To: K-list
Recieved: 2003/09/22 23:25
Subject: RE: [K-list] Philosophical question
From: Goran Starcevic
On 2003/09/22 23:25, Goran Starcevic posted thus to the K-list:
> -----Original Message-----
> From: K-list-bounces AT_NOSPAM kundalini-gateway.org
> [mailto:K-list-bounces AT_NOSPAM kundalini-gateway.org] On Behalf Of elargonauto
> Sent: Monday, September 22, 2003 2:21 PM
> To: k-list; Goran Starcevic
> Subject: [K-list] Philosophical question
>
>
> **please remember to delete most of email you are responding to,
> before posting your comments to the list.**
>
>
> > Precesely all the logic of "spending an amount of energy to
> > achive something" is a fake. If you don´t enjoy the trip
> you are not
> > going anywhere.
>
> *So you're stating that the logic saying that if I spend an *amount of
> energy to lift up the stone from the ground I would *eventualy lift it
> is fake?
>
> Nope. You haven´t got the idea. I´m telling that if you live
> for achive things instead for enjoying it, you are losing the point.
So Jesus either totaly lost the point when he gave himself on
the cross or he did enjoy it very much. LOL
> > *If the direction of your mind is bringing you to
> > *the place of your choosing how can you call it 'serious
> *limitation
> > of freedom'?!
> >
> > Then you are not directing your mind. Then you are
> not limitng
> > yourselve.
>
> *Let me rephrase the question: "If the direction of your mind
> *commisioned by the power of your own will is bringing you to *the
> place of your choosing how can you call it 'serious *limitation of
> freedom'?!"
>
> Your mind doesn´t need to be "comisioned" by the power of
> anything. It just do it´s duty as best as it can.
:)
Let me rephrase the question once again, LOL: "If the direction
of your mind (which doesn't need to be comissioned by the power
of anything and do it's duty as best as it can) commisioned
by the power of your own will is bringing you to the place of
your choosing how can you call it 'serious limitation of
freedom'?!
> > Are you trying to tell me that "lettting the mind goe
> freely" is
> > artificial?
>
> *I didn't say anything about anything being or being not *artificial.
> What I'm saying is that "lettting the mind goe *freely" would be going
> down in the proces of evolution of life *and concioussness.
>
> So, do you think that stop being a slave from ideas that keep you
> split and dumb is "going down in the proces of evolution of life and
> conscioussnes"?.
I belive we are actually both partially right in this one and the
closest to the truth is that neither can "letting it go (letting
it come down)" nor can "persistence, forcing (going up)" as two
things be ignored in the proces of evolution as it's two aspects
-and you're 'going nowhere' if you persist in one or if you ignore
the both processes.
This was so beautifull to conclude -just how beautifull must it
be to be a part of it? :)
> Okey. I´ll refocus my question. How are you going to "choose"
> or "want to" do something "you don´t like and you are not obligated to
> do"?
I believe you will choose what you don't like to if you
have a strong feeling it is _the right thing_ to do. You don't
understand why is it so and you don't know much or anything about
it but you still make the choice. And why would one make such a
choice? Because he sees all other choices as not good enough for
his appetites so the only thing left is something he doesn't like.
> > Everything that affects making a decision is related with
> > thinking. The body is not giving you information for you to resolve
> > this situation but is stoping you from doing so.
>
> *It affects making a decision and you should listen to it -why do you
> *have the need of labeling the 'listening of your body feedback' with
> *'thinking with your body' -it only makes things more complicated and
> *confused -what value do you see in that? Isn't it 'playing with
> *details'?
>
> If you wan to be "intelligent" you should do it.
It's not the type of things you're doing that entierly defines you
as intelligent but the choices you make. One level of intelligence
would be to choose to tie new symbols to different things and make
different new connections between them and entierly different level
is choosing to view things as they are without giving them secondary
meaning based on personal associations and thoughts.
So, if you want to be "intelligent" on the first (notice the order
doesn't necessary represent inferiority) level then yes, you should
do it. :)
> > *How can you know the stomach was saying it was a bad thing
> to *do and
> > how do you know he's right?
> >
> > How do you know when you are hungry or thirsty, when
> you are in
> > love or when you can´t be with one person in the same room? Because
> > you feel it.
>
> *If you simply feel what is right and wrong why would you then
> *complicate and 'use your body' to think about accepting or not *a
> proposition anyway?
>
> Precesely is your body the one who feels.
So, you feel that stomach knows and you believe him without
understanding why is it so. Brave.
> > In a relationship, brain ( reasoning) doesn´t worth
> too much.
> > There a lot of things in play, and lot of them doesn´t have
> to be very
> > coherent. If you don´t let your sensations and feelings
> guide you, you
> > are only going to fake it.
>
> *Or not have it.
>
> You can fake it the same if the relationship haven´t started yet.
That's true. I'm faking on this list just for the enjoyment of it,
not for anything else -that makes me a total f(a/uc)ker. I needed some
enjoyment (affirming my ego), I got it and now when I'm finished and
satiated I'll finish this discussion and won't be comming back for some
time.
> > When you
> > "force" your mind and your body to do things as "focus" or
> > "concentrate" you go on storing tension and once your each a moment
> > you get stucked. Your strategy thinking is leser and you
> start going
> > in circles. Einstein knew something about it.
>
> *My practical experience seems to show otherwise -namely, I was
> *circling my whole life and now that I've 'focused', I've stopped. *I
> don't go in no particular direction but I've stopped circling and
> *believing I'm going somewhere, which I find better.
>
> You can become focused naturally. Being "focused" and "go in
> circles" doesn´t have to go together.
But if you want to get out of "going in circles" on a certain level
(there are different levels of it) fast, forcing and unnaturally a
bit of tension is a small price to pay for it and after that you can
easily work on "naturallity" of the focus.
:)
> > *And you concluded that the mind is easier to manipulate than *the
> > other organs because you see it easier for the society to *convince
> > you in something in a decade than it is to your self *to
> convince your
> > body to go exercising in 1 minute?
> >
> > What they do is convince you that you have to convince your
> > body. When your body doesn´t have to be convinced of anything. It
> > knows perfectly well what has to be done.
>
> *Yes it does.
>
> *It takes a a decade for the society to convince your mind and you
> *say that mind is easier to be convinced then the body and then you
> *say that your body doesn't need to be convinced at all.
>
> *That's very inconsistent.
>
> It have taken two thousand years ( a far more ) to create the
> situation where we live now. And in all this time the body have
> remained pure and true where the mind is loose in all kind of
> fantasies. Where is the "inconsistence" now?
In using different criteria for mind and body in defining what
is supposed to be manipulation. In your definitions in this last
paragraph the manipulation of mind is limited to since you're
born and the the manipulation of the body is not limited in time
frame and in the paragraph before (not quoted any more:"You can
be convinced that exercise is good, that giving discipline to
your body is good, but your body is gonna shout you to stop until
you are dead.") the limitation of the time frame of the definition
of the manipulation of body is the immediate vicinity of the
giving of orders to discipline.
> > I think you are trying to tell that the brain
> have a lower
> > resistence intensity in a long term and the body high resistance
> > intensity in a short term. So they are the same.
>
> *It's like saying 50 hours of chill-out music and 10 seconds of
> *techno are the same -well, think what you want ;)
>
> Then we have understood each other. :).
If you think these two are same then we didn't.
> > I think that´s not correct. I can convince you that
> > agresivity is needed for having a good life, that
> discipline is what
> > is need when you are going through a dificult time or that
> life is a
> > long and ardous effort. ( All of them a lie, of course).
>
> *It's only that you haven't included 10 years the society has *already
> invested to make you a dumb ass not capable of thinking *for himself
> (although the truth of convictions is arbitrary).
>
>
> I think this is already answered at the "inconsistence"
> paragraph.
Yeah, but how? With changing perspectives to turn it out
right and consistent, and for what?
To get a reminder of your password or adjust your subscription, visit:
http://www.kundalini-gateway.org/mailman/listinfo/k-list_kundalini-gateway.org
DISCLAIMER!
Home | Archive Index | Search the archives | Subscribe
K. List FAQ | Kundalini FAQs | Signs and Symptoms | Awakening Experiences | K. list Polls | Member Essays | Meditations | List Topics | Art Gallery | Cybrary | Sitemap | Email the moderators.
symbol.