07-18-2018, 02:46 PM
(This post was last modified: 07-19-2018, 08:47 AM by rva_jeremy.)
Yeah IGW thanks for following up here. I agree that blockages can be sensed in the body; I just don't think that's their origin. Those of Ra say the mind is the creature of the body the body is the creature of the mind (thanks Peregrine!), and I think in this case that's doubly true. We decide not to experience an aspect of an emotion, so we erect a blockage. The body then registers this blockage if it persists long enough, first as merely a tightness or aching, but I imagine eventually it can transform into an actual illness.
But I sort of wanted to be clear that nobody thinks clearing blockages involves working with the spirit complex in some special way, at least not primarily. Not trying to draw a hard and fast distinction there; I just think it's very helpful to approach our blockages as one of changing our thinking and using the body as sort of a sounding board for tuning in on the blockages.
With respect to diet, is diet not a decision arrived at by the mind? When diet confers a certain sensation upon the body that affects blockage, is it the food itself doing that, or is the food a reflection in manifestation of a deeper thought process?
By the way, this is kind of my rule for dealing with the metaphysical: cause and effect are rather murky, not because there are no causes, but because the level at which you perceive the cause and the effect determines what makes sense as an explanation. The phenomenon is always a unified whole of which we see only one small and narrow aspect, angle, or dimension of at a time. We can build cause and effect relationships within that narrow frame of reference, but it doesn't mean there aren't other frames of reference in which another explanation is just as true. Furthermore, it means that both of those explanations are true while being incomplete in and of themselves because, as I will exhaust y'all by continuing to point out, we do not see the whole picture. So we come up with models that seem to conflict that explain all the different ways this might work in its different frames of reference.
For example, if you eat a poor diet because you don't love yourself enough to go to the trouble to eat better, the diet could be said to manifest health problems. However, you could as easily say the mind's decisions and thinking about the self caused it. You could also frame it as a disconnection with spirit that fails to impress the divinity of ourselves upon ourselves. All are true, just from different ways of thinking, but all are incomplete because they leave out certain crucial details that we need in order to reason about our lives and act upon the results.
I find it very useful to think in these terms, and it helps me avoid pointless debates and arguments. Most importantly, it helps me to not cling too tightly to comfortable models I might hold in my head. We exist in a mystery, and any solution to it is tentative, any explanation or model merely a reductive tool for helping us think through a particular situation rather than a comprehensive law of reality.
But I sort of wanted to be clear that nobody thinks clearing blockages involves working with the spirit complex in some special way, at least not primarily. Not trying to draw a hard and fast distinction there; I just think it's very helpful to approach our blockages as one of changing our thinking and using the body as sort of a sounding board for tuning in on the blockages.
With respect to diet, is diet not a decision arrived at by the mind? When diet confers a certain sensation upon the body that affects blockage, is it the food itself doing that, or is the food a reflection in manifestation of a deeper thought process?
By the way, this is kind of my rule for dealing with the metaphysical: cause and effect are rather murky, not because there are no causes, but because the level at which you perceive the cause and the effect determines what makes sense as an explanation. The phenomenon is always a unified whole of which we see only one small and narrow aspect, angle, or dimension of at a time. We can build cause and effect relationships within that narrow frame of reference, but it doesn't mean there aren't other frames of reference in which another explanation is just as true. Furthermore, it means that both of those explanations are true while being incomplete in and of themselves because, as I will exhaust y'all by continuing to point out, we do not see the whole picture. So we come up with models that seem to conflict that explain all the different ways this might work in its different frames of reference.
For example, if you eat a poor diet because you don't love yourself enough to go to the trouble to eat better, the diet could be said to manifest health problems. However, you could as easily say the mind's decisions and thinking about the self caused it. You could also frame it as a disconnection with spirit that fails to impress the divinity of ourselves upon ourselves. All are true, just from different ways of thinking, but all are incomplete because they leave out certain crucial details that we need in order to reason about our lives and act upon the results.
I find it very useful to think in these terms, and it helps me avoid pointless debates and arguments. Most importantly, it helps me to not cling too tightly to comfortable models I might hold in my head. We exist in a mystery, and any solution to it is tentative, any explanation or model merely a reductive tool for helping us think through a particular situation rather than a comprehensive law of reality.