Reminder that the human organism has an incredible adaptive capacity, of which you, as you know yourself...

Reminder that the human organism has an incredible adaptive capacity, of which you, as you know yourself, are the result, and if you are having any kind of problem with that self, you dont need some spiritual or philosophy shit but simply to appeal again to that inner capacity to build something new. anything holding your back is that old self scaring you so to perpetuate itself. anything anyone might give you wont do a thing.

So just drop the books and face the void. the rest will be done by the organism itself, all on its own.

>drop the books
fuck off

>see old crone
>click to read
>find wisdom older than ancientfags
How many years did you live before finding that gem?

Regardless, user, thank you.

fuck off you lazy idiot

>muh crutches, if i drop them i will fall

yeah, and you will then learn you have legs to walk

twnetynine

whats lazy about getting rid of the ineffective action that prevents real action, which in the end is simply a reaction in harmony with your surroundings.

There is nothing to differentiate the inner and outer being. Seeking "external" alternatives is no different from seeking the "internal" because everything is dependent on one another for existence.

How do we teach people to become self aware, to learn metacognition? Modern craze of calling everything autistic is slowing us down.

by accepting that division between inner and outer you are already lost, even if you try to plaster it with that interdependence thing. the movement of life is not done out or inside for it is everywhere. those terms only apply when you are already considering things at the level of consciousness, even if it is to negate them.

you dont have to teach birds to fly, right? the same thing is for humans, any teaching you impose on them is preventing the innate learning capacity to take place.

Dirty protestant pragmatist

Get out

Birds are kicked out of their nest to learn to fly, at least in this analogy, so how do we kick humans out of their nests?
Just waiting clearly isn't working, a learning environment is missing.

>by accepting that division between inner and outer you are already lost
I didn't though. The OP did.

no learning environment is missing. it is there, we just have separated ourselves from it. and you still ask for something to do. thats the thing, birds dont drop their offspring with the intention of making them fly, they just do it the same way they sing when the sun rises or fly between trees during the day. it just happens. whos doing it? such a question is not to be answered but understood in its misconception of what life is.

well, im op. and i think you are putting something that, even if can be put in what i said, is not necessarily there. the movement of life is everywhere, so whats the point in making petty distinctions between this or that if at this level theyre all the same? whos making those distinctions and what are they useful for?

So why did you make this thread? If you're not pure enough yourself to go solo and let others go solo on their own pace, then doesn't that invalidate your whole belief? What if the 1% you're missing would turn your view on its head?

I will bite, meme man.
>you dont need some spiritual or philosophy shit but simply to appeal again to that inner capacity to build something new
> anything holding your back is that old self
What is inner capacity, then, if inner has no meaning? What difference does it make if one reads in a book and processes that information, or if one reaches some sort of ill-defined feeling?
>so whats the point in making petty distinctions between this or that if at this level theyre all the same? whos making those distinctions and what are they useful for?
You are making that distinction by saying we shouldn't seek out spiritual or philosophy "shit".
>So just drop the book
Try to reconcile your own words for a second instead of bouncing from one mystical smug post to the next.

Actually let me rephrase this:

You made this thread to encourage your mindset, yet you spoke out against the idea of encouraging your mindset.

put it pretty well, you're relying on mystical smuggery to fool yourself.

But hey, I'm not any farther ahead than you so why not just keep building our towers till we see the exit

i didnt make this thread. my i observed this thread idea emerge all of itself as i was browsing the site, and then gave it a concrete form. that i could impute some intention or whatever, but the idea came all by itself i dont know why or how.
just like a tree giving a mango, it is not done with the intention of giving you the juice you drink or the fruit salad you eat. it just pops up. you are not gonna ask the man giving you the juice how did he make the mango.

well, inner was a way of calling attention to the life in what we expercience as self. but once this is allowed to grow that distinction flies and your life wont be different from the life of the tree or bird. and i guess you are trying to reconcile things that cant be reconciled, precisely because they have been divided by consciousness and any attempt to show they are one is negating that consciousness. it has to defend itself, right?

Sounds a lot like ug krishnamurti. Or am I wrong?

>You made this thread to encourage your mindset,

not quite, but maybe my mind is trying to expand itself into other minds. maybe thats its natural tendency.

but im not tryin to encourage my so called mindset. im just sharing the fact that one has the capacity to allow a proper mindset arise by itself instead of trying to borrow one, which in the end cant be done.

of course the very form of the enunciation is self contradictory. but about that not much can be said without feeding that contradiction. contradictions anyway are just indices of how ones reasoning is working. like those bubbles we see when we stare at something, they come from the eyes functioning and no one is gonna try to catch them.

Fuck me for starting to speak in riddles myself, but dude, the reason behind your nonsensical phrasing is to protect your idea from your own mind seeing through it. Can't see the bottom of shallow water if you dirty it.

Stagnancy is not the answer, I can tell you this much. If you're refusing to adjust your view then at least apply it yourself: work on your own mind instead of trying to force your idea's spread. And drop the lower case.

Coelho, please stop shitting up the board

>If you're refusing to adjust your view then at least apply it yourself:

whats there to adjust? i take things as they come out, thats the way they are. if you feel the need to adjust them then it is that need that needs to be adjusted. you are not gonna try to straighten a tree just because it is not like the trees you see in drawings, right?

and what do you mean stagnancy?

and im applying my view by sharing it in the shape it comes. if you feel that as imposition it shows you expectation for an external imposition. i would rather take it as an example to let grow somethin in me instead of trying to force the same.

>le noble savage

Minds are not fountains; you're constructing your ideas, not catching them as they spill over.
And by stagnancy I mean your refusal to adjust your view upon receiving input on it. Prove me wrong my letting my first sentence run through your head.

>and im applying my view by sharing it in the shape it comes.
No, you're not. You're disagreeing with and acting against the very idea that magically sprung forth from your mind, "anything anyone might give you wont do a thing."

>Minds are not fountains; you're constructing your ideas, not catching them as they spill over.

there you touch an important point. what you are calling ideas is the end product you get in consciousness and that is wholly practical. but the mind has to work them out before that, it digests them out of experience, so to speak, and gives you a practical impulse to make you act. but that impulse is oriented by society. what imsaying is that it can be orientated otherwise too, which cant be found in anything other people give you, for that is itself oriented.

and i mean yes, as i already said this seems self contradictory, but only because you are expecting a prescription while im just doing a description.

What the hell are you even talking about? Take out all the "wise-sage" speech and your philosophy is "well, we can't prove anything so might as well do what I say for no reason". You say "by accepting that division between inner and outer you are already lost", yet you instantly hold onto the idea that progress must be internal without reason for doing so, and then go right back to square one and admit the existence of consciousness because it's too hard to think about interdependence of phenomenon.
Real clever bait because I responded.

>what you are calling ideas is the end product you get in consciousness and that is wholly practical. but the mind has to work them out before that, it digests them out of experience, so to speak, and gives you a practical impulse to make you act. but that impulse is oriented by society. what imsaying is that it can be orientated otherwise too, which cant be found in anything other people give you, for that is itself oriented.
You literally described "constructing a thought."

I'm not disagreeing with thinking for yourself, I'm disagreeing with you for not acting on it, instead spreading your idea for sake of vanity. And it is vanity, because as petty and pathetic as it may sound, that is also the reason you're typing in lower case.
You contradicted yourself once more, literally saying that your idea to make this thread came from yourself -- and here you'll say "well, obviously it did" -- ,but what that means is that when you went against your idea of there being no point in spreading it you were doing so consciously.

>and i mean yes, as i already said this seems self contradictory, but only because you are expecting a prescription while im just doing a description.
It _is_ self-contradictory. Read the last sentence of the previous paragraph. You seem to think I'm only trying to scrap wisdom out of you, but this isn't a lesson, it is a discussion. It's a shame you don't see your own refusal to consider input, despite your "i would rather take it as an example to let grow somethin in me."

This was a nice talk though, let me repeat my attempt in conversing with you in memespeak and be on my way.

youre clouding the water of your mind because youre afraid of seeing how shallow it is, thats what those contradictions you call a necessary evil really are. you say theres no point in chasing after them, thats your mind telling you not to look to deep into the water.

this is not a lesson nor a discussion. no discussion is possible. these are just unlinked statements that influence each other through the general movement of life, thats all. it doesnt matter if you want to read in this movement discussion or lesson or vanity or whatnot, thats all a late imposition that is irrelevant to what is actually taking place.

when birds sing they are not calling the cats to come eat them. and after that happens they dont stop doing it further. they just do it. or rather, it keeps being done.

well im not sure i get what you are saying but that deepness is something that the mind projects into something that cant be defined as crystal clear water simply because it is in peretual movement and we can only catch fix things. as if, in pic related, you were telling me im denying the deepness of the abyss while im just telling you to stand on it and look at the drifting clouds.

>well im not sure i get what you are saying
you're not even trying to

ok i can accept that. but you are only pointing that out because your mind has noticed that, and feels threatened by a mind out of its reach. cause im not interested in imposing my view nor am i looking for a model to impose on myself. and since minds are always looking to connect and feed on each other, seeing an autonomous one is threatening that mode of existence.

i might add, dont take it personal im fine with your criticisms, they give a useful different perspective, but your need for recognition and discussion, for mind contact, is also something that isnt usually noticed.

>i might add, dont take it personal im fine with your criticisms, they give a useful different perspective, but your need for recognition and discussion, for mind contact, is also something that isnt usually noticed.
probably because it usually doesn't require this much effort to make someone take a look at themselves

precisely, and that is because we can only see the self, or its image of itself, not what shapes it.

What film is that