Enigma
Super Duper Senior Member
Posts: 13,969 
|
Post by Enigma on Oct 6, 2018 6:16:11 GMT
Absolutely, let's look at the practical experience. I don't care much about what science thinks, cuz I've caught it with it's pants down once too often. Is there a pleasure producing drug that is not addictive or a discomfort producing drug that is? Not offhand without stretching the boundaries of the meaning of addition, no.  How do you spose the drug knows how much you like it?  |
|
Enigma
Super Duper Senior Member
Posts: 13,969
|
Post by Enigma on Oct 6, 2018 6:18:06 GMT
ok then, so I hereby move to amend "have nothing to do with" to "are not determined by and sometimes even unrelated and often not effected by or completely out of reach of any actions taken on those interests".  Don't worry, I'm sure we can come up with an acronym for that.  |
|
Enigma
Super Duper Senior Member
Posts: 13,969
|
Post by Enigma on Oct 6, 2018 6:19:50 GMT
I would rather say, the mind desires stability for the body, hence a stable platform from which to go about causing havoc. When there is a sense of instability from all the havoc caused, the behavior of that platform may reflect it. In the same way that the functioning of the body can be seen as a reflection of the mind, the functioning of the collective world body can be seen as a reflection of the collective mind. Creation begins and ends right here. Ok. Comrade. 
hmmm ... mind sounds for all the world ... like it's ... a rowdy teenager!  Isn't it? |
|
Enigma
Super Duper Senior Member
Posts: 13,969
|
Post by Enigma on Oct 6, 2018 6:23:38 GMT
I don't think anybody's saying the appearance of impossibility can't happen, but even in the midst of that experience of impossibility, all things remain possible. (you're on the verge of creating a paradox, and you know what I think about those. ) I'd say the possibility of impossibility is knee deep in the swamp already but that you started it! I deny any involvement whatsoever in anything that I might have to take blame for.  |
|
Enigma
Super Duper Senior Member
Posts: 13,969
|
Post by Enigma on Oct 6, 2018 6:29:28 GMT
Yes, virtually inevitable, and for the same reason gravity is virtually inevitable. However, understanding WIBIGO has the potential to alter that process. There's what I call a sphere of influence where personal creation (creation that influences only the individual in question, for the most part) is concerned, and you would probly consider this the miracle zone. ok, yeah, just call me Bolie Jackson.  |
|
Enigma
Super Duper Senior Member
Posts: 13,969
|
Post by Enigma on Oct 6, 2018 6:33:51 GMT
There are some caveats regarding the 'all things are possible' thing. The reason all things are possible is because Consciousness is the cause, and Consciousness has no boundaries. The person that we would have becoming his own creator is, himself, a creation of Consciousness and is virtually defined by limitations. Having said that, it IS possible for Consciousness to create the appearance of individual creation. Yes, I think we've come to a collective-consensus-belief-agreement at this point, as this was really what I was getting at, for sure. Ok. IC. CCBA..OK |
|
Enigma
Super Duper Senior Member
Posts: 13,969
|
Post by Enigma on Oct 6, 2018 6:35:42 GMT
Yeah, I've had the same thought. Peeps sure are funny creatures sometimes. We've proven here beyond a doubt that peeps need something to fight about or they die. |
|
|
|
Post by Figgles on Oct 6, 2018 23:09:22 GMT
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. No it's not. The seeing of inherent emptiness of all 'things' happens via 'a transcendent view.' Things still appear, but the previous substance assigned to them, is seen through. |
|
|
|
Post by Figgles on Oct 6, 2018 23:31:01 GMT
Nah, that's a stretch. I'm not arguing for the actuality of personal causation, only it's appearance. I'm confused. I actually completely agreed that that influence indeed does 'appear to be.' You asked; "how is it that it's not possible for you to influence the interests that arise to you?" And I replied: "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)." We're in agreement, aren't we? Sure, we can say that 'causation' is indeed a very compelling appearance within experience and thus, experientially speaking, it's valid to say and engage with the idea that this causes that. The transcendent view though reveals cause and effect to be mere appearances. I have no argument with any of that, but important to see, you still don't 'actually' have personal control over whether an interest to understand such things as why we desire what we desire, will arise of not. |
|
|
|
Post by Figgles on Oct 6, 2018 23:37:44 GMT
That's beyond my casual layman's knowledge of the topic. My impression of the scientific consensus is that using the substance causes changes in various chemical processes and nerve structures that lead to pleasure during the addiction process and pain during the withdrawal process. Like I said at the outset, regardless of how you think of the causality, there's an underlying practical, experiential definition. You can set the causality question aside and think of it as: substances that can be associated with these two different processes of pleasure/addiction-withdrawl/pain are considered potentially addictive (depending on person and situation), while substances that can't be, aren't. Absolutely, let's look at the practical experience. I don't care much about what science thinks, cuz I've caught it with it's pants down once too often.Is there a pleasure producing drug that is not addictive or a discomfort producing drug that is?  ...that really is the perfect way to put it. |
|
