Birch

outkasts Awesome group!

Oh man, I never thought I would suggest this to you. But here goes. Stop giving a rat's arse about what women think/want/see/believe. Focus instead on what they have to give you.

"if you are following Wu Wei, well, you are doing to go somewhere." I don't believe so IME, you're neither doing, not going anywhere. As for the action/intent thing, IME 'intent' is a pre-action feeling/build/something and 'action' is just action. Without intent I don't reckon it does anything. I realise that maybe we might be trying to talk about 'longer term' intent or "plans' or "strategy vs tactics" but I'm probably not good enough at talking about it.

Heya Mr GIH. "I don't see the truth as necessarily something that's polarized into 0 or 1, yes or no, black or white. I see things as shades of gray, as hues of color, as belonging somewhere on a continuum, or on a spectrum of values. Something can be 90% true, or somewhat true, or false for a small but significant reason, and so on. That's how my mind operates." Something of a 'yin/yang' thing? Or more of a blend? See yin and yang as far as I can tell do not mix into grey. "So why don't we just call the pretend-materialist something else? Well, it's actually a complicated question. First, we have to honor people's self-reports to some degree. So if someone says, "I am a materialist" that's a self-report and we have to at least try to give it the benefit of the doubt. At least." Well, you only said you were and some other people were. I haven't asked anyone else about being a materialist because I'd rather avoid freaking people out (except maybe quantum theorists and chemists and magicians and taoists ) I'll give you the benefit of the doubt about yourself. No-one else. And I'm only doing it because I'm in love with Sam Harris, who says something similar 'Alternatively this is what the person really believes about oneself but is mistaken. It's possible to be sincerely mistaken about oneself.' How? "So because of all these possibilities it's not always wise to "just call it something else."" Well, wouldn't you have to then not call it "materialism"? I'm confused. "Here's how I handle the problem. I read what you say and allow the meaning to sink in, then I forget the words and reply only to the meaning." And how do you get to what I mean, quite exactly? Not like I'm there telling you all this. "I don't focus on the words unless the words are crucial in some way. I find that often the meaning is somewhere between the words, but yes, sometimes a single word is dramatically important to the meaning of the whole post, so it becomes important to investigate the word." Aren't you making up part of the meaning yourself then? I mean I'm using words because I'm trying to get a meaning to you but if you ignore them and just make stuff up then what? "My rate of success depends on how much of a hurry I am in to respond. If I am just itching to respond, there is a chance I won't properly assimilate the meaning and just respond to the words instead." I wonder which I'd rather you did. Which has the best chance of really being understood the way I mean it (and not the way you mean it?) "I don't want to say I have some belief I will absolutely never change. However, I value some of my beliefs more than others. I see some beliefs are less likely to change. It doesn't mean that I will absolutely never change them. It just means when I look into the future, I don't currently see any reason for change. So when I told you I am not likely to change some belief, I gave you a current time estimate, if you will. As with all estimates, it's not guaranteed to be 100% accurate. I like to see all my commitments as temporary, and this includes philosophical commitments above all. Anything less and it turns into a prison for my mind, and I don't like that feeling. I like to think that all the doors are open, rather than welded shut. So if I get bored or need to move on for whatever reason, I just close one door and open another. I don't want to think I am permanently stuck in my mind in some way." I don't think anyone wants to think that But then we get surprised doing it. "People are not ever 100% identical. Not even the so-called "identical twins" are identical. With this in mind, obviously we all have something in common. Coincidence of intent doesn't have to be interpreted as a perfect identity between two people in time. It's this 0 or 1 bifurcated thinking again, imo." Meh. "Disagreements are most pleasurable and most productive when they are centered around a common base of agreement. That's just my experience and opinion. For disagreements to be productive, it's best that they are small or manageable. If some disagreements are dramatic, then such disagreements may cause too much psychological trouble to be productive. But the tolerance to a specific severity of a disagreement is like the tolerance to a specific degree of pain, it varies from person to person." I dunno. I almost think it's just indulgence to niggle a point or a few tweaks of a concept. Yes it hurts when we are in real opposition IMO/IME but I'd like to see that discussion happen more than I enjoy spending time niggling over little differences. "Well, I am actually in the process of doing so, but it's not so simple, right? Turns out as I begin to change it, other things I cared about get impacted. Then I have to decide whether or not I am ready to give up those things (or ready to change them to the point of non-recognition). When I am ready with the whole thing, I will change, or I will discover that I've already changed. In many ways I am already less of a materialist than a lot of people. " How do you know? And if your real name is Sam Harris, PM me OK, so you're getting rid of the split. Obviously you're more powerful than the split, you're more alive than it. The split is just sitting there and waits for you to change it. Contemplation, meditation, lucid dreaming, divination, magic, hypnosis, sports, science, craftsmanship, and many more. You are more alive than all your assumptions. If that wasn't the case, you'd have no power over your assumptions.

Excellent post Mr Hundun! Yes, and who said meditation is for wusses

What's going on? I'm almost convinced form experience that whatever happens with this qi-gong stuff is just one thing less to be concerned about. I'd suggest a practice area where you won't have to give a crap about neighbours. But you sound concerned about the 'manifestations' (for want of a better word) of practice (I guess depends on what you're doing). IME, before I 'found' practices, I spent a few months dancing pretty much every evening...just had to. Then with the KAP stuff there was a fairly long period of weird. I refer to it as "shit hitting the fan" and I wouldn't categorize it as 'mental illness' (although I'm sure some people who were used to me prior probably figured I'd lost it... I didn't let them see me dancing though ) I guess we could get back to the "why do practices" question. I know some people don't like it, but in hindsight, I think it's worth getting into. And this is why I appreciate the detail. So for example if I know that holding my breath increases CO2 and that leads to XYZ auditory effects, then I might do that less. But I think in some cases, the only way to know what it does for you is to be mindful. I guess which is why one might suggest coming to "spontaneous" practices after forms? Or learning "safety" measures if you ever find yourself in a pickle? Belly breathing, mindfulness, compassion for self...

Wow, that's a massive theory! Do you think that qi-deficient people can only get qi from other people? That would up-end the whole "charismatic" deal then?? Anyway, while there's "building qi" to be done. I reckon it's probably useful to do something to stay the leak of qi that you're building - or that you had. Because if you were/are deficient, it must have been going elsewhere all this time? And I kind of have an inkling it was going towards the people you were attempting to win over with all the exercises - in an attempt to get it back again, if you see where I'm going with this? I'm kind of rambling. But I found your post really interesting.

I hear this kind of suggestion every time there has been an expectation that other people do what one would prefer they do and they haven't done it. Whatever it is. So we (I, one) might say "dang, had those people, that person only been trained better (maybe even as well as me!) then they wouldn't have done whatever thing they did. I think this is what religions/societies have been trying to do for ages. I don't say this is "better" I often wonder what a person's 'morals" would be "naturally". I think what is binding is both very personal and dependent on one's own sense of what feels right. I can imagine a person with no "guilty" feelings whatsoever. I don't know how that would play out. A psycho-socio-path, maybe? Anyway, I figure from my own experience that my sense/feeling of what is "right" is either helped along or hindered by whatever the prevailing rules in society are (to the extent that I'll buy into it when other people "help" enforce them upon me) But because I didn't grow up "free" per se. I can't say exactly what "no morals" would be like. A wonderful garden :-) There's been some experiments on the kind of situation you mention in game theory I think. They were pretty interesting but IMO they didn't explain the morals at play in the society they were conducted in.

Alright, I've been mulling this one over. Kind of thinking about it and also not thinking about it (I often attempt both, not sure which produces any results, but anyway...) "Right. The degree of sincerity is always important. Not every materialist is as committed to that worldview as every other. For some people the belief in the material nature of phenomena is backed by many interdependent beliefs that are also strong, deep and sincere in their own right. For other people, that network of supporting beliefs is smaller and shallower. But if materialism is only a pretense, then a person is not a true materialist in the first place. " You've started with words that complicate already. A "true" vs not a "true" materialist. Are you saying that "truth" is measurable by degrees of sincerity? There's a long road to go down about truth and I'm not sure it's a good one to attempt in a discussion about magic... But anyway, if you're calling a "materialist" as you see it and a "pretend" one (that you can't see) something else, well why not just call it something else? Maybe an 'insincere materialist" or "a maybe materialist" because you said you don't know how they experience it. I'm not very good at the argument thing because there's too much in every single word to deal with. "It's true for me because it's my belief and it's not likely going to change either. Nor do I want to change it. It's also going to be true for a lot of people because the people I meet here are not too far off my intent, because all meetings represents coincidences of intent, remember?" Yeah, not sure about this one either. Are you're saying truth for anyone is only belief and you'll hang on to that whatever happens and you don't want to change it? Or are you saying it's just that the way you see truth is like a belief? And you didn't say why? And lots of other people are going to agree with you because you've intended they will?? And you're only meeting people whose intent coincides with yours? But you didn't say whether it was coinciding to agree or to disagree...I dunno, I think I come on TTB's quite often because I think that having disagreements furthers my thinking and contemplation. Is that what you meant? "People can't practice qi-gong if they don't believe in it. For many people qi-gong is just crazy juju and they won't even get the slightest motivation to even try practicing it." Well this is weird, because I didn't believe in it either and I came to it as a practice out of necessity. Oh it's very probable that for many people it's crazy juju and yet I suspect not doing it is probably also just as crazy juju. I'm not aware of any specific belief I have related to qi-gong except the ones I've been using to actually do it. But then I haven't analyzed it that much yet. It's really just experimental. "I can't see you having any problems. I think it's mostly your insecurity speaking just now. You're just as mind-driven as anyone. " Like I said "If that's the intent, then eventually yes." So, just as an intention experiment. How about you change your materialist belief? The you can change it back (if you want, apparently) "Observe and you'll see." I am observing, constantly, and IME I can't say that there's a "higher" element, or carts before horses. Besides, I'm trying to get them to be in tune with each other so emphasizing one or the other just maintains the silly split I'm getting rid of. "Yes, it's one of the ways." Other ways being? "It doesn't depend because by definition we assume that the horse is more alive, and thus more precious than the carriage. If you think the carriage is more alive and more precious then you simply change how I will phrase my point without actually changing the heart of my point. The heart of my point is that something is more alive than something else. Something leads. Something else follows. That which leads is more powerful, more alive, and more precious. Don't get lost in words. Look only into the heart of the meaning." Well, that's what I already pointed to above. And I don't assume either is "more alive". I think that's the point of qi-gong.

I guess you just answered your own "how" question Mr Cow :-) Still, IME, until you've caught yourself doing any of these things (and I argue there's a very distinct movement/contraction that goes with to start it off until I catch it) it might not be obvious. I like to visualize it as my various brains (or brain areas) kicking in. There's one really stupid one in there somewhere. I'm not sure what to do about its development...

Yeah I can see you're going to annoy me on the choice of words thing with some circular argumentation skills I just don't have Bummer I'm not actually that insecure BTW Telling me I am doesn't make it so - which is why I tend to oppose the throwing around of the "you-word" . I apologize for using it myself. It only encouraged you Back to this one later. I'm going to go and think about it...

See? If I were a monkey overlord I wouldn't go telling them anything good about themselves either I should add, I'm not a monkey overlord, nor do I agree with monkey overlording. And I should add that Taoist practice and TTC might be a good idea to apply if you believe you have ever been subjected to monkey overlordship. And you think I'm joking. Only ever half the time

Thanks for the replies Mr GIH. I'll have to cut it up because I can't make multi-quote work either "Yes. For example, how do we all end up on this forum? Our intents coincide, right?" - Alright "Why should magic work any differently? The thing is that we often believe that things just don't coincide in a beneficial way very often, or that they do so only randomly. Magicians believe they can encourage, provoke or evoke such coincidences on purpose, willingly." - Your belief is that intent is at the root of magic? I don't know enough about either to say whether it is or it isn't. "So it's going to matter for you. " - Isn't that a bit simple? "You believe and so there you go, something matters for you?" Is that it? "You believe in neurology very strongly." - Well no, actually, I see it as a variant/translation of something I don't know a huge amount about, but it sort of makes sense to me. I guess it's all that time fiddling with meridians and qi-gong and stuff. "You can't just pretend your way out of that belief." Why not? If I'm only using it as a translation? "It doesn't work like that. Belief transformation is the hardest thing there is in this whole world. Going from believing into neurons to believing into infinite mind is a huuuugggeeee change. Huge. It affects almost everything you believe and not just one or two beliefs." - I'm interested in all this because you keep saying I believe things when I reckon I'm just using them for convenience. "If you say something matters, then there is a very good chance it does. My view doesn't contradict the materialist experience." I'm not even sure I know what the materialist experience is. What is it? "Materialists experience phenomena in a materialistic way and that way of experience is valid for them." How do you know?? "Furthermore, they are very much unlikely to see any genuine magic in their lives and most likely any magic materialists encounter is going to be simply fraud and scams. That's the intent (karma) of the materialist manifesting. They get what they believe in and there is no way to pretend out of it." Unless they're pretending to be materialists in the first place? "Changing beliefs requires life-long dedication to serious spiritual work replete with logical analysis, experience, or both (preferably)." Is that true or is it just your belief ? "Often a significant belief change can only be precipitated through a cataclysmic event or a near-death experience. Why? Because sometimes nothing less can actually budge the person's worldview." - Why not? Isn't that why we're doing a bunch of meditation and qi-gong " Sometimes logical analysis is sufficient. Sometimes you have to get whacked with lightning on your head, or be in a huge car accident to get a new perspective on life. That's just how it is, in my opinion/experience." - Did you get whacked? I keep getting this idea that you're way far too logical and mind-driven for me to understand a lot of what you're saying. "So when we talk about beliefs it makes no sense to denigrate them as in, "oh it's just beliefs". It's not "just." Beliefs run deep deep deep. When it comes to our core beliefs we are often willing to die 100 times in a row than to give them up. Still, all beliefs can be changed. But what that means shouldn't be underestimated or slighted." - ALL of them can be changed? "Yes, it works both ways. But if the body controls the mind, that's not a good modality. It's like a horse carriage controlling the horse. Not good." - Why not? " And yes, horse carriage can have an effect on the horse. The link between the horse and the horse carriage goes both ways." - Well, see isn't all this qi-gong about understanding this a lot better? "But when the horse is in charge that's a virtuous coupling. " - Why? Doesn't it "depend" "And when the carriage is in charge of the horse that's a troubled coupling. Both mind and body will affect each other no matter what though." - I know! " I think most magicians want to rely more on the mind and less on the body because the mind is much more flexible and resourceful than the body. The body is very limited. The mind is limitless. Of course it's better to make your home in the limitless. The mind is the center of power." - Yes, I figured a top-down person might come up with something about that

Yes I like his stuff. Found it somewhat harsh a while back but he does have some excellent points to make. I think there's maybe some digging into it to be done. I hadn't understood that the "you're already enlightened" people were actually saying that any given person has realized it. Maybe they were then? Anyway, I read it to say quite the contrary, that if a given person hasn't realized "it", then what's preventing them from realizing "it" is, well, themselves. And if you, yourself, do not want "it" then I guess no amount of anything will push you towards it - and I'd actually digress and suggest that in that case, you'd start doing all kinds of things to get away from "it" - go in as many different directions as you can to avoid "it"... So I gotta ask, why would any being, when faced with the opportunity to reach "enlightenment" NOT jump at that opportunity? It's not like this stuff isn't lying around all over the place. It's ALL over the place, especially in places where people hang around looking for it.

Awesome! Especially the rolling down what looks like concrete stairs part. Man one would have to be very relaxed for that not to hurt

"My guess is that the One wants to manifest into the One, to recognize itself within the structure of matter." Sure. But in which case, why bother with "the many"? Why bother differentiating into jing,qi,shen? Why "ten thousand things"? Why not just spend one's time being "one"? Hell of a lot more peaceful Are you suggesting "one" sets itself up for no other reason than to get to the (re-cognition) of the one? I've read/heard that one (pardon the pun) before. And indeed, many religions/practices seem (to me) to be based on that premise. I don't doubt that by doing those things one can get to states and sentiments that seem like being "the one". I've done some But I wonder... I figure if the purpose of "the one" was to get back to itself, then all of the "ten thousand things" would be doing stuff to re-cognize "the one" but so far I haven't seen a bird religion or a whale practice or a dog ritual to get to anything other than, well, whatever birds and whales and dogs already do? Ok, maybe it's because my bird and whale and dog observation is faulty. Maybe. So I wonder if there's not something else "afoot". And what might be afoot except a lie (or several)? I'm not knocking the awesome experiences of unity but i'd argue that for people to need/want to get to that state when we know full well that things aren't any other way, well, maybe something's up? So what's up? And why is it "up" in the first place?

I think it can, yes. Kind of like excessive exercise can cause damage but enough of it will build muscle (or something...). I also think there's a fine line between "adverse qi-gong effects" and "detox". I suspect I've experienced both. At any given point, which side of that line was/am I on? And from whose perspective?? Steve F mentioned social issues. I think that's worth digging into. I guess I'd consider stuff that takes 5E into account "safer" than stuff that doesn't. I did find at one point that "grounding" and "heart-centered" practice was very helpful (as was acupuncture and "not bothering with scenery". ) Still, one could argue that one is doing qi-gong every day even if one is not doing qi-gong. It just happens to be unintentional and unaware. But maybe the "gong" is the intentional and aware part, otherwise it wouldn't be "gong"?

Neat! Unfortunately for those of us not living in windblown countryside with whooshing trees and immanent storms, "change" might be a bit more subtle to apprehend obviously. I guess I wish books like this would be written for the "technological" age. But so far I haven't really come across any. Ideas for apprehending change if you're concrete-bound?

"Where else in our daily lives do we have the ability to talk this deeply about things with others who are like-minded?" Well, while I was on my TTB's vacation I just kept running into them. All the time. Like the entire ff-ing world was filled with enlightened beings. Far too uncomfortable. So I made a point of logging back on to TTB's for comfort.

Ya Mu, do you really reckon this "increase" in "natural disasters" is a neg feedback loop? I'm not so sure. I think "natural" things happen all the time. What makes them "disasters" IMO might be because people keep getting in the way. Seems dinosaurs "got in the way" as well. I guess I make a distinction between stuff that happens because I'm in the way and stuff that happens even if I'm not in the way. For example, building nuclear reactors in earthquake zones could be an example of "getting in the way" as could building a city in a flood valley and expecting that to somehow pre-empt any flooding.

What was it with yesterday and tails? I had sacral movement and tailbone "throbbing" (for want of a better word) for a good part of the evening. Granted, I'd been doing some gardening and lots of bending... Anyway, isn't it nice when it frees up?

"May I have the liberty to add?" It would seem that you do

Oh yes. Did I mention how Otis' post was, and I haven't even (really, except for a movie of him jumping over tires) seen the man Non, not every encounter needs to be "meaningful" IMO. I'd echo the other suggestions and say you need some emo-surgery. There's nothing wrong with being a horny young guy but IMO your attitude towards women is seriously screwed. But you know that already. Dragging up reams of cherry-picked articles to support your view is IMO pointless - unless you don't want to change perspective, in which case, keep posting the same stuff. How about for every article you post about the sh*t state of male/female relations, you endeavor to find another one that says the opposite.

Neat post! Something else that I've been mulling over is the idea that most of what we think/do has a real intelligence of purpose, couched in reality as we have experienced it till now. But at some juncture, there is a realization that this is pointless, that no prior experience can fully "jive" with whatever is going on right now. Nor can it continue to do so. This dashes our hopes and expectations (which I guess I kind of argue as being a good thing too). A "gap" ensues. Being in the gap feels pretty neat. Then I sometimes fall back into hope and expectations and, well, that feels terrible. There's nothing more painful than hope, IMO/IME.

Just think of all that "food" lying around practitioners! :blink: What do you think all the offerings and ferocious imagery around holy places are for? We don't even have rituals for "house-spirits" any more (at least where I live) so I guess the meditation table-scraps go to...where do they go?? I've sort of given up considering where they might go. More brain-frying stuff. Still, I guess I'm curious about where my trash goes.