Saw this video today and thought I'd put it out there for everyone.  Some interesting thoughts

   

Any thoughts?

Views: 614

Reply to This

Replies to This Discussion

Dear Hannes and friends


My views are:
Yes there are assumptions and there are also your own assumptions.
What I was trying to say is:
There are also those who are skeptical about skepticism - ie. others skepticism.
You are skeptical about the video and criticize it, although you might misapprehend the videos intentions based on your own assumptions. - If you find the video to be skeptical, why criticize it for being what you yourself are - skeptical or a user of assumptions. Well, of course only, if you find the video to be skeptical.

Is criticism open-minded or close-minded? Criticism of this video, other, self etc? Or does this video, like all things/concepts, merely point-to-truth? If I dismiss or see-what's-wrong-with this video, will I have control, will I then-be-secure? Is definition (shape/grasp/holding)not, by its (given) nature, close-minded? I don't use "close-minded" here to imply "bad," in a duality sense, or a sense of "I Should be - or strive to be - open-minded!" Are open and close- minded not two natural, glorious, Divine states? Is division means to see God? Or is division means to see-through to God? "I know that I don't know." - Socrates. Do I not assume me-as-open-minded and you - in my glorious arrogance - to be close-minded? And is this to be condemned, or celebrated?

Dear Michael

My views are:
The video is, as I see it, not good at telling that - that which is perceived as closed-mindedness might not be so, because it depends on the intentions behind the activity. Because what is perceived as closed-mindedness could be closed-mindedness - but - it could equally also be open-mindedness seen from a certain spiritual or esoteric perspective. It all depends on the intentions behind the activity. That is my view.

But to be openminded as the word is defined in the dictionaries can hardly be seen as something bad. And the opposite as something good, which we aught to promote on the planet. That is if the definition is done with regard to the intentions behind the behavior - and - not only with regard to the behavior it self. - But it can of course also depend on what definition of the word a person actually prefer to use and are using when seeing the video.

1.
Open-minded is defined as follows:
"Receptive to new and different ideas or the opinions of others."
"having a mind receptive to new ideas, arguments, etc.; unprejudiced"
"ready to entertain new ideas; "an open-minded curiosity"; "open-minded impartiality""
(Free Dictionary - Online)

Open-minded is defined as follows:
"Synonyms: broad-minded, open, receptive
Antonyms: narrow-minded, unreceptive"

"willing to consider different ideas or opinions" (For English-language learners)
"pen to arguments or ideas : not prejudiced" (For students and kids)
(Meriam-Websters Dictionary - Online)

Wikitory on Open-Minded:
"Willing to consider new and different ideas or opinions."
http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/open-minded


2.
Closed-minded is defined as follows:
"Intolerant of the beliefs and opinions of others; stubbornly unreceptive to new ideas."
"not ready to receive to new ideas"
(Free Dictionary - Online)

Webster-Meriam on Closed-Minded:
No info given in the free online version.

Wikitory on Closed-Minded:
"unreceptive to new ideas or information."
http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/close-minded 

 

 

M. - re what "we aught to promote" ...I honor and celebrate your sight, and I'll take your word for this needed promotion. I know not for "we." I honor and celebrate duality. In any given moment I experience open-mindedness (receptivity/service/flexibility), and in any given moment, I experience close-mindedness (deafness/attachment/rigidity): I am human-to-the-bone; human to a fault I am. I enjoy and celebrate "definition," and see each definition/shape/form I create can be obstacle and/or vehicle. Definitions simply no longer define Me; except when they do. I know not what this world needs, and thus am free to be moved accordingly. What I enjoy in any relationship/discussion, is to hear (others), and to "seek to understand" (to use St. francis' expression) each person's movement. I am right or wrong about nothing; unless you see that I am. Thank you all for your sight.

Dear Michael Simon and friends

My views are:
Thank you for your interesting reply.
I am a bit confused about what you wrote in the above. I do hope you do not mind me asking a few questions.
I would like to ask: So the promotion of altruism is not really important to you?

Why do you as you say "I honor and celebrate duality" and will that lead to open-mindedness without any prejudice?
(The definition of closed-mindedness I sue involve the use prejudice in the intentions.)


The above are of course just my views, just like the content of the previous post also was.

 

M - re promotion-of-altruism: yes/no. In any given moment I seek (better world, more whatever), because I see/perceive lack; in these moments promotion is important to ME (Me being personality/ego/meat-suit). I don't view this seeking as bad, but as gloriously human, natural, and reflexive. In any given moment, I see/intuit perfection (in world as in all-things), and seeing/intuiting no lack, I attract or repel (an example of repel may be my expressions not resonating or appearing confusing), by see beyond-need of altruism; seeing beyond-need does not mean my body/mind is not of-service to others - in fact I watch in awe as I am receptive/available to others effortlessly, naturally, where this "service" used to require a code of morals or to be remembered by ME (again, ME: personality/ego). There is a fellowship I am involved with which suggests attraction-rather-than-promotion, but both attraction and promotion are concepts that you and I may use differently. Often I see arguments between people are merely concept-wars, and not disagreements of experience. That is to say, yes, I desire a better world; I have preferences; I "want" less suffering for others. Detached from these wants, I observe my body/mind moved more-efficiently toward this end, without me having to tell others "I am compassionate" or "I am altruistic."

My expression "I honor/celebrate duality" can also be expressed: "your sight is valid," or "God experiences two things through the two of us," or "thank you." It's agendaless. "I teach that which I wish to hear," suggests my teacher, so perhaps it's me speaking to me, showing/formulating for me how your sight is valid, or showing me that My way is not The (only) way. Will it lead-to open-mindedness? Not a clue. I no longer see/project future (in these intuitive moments). What I experience - in these moments - I conceptualize as openness/receptivity/vulnerability/enfolding/flowering/service/peace. But it's not-practice, but beyond-practice; rather, realization - and I do not mean to suggest realization is better-than practice. I see them now as two views, two sights - different, but one no better/worse than another. Another way to say all this: when I see altruism, it's important to me; when I don't see it (or when there's no-Me to see), it's not important.
I'm experiencing fatigue. Lol. "I teach that which I wish to learn," I meant to express.
I don't mean the video, I mean my arrogance - is this to be condemned or celebrated? I think I'll go read some Walt Whitman now. :)

M., I re-ran the video a little before the 6 minute mark and reviewed the part you mention. The narrator is not advocating being 'skeptical of science" and "skeptical of skepticism," but is putting these attitudes down. The segment goes by quick, so it's easy to misread it. 

Michael, looks like you've been getting involved in the abstractions of J. Krishnamurti or one of his adherents. These are good points, though, from a cosmic point of view, to keep in mind. You're right about hitting Walt Whitman as a welcome uplift from all of this. And, no, you're not being arrogant, only naturally expressing yourself. The notion that to be "spiritual" one must be a meek wallflower is a false model that is long outdated and needs to be in the scrapheap.

Hannes, no, it doesn't get better after 3 minutes, if anything, worse. You've hit the nail on head about the whole video. Whenever terms like "supernatural" and "pseudoscience" are bandied about, it's a sure sign that reductionist/materialists are afoot. These are never defined except as something pejorative and to avoided at all costs.

One of the problems with reductionist/materialists is they won't admit they're coming from a point of view, from a paradigm of basic beliefs. The hardcore ones continually insist their stance is the absolute standard for "reality." This video is a good example.

 

 

 

Dear Michael A. Williams


My views are:
Sorry about that. My video acted strange for some reason when I wrote the previous reply about 6:00 mintues. It should have been 5:25 mintues and onward. There are in fact more info also before the black-white face is shown.

 

Michael A. Williams wrote:
"Whenever terms like "supernatural" and "pseudoscience" are bandied about, it's a sure sign that reductionist/materialists are afoot. These are never defined except as something pejorative and to avoided at all costs."

M. Sufilight says:
Is the above view by you an expression of prejudice and thereby closed-mindedness?
I think so, although I might be proven wrong. Sorry I am asking. I just ask seeking to help.

M. Sufilight said:
Yes there are assumptions and there are also your own assumptions.
What I was trying to say is:
There are also those who are skeptical about skepticism - ie. others skepticism.
You are skeptical about the video and criticize it, although you might misapprehend the videos intentions based on your own assumptions. - If you find the video to be skeptical, why criticize it for being what you yourself are - skeptical or a user of assumptions. Well, of course only, if you find the video to be skeptical.

 

First of all I hope we are friends here or if not that we can get there sooner or later.

Then it seems my first answer might have been too condensed. In order to discuss the text more in depth I transcribed it ... would please a friendly native english speaker (or more than one) look into the transcript and pm/post any corrections?

Thank you very much,
Hannes

Here is the file

Attachments:

RSS

Search Theosophy.Net!

Loading

What to do...

Join Theosophy.Net Blogs Forum Live Chat Invite Facebook Facebook Group

A New View of Theosophy


About
FAQ

Theosophy References


Wiki Characteristics History Spirituality Esotericism Mysticism RotR ToS

Our Friends

© 2021   Created by Theosophy Network.   Powered by

Badges  |  Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service