robdl

I edited my last post to add a bit more

@Jack River @SoonHei the mind is tricky, sneaky, it forgets and deceives itself — it can use gross forms of pleasure seeking to distract itself to self-perpetuate, or it can use subtle forms to distract itself like spiritual problems/questions. But it’s the same mechanism at play, either way. Whether one seeks pleasure or one seeks knowledge, it is thought seeking security in its own movement; pleasure and knowledge are made out of thought, after all. Seeking action is seeking action, regardless of the object sought. Seeking is a movement from what-is. This is the nature of mind; always in seeking and escaping (i.e. fear) (seeking and escaping being one and the same).

hehe, happy it resonated.

The ego mind (thought-self) invokes problems or questions then seeks to answer/solve them, perpetuating itself (as the "questioner"/"problem solver", "I") in the process. The seeking action of the mind for knowledge to problems/questions is thought seeking security in thought, which is like a self-feeding loop. The mind looks to knowledge because the mind/thought IS knowledge; all thought is the known. What the mind ultimately cares about is not answers to questions/problems, but to use questions/problems to perpetuate itself, aka perpetuate the "I"/"questioner."

The "observer" -- which is the accumulated experience, knowledge, memory, desire, belief that takes on the false sense of "I" -- is not different from that which it believes is the observed/content of observation..., i.e. "my" experience, knowledge, memory.

Chogyam Trungpa ate meat, smoked cigarettes, and drank like a fish.

the "I" = the accumulated experience, memory, belief, and so on = all born of thought seeking = desire = thought "truth" = the ending of thought to allow for what-is I seek the truth = thought using thought to end thought :lol: How's that for a self-feeding loop? No meaning whatsoever indeed.

Indeed - and how often is disbelief legitimized/rationalized as healthy skepticism or doubt, when there's a quality of fear to it in actuality? Quite often I'd say.

Pity can be the "near-enemy" of compassion. Easily conflated with, but in stark contrast to, that is.

Does compassion have purpose? Is it a means to an end? Is it employed to seek a result? If it’s for a result, then is it just born out of thought?

Are you separate from your questions/problems? Or is thought-self (ego) perpetuating itself (i.e. "keeping itself busy") through conjuring problems/questions and then seeking knowledge to resolve them? I have questions/problems. vs. "I" is questions/problems. No questions means no questioner. The questions sustain the questioner.

A lot of mothers out there love their kids so long as the kids act in accordance with the image that the mother has projected about them. When the kid steps outside that projected image, does the mom still love them, or does she resent them? When you resent someone who doesn't conform to your projected image of them, is that love?

Love is causeless. If it had a cause, it would be a product of mind.

where fear is in operation, love is not. In many cases, so-called "love" between two people may in fact just be mutual gratification. It's transactional. You fulfill my emotional needs, and I'll fulfill your physical needs, and so on. And when you cease to fulfill my emotional needs, then you are no longer of use to me.

I'm talking about psychological fear. Not fear/aversion that's a natural, evolved immediate response to an environmental challenge, i.e. the response of stepping back from a snake in the bush.

Movements in thought, including motives, volition, will, desire, etc., are all movements from what-is, yes? You feel bored, you get motivated to get stimulation. You feel lonely, you get the volition for companionship, etc. You feel unfulfilled, you seek enlightenment. It's all an escape from what-is, and this we can define as fear. Thought seeking security in its own movement. Right? Thought-self (aka ego) is only interested in its self-perpetuation, which is reflected in this habitual, constant movement from what-is.

Indeed. I have fear. vs. 'I' is fear. Radically different outlooks. Does anyone see the significance of this??

Quite right. The "I" is under the impression that "fear," "volition", "time", and "security seeking" are apart from "I" --- when in fact they are all one and the same movement as "I"/thought-self.

Right, which is why it's a quality of investigation/seeing without volitional/motivational action behind it, as I noted. Any volition is investigated/observed with alert, passive awareness. Ultimately, holistic insight sees all of this - the whole movement of thought-self, which includes the seeking as part of the movement. The insight is void of doer-ship.

would you say, rather than seeking enlightenment, simply bring total attention to this "seeking" quality in the movement of thought? Just to watch it, to see what its nature is, and see what happens with it. To investigate it without any motive or intent; not to change it (i.e. condemn or reject it), but to observe it.

The content of the video is beside the point. I'm questioning the click-batey nature of the video titles to pull in Peterson followers to give them what they want to see (to see Peterson "OWN" a transgender activist, to own a feminist). Lots of videos there also about Peterson "owning a leftist", "dismantles a liberal." These are videos with 100's of thousands of hits. Clearly lots of tribal identity politics going on there with left-right, male-feminist, etc., and the need to beat the "other side." It just reeks of conservative-male ego identity. It's self-evident, really. And the leader reflects the followers; and the followers reflect the leader.

I'd say it absolutely does, in terms of the male ego identity. As the greyness/murkyness of transgenderism undermines/threatens the traditional male ego identity, which is based on male vs. female. Transgenderism muddies those waters. It's like white nationalists who are totally uncomfortable with bi-racial/mixed people, because they muddy the waters as to what it means to be white vs. black. They blur the lines, so to speak, and the ego depends on distinctions, lines -- whether the white identity or the male identity. And for feminism, with its progressive values and critiques of men, questioning the whole male-female structure of our social system, also undermines/threatens the (traditional) male ego-identity, naturally.

Right, just like how someone could have a high degree of success living by a narrative that it's a brutalistic, dog-eat-dog world, and that one has to out-work, out-compete everyone and fight for everything they want. The fruits of the narrative can validate the narrative, but the narrative may very well be a complete ego-mind fabrication.

And to seek ego-identity in male-ness is not really any different than seeking identity in being American, communist, christian, atheist, conservative, etc. Of course, you may be a male -- that is a biological fact. But it may also be a fact that you are an American citizen. Or a fact that you are a lawyer for a living. But to derive ego-identity out of it is altogether different. That's when it becomes a movement of fear, seeking security in identity.

Yeah, Peterson feeds the (traditional) male ego-identity, which is why half his youtube video titles (titled by his followers) are "Peterson OWNS transgender activist", "Peterson DESTROYS feminist professor in debate", "how to be a real man," "how to be a true alpha," "how to earn the respect of other men," etc. A lot of fear there when it comes to protecting and strengthening the male identity within ego.