robdl

We're buying a timeshare together in Scottsdale.

There's an insight that is unitary, whole, and then thought seems to have the capacity to thing-ify it later.

Because it's in thought's very nature to thing-ify, make distinctions.

Duality is kind of hilarious. 50 seemingly different ways that seem opposed, separate, unique, conflicting --- to speak of ONE AND THE SAME movement!

Or the self (desire) attempting to use desire (movement of self) to end desire. lol

Citing spiritual authority -- flavoured by: knowledge (having accumulated their teaching), fear (seeking security in their teaching) time (using memory/the past to recall their teachings/knowledge) self (I am a Buddhist/Christian and here's what my tradition says about it) Therefore citing spiritual authority can quite easily be a movement of thought-self asserting/propagating.

And effort/volition -- this sense of doing, striving. Completely flavoured by time, fear, and desire.

within fear there is a flavour of desire (to desire/want to escape) within desire there is a flavour of fear (to escape from a sense of lack) within knowledge there is a flavour of time (as knowledge is of the past) within time there is the flavour of knowledge (as our past is made of the accumulated memory, knowledge, experience) within knowledge there is a flavour of desire (isn't knowledge always desired/sought/wanted?) They're so completely inter-related because they're all one and the same movement.

Thought, fear, volition, desire, psychological time, knowledge, and 'I'-self are all one and the same movement/mechanism/process. Thought chops it up into different words and concepts. Not spouting philosophy here. It's to be seen.

Thought breeds fear then thought attempts to escape from it (i.e. fear action again) -- circular. Thought breeds desire then thought attempts to seek after it (i.e. desire action again) -- circular. But escaping and seeking are actually one and the same. Fear and desire are actually one and the same. Dualistic language makes the distinction.

The nature of thought itself has a circular quality to it. Thought breeds fear-thought which breeds thought which breeds fear-thought. Thought breeds self-thought which breeds thought which breeds self-thought, etc. As faceless has said, cause is effect is cause is effect. Anything like thought that is seeking security in its own movement is going to have a circular quality. Fear propagates thought and thought propagates fear. So in explaining the nature of thought itself, naturally it can seem like talking in a circle.

Right, but the foundation/starting point for me is always the nature of thought itself. To have that down first before proceeding further.

Thought/self is in a perpetual movement of seeking security in/for/of itself; in its own movement. Thought doesn't actually care whether the thoughts are good or bad --- or care about whatever the thought content is --- thought just cares about perpetuating itself. Thought will use anything and everything to sustain its movement. Tell thought-self not to think and it will ask "how to" --- because "how to" invites more method, concept, knowledge, thought. As said, it will use anything and everything. The subtlety of this

Oh yeah, I'm just talking about relationship. One's direct relationship with another. I wasn't critiquing using group data to form policy or anything of that nature.

Yeah, fear and desire/pleasure (i.e. not love) are the apparent opposites within the duality of thought (but are one and the same movement in actuality). Fear and desire both being a movement/escape from what-is, and love not being an escape of any kind.

Imagine being a white middle-class male and having a black person relate to you through their lens of intellectual concepts and abstractions over what it is to be white, middle-class, or male, or a combination thereof. Conversely, imagine being a working class black person and having a white person relate to you through their lens of intellectual concepts and abstractions over what it is to be black/have the black experience/be a working class black person. Or imagine viewing someone through the concept of what an aquarius or scorpio is and projecting that onto them because of how some of their traits may align. Can we see how de-personalizing/patronizing it is to view people through projected concepts, through limited static knowledge like this? It's relationship through concept. As far as I see, spiral dynamics nourishes relationship through image, concept, static knowledge in the very same way --- albeit in a more abstract or sophisticated way. We tend to seek to know/understand/peg people down because there's a discomfort/insecurity in the not-knowing. Ever notice the thought-stories arising when we meet someone new, with very limited information about them? This is thought seeking security in itself/knowledge/the past. Thought detests not-knowing, and is always in escape from it.

As you've said and it can be observed --- the cause is the effect and the effect is the cause. Thought seeks security in itself. Fear seeks security in itself. Self-deception perpetuates. It's all saying the same thing. Thought separates, classifies, and makes distinctions with a myriad of terms (fear, thought, self, insecurity, time, etc.), by its very nature, but in essence one and the same mechanism: movement of self-perpetuating thought.

Indeed -- I think we need to distinguish (and point out some potential similarities as well) between the compulsive, conflicting desire to self-improve, which can be happening hour-to-hour, moment-to-moment, in the movement of thought/self, and the more macro, long-term outward activity of improving at a particular activity, hobby, etc. Before we can appreciate/accept the latter, I think we need to have an intimate understanding of the former, so that the latter is a reflection of sanity, intelligence --- not a reflection (and perpetuation) of delusion, self-deception. Thought/self loves to step in and agree with the notion of self-improvement compulsion being neurotic, but long-term self-improvement goals being okay --- but this can be a way of thought-self rationalizing/self-protecting/seeking security in its own movement/seeking security in psychological time (all one and the same movement). It's astonishing when one goes into it --- the radical profundity of it.

Indeed - the attempted “stopping” of thoughts is itself the movement of thought/self. Stopping being a form of resistance; escape from what-is. Thought killing thought. Ego mind killing ego mind. Although the “meditator”/body focuser is also a subtle movement of thought/self.

But can this be understood by seeing the nature of thought itself and its perpetual escape from what-is through such forms as desire, fear, ambition, volition, self-improvement, and so on? To not realize this is the nature of thought itself, thought/self may indulge in a concept of the Absolute and existing perfection, yet continue with the movement of self-improvement.

improving yourself striving desiring ambition effort will volition. All movements of self/thought/psychological time/escape from what-is. (all one and the same thing.) Thought is always in a movement of escape from what-is, its very nature, and wanting to "improve yourself" is another manifestation of that. I didn't watch the video but is this what Alan Watts is pointing to?

Only ego mind would want to dissolve ego mind. The wanting itself is an indicator of ego mind. Ego mind wants a new car, ego mind wants to dissolve ego mind. Essentially the same thing.

Trying to stop criticizing - also movement of ego mind. Or you could say a movement of desire-thought (same thing). Where there’s will/effort/volition/trying/choosing/deciding, there is ego mind.

@Leo Gura Do you ever think that setting out for insights, and accumulating them, is a form of self-deception --- nourishing the subtle movement of "insight receiver"? It seems like there could be some conflict between accruing insights and realizing/abiding in no-self. Could insights be an ego mind's subtle ploy to maintain its continuity?

But maybe we need to define what "theory" is. If you're giving advice on the nature of self, observing without the observer, the need to understand the fact in one's own inward movement, etc. -- this is arguably "theory," at least until one directly realizes it (i.e. me). Theory generally being a set of ideas to explain something. But perhaps theory is not an apt term for the guidance you give. What would you call it?