Know Thyself?

[TickTockMan]

Originally Posted by richrf

Others may have rules that I have to recognize.

Do you have any rules of your own?

---------- Post added 09-28-2009 at 04:13 PM ----------

Originally Posted by Subjectivity9

Do you want me to explain the Immediate and why mind is slow?

Subjectivity9

Yes. That would be great.

---------- Post added 09-28-2009 at 04:52 PM ----------

Originally Posted by Subjectivity9

Hey TT Man,

I wonder if you are familiar with something called “Situational Ethics?”

Because I do believe that is what ‘my friend Rich’ is trying to explain to you right here.

What this means is that, you don’t have any pat rules written in stone. What you actually do is go with the flow.

Oh sure, you might have some intentions when going into any situation, but these are more attitudinal, like to deal with others as gently and openly as you can, (And heaven knows Rich is a gentle, and well meaning soul), but you also try to first see what is shaking in any situation and then do the best you can within each situation.

Am I tight in this Rich? Perhaps you can elucidate further on this in some way. This is just my thinking on this particular subject.

Subjectivity9

Our posts apparently crossed in the ether . . .

Yes, I'm somewhat familiar with the idea of Situational Ethics.

"Going with the flow," however, seems a bit of an over-simplification. I think there is a substantial difference between flexibility and amorality which is what I felt that statements such as . . .

Originally Posted by richrf

No, because I have no idea what is correct and incorrect.

. . . or . . .

Originally Posted by richrf

There are no rules. And there are no correct ways. There are no right or wrong ways.

. . . seem to be implying.

Or am I inferring incorrectly?

[kennethamy]

Originally Posted by richrf

Others may have rules that I have to recognize. That does not mean that I think of things being right or wrong or correct and incorrect. However, I do recognize that others see things differently. So it is a matter of vantage point. If you think of things in a way that are right or wrong or correct and incorrect, then there are rules - from your point of view. I do recognize this.

If there weren't such things as rules then there would not be such things as no rules.

Rich

Hmm. If there weren't such things as Extra-Terrestrial Aliens, then there would not be such a thing as no Extra-Terrestrial Aliens?

[Subjectivity9]

TT Man,

It would be my pleasure to speak on the "Immediate."

When I say the word “Immediate,” (with a capital I.) it is really just one more name for Spirit, much like the “One” and/or “Being.” Yet “Immediate” seems to tell you just a little more about Spirit, for instance that “Being Immediate” is outside of time.

Time is not immediate because it is a process and therefore slower, or not instantaneous. Spirit is All/At/Once.

The Immediate is experiential rather than conceptual. So I want you to look right now, directly at you own consciousness or Awareness. Can you see how immediate it is, even before thought?

If you look really closely you might notice that thought comes only after awareness. I know this is very subtle and some people cannot see this at first.

This very Awareness, your Awarenes, 'IS' Spirit. Thoughts are more like the tail of this comet called Spirit.

Thoughts are really kind/of an 'after thought' or explanation about what has already happened. Or 'Pure Life' happens and then thoughts rush in to explain this to the mind.

Thoughts actually swim in Awareness or the “Immediate.”

Thoughts are like an echo, whereas the "Original Voice is Spirit" or "Is Immediate.”

Someone once said, "Where ever you go, Immediate Awareness is already there waiting for you." : ^ ) Of course the real truth is that 'You are Immediate Awareness."

I hope this helps to explain this a little bit. All questions will be welcome even enjoyed.

Subjectivity9

---------- Post added 09-28-2009 at 09:07 PM ----------

Hey TT Man,

I believe that when someone says, "I Have no idea what is right or wrong," it can be taken in a multitude of ways.

(1) You might think this poor fellow is so insane that he cannot be held responsible for his acts in a court of law.
(2) This fellow is a Taoist and realizes that right and wrong are merely conceptual, and we much act according to what is necessary each moment, AKA Go with the Flow.
(3) “To everything there is a season under the sun.” Ecclesiastes. A bit like situational ethics.
(4) I have no idea what is right or wrong. All of the facts aren’t in, yet.


You say going with the flow is rather simplistic. To me painting everything black or white seems even more simplistic. What about gray and hot pink?

Going with the flow calls for a great deal of sensitivity and alertness. We have to plug into our environment and adapt to what is going on around us. But this doesn’t mean that if everyone is killing people needlessly, you just join in like a sheep, or is it a wolf, either. I believe that you can see this.

You might do any number of things. For instance if it were a needless war you might opt to go to jail. You would do this because of who you are and your integrity is part of the equation. You would go to jail even if everyone else believed that it was right for you to go to war.

You might also use foresight, being alert to the signs, as when Don Juan was asked what he would do if someone planned an ambush on him. They expected him so say stuff about being all magical and powerful in his fighting. He simply said, ”I wouldn’t be there.” That was the better part of wisdom.

So you might not know what was ‘Right’, like the Ten Commandments are right or chiseled in stone, but you “sure as hell” would know how you felt and how you were going to act, in other words also flowing with who you are. (Integrity) It is rather complex in this way.

This is like when Thoreau wouldn’t pay his taxes and went to jail, because he didn’t approve of what the tax money would be spent on. Was it right to pay his taxes? Perhaps, but it wasn’t quite that simple was it?

So right and wrong isn’t something you can just write down, once and for all. It is a living thing.

Subjectivity9

[richrf]

Originally Posted by kennethamy

Hmm. If there weren't such things as Extra-Terrestrial Aliens, then there would not be such a thing as no Extra-Terrestrial Aliens?

In this case we are talking about imagination - that which conjures up both.

Rich

---------- Post added 09-28-2009 at 09:24 PM ----------

Originally Posted by Subjectivity9

So right and wrong isn’t something you can just write down, once and for all. It is a living thing. Subjectivity9

Yes, I very much agree with all you stated in your post. What's more. If one thinks that something is right then one can be quite sure that some else sees it as wrong. Happens on every trade I ever did on the stock market. And that is life.

Rich

[kennethamy]

Originally Posted by richrf

In this case we are talking about imagination - that which conjures up both.

Rich


B


------
B---- Post added 09-28-2009 at 09:24 PM ----------





Rich

But it still makes no sense to say that. What difference does it make what you are talking about? Anyway, either there are ETAs or there are not ETAs.

---------- Post added 09-29-2009 at 02:41 AM ----------

Originally Posted by TickTockMan

Do you have any rules of your own?

---------- Post added 09-28-2009 at 04:13 PM ----------



Yes. That would be great.

---------- Post added 09-28-2009 at 04:52 PM ----------



Our posts apparently crossed in the ether . . .

Yes, I'm somewhat familiar with the idea of Situational Ethics.

"Going with the flow," however, seems a bit of an over-simplification. I think there is a substantial difference between flexibility and amorality which is what I felt that statements such as . . .



. . . or . . .



. . . seem to be implying.

Or am I inferring incorrectly?

Trying to nail Jello to the wall is a daunting task.

[TickTockMan]

Originally Posted by Subjectivity9

It would be my pleasure to speak on the "Immediate."

When I say the word “Immediate,” (with a capital I.) it is really just one more name for Spirit

I once had a co-worker try to convince me of the correctness of his particular branch of Christian religion. When I asked him how I could know if he was right, he told me to "pray about it." When I asked him who I was supposed to pray to if I didn't believe in God, he had no answer.

Is it possible that I am having the same problem with the idea of Spirit? That is, I don't believe it exists as anything other than just as an idea?

For the sake of argument, let's say that I cannot accept the definition of "Immediate" as another name for "Spirit," and see where that takes us.

Originally Posted by Subjectivity9

Time is not immediate because it is a process and therefore slower, or not instantaneous.

I disagree. I would posit time is the most immediate force in nature, as in the instant our minds take notice of a particular moment, it has already passed, and is already in the past. It is our minds that cannot keep up with time as it passes, nor apprehend time which has not yet occurred. It is our perception of time which is a process and therefore slower, and not time itself.

Originally Posted by Subjectivity9

The Immediate is experiential rather than conceptual.

Is it possible that it could be both? I had a wasp sting me on my thumb once. The experience of searing pain was immediate. I can also have a conception of the idea of immediacy, abstract as it may be.

Originally Posted by Subjectivity9

So I want you to look right now, directly at you own consciousness or Awareness. Can you see how immediate it is, even before thought?

Can who see how immediate it is? Who is to be doing the observing of my consciousness? I've asked this many times of many different people, and never gotten a satisfactory answer.

Originally Posted by Subjectivity9

If you look really closely you might notice that thought comes only after awareness. I know this is very subtle and some people cannot see this at first.

I'll have to keep working on this. As it is, I just keep becoming aware of my thoughts. This is why I have a hard time with meditation. It all seems very paradoxical.

Originally Posted by Subjectivity9

Someone once said, "Where ever you go, Immediate Awareness is already there waiting for you."

It was Peter Weller in Buckaroo Banzai, and the line was, "Wherever you go, there you are."

Originally Posted by Subjectivity9

I hope this helps to explain this a little bit. All questions will be welcome even enjoyed.

My paradigm has not shifted yet, but I'm enjoying the conversation.

Thanks.

Originally Posted by Subjectivity9

You say going with the flow is rather simplistic.

This isn't actually what I said. What I said, or at least what I was hoping would be understood, was that I thought that explaining Situational Ethics as just "going with the flow" was an oversimplification of a largely religion-based theory which, in my admittedly limited understanding of the matter, requires a level of understanding of so-called moral laws in order to make value judgments . . . such as when it is considered morally acceptable to kill another human being.

Originally Posted by Subjectivity9

Going with the flow calls for a great deal of sensitivity and alertness. We have to plug into our environment and adapt to what is going on around us.

I'll go along with this idea. I often teach a variation of this in my evening job as a martial arts/self-defense instructor. Gavin de Becker has some brilliant things to say about this in his book, The Gift of Fear.

Originally Posted by Subjectivity9

You might also use foresight, being alert to the signs, as when Don Juan was asked what he would do if someone planned an ambush on him. They expected him so say stuff about being all magical and powerful in his fighting. He simply said, ”I wouldn’t be there.” That was the better part of wisdom.

No, this is mystical mumbo-jumbo. This is like saying, "TickTockMan, what would you do if the Department of Transportation was going to close the road you usually take to work?" If I said, "I'd take another route," would anyone ooh and ahh about my innate wisdom?

Originally Posted by Subjectivity9

This is like when Thoreau wouldn’t pay his taxes and went to jail, because he didn’t approve of what the tax money would be spent on. Was it right to pay his taxes? Perhaps, but it wasn’t quite that simple was it?

Fortunately, his taxes were paid by a relative and he only had to spend one night in jail. But I understand what you're saying, and you are correct in your take on integrity.


I just noticed the time. Issues of right and wrong aside, I have to haul myself to bed right now, or my head will be all wrong tomorrow.

Regards,
Tock

[Subjectivity9]

Hey Ken,

Life is a river. : ^ )

If you think nailing Jell-O is daunting, try nailing the mighty Mississippi.

Nailing another human, in his material manifestation is much easier. Look what they did to Jesus. They easily made holes in His hands and in His feet, but they couldn’t kill the ‘Whole’ of what He was about so easily.

So yes, you would have to admit that although they killed the man, they couldn’t kill his ideas or His message. That is because He was speaking of something larger than our personal motives.

Jesus was speaking of our Eternal Self, which calls to many (no all) men at a very intimate and deep level.

What He was saying was like a letter from Home.

In fact if you were to kill every single person who had ever heard His message (ideas), and burn all of the books referring to it, and (in these modern times) even wiped clean any signs of it out there on the web (somewhat more daunting), it would just spring up once again. This is because this Ultimate Truth isn’t something that is manufactured in our minds. It is something discovered over and over again within our very selves.

Subjectivity.

[kennethamy]

Originally Posted by Subjectivity9

Hey Ken,

Life is a river. : ^ )

If you think nailing Jell-O is daunting, try nailing the mighty Mississippi.

Nailing another human, in his material manifestation is much easier. Look what they did to Jesus. They easily made holes in His hands and in His feet, but they couldn’t kill the ‘Whole’ of what He was about so easily.

So yes, you would have to admit that although they killed the man, they couldn’t kill his ideas or His message. That is because He was speaking of something larger than our personal motives.

Jesus was speaking of our Eternal Self, which calls to many (no all) men at a very intimate and deep level.

What He was saying was like a letter from Home.

In fact if you were to kill every single person who had ever heard His message (ideas), and burn all of the books referring to it, and (in these modern times) even wiped clean any signs of it out there on the web (somewhat more daunting), it would just spring up once again. This is because this Ultimate Truth isn’t something that is manufactured in our minds. It is something discovered over and over again within our very selves.

Subjectivity.

Glad it makes you happy. It is nice to have a hobby. I play chess.

[Subjectivity9]

Good Morning Rich, : ^ )

One of the things I love most about Tao is that ‘It’ too is a living thing.
(Well not really a material thing.)

A Taoist tries to takes into consideration what Tao is, and (I was going to say models his life after it, but that isn’t exactly right is it?)

Rather a Taoist tries to find his Tao and go along with it. In this way his life doesn’t become a forced thing. He doesn’t spend many hours trying to jamb a square peg into a round hole, ” shouting *&%# IT” in frustration, just because some committee or some priesthood wrote it down somewhere in gold leaf and called it rule #1.

Being ‘right’ is like the weather, if you don’t like it wait. It will change even in your own mind. “Being Right” is a fickle master. : - O

A millionaire friend of mine once said, “In the stock market, when everyone is going in one direction, you can bet your boots they are wrong.”

Or “Buy low, and sell high.” Makes sense doesn’t it, and everyone has heard this. But hardly any, outside of bold few, do it. It takes a strong stomach and nerves of steel.

If you want to see the Tao dance, watch the Stock market. My friend also told me this.

Subjectivity9

[Absolution]

Hey William! Thanks for the welcome! Being a skeptic myself, you can put assume on anything I write anyway! lol. What I write has an implicit assume anyway. A lot of words I use that simply mean assume to me are "think" or "believe", although in a paper I am writing I use believe in the sense of justified true belief. But you can be rest assured if I use it in a conversation it simply means assume lol.

And yes Subjectivity9, it was Plato that wrote that about Socrates, as Socrates wrote nothing. Most historians seem to accept that as historically accurate though. And I think Plato's Skeptical Middle Academy was more influenced by Socrates himself rather than Plato, so they must have thought it was true (as much as skeptics can admit to) as well. And much of the early doubters were thought of as mystics, it is said that Pyrrho furthered his own philosophy by talking to early buddhist mystics, although it seems Pyrrho was practicing the suspension of judgment before he met them. And I agree if knowing thyself is only about what you may already know or accomplished, then it is quite a limited vision, there needs to be room for expansion, but it can be wondered if philosophers have thought of this phrase as deeply.

And did I hear a mention of an ultimate truth? As a skeptic I cannot deny there may be one, but I do wonder if we have the ability to recognize that it is the ultimate truth without doubt? Or is doubt a necessary condition?