Great post BitWrangler

Greater than some, perhaps not as great as others. I say that based on my own perception of what a good post is, from my own personality and likes and dislikes. In other words, my opinion.

[those are still allowed, right? ;)]

Guess you told him.

Dang this thread still going?!!?! Hippy music, go play some Jimi Hendrix and get "Experienced"

Actually, some Grateful Dead might just be the thing you need.

Thank you.

Real discussion!


I do not make any connection between the speed someone can play at and the term 'better'.. similarly I don't make a connection between the ability to process notated music more fluently and faster with the word 'better'. Songs are not better or worse, they just cause different reactions in people. But that isn't to say one is better... To label one song with 'better' is to unnecessarily give it a greater sense of value, in doing so giving others a lesser sense of value...

The same principal applies with beliefs. I have not rated them better or worse. They are not right or wrong... they just react differently in different people. They make me react a certain way, but the way in which I act is not then better or worse or right or wrong, It just IS.


Ego - "an inflated feeling of pride in your superiority to others." It's not exactly a defense mechanism... but I believe it can have its own entity and a lot of people have created a sense of self through it... therefor when the ego is threatened it instinctively defends.

A good e.g: If I said "I believe the best way to learn piano is through taking heroin and smoking weed and I have learned this way and I am able to do this and play that" to somebody who has created a strong sense of identity through their beliefs about piano.. (assume that I then played something beautiful) The person's ego can easily feel attacked and start the battle process, even though I was simply stating what I believed in, my story and what I was capable of...

The ego labels these things with right and wrong because it wants to be right. It will likely try to dismiss my belief instead of understand it. Without a strong ego, the response to my proposed beliefs and story would be non responsive and might even be considered interesting.

Of course, my story could definitely be perceived as egoistic... but it takes 2 strong egos to start an ego battle.


I couldn't digest the first big question... could you rephrase it?
I'm implying that I find all things equally as beautiful.. and external things like physical beauty are now close to meaningless. I do feel admiration towards others.. I feel attracted to women.. but image has become a very small part of it. And I get a different emotion from each peace of music I listen to.

Each label, and the definition of the label, exists only in the mind of whoever is labeling. You may not consider yourself 'rich'... but a starving, homeless person might consider you far beyond 'rich'.

In your mind you can either think like a poorer man and label yourself 'rich' or think like a richer man and label yourself 'poor'. Either way, the label means nothing more than what you think it means.

The idea is to stop labeling things and just let them be as they are. No right, wrong, better, worse.



You have suggested what labels are not... ?!



I'm not saying 'the sky has no colour'. The labels 'Blue' and 'Red' mean what we think it means. We associate the label with the colour that we see. The meaning of the label exists in our minds.

If somebody else learned the colours differently, (our colour 'blue', is actually 'Blag' or 'Green' for that matter) they would only appear to be 'wrong' to someone who learned the standard colours. So in that sense they are not 'wrong' they are just different.



I have not classified or labeled 'them' as people.
We are sharing beliefs. The more the beliefs are attached to each person's sense of self, the more it feels like they are being judged and classified personally.

I did not use the word 'must' like you suggested.

Liking somebody for their sense of humour is equally as external as liking somebody for their appearance.

If we are able to see past external things, nobody gets excluded.



'Beliefs' and 'skills' are also external.

It's very hard to explain 'internal'.
All you can do is explain what it is not.

It's what is left when you can clearly acknowledge all the activity that goes on in the brain.
The observer of the thoughts is the internal one.

"I" am separate from my thoughts.

An observation: the only basis we have for preferring one person's company from another person's company is external data.

Another observation: the more research that is done into the human brain the more intriguing it is to think about where the non-external self resides. We know that nutrition controls mood, electrical impluses change our inclinations, posture impacts on emotional response, and most interestingly of all - it seems that our bodies begin to act just ever so slightly before our brain decides, which begs many questions regarding what free will, agency and consciousness are.

I doubt that any of us can clearly acknowledge all the activity that goes on in the brain, therefore we can never distinguish what is internal and what is external.

This is not my belief, hippymusicman. This is the application of deductive reasoning to the available data as relating to your assertions regarding what is. Because I am confident in the data and I am confident in the reasoning, I hold this view until new data or better reasoning enter my awareness.

In your world, how can you communicate if words have no meaning? I guess Meriam Webster had it all wrong when he wrote the dictionary.

Just because some adjectives require a comparison of those in one's area (i.e., rich in comparison to those in that person's economic region), does not mean they therefore have no meaning. They have context.

rich
   /rɪtʃ/
–adjective
1.
having wealth or great possessions; abundantly supplied with resources, means, or funds; wealthy: a rich man; a rich nation.

If I practice to "get better" at piano, it is a comparison to oneself. Better than whom? Better than yourself the day before practicing. They are not meaningless words, in fact, the are very descriptive words that helps the person listening understand more about the person being talked about.

If I say I have a rich friend, then the listener can infer that this person in particular has more money than I. That is not meaningless, just the opposite! It can create a lot of subcontext for the listener: in what way were those words said? Are they jealous of their friend? Are they proud of their friend? Or was it said without any such emotion to lead you to think that the disparity between the friend's financial situation and the speaker's is of no consequence to their relationship?

How can you say this has no meaning? This is taking post modernism to its most ridiculous conclusion.


Why? What's wrong with describing something and providing context? Whoops, there's one of those words we're not supposed to use, and yet, you are saying that it's wrong to use them just the same. Obviously, they *do* have meaning.

I am often made keenly aware of this phenomenon. Being a slightly anxious type of person, if I hear any sudden bang, I always jump - what I've noticed on several occasions is that I jump before I consciously register the sound itself.

But that is a belief... you believe nobody can clearly focus on the brains activity. Because of a lack of data and reasoning.

For what it's worth, and you can chose to believe me or not, I believe focusing on the brains activity is possible because I have been doing it through meditation. I can work at separating myself from my thoughts, to a point where I am experiencing a sense of joy from simply existing.. there is gratitude for every moment witnessed.. and all emotional pain has been greatly diminished.. little or no self conscious, little or no underlying sense of fear... no sense of regret or anxiety. I have an underlying deep sense of innerpeace, while happy/sad events happen on the surface..

Whether you chose to enter that into your awareness or not. I don't really mind. understandably it's far from 'data'. But If it does start to interest you, meditation is where I started exploring the idea.

Yes, but it seems like you are drawing a false conclusion from this. So long as there is reasonable consensus between people as to the definition of such labels, then they can have as much meaning as any other words in our language.

You seem to credit people with far less intelligence than they deserve with regard to their ability to understand the relativistic nature of such labels.




Let us clarify that this is 'your' idea, not 'the' idea. I am comfortable with the idea of gradation and classification, where I deem it to be appropriate. Just because it can be difficult to say exactly where a specific concept lies on a scale such as right/wrong, this does not render the concepts themselves as obsolete - rather it simply means that their meaning is best left to intuition and experience.

The label 'rich' is still meaningless to me. If somebody says "my friend is rich" I still have to know what their definition of rich is before I know how much money their friend has. If a child said "my friend is rich" it might mean he has $3.

So the label 'rich' is nothing until you define the label for yourself. All I can define it as is "ownership of any amount of material possessions".

You're all 'rich'.. and 'poor'.



haha! I laughed at this. Because there is absolutely nothing wrong with it! I didn't say you wern't supposed to use them, I was just expressing an idea that you don't have to use them..

'The' Idea that I'm playing with:
Attaching labels to yourself or somebody else holds no other need than to increase the perceived sense of value in the person. We need them to feel good.

No, we need adjectives to explain our thoughts better.

Two books I've read and re-read recently address this phenomenon, and the one Elissa et al mentioned about responding before you are consciously aware:

Andrew Newberg, MD and Mark Robert Waldman, Born to Believe: God, Science, and the Origin of Ordinary and Extraordinary Beliefs

Robert A. Burton, MD, On Being Certain: Believing You Are Right Even When You're Not


Born to Believe, among other things, reports on studies the author did of various meditators and people who practice other techniques - an atheist, nuns, Buddhists, and one who speaks in tongues. It explores how their experiences are the same, how they are different, and, to me very importantly, how they interpret their experiences. This seems to me relevant to how hippymusicman interprets his experiences from meditation as "separating myself from my thoughts." And "separating myself from my thoughts" is an interpretation of the experience. Someone else might describe a similar experience quite differently. So telling Elissa she can "choose to enter into her awareness or not" is, um, distinctly telling her that her interpretation of her experiences is only valid if it matches his. Just sayin'.

On Being Certain gives some different perspectives on hippymusician's certainty that he separates his thoughts from himself, that labels are meaningless to him, that he has abandoned his need to compare himself to others, etc

Very thought-provoking books. There is certainly a wide world out there. And in there, too, for that matter.

Cathy

“In his brilliant new book, Burton systematically and convincingly shows that certainty is a mental state, a feeling like anger or pride that can help guide us, but that doesn't dependably reflect objective truth" So, so true. Hence deja vu.

'Another' idea is that what you call labels are in fact words used to place conversation in context. Some people may use some words as labels to judge others - but many people use words not to judge others but to describe them in ways that convey meaning and provide context.

Otherwise we'd all go round sounding like a bad self-help book!

A couple of questions - Why does description imply judgement? And why do you see judgement as synonymous with 'value judgements' about other people? But judging others as less than in order to make ourselves feel better?

HIPPO MAN, here's a quote from a jazz cat, might be good to heed his advice:

“Master your instrument. Master the music. And then forget all that bullshit and just play.” Charlie Parker

Describing people as their external label seems almost insane. It seems we like to separate people. The only way we can do this is externally, (we are all just living creatures).. We can separate ourselves with labels. This creates 'better' and 'worse' in people. This is judging people on their external, and forgetting that we are all the same living creatures.

e.g. "one seems better at piano because they have the labels, 'teacher', 'composer' and 'touring performer'.. and even 'Able to play chopin nocturne'.. "

If we are these things.. why do we then need to attach the label and live through it?

"what do you do"
seems to be similar to asking:
"what label can I attach to you"

"I'm a musician, composer and teacher"
seems to be just like saying:
"this is how valuable I am."

Of course labels create context in conversation.
That woman is 'beautiful'... we each have an understanding of what beautiful means so this makes sense.
But to classify her as that beautiful girl and create an identity from 'beautiful' is shallow. This is just how her body/face looks.

Thinking: "I really like her because she's beautiful" is the same as thinking: "I really like her because she has shiny shoes..." !?

Labels attached to people are external and irrelevant.. and don't explain anything about the person beyond an external, shallow level.

Saying someone is beautiful is not saying anything else but that. It's not saying "I like that person because they are beautiful" or "OMG - that person is so much better than XX because they are rich"

It's a description - no more - no less. But if someone in their own mind attaches judgements to those descriptions - then that's their issue... it's not an inherent quality of the descriptor. It says much more about the person doing the judging than it doesn't about the label itself.

Descriptions are neither shallow nor irrelevant. They *do* have meaning. They do not imply better or worse - or identity. Describing myself as someone who plays the piano doesn't give me an identity... it describes how I spend my time. If I say I am a teacher - it's not saying 'I am such a valuable person' - it's describing how I earn a living.

If someone then turns that description into a value judgement - that's says something about their own beliefs. But it doesn't change the fact that all I am saying is I play the piano... or that I can play Chopin... or I can play jazz... or whatever and I earn money by teaching music. It has meaning and it's relevant to my life.

I agree.

While you may not do that.. I still believe a lot of us do judge people on their labels. Maybe even without knowing it consciously.

For example: If you saw a man sleeping on a park bench you might label them as 'homeless'.. But If they are treated any differently to a wealthy business man then I think you are indeed judging on the external and mentally labeling them.

But what happens if you ignore all external things like .. the clothes each wears, the location of each person, the amount of facial hair, their smell ... their career their hobbies... etc..

We are left with the inner being..
Each was exactly the same when they were born, and each will be exactly the same when they die. They are exactly the same beyond the labels that the human mind automatically applies to them.

Focusing on your thought patterns, (not thinking about them) makes this concept very clear. Or, has made this concept very clear for me.

I can label myself in all sorts of ways, but my value is outside of that. I do not attribute my self-worth to the things I do or the things I am. Why do you assume that is so?

Hippy

Your actions now contradict what you say. (Your talk don't match your walk).

You can't talk about meditating and detachment but be so attached to responding and explaining everything to everyone. Would Buddha have responded to every single little disagreement? Would he feel the need to justify everything he said with an explanation?

I started out liking some of the things you had to say. Your philosophy and your outlook. And I believe you to be a good honest person searching for truth and part of this search involves seeking conversation and collaboration from others.

I basically agree with your philosophies and theories.

If you feel what you're saying has worth, say it and if people don't hear you or agree that's their issue!

Those that like what you say, you probably won't hear from, they'll read it, like it and move on.

Say what you have to say, keep it short, LET others disagree, or be confused or whatever. To let it go would be the true meditative person's thing to do. THAT'S how to be beyond ego.

There is no useful contribution to a forum to just continue responding and responding. To be "ego-less", at peace with oneself, separate with one's thoughts is to be self-less in action. To have mastery over self. To be an action person, not a reaction person.

Yes. I do think about that... I am certainly not Buddha, You are probably right in that there is a small amount of ego hiding in a corner of me wanting me to be valued for my 'beliefs'. But I can usually be conscious of that.

I know what it means to not act through ego, but those beliefs haven't completely overtaken me yet. Or sometimes they overtake me, and sometimes they become just beliefs again.

My beliefs are still quite unstable. I know what they are, but I feel the only way to make them stronger, or more agreeable, is to share them and note how people poke holes at them.. this way I can also poke at my own beliefs.. draw conclusions... and make them stronger.

So while it's not useful for other people, I personally find it very useful. And so I always encourage people to discuss them.. And thank you all ...

Also, Understanding people means not fearing them, no matter how threatening they might be.


........ Yes, I find it amazingly ironic and hilarious that I'm responding to your post with my answer...

I'm laughing out loud..

The desire to create this post, the desire to teach o show others something.. that alone is ego.

Maybe it's good to reflect on why "YOU" wanted to make this post?

"The desire to teach and show others something is ego" .. ?

I don't agree..

We all have the desire to teach our babies how to eat.

I have the desire to teach others... I'm not saying you have to digest anything I say. I like disagreement, that leads to discussion.

But I think I understand how you can feel that way..

Perhaps you feel I'm suggesting an idea is more right and more true than your own ideas. This isn't the case. I'm sharing ideas. If you don't agree, then please share the ideas that clash.

I'm not saying I'm right. I'm sharing ideas.