muttley
Super Duper Senior Member
Posts: 4,394
|
Post by muttley on Oct 4, 2018 20:29:31 GMT
The way I understand it, the fact of the withdrawal pain is independent of the addicts state of mind. I'd agree that pain and suffering create one another in a feedback loop, and if the acceptance is deep enough, there can be little to no suffering, and so a relatively minimal level of pain given the addicts state at the time of stopping. But I don't believe in miracles. So So does that mean you disagree with the assertion that in terms of experience, anything is possible? The way I see it, these patterns that appear in consciousness involve limitation, those limitations come in a myriad of expression, including, generally speaking, the possibility of impossibility. Complex creations of form are of the nature that certain relationships are mutually exclusive. The mind can imagine the inclusion but the mind imagines a nonsense. A very shallow treatment of the topic is the Zen koan, "draw a square circle".
My understanding is that addiction involves neurological and chemical changes, but that there's a wide range of human biology. Some people aren't as easily hooked on some or all addictions and and the degree to which those changes have happened is going to depend on the depth and length of the addiction.
It's a layman's understanding of a complex topic that's quite technical in the details, but there is a much simpler analogy that we can use to illustrate the point here. Let's say someone breaks a bone. Isn't the pain of a broken bone an inevitable fact? Isn't the process of getting back to the same functioning as before the break, without pain, going to take time? My understanding of chemical addiction is that it does damage similar to breaking a bone.
You are looking at it all from within experience....from within the story. The transcendent view illuminates all possibilities. No-thing is inevitable because nothing arising within the story actually is a cause/catalyst to something else appearing within the story. Cause is itself just a very compelling appearance. Timelessness is the case, but contextually, there is a bone, and there is a break in that bone. The pattern in consciousness is a sequence of events involving a process over time. Healing of a human bone takes time. The relationship between the appearance of the bone and the appearance of the break of the bone conspire to a constraint. Since anything is possible, constraints and impossibility are as possible as miracles, and also alot more likely.  |
|
muttley
Super Duper Senior Member
Posts: 4,394
|
Post by muttley on Oct 4, 2018 20:36:14 GMT
My understanding is that addiction involves neurological and chemical changes, but that there's a wide range of human biology. Some people aren't as easily hooked on some or all addictions and and the degree to which those changes have happened is going to depend on the depth and length of the addiction.
It's a layman's understanding of a complex topic that's quite technical in the details, but there is a much simpler analogy that we can use to illustrate the point here. Let's say someone breaks a bone. Isn't the pain of a broken bone an inevitable fact? Isn't the process of getting back to the same functioning as before the break, without pain, going to take time? My understanding of chemical addiction is that it does damage similar to breaking a bone.
Contextually valid, but ultimately cause always finds it's way back to consciousness (or Consciousness), and consciousness forms and reforms the body accordingly. That's also why I reject the idea of depression being caused by imbalances in brain chemistry. Causality, forming, re-forming: these all implicate a process. " Creation", involves time. There's some serious value to at least considering your ideas of flipping the sense of causality, for sure, but my point is that a person's body can get into a state where they are inevitably going to have to go through a painful process, regardless of whether or not they're suffering, and addiction withdrawal has the potential -- given the specifics of the person and their situation -- to be one of those processes. |
|
muttley
Super Duper Senior Member
Posts: 4,394
|
Post by muttley on Oct 4, 2018 20:42:35 GMT
The human adult takes responsibility for their own interests, but still lives in a world that's ultimately full of influences, forces and events that have nothing to do with those interests. They'd explain their behavior accordingly. I don't know about 'taking responsibility' for interest. Fact is, we have no control over arising interests.... seeing and acknowledging the presence of interest, is what I'm talking about. Yes, we differ on this point. I see human adulthood as a matter of degree, and I see this as the furthest the human adult can go, when they account for the notion that there is a greater, holistic movement that leads to and in which context those interests appear.
But, if anything is possible, how is it that it's not possible for you to influence the interests that arise to you? Personally, I've found it to be a fun game to play, both in the past when I thought I was a people peep, and also now.  It's just that now, the rules of the game have changed.  |
|
muttley
Super Duper Senior Member
Posts: 4,394
|
Post by muttley on Oct 4, 2018 20:48:11 GMT
How about then just "belief"? Do you agree or disagree that strong expectation might make the difference between symptoms vs. no symptoms? I say there's an important relationship there. I have to begin from the realization that nothing in this physical world is causing something else to happen. Then I have to ask, why does Acetaminophen seem to numb pain? I can look to the placebo effect to see how 'expectation' influences the outcome, but I'm left with explaining why I can spike your drink with a pill and cause an effect when there is no expectation on your part or knowledge as to what I've done. And yet there IS an expectation on MY part, and by extension, the belief regarding those pain relief effects is present in others (assuming there ARE others. Let's not go there.) These concepts held personally and collectively are the fodder for creation itself. I know that Aspirin does not cause pain relief, (Consciousness does) but I also know that taking Aspirin will result in pain relief regardless.  This is where I go New Age and start talking about collective consciousness and co-creation. Far simpler just to think of Aspirin as a means to an end. 
By analogy, I've always been baffled by all the energy that got poured into the creation/evolution debate. Evolution doesn't preclude "God" and creation doesn't preclude the possibility that evolution was how "God" decided to do it. |
|
muttley
Super Duper Senior Member
Posts: 4,394
|
Post by muttley on Oct 4, 2018 21:02:14 GMT
So So does that mean you disagree with the assertion that in terms of experience, anything is possible? I want to go on record as saying I DO believe in miracles, if, by miracles, we mean wacky things happening that rational peeps have no explanation for. Well, nah, I'm ok with wacky things that happen with no rational explanation. Generally. But like you say. There is the appearance of patterns to the way appearances appear in consciousness.  |
|
|
|
Post by Figgles on Oct 4, 2018 21:42:05 GMT
So So does that mean you disagree with the assertion that in terms of experience, anything is possible? The way I see it, these patterns that appear in consciousness involve limitation, those limitations come in a myriad of expression, including, generally speaking, the possibility of impossibility. Complex creations of form are of the nature that certain relationships are mutually exclusive. The mind can imagine the inclusion but the mind imagines a nonsense. A very shallow treatment of the topic is the Zen koan, "draw a square circle".
You are looking at it all from within experience....from within the story. The transcendent view illuminates all possibilities. No-thing is inevitable because nothing arising within the story actually is a cause/catalyst to something else appearing within the story. Cause is itself just a very compelling appearance. Timelessness is the case, but contextually, there is a bone, and there is a break in that bone. The pattern in consciousness is a sequence of events involving a process over time. Healing of a human bone takes time. The relationship between the appearance of the bone and the appearance of the break of the bone conspire to a constraint. Since anything is possible, constraints and impossibility are as possible as miracles, and also alot more likely. Again, "Constraint and impossibility" are seen from within the story, whereas the transcendent view illuminates all such idea/experiences to be appearance only. In illuminating all things as possible, the transcendent view also reveals there are no 'actual' constraints, no actual impossibility, and in the same vein then, that same view also illuminates the idea of probability/this or that being more or less likely, as nothing more than an appearance. |
|
|
|
Post by Figgles on Oct 4, 2018 21:50:18 GMT
I don't know about 'taking responsibility' for interest. Fact is, we have no control over arising interests.... seeing and acknowledging the presence of interest, is what I'm talking about. Yes, we differ on this point. I see human adulthood as a matter of degree, and I see this as the furthest the human adult can go, when they account for the notion that there is a greater, holistic movement that leads to and in which context those interests appear. But, if anything is possible, how is it that it's not possible for you to influence the interests that arise to you? Personally, I've found it to be a fun game to play, both in the past when I thought I was a people peep, and also now. It's just that now, the rules of the game have changed. That's pretty much the same question as; Why isn't it possible to be a separate person who causes stuff to happen? Indeed, there can be an experience of working with, shaping, directing desire/interest, intent, but the transcendent view means seeing through all that...seeing all that is just an empty appearance. Bottom line, the nature of desire/interest is such that it's just not directly caused by something happening within experience. (That said, we can say there are all sorts of 'correlations' that could be pointed out..but that's entirely different). |
|
|
|
Post by Figgles on Oct 4, 2018 21:56:58 GMT
I have to begin from the realization that nothing in this physical world is causing something else to happen. Then I have to ask, why does Acetaminophen seem to numb pain? I can look to the placebo effect to see how 'expectation' influences the outcome, but I'm left with explaining why I can spike your drink with a pill and cause an effect when there is no expectation on your part or knowledge as to what I've done. And yet there IS an expectation on MY part, and by extension, the belief regarding those pain relief effects is present in others (assuming there ARE others. Let's not go there.) These concepts held personally and collectively are the fodder for creation itself. I know that Aspirin does not cause pain relief, (Consciousness does) but I also know that taking Aspirin will result in pain relief regardless. This is where I go New Age and start talking about collective consciousness and co-creation. Far simpler just to think of Aspirin as a means to an end. By analogy, I've always been baffled by all the energy that got poured into the creation/evolution debate. Evolution doesn't preclude "God" and creation doesn't preclude the possibility that evolution was how "God" decided to do it. Perhaps. But once the bell rings, seems there's no turning back. Seeing the inherent emptiness of all appearances, if it's complete, forever changes the way 'causality' in general is seen. We might still engage that appearance, but it's with the full acknowledgement of 'going along with' it vs. buying into it fully. |
|
muttley
Super Duper Senior Member
Posts: 4,394
|
Post by muttley on Oct 5, 2018 0:39:08 GMT
The way I see it, these patterns that appear in consciousness involve limitation, those limitations come in a myriad of expression, including, generally speaking, the possibility of impossibility. Complex creations of form are of the nature that certain relationships are mutually exclusive. The mind can imagine the inclusion but the mind imagines a nonsense. A very shallow treatment of the topic is the Zen koan, "draw a square circle".
Timelessness is the case, but contextually, there is a bone, and there is a break in that bone. The pattern in consciousness is a sequence of events involving a process over time. Healing of a human bone takes time. The relationship between the appearance of the bone and the appearance of the break of the bone conspire to a constraint. Since anything is possible, constraints and impossibility are as possible as miracles, and also alot more likely. Again, "Constraint and impossibility" are seen from within the story, whereas the transcendent view illuminates all such idea/experiences to be appearance only. In illuminating all things as possible, the transcendent view also reveals there are no 'actual' constraints, no actual impossibility, and in the same vein then, that same view also illuminates the idea of probability/this or that being more or less likely, as nothing more than an appearance. A transcendent view of "things" is an oxymoron. They're certainly seen differently, but a thing is .. you know .. a thing. |
|
muttley
Super Duper Senior Member
Posts: 4,394
|
Post by muttley on Oct 5, 2018 0:55:03 GMT
Yes, we differ on this point. I see human adulthood as a matter of degree, and I see this as the furthest the human adult can go, when they account for the notion that there is a greater, holistic movement that leads to and in which context those interests appear. But, if anything is possible, how is it that it's not possible for you to influence the interests that arise to you? Personally, I've found it to be a fun game to play, both in the past when I thought I was a people peep, and also now. It's just that now, the rules of the game have changed. That's pretty much the same question as; Why isn't it possible to be a separate person who causes stuff to happen? Nah, that's a stretch. I'm not arguing for the actuality of personal causation, only it's appearance. I mean, have you actually read what I've been writing for the past 5 years??  I could just as easily argue that feeling like you have no control over what interests arise implies a sense of separation. But I was giving you the benefit of the doubt and asking the question from the ground that there is no question of separation on your part. Either one of us can play that card on the other. You can argue otherwise, but it would just be talking past one another. Indeed, there can be an experience of working with, shaping, directing desire/interest, intent, but the transcendent view means seeing through all that...seeing all that is just an empty appearance. Bottom line, the nature of desire/interest is such that it's just not directly caused by something happening within experience. (That said, we can say there are all sorts of 'correlations' that could be pointed out..but that's entirely different). Interests and the appearances associated with the those interests that lead to desire also appear to have causes leading to them that are, yes, also appearances. If you run so that you're at the edge of your breath for an hour nonstop on a hot day you'll get thirsty. That's not correlation, that's causation. Just because it's all empty doesn't mean that the appearance of cause and effect isn't experientially valid. The process of coming to understand why we desire what we desire is a particular flavor of becoming conscious of the content and dynamic of our minds. Any secondary interests we have that aren't immediate and biologically related can be subjected to this sort of "inward looking" attention, and once the motivation is illuminated by conscious attention, what we're interested in can change. It doesn't take SR to do this, but clarity, always clarifies. |
|
It's just that now, the rules of the game have changed. 
This is where I go New Age and start talking about collective consciousness and co-creation. 
