The Cellar - View Single Post

Catwoman · 06-10-2004, 05:09 AM

Tomas is the only 'rite I know who quotes himself in his posts.

Beestie - To just drill to the core, I'd say the answer to your question is highly correlated with one's "self-importance." Enlightened folk distance themselves from the self and take responsibility for disappointment while those who cannot (or choose not to) escape the self greet unfulfilled expectations as a "problem" with reality. After all, it's all about ME, right?!?!? :-)

I agree. And I am very self-important. But that's because I am an extremely important person. (Just haven't found out why yet.) I am too scared to distance 'my' from 'self' - it seems empty and void of human experience, which, for all it's glitches, is a fascinating phenomena that I don't really want to miss while sitting on a higher plane viewing from a safe distance.

So, on one level, your question appears to be about expectations and how they got there in the first place. Funny question coming from you

Meaning...?!!!

sm - We rarely desire bad things – most people desire good things. We desire peace, to be loved, to be of consequence in someone else’s life. The problem is, we always have incomplete and inaccurate beliefs about the world. When we seek to control our circumstances, we are operating with a complete set of true information, and so we enact intentions that are not always good or helpful.

Ironically, peace and love are possibly the only two things we will never be able to control. Yet this is what we desire the most. Do we consciously decide to null our desire, or continue in pursuit of our 'goal'?

PS. I like to consider myself a constant coruscator

Torrere - No. It's all about ME.

Would attempting to change reality to meet your expectations constitute making progress in reality (as opposed to one's self)?

If reality only exists within the self, then any impact on so-called actual reality is only an amendment to the self anyway. If you believe reality exists separate from the self (which is less arrogant but harder to accept) then to assume we can change it, as history has demonstrated, can only lead back to the issue of control. Why change anything?

Marichiko - ...they are assigning cause and effect, trying to make sense of the universe.

Yes - this is what I'm getting at. Why attempt to make sense of something that is not predictable, rational or necessarily ruled by cause and effect? Why are our brains geared towards cohesion, are we not equipped to cope with chaos? This seems to be an evolutionary flaw if you believe the world is chaotic, or to take it to its natural conclusion, random.

Marichiko - Bottom line, the world is a tragic place.

I think you've hit something here. It is our inability to accept tragedy as pure (random) phemomena (or noumena) that incites our desire for control. I wonder what would happen if we could truly accept tragedy without reason. Is this enlightenment?

06-10-2004, 05:09 AM	#17
Catwoman stalking a Tom Join Date: Apr 2004 Location: on the edge of the english channel Posts: 1,000	Tomas is the only 'rite I know who quotes himself in his posts. Beestie - To just drill to the core, I'd say the answer to your question is highly correlated with one's "self-importance." Enlightened folk distance themselves from the self and take responsibility for disappointment while those who cannot (or choose not to) escape the self greet unfulfilled expectations as a "problem" with reality. After all, it's all about ME, right?!?!? :-) I agree. And I am very self-important. But that's because I am an extremely important person. (Just haven't found out why yet.) I am too scared to distance 'my' from 'self' - it seems empty and void of human experience, which, for all it's glitches, is a fascinating phenomena that I don't really want to miss while sitting on a higher plane viewing from a safe distance. So, on one level, your question appears to be about expectations and how they got there in the first place. Funny question coming from you Meaning...?!!! sm - We rarely desire bad things – most people desire good things. We desire peace, to be loved, to be of consequence in someone else’s life. The problem is, we always have incomplete and inaccurate beliefs about the world. When we seek to control our circumstances, we are operating with a complete set of true information, and so we enact intentions that are not always good or helpful. Ironically, peace and love are possibly the only two things we will never be able to control. Yet this is what we desire the most. Do we consciously decide to null our desire, or continue in pursuit of our 'goal'? PS. I like to consider myself a constant coruscator Torrere - No. It's all about ME. Would attempting to change reality to meet your expectations constitute making progress in reality (as opposed to one's self)? If reality only exists within the self, then any impact on so-called actual reality is only an amendment to the self anyway. If you believe reality exists separate from the self (which is less arrogant but harder to accept) then to assume we can change it, as history has demonstrated, can only lead back to the issue of control. Why change anything? Marichiko - ...they are assigning cause and effect, trying to make sense of the universe. Yes - this is what I'm getting at. Why attempt to make sense of something that is not predictable, rational or necessarily ruled by cause and effect? Why are our brains geared towards cohesion, are we not equipped to cope with chaos? This seems to be an evolutionary flaw if you believe the world is chaotic, or to take it to its natural conclusion, random. Marichiko - Bottom line, the world is a tragic place. I think you've hit something here. It is our inability to accept tragedy as pure (random) phemomena (or noumena) that incites our desire for control. I wonder what would happen if we could truly accept tragedy without reason. Is this enlightenment? __________________ I've decided I'm not going to have a signature anymore.