Questions on Asana, and other preliminaries
-
93,
Thanks, Jim. I understand that the method of Jvgorvm is quite... Dated, however, in experience I learn more from punishment, than reward Shrug
93 93/93
-
@Alrah said
"
@malnarcissis said
"
@Alrah said
"
93,"
"93,
One of the reasons I mentioned hunting behaviours, is that to take yourself out into the wild to hunt demands the utmost alertness and integration of the mind, body and environment. Animals have that naturally. Overly domesticated humans loose it. To take your animal self in hand, then you first have to know it and give the beast it's due. Have you noticed that good hunters often display an impressive refinement of mind, body and speech?
93 93/93"
93,
Honestly, I would disagree greatly. Animals have no special faculty like that. If that were the case, you would not see them doing stupid things.
Also, being from Michigan, your statement about hunters are entirely false. Wile there are likely many hunters like that, for the most part, the people who get excited about it aren't particularly aware of anything beyond the price of beer. Though, I fail to see how hunting is relevant- in this day and age hunting is a game- it takes no real awareness. You get up in your tree stand, drink beer, and shoot at anything that isn't orange.
Also, you keep treating the animal self as if it is some kind of pre-disciplined animal. Even those animals you are discussing as being in harmony have to subdue their lessers, as well as fend off up-starts. While you may be willing to let your animal self do whatever it likes, I prefer to assume the mechanics are similar to every other viewable interaction in nature.
Edit: I figure I should note, that as aggressive as I'm mkaing this sound, it is just to emphasize what I am trying to say- in the same instances you wouldn't attack a loyal friend- but an animal is an animal and will try to raise it's self above the social hierarchy.
93 93/93
-
Alrah, I say you are sorely mistaken about animals. To find out why I say this (in an effort to let the conversation get back to what it was originally about), leave this thread and meditate on why we get so concerned when cubs become orphans. Yes, the instinctively know how to smell - but they do not instinctively know what is food. Many things their mammas need to teach them.
ps. but if you are right, I think I'll try getting all that money from the wildlife people I sent them.
-
93,
I think these two threads have become a back and forth
Is this okay? XD"I will wage any money upon a proper feral animal beating you at a task it is naturally habituated towards. A monkey at finding berries. A Lioness at stalking her pray. The mind and body of each animal is integrated towards survival. If they de-integrate then they don't survive in the natural world. That is the Law. Only man defies (for now) the natural Law. And he only has a limited window in which he can do so without incurring the destruction of his species. "
Yes, I would wager that, too. That being said, I would say I am much more adapted to the methods of Intellectual [I am using that word as some of the 17th and 18th century Neo-Platonists did] mastery.
Yes, and the mind and body of humans is integrated for survival. In the wild. The fact is, is that our unique adaptations have allowed us to transcend the rat race that is life. it gets closer and closer to the point where a human can simply devote all of their time to mastering some thing that isn't particularly useful, but rather more.... Enlightened [As in, less killing and eating, more thinking]
I wouldn't say man defies natural law. If I picked up anything from my old desire to do biology it's that statements like that ignore most of what society is. It isn't a rat race, rather [To me] it seems more anarchic than normal living. The rules of "Do it this way or you simply die," have been removed and replaced with "You better watch what you do, or you will die." My mode of thought is simply trying to say "That is dumb. We shouldn't even have to think about survival, as civilization is a mutual agreement to ensure that the members survive."
Also, your de-integration thing is silly. An apt comparison would to be to compare a domesticated animal to a feral human [That is, it takes a human out of the expected environment] What do we get [I am assuming a wolf at this point, by the way as it is like a dog]? The human in this state is smart, yes, but generally has no real mental trademarks of a human [Beyond the normally assumed ones- language is harder, social existence is harder, so forth]. The wolf, on the other hand will live generally the same, assuming it's life is not altered [Assume, large cage a small cage would produce a similar result to the feral human who is not in an enclosure]. I wouldn't say that is integration, rather a difference in the development. [Though, this example is flawed as there are a lot of varibles, but assumign all things to be equal]
"
If undomesticated animals were not integrated in their body and mind and environment - they would not be Born. Hunt. Eat. And Live.
And Kill. And then Die. "It happens all the time in nature. Aren't you aware of Natural Selection? It's not that they aren't born, it's that they are not viable and then die.
"Oh... that type?
That's not a hunter. That's just a man with a gun.I'll ask my mate to ask the Princess to give you a pass to White River, Alaska if you like. They teach the traditional hunting skills down there and they meditate before they trek. "
No. You just redefined the term hunter to suit your position [Or at the very least did not denote what you meant by the term] But to add to that, that's just Alaska, a relatively unpopulated state. Anyone can choose a sufficiently small sample to confirm what they want- the vast majority of hunts are not like that, even in Alaska.
"
The animal comes with an inherent set of insticts. It's been pre-disciplined by nature. Aye?"Sure. For what it wants. The issue is, is that what it wants is not necessarily what it should want. That isn't to say it should be sublimated, but at the end of the day it is a servant, if it acts up it needs to be shown why that is a bad idea. You may be willing to allow it to run with a longer leash, but my mind works on a very spring-like [As in the metal thing, not the season
] model."The males do to work out who is alpha. The female of the species usually does it somewhat differently. It's not that women are socialised to think of others before themselves... it's something inborn. The female alpha goes forth and gets the vote of the demos. The male alpha goes forth and becomes king by dominion. There are two hierarchies in nature. "
Bull shit. This entire idea stems from anthropomorphizing animals- it is just as silly as the idea of nature as harmonious. For specific examples, look to hamsters- the females are actually more likely to kill than the males. In wolf packs [Since we are using the term Alpha] your example crumbles- the alpha female is simply the mating partner of the alpha male. The female wolves do not sit down and have a cheery discussion on who gets to go for a ride during the year- rather the female alpha may get challenged, just like a male. Though, it should be noted alpha females are generally permanent [Generally], as breeding is always risky business for them.
"Some wolves hunt alone."
Yes. And when viewed against a normal wolf, it tends to lead to a very negative social quality- assuming the wolf even survives, as lone wolves are always at a disadvantage..
93 93/93
-
93,
XD. I would like to clairify that I was quite interested in my first question, as to what it is. I am assuming it is just a reaction I've somehow cultivated to frustration [Though, I would like to know how I did that. XD], but I've never heard of people having that from deciding to sit still and focus on the body.
93 93/93
-
@Alrah said
"
@Takamba said
"Alrah, I say you are sorely mistaken about animals. To find out why I say this (in an effort to let the conversation get back to what it was originally about), leave this thread and meditate on why we get so concerned when cubs become orphans. Yes, the instinctively know how to smell - but they do not instinctively know what is food. Many things their mammas need to teach them."Lol. What I think is funny, Takamba, is that man, living so far away from his own natural animal thinks nothing of trying to become his true self, whilst all the while deriding his animal, his lust, his agression - and what for? Society?
Sure - each cub has instinct unstructed. As do most human animals. We are taught it's better to endure and be neurotic and conform rather than be an outcast of the mad collective we call society these days.
I think it's unhealthy. lol. And I don't give a damn if that's one solitary horn to the walls of Jericho."
93,
Not for society, himself. In your comparisons you have forgotten a few things about animals- they generally aren't all there, they never have the urge to go beyond what is relevant to their interests, nor do they have the urge to do anything just because they can. Sure, they can do things because it is fun, as chemicals are great [Yes, I am straddling a fine line here].
[Also, I do not understand the part about cubs, as it doesn't really have context with what the guy said.]
No, that isn't what humans are taught. XD, not to intrude, but are you over 30? If so, then you might be surprised that the current way to prove individuality is to be separate, or in some way detached from the social group [I call it marketing dissent]. Well, for my child hood, any way. This thinking sends the wrong message- being unique implies none of those things. I've always been Leary of that approach, as it ignores the exact parts of humanity that we should foster as we move forward.
Well, you needn't give a damn about anything. However, at times it's seemed like your vacillations have a bit too much emotion tied into them, and with certain people [I admit it] that type of approach looks sloppy and poorly constructed. Though, not to discount it, some of use enjoy the fruits of more humanly advanced outlooks
.
93 93/93 -
@malnarcissis said
"93,
XD. I would like to clairify that I was quite interested in my first question, as to what it is. I am assuming it is just a reaction I've somehow cultivated to frustration [Though, I would like to know how I did that. XD], but I've never heard of people having that from deciding to sit still and focus on the body.
93 93/93"
I suspect part of the reason you have not found the answers you are looking for is that few people have what it takes to say "I don't know," so instead we've turned into a moral argument (spiritual pride I think it is akin to) as to whether you should even being doing this practice or that.
All that aside, I've never found any material or discussion about spontaneous arousal due to posture, but medically it would seem like something that happens and so there should be some one who knows (like maybe a real doctor if you think this question is worth the $60 co-pay)
Sitting in lotus I have made myself erect, made the muscle or skin or whatever exactly to massage itself, and ejaculate (all this while not using erotic thought). But that's not "spontaneous" as you describe. So, for the sake of whatever "program" you actually see yourself involved in, anything "not willed" is not the result you are looking for so I certainly urge you to make this question very important to you if you are still being interrupted by these things.
Of course, I may be misunderstanding. I'm assuming this arousal is involving erection of some level, increased blood flow, and sensitivity to stimulation. If it isn't that, if it is less than that - then just move on, it's the devil tempting you to give up your exercise. The purpose of the exercise being defeated if you let the animal win the argument. But if it is all that above, there could be medical reasons (not necessarily illness or anything serious, but we are talking about circulation) - so it could be worth investigating.
*stepping back out of the ring
-
@Takamba said
"Sitting in lotus I have made myself erect, made the muscle or skin or whatever exactly to massage itself, and ejaculate (all this while not using erotic thought)."
And why did I do it, Alrah? "Because it was there."
I don't need to justify my practices to you.
-
@Takamba said
"
@malnarcissis said
"93,XD. I would like to clairify that I was quite interested in my first question, as to what it is. I am assuming it is just a reaction I've somehow cultivated to frustration [Though, I would like to know how I did that. XD], but I've never heard of people having that from deciding to sit still and focus on the body.
93 93/93"
I suspect part of the reason you have not found the answers you are looking for is that few people have what it takes to say "I don't know," so instead we've turned into a moral argument (spiritual pride I think it is akin to) as to whether you should even being doing this practice or that.
All that aside, I've never found any material or discussion about spontaneous arousal due to posture, but medically it would seem like something that happens and so there should be some one who knows (like maybe a real doctor if you think this question is worth the $60 co-pay)
Sitting in lotus I have made myself erect, made the muscle or skin or whatever exactly to massage itself, and ejaculate (all this while not using erotic thought). But that's not "spontaneous" as you describe. So, for the sake of whatever "program" you actually see yourself involved in, anything "not willed" is not the result you are looking for so I certainly urge you to make this question very important to you if you are still being interrupted by these things.
Of course, I may be misunderstanding. I'm assuming this arousal is involving erection of some level, increased blood flow, and sensitivity to stimulation. If it isn't that, if it is less than that - then just move on, it's the devil tempting you to give up your exercise. The purpose of the exercise being defeated if you let the animal win the argument. But if it is all that above, there could be medical reasons (not necessarily illness or anything serious, but we are talking about circulation) - so it could be worth investigating.
*stepping back out of the ring"
93,
XD. Thanks. I'm really trying to get the feel of it, as to what it is, and what should be done.
Eh, there generally isn't any physical sign of arousal, beyond a significant level of awareness regarding the area, but that can be blamed on the "Liquid," sensation.
XD. I don't think it's anything really doctor worthy, maybe psychologist worthy if it is just an arousal I am not recognizing [It could be. I've not tried to examine it too much, beyond trying to let it go, and when that happens, generally my bladder decides to get involved.] I would assume it would lead to a bunch of movement though, so after the first few times, I've just enjoyed the feelings. also, I have noticed that if I do a kegel during, the sensation gets better.
Prideful? Me? Never
93 93/93
-
@Alrah said
"
@Takamba said
"I don't need to justify my practices to you."Please post where the {****} I asked you to justify anything to me Takamba?"
that's one.
Can't you just accept what people say? and I was being preemptive (knowing what you do to the other people who post their questions).
You are asking everyone else to justify "another dragon" poser, or jugerum needles and so on.
-
93,
Backs up a bit
I knew I was missing the tone other people were using
93 93/93
-
I'm sorry Alrah, I didn't mean "take what they say" as law - I meant "take it as that's what they want to do." It's just that I see you poo-pooing the various practices.
-
@Alrah said
"
@malnarcissis said
"93,Backs up a bit
I knew I was missing the tone other people were using
93 93/93"
Stick around. I'm sure you'll get used to it. :/"
93,
XD, it's not that I'm not used to it, the opposite actually.
I just have the tendency to be oblivious as to when people are actually arguing, as I spend most of my time in positions where I am debating, or at the very least arguing without being passionate [That is, I can look passionate, but odds are, I'm not- just using the words.]
Alrah, in regards to "Malnarcissis advocates the enlightenment again... yawn. Reason as the supreme being and the animal as the Gnostic Evil Malkuth! Scuses me - but {****} that!"
Read what I typed again. If you don't read what you think I am saying into it, you'll know that's the opposite of what I said. In your same terminology, I'm advocating putting "The Gnostic Evil Malkuth," on a leash and forcing it to do what it should be doing, as it serves a purpose, too. It's just "Lost." I'm not advocating it as the negative, but rather a piece of us that is not needed to function on a more human level [That is, those things being that which humans excel at, not some fancy abstract]. Maybe it's just my typing style [When I put things in brackets, I am attempting to clarify my terminology, as I am aware that it is not necessarily the words I want, but can function as such].
Though, I find it entirely upsetting that you've made such assumptions just because I choose to use reason when it should be used- when communicating with others.
93 93/93
-
@Alrah said
"Aye Takamba, but would you want to see my hand when I play poker too?
Look - I'm slightly tipsy here, and mellow as can be. I'm just going to say that I'm a Geordie lass, and I say it as I see it. Perhaps this is a cultural misunderstanding as much as anything?"
Perhaps we can make the famous excuse "communication on the Internet is difficult" but I never bought into that. It's no different than writing a letter (and if you can't do that without
being required, you aren't as good at communicating as you think). But that's just an aside as far as I am concerned. And no, I wouldn't want to see your hand if we were playing poker, because then i wouldn't be playing poker - I'd just be taking your money. -
"
I know, malnarcissist. But I don't see the Flesh or the Devil as Evil. I see them as energy. And for all you deny there is any moral conotations to your own personal theology - I don't quite believe you. Perhaps I may grow to believe you over time, but you signal a number of 'tells' to me at this point that makes me wary about the roots of your own personal philosophy.
"Tells? Such as? I wouldn't say I have moral components to it [As morality is not a fit quality to this at all, really] , rather I am convinced that there is something to every human culture ever seeking to transcend their bodies limitations in a religious sense [And in a technological sense, now]. If you don't like my method of syncreticism, I don't blame you- I don't always either, but I am convicted. XD. The personal philosophy I've been playing with is absurd. I've taken to calling it "Stoic Epicurianism."
Though, I am well aware of the differences it has from the norm of both of them.Though, I would like to point out, I don't view either of those things as evil [I'll use the word, though I prefer "Not useful
], either. The idea stands though, that those 'forces' tend to be very distracting- I should feed my body, but if it chooses the wrong time to send that signal, then it can deal with it- same with anything else. Now, note, just because I haven't noted it here doesn't mean I don't feel the way about other parts of the psyche, too. It's just not part of my work load, today [Well, it is, but not in anyway that is interesting to anyone who isn't trying to overcome a dislike of Modern Education, but requires it to do what he wants]"We diverge in our understanding again. I don't see them as 'lost'. At all.
But I love the Tibetan Crazy Wisdom adepts. = You wanna ride the horse? - Then guide the horse. You wanna guide the horse? Then be the horse. You wanna be the horse? - Then ride and don't ask so many daft questions!
cue musica
"Eh, I can see how one wouldn't view them as such, per se, and perhaps it was a bad word [Though, I like it as it implies what I want it to]. By lost, I mean as if referring to the people on The Devil as such [Assuming RW imagery, but I feel the CT conveys it, too]. That is, trapped in a world of sensation, but unwilling to pull out even for a moment just to see what could be available if corporeality were not a hinderence [Notice, I said nothing about being non-corporeal ;p] [Also, is it just me, or has my typing become very much like reading a text with too many foot notes?]
Lol, I like that Tibetan thing, though I have to ask "Why not just become the horse instead of riding it?"
Take that to mean what you Will."As assumption is a tool of reason, and you say it should be used when communicating with others, then why get upset about it's mere reflection?"
No, an assumption is not reasonable. An assumption is when reason has been led to the place where it dies [Even in the physical sciences, this is inevitable, as unless you have all the data, you're going to fill some in yourself if it SOUNDS reasonable]. While that may be good in some places, I don't think it helps with the conveyance of information Postcards to Probationers too literally ;p], unless all parties have decided to do some drugs first [And as far as I know, not all of us have. Maybe], the unreasonable transference of ideas is prone to 'mishaps'.
XD, though, I'm sure we could have a lot of fun with reason as a topic- I know I've confused myself with it at times.
93 93/93
-
Alrah,93,
"Ok... Cultural understanding is not difficult....!.........
...Do you know why the FU is two fingers?"
The two-finger salute is essentially unknown outside of the UK, and thus creates a problem with cultural understanding. A one-finger salute is prevalent in all of North America, Mexico included.
You're welcome!
93 93/93,
Edward
-
"
All reason is really is a best guess. So why should reason not die when it's brother - assumption is cast to the dogs?"No. That implies that reason is something it isn't. Reason is not some thing that has been resolved, rather it is a process- this thing happens, so then this must [Did, whichever tense]. To say it's a guess is like saying the way one ties their shoes is a guess. Among other things, mostly relating to how thought is understood.
I didn't say reason shouldn't die. A discussion is just not the place for it to do so. While I would say in 10 minutes, it has a good reason to not be present [For me, any way], but until then it needs to be used in it's correct sphere [Not using that word in any mystical sense]. Of course, that's my opinion, naturally, so reason has died due to the mere discussion of it
XD. My question I'd pose in the Horse story is essentially an attempt at trying to state the obvious- if you tell me to become the horse, then you'd best have some way to turn me into a horse, otherwise you wasted energy in getting my hopes up
Of course, I don't think I'd make a good horse. I'm too afraid of them, so I'd never figure out any horse activities.Edit- Retrospect is beginning to tell me that here, and other places, that generally when I say something without a type of clairifier, I'm really only just saying that thing
Also, how strict is the forum here? Have I managed to break ToS yet, or is free discussion okay?93 93/93
-
alrah and friends, theres not a lot of evidence that giving someone the finger comes from any aspect of the Hundred Years" War or English longbowmen. I'm not trying to be argumentative im just bored at work.
-
@malnarcissis said
"93,
Thanks, Jim. I understand that the method of Jvgorvm is quite... Dated, however, in experience I learn more from punishment, than reward Shrug
93 93/93"
I think this is individual. I always like those people who like punishment, because I give it expansively.But, for most people, positive reinforcement is better. And then there are those people, who don't have to either punish themselves or reinforce, only take note.
-
@Alrah said
"
@AEternitas1 said
"just pointing out that the practice is a vital part of mystical training"Outside of Thelema, I don't hear the sound of twanging elastic bands.
I've heard that priests often used to flog themselves mercilessly in the dark ages...
I'm really not all too sure abut what qualifies as vital to mystical training for people. One man will call lots of sex, gambling, drinking and smoking weed 'vital' to their mystical training, while to another man - he'd have to turn celibate, renounce the world and the pleasures of the flesh for it to count as 'mystical' to him.
Both approaches seem to be alive and well in both Buddhism (at least in Tibet) and in Thelema."
Aside from the general training of the will, Liber 3 forms an experimental version of the practices of Yama and Niyama. Neither practice has anything to do with "moral training."
By mystical training I am referring to the practices of Raja Yoga in specific.