Re: Why am I bannned?
Also, taking into consideration that we, as humans, have the ability to be conscious of what we are doing and all that we do as social creatures in communicating There are certain things that we must assume given the information that we communally experience. In communication there is much we can learn from one another; different ideas are generated everyday and the development of civilization is evidence of this. For as in communication we learn from others, this too is notable about our experience in the sensations that give us a sense of reality. Given that this is true there are certain things we must acknowledge about things concerning the grand scale of the universe, to what kind of bacteria are in a codependent relationship with us in order that we may rely on one another in order to survive. Truly, the fact that we are living in a world were there is such diversity of life must be held in high regard. For in the commonality of humanity and our relationship to others there is much we can conclude about the properties of our environment. If and when these properties are communally agreed upon, we get a taste of what our world is made of, and knowing this in and of itself gives us purpose.
Gives are purpose of what?
I think we are talking about diffirent types of purpose here.
Yes I agree with this paragraph too, though.
I addressed the same thing about communication and sensual experience in my "absolute truth" thread.
Well in a sense every experience is sensual (considering mental senses as the 6th sense)
To conclude, there is much to be celebrated for our individuality in self worth and what we discover communally, and in this we find what is purposeful and what holds meaning. To think otherwise is a dis-service to our humanity as individuals and also as our role in the universe. It is a shame to take life for granted and in choosing to focus on the negativity of how big or small we are compared to the universe, giving us less to know about ourselves as well as quell our natural desire for knowledge.
The thing is that, the one we think ourselves to be is not really we.
That is the thinking, believing individual one self 'I', is just a sense. The thoughts come and goes. Feelings and beliefs can be just stimulated by the outside world.
There are actually multiple 'I', it is chaos in the mind, one 'I' coming, one going, one dying forever one rebirthing.
But wonderfully the mind connects everything to create a sense of one continous 'I'.
But by attaching ourselves with the 'I' we can fall into suffering when something of the 'I' loses.
Fears of death is stuck in 'I' but strangely enough the same 'I' dies almost ever sec.
But one point that is missed is what is that force that creates the illusion of one 'I'.
There must be an unchanging background, in which all these changes are taking place.
Sometimes the sense of 'I' gets lost. But you still remain being one with the moment.
That is life, pure awareness, I call it void awareness sometimes, because it is pure and free from everything, the thing on which everything (that makes you, you) is dependant.
That is what you may call soul, but soul means a lot of things, I don't like using such confusing terms with so many subjective interpretions.
I think there is something like 'astral body' which is also may be called soul by some, but I guess even that is not your deepest core which lies beyond individuality.
Well I don't know much, just guessing relying on some vague experiences.
I am going a bit out of the context now. But what I mean is I through the story was not trying to say to kick and kill the 'I' which is meaningless , like killing your shadow. It is like your cloth and you may embrace it and do whatever, by communicating. I have no problem.
But what I was trying to say is about being detached from the 'I' and at the same time embrace it and let it work on it's own.
My theory of detachment and attachment is different from the conventional understanding.
I feel conventionally what people do most of the time by believing to be detached is just being avoidant. Just avoiding the problem.
But detachment is not like that. For example you may be detached from ice cream but still eat it, enjoy it, but since you are detached when the ice cream falls into the ground and then get squashed by some car, you will not suffer.
Detachment is more like watching things as if all is going on in a movie or better a
video game. You ineract, connect, talk, but nothing will bring you any severe suffering if you know it is a game.
we are mistaking our game avatar to be we ourselves.
I am not saying that reality is a game, i am just using it as an analogy to explain how detachment is like and explaining our superficial self.
The best analogy to explain detachment and attachment as I can think of, is this:
everything is impermanent. You can think of everything as a time bomb.
Attachment is like glueing yourself with the time bomb and playing with it. And when it gonna blast, it rips you apart.
The misuderstanding of detachment is that people thinks (I guess) that it is about avoiding the time bomb.
It more about playing with the time bomb but without glueing yourself. And when time for "boom!" comes you can let it go and throw it away, and you will not suffer.
Even if you suffer, if you are detached from suffering, you won't suffer from suffering.
Detached view can be like viewing everything from an unprogrammed state of mind, forgetting all conditionings, and emotional attachments....a supersane view.
In that state when you view guys playing football, you will just see some guys fighting just to kick a ball.
But that is more of a super detached state, you can also just enjoy the emotions and all that, but remain mentally unglued to anything and thus immune to loss or fear of loss.
So in short, I am not telling you to not embrace individuality but just mentioning the fragility of the sense of self, and it is not something to be attached to and increasing our sufferings with meaningless desires and fears.
Also I point to be noted, I am not against desires. Let desires stay. Follow your desires, do what ever, but as soon as you get attached to your desires, compulsion to fullfill, desires takes over, and when that happens, and desires don't get fullfilled, sufferings and furstrations follow.
Why is it a shame to do what you are talking about?
Your mind creates your reality, it is your world, and you are it's artistes, you can adopt any belief or anything and really believe in it too, I have no problem with that, the only problem can be with you, because those beleifs 'may' distort your perceptions, and depending on your story or interpretetion sufferings can be induced. But it is you yourself who makes yourself suffer through your story.
Well social conditionings have to be blamed too for that though.
The solution is not to run from suffering but to face pain and loss without suffering.
But since most of the people run, they never becomes free, because they always remain potentially vulnerable to suffering and in their deepest core they still suffer from fear of loss, which they beautifully distract themselves from.
Now, next: I don't understand in what sense you are even using the words
"meaningful" or "purposeful", in these contexts.
It seems more like you are talking about 'values' not meaning.
Tell me what is your meaning of meaning?
I guess, that you are trying to talk about value of life and all that.
Purposeful and meaningful gets wierdly used a lot of time, and these are cliches.
Meaning just means meaning, i.e understanding what is represented by what.
Purpose is about why? Which is 'apparently impossible to find because we can go on asking why infinitely.
But still there can be ultimate purposes (by definition of ultimate, the ultimate purpose itself is purposeless), and relative purposes which you can embrace and the bald man approved the existence of relative purposes.
Also may be we indeed are guided by something within, to feel some role, and we all have some specific purpose to fullfil in this world, but all that is still purposeless.
I think it is more like playing roles in a drama, a play. Our roles are our personal purpose, to complete the play, but the whole play is pointless, but pointlessness does not implies valueless.
Here is an example of my point:
Human meat is tasty. I have fun eating it. But it is pointless to it. Because all is ultimately pointless. But eating human meat is fun. Then why stop eating it? Why devalue it when it is tasty and fun to eat? So what it is pointless? If it is pointless to eat it, it is also pointless to not eat it. But since eating it, is fun, I can see fun as a point and eat it for the sake of fun.
In the end what is value-full (I am using the term value-full instead of meaningful because it explains better) what is not, is just your subjective interpretetions.
So whatever, to communicate, to live a clean life, to do whatever, make your own values, your own meanings, and do whatever, play your role in life.
But 'lack of absolute purpose' is a different subject absolutely.
You are talking about a different subject of purpose.
Most of time people talks about subjectively created purpose and argue about lack of absolute purpose, but that is no use, because lack of absolute purpose does not implies lack of relative purpose.....though those relative purposes itself are purposeless, but with such view, we go nowhere, so we always keep some points and relative limited purposes, to function.
People fall in the dark side of purposelessness because it is so full of light and freedom that it blinds us.
(just kidding (but a possibility, nonetheless))
