curiosity.
I don't really care about gaining anything, Tanner. If I was worried just about that, I would have left this forum a long time ago.
I have found perfection and my perfection entails endless curiosity without an attachment to a result. Engaging in life with the perspectives given would probably give me undesirable results, I still entertain them as who knows... Perhaps there is something I haven't fully considered. But in order to fully consider something, I must understand all of the beliefs involved and why such things are believed. I don't have a full enough picture here to say I honestly understand all of you.
I am not dependent on people nor do I want them dependent on me. I just want fun, curious exchange to where I can understand others as they truly are so perhaps we can forge deeper bonds down the road founded on truly similar thought and not forced pretenses and obligations.
(07-02-2014, 04:51 AM)Tanner Wrote: [ -> ]Also, if we love you, shouldn't we accept you without any desire to convince or change your perspective?
Without any emotional harshness, I will only say if you truly accepted me as a part of yourselves, you would desire to know and understand me completely and hear what I have to say without expectation. I think a trend of love is a complete and endless sharing of one another until there is reconciliation, to where a familial and unbreakable bond is formed.
Love has a trend of a tangible unity based on great similarity of desires and beliefs naturally found by convincing which may or may not be intended. Such understanding cannot be chosen on a whim as what is desired must be seamlessly united with other desires. To do otherwise is to suppress the self and deny the self.
Well then cut out the whole "convince me" nonsense, and just share your ideas. To me, the reason others don't want to share with you isn't because they don't appreciate your perspective, but because they don't appreciate being goaded in to some faux-debate that never goes anywhere (because, by your own admission, there is nowhere for it to go).
If you ask me, if you want to understand people, you have to get out of your own head. If you are trying to understand people solely through your own sense of logic I feel you will be continuously disappointed as you will inevitably attempt to put the conceptualizations of others in to your own ideological context, thus robbing their conceptualizations of their own context and thus their ultimate usefulness towards understanding of that individual.
It appears to me that you strongly desire rationality, but the fact is that a lot of people have many ideas which would seem to be completely irrational to others. If you want to understand others, in my opinion, you have to be willing to view a perspective that you do not normally understand and grasp it for what it is. Not conform it to what you understand, but rather embrace a new form of understanding.
That being said, it appears to me that many here, at least, appear to desire balance. The concepts of harmonization thus stem from the idea of balancing.
For myself, my desire is to make the potential kinetic through the complete experience of myself and others. Thus, for me, life is about growing, blooming and wilting. I am here for the experience of being human, and for the experience of divinity awakening within the human form to itself. To me, Dzogchen, or The Great Perfection, does not deny or exclude progress or development, but in my eyes, the constant perfection you always mention is inclusive of development. Development and growth and striving are also perfections and part of the Great Perfection of all things. Thus, to me, infinity is never "done", but it is always complete. Infinity is ever expanding, but it is never not perfectly complete.
Really, I think the whole argument is self-devouring and not in need of a conclusion because both harmony now and the attainment of harmony are part of the Great Perfection. All effort is perfect, and there is no effort and this is perfect.
Believe it or not, but some people find the challenge of striving and effort to be very satisfying. Have you considered that perhaps others view things in that way because it is satisfying to them?
Tanner, I understand what you are advocating completely. I question simply the implementation and your understanding of the will.
I know people consider what they have satisfying in some way but most of the people here will deny they are satisfied with their existence in a multitude of ways.
Simply, Tanner I find the will illusory but I embrace the illusion, not in striving but an attempt to see the will as inherent. I believe to go against this is to find the self very tired in their later years and incapable of much work. I believe to strive and use consistent effort is to become very weary inevitably.
Again, I challenge the implementation and wisdom of what is advocated as I see low lifespans all around.
I can only embrace a new understanding if it meets my desires. I cannot go against myself as I cannot go against another. Hence, "convince me." If I wish to hear about another and actually "embrace" a perspective, there will have to be convincing. It's a part of me people will just have to take or leave me out of their lives altogether.
My friend, no act is without will, for no act occurs without the will for action.
I believe striving as such only results in weariness if that striving is simultaneously resisted by the individual. Hence why so many are dissatisfied when they feel they "have" to do things rather than wanting to do things.
I also do not believe in the concept of "no will" in the same way you do. For me, the positive adept very much makes use of the will for the purpose of being of service to others. It isn't always easy, sometimes very difficult, but it is indeed satisfying. For me, I am not satisfied "sitting in bliss" although I am more than capable of doing so. I love challenge, I love to test myself and to push myself beyond what I know of myself.
Perhaps another big difference between you and I is that I have no fear of death, nor of a short lifespan or of weariness. I sincerely hope that by the time I am at the end of my life I have well used up all the capacities of my body.
Also, you are not capable of holding multiple understandings? I find that somewhat strange as I, personally, find it rather easy to put myself in the perspective of those who are not myself. Then again, I have little focus on the absolute fulfillment of my own personal desires. I am perhaps peculiar in that I enjoy holding and viewing perspectives for the sheer joy of it. It is practical for me in that it enables me to be amorphous.
I believe any great striving will inevitably incur the debt of weariness. Sometimes it takes a year, two years, sometimes a decade. The youth have it well. The old that exist, the so-called retired, the concept of retirement... In this weariness, there is little work done. It seems to hit the majority of the human population hence I am skeptical of the majority of the human population, even the portion that has read this material, for it seems everybody is hitting a roadblock near the end of their lives. A desire to immerse themselves in their "peak" and die in their rocker. The "attainment" years spent doing nothing, not in satisfaction but avoiding the pain they've had all of their lives.
So let me append convincing with this: If one's method does not assure me I am not going to tire out into my 50s, I'm not interested in applying it. If the proposed method of living enables me to have the youth, vigor and excitement of a teen in my 50s, I'll take it. In essence, ladies and gents, I want to be a child forever.
You are very concerned with the ability to do a manner of work which requires potency, yes?
I thoroughly disagree that great striving results in the debt of weariness, as I believe this is the case only if the striving is resisted or seen to be undesired by the individual. Thus yes, certainly, weariness will follow if the self is not parallel to the striving. That is why, I believe, we see this majority of tired out individuals in their later years because in many ways our society impresses people that they HAVE to do things that they don't want to do. Thus people put in the effort while actually resisting the effort and this ultimately tears the nervous system down as incoherent signals continuously circulate through the body.
(07-02-2014, 05:29 AM)Tanner Wrote: [ -> ]...
Also, you are not capable of holding multiple understandings? I find that somewhat strange as I, personally, find it rather easy to put myself in the perspective of those who are not myself. Then again, I have little focus on the absolute fulfillment of my own personal desires. I am perhaps peculiar in that I enjoy holding and viewing perspectives for the sheer joy of it. It is practical for me in that it enables me to be amorphous.
I am capable of understanding someone within the context of their understanding. I am not capable of holding every perspective as rational.
I believe people can be naive and act against their own interests. I do not believe everyone is rational and is doing what they truly desire. All people do what they desire in intent but I question how they manifest it.
In essence, I believe people can be unwise and I believe the majority of the human populace is unwise.