Comments on The Peaceful Self.com: The Mutual Actualization of Truth

Speckofdust, Thanks! mikeS

2010-05-05T20:46:02.191-04:00

Speckofdust,

Thanks!
mikeS

Great exchange here on this board! Great site Mike...

2010-05-05T17:47:07.382-04:00

Great exchange here on this board! Great site Mike!

If we can't decide what the truth it - always ...

2010-01-09T13:59:42.420-05:00

If we can't decide what the truth it - always tricky - at least we can strive for honesty. One of your recent posts I think!

No One, "I think you're dancing around c...

2010-01-09T10:41:33.687-05:00

No One,

"I think you're dancing around categorically stating your intent. Nothing wrong with that either! But interesting"

Excellent observation! However, I hope to become more clear in future posts. Intent is a funny thing for a chaotic ego-self like me, since I'm often all over the place (aren't we all though?).

"I suppose I see what you are attempting to do get people to continually question their assumptions."

Sort of. But maybe... more like engaging together to question our assumptions, which is an infinite game requiring infinite players.

"In the end, it's not a philosophy that counts. It's the discourse (engagement) that accompanies it."

Bravo! Perfectly stated! Discourse equals engagement and isn't engagement our only purpose? No matter which way the discourse goes, the only intent is to remain engaged. Truth comes up eventually.

Kissy-wissies back to you too, dear lady!
mikeS

Hey Mike, "objective-mind observation" i...

2010-01-09T10:28:19.620-05:00

Hey Mike, "objective-mind observation" is more scholarly language than "non-dual". Look to the tomes written on brain science for reference...or not, if you want to stay awake. Or do so, if you wish to cure insomnia!

I think you're dancing around categorically stating your intent. Nothing wrong with that either! But interesting.

Truth being relative is a philosophical standpoint, relativism believe it or not, which also concedes that certain realities are more likely than others. Exceedingly interesting concept.

I read too much, or did at university anyway.

There is no wrong or right. I'm definitely not insinuating "you" are "wrong"...whatever manifests is what manifests, including conclusions and judgements about what manifests.

I suppose I see what you are attempting to do get people to continually question their assuptions.

If I have a goal, it's much more basic...just to get whatever concepts that seem to be rolling about outta me. (More of a therapeutic goal.) However, keeping in mind that all truth is relative, questioning assuptions is a worthy goal too.

However, merely by pointing it out, I don't reprove of your reproving. I approve. Reproval comes with certain negative connotations that you seem to have projected onto the apparent messenger!

Gosh, I'm enjoying this! Stimulating.

At the end of my unsatsang thingy in Chicago, this German guy presented really strongly his Hindu beliefs, stressing the striving for excellence, higher purpose etc., and I really was called to task to keep presenting the "all there is is this" stuff in a way that it held up to such a precise, defended way of life. It was great fun, much better than people calling in and saying how much they liked what I had to say.

In the end, it's not a philosophy that counts. It's the discourse (engagement) that accompanies it.

You should be writing exactly what you're writing. Excellent stuff!

With lots and lots of unconditional and also kissy-wissy LOVE, Suzanne

"By no means is anything written by anyone tr...

2010-01-08T08:22:37.819-05:00

"By no means is anything written by anyone true; it can only ever be relatively so, including this."

Non-duality rule no #1?

"Certainly the expectation is that whatever is written cannot possibly make a difference to reality. Perhaps the flow of energy might dip or skew, but it's entirely unimportant. Although it seems fun."

Beware expectations!

"Is either engagement or disengagement the goal, and for whom does the goal arise, and why?"

Why....all of us, of course! Or....are you denying anyone is there?

"I will state this as an objective-mind observation"

Uh....you mean...an 'opinion'? Ha! You non-dualers and your word games!

"taken that your stated goal is to encourage people to engage one another in discovering the truth together, and that so much of what you write is admonitory or reproving in tone, and that the lion's share of your essays point out the ways in which people fail to achieve discovering truth together, I conclude that much of what you write comes from the point of view that the majority of people are conducting their lives in a mistaken fashion. Or, "this is wrong, we're doing it wrong, it's all wrong."

Ha! I’m sorry but I must reprove your reproving my reproving. Funny how we’re all mirrors of one another .

No real need to encourage 'engagement,' since we all engage, whether we want to or not...what other reason for Being?

How else does No One...know One.

So cut to the chase, No One, are you saying I’m “wrong”? So what would be a more “right” way to write? Pray tell, what should I be writing?

I expectantly await your response...

:)
mikeS

Hi Mike, "seems" is the operative word. ...

2010-01-08T05:08:26.277-05:00

Hi Mike, "seems" is the operative word. That engagement you talk about...in reading an essay, by definition a short piece of writing espousing the writer's point of view, it's projection + observation - a bilateral dynamic.

By no means is anything written by anyone true; it can only ever be relatively so, including this.

Certainly the expectation is that whatever is written cannot possibly make a difference to reality. Perhaps the flow of energy might dip or skew, but it's entirely unimportant. Although it seems fun.

Is either engagement or disengagement the goal, and for whom does the goal arise, and why?

I will state this as an objective-mind observation: taken that your stated goal is to encourage people to engage one another in discovering the truth together, and that so much of what you write is admonitory or reproving in tone, and that the lion's share of your essays point out the ways in which people fail to achieve discovering truth together, I conclude that much of what you write comes from the point of view that the majority of people are conducting their lives in a mistaken fashion. Or, "this is wrong, we're doing it wrong, it's all wrong."

The encouraging item for that stated point of view is: by making in these comments to one another, the goal of engagement is achieved!

No One, I merely point out ego dynamics, what you...

2010-01-07T07:18:23.387-05:00

No One,

I merely point out ego dynamics, what you hear between the lines is up to you.

Have you ever considered that everything you write or say is total bullshit and makes no difference? (I have) Or do you believe your words make a difference?

Who cares if its right or wrong? "You"? What difference does it make? Do you KNOW the truth?

However, if your words help bring people together to engage one another in discovering the truth together, it doesn't matter what is said or written. In reading your blog it does appear you do this very well (whether or not that is your 'intended' purpose doesn't really matter).

I suppose the only question is: do your words advocate engagement or disengagement?

That is the only question...
mikeS

So much of what you write seems to scream from bet...

2010-01-07T06:53:23.798-05:00

So much of what you write seems to scream from between the lines: "this is wrong, we're doing it wrong, it's all wrong."

Mozart, Beethoven and Einstein certainly seem to h...

2010-01-06T15:38:49.542-05:00

Mozart, Beethoven and Einstein certainly seem to have overcome limits and egos can do fascinating things...but always within preconceived limits. Those who get close to the boundaries are lauded as genius or visionary. But rarely are the limits of an embodied ego transcended. It seems to me only the collective can truly transcend limits because it is the collective consciousness which sets and imposes them.

"So, is there something deeper than the brain, itself, and is this what can be merged with another? Is this what might be discovered?"

Well, it seems to me that, if the ego requires a body to reinforce space/time coordinates, there must be a central coordinate for the mind and the brain seems to be that location. Some even claim the brain is merely a conduit for the mind.

Therefore, I would speculate that there is something deeper than the brain and it can be experienced when minds are no longer preoccupied with bodies. Until then we will plod along in our idolizing of what bodies can do, until we finally discover the mind.

Great stuff!
mikeS

"When two or more share a common interest in ...

2010-01-06T15:15:30.189-05:00

"When two or more share a common interest in recognizing and discarding limits and boundaries, egocentric individuality can become unlimited, because increased trust and safety naturally overrides fear. As fear recedes, limits dissolve (since ALL limits are fear-based) and individuals engage in a mutual exploration of each other, through each other, thereby, increasing self-actualization of both, equally."

Perhaps this is the innate loneliness in being human. The paradox of insisting on apparent separateness, yet longing for convergence.

If ego can be proposed as some sort of virus and deeper, mutual engagement a sort of antibody, what rests beneath the ego? The soul? Is it that recognition that is lost in separateness, do you think? I'm only using the word soul for lack of some other term. This would certainly make the body obsolete.

But I wonder, still, about the paradox in things, such as what makes a Mozart as opposed to the utterly tone deaf? What makes a Beethoven hear a composition through the very real silence of deafness? What is the contrast of insight as opposed to a dulled sense of navigation? How do we merge with an Einstein if our numbers are dyslexic? And do more altruistic cultures merge the individual within that collective experience as opposed to the more individual based culture where experience is seen as unique? Do we bring into this life certain attributes distinct from the other who has attributes of their own? Can these attributes merge then? Or is it simply something else to cling to?

I have myriad of questions (like there are any answers to them or something), and even these questions are contingent on the brain actually functioning with what might be viewed as being in optimal health. So, is there something deeper than the brain, itself, and is this what can be merged with another? Is this what might be discovered?

Or am I going into places that have no relevance to what you are saying? It wouldn't be the first time, though in my head they seem to relate. You are saying that full potential can be met with two or more minds gathered? That this very jewel of potential is lost in separateness?

Thanks,
Nahnni