...life can be translucent

Menu

What is a serious inquiry ?

surnevs

visitor
Joined
Apr 25, 2021
Messages
653
Reaction score
323
When, a while ago, I started writing a Log - and it was around the same time I joined this online clarity forum - I was concerned day by day to focus on the important things that happened around a day, those things that could help me go back to and compare with to example I Ching readings.
As years passed by I recognized that what was important to me on the day I wrote it wasn't what really was important when searching back to the Log, say five years later, just to discover that I hadn't written it down because on that particular day I sort of was blind to these things happening that later showed up to be what actually really (really) mattered concerning this and that I Ching reading.
And this is what I learned, namely that what didn't seem important, not to be written down in the Log, later showed up to be significant.
 

surnevs

visitor
Joined
Apr 25, 2021
Messages
653
Reaction score
323
These two postings of mine (#1&2) are two aspects of the same subject. They are different but they concern with the same unknown future question and how to partly choose right and partly know what's important to notice and these two aspects dependency of what will show up in the future.
 

hilary

Administrator
Joined
Apr 8, 1970
Messages
19,148
Reaction score
3,418
This is one reason why I like asking open questions: 'What should I be aware of this week?' I may think my week is all about getting x, y and z done, when the real doorway is open somewhere quite different.
 

my_key

visitor
Joined
Mar 22, 1971
Messages
2,892
Reaction score
1,334
This is one reason why I like asking open questions: 'What should I be aware of this week?' I may think my week is all about getting x, y and z done, when the real doorway is open somewhere quite different.
Most of the time it is be our 'monkey mind' that sets the priorities: Labling certain thoughts, situations, goals etc. as important, serious or crucial in being fulfilled. I have found that is normally the things that are labelled as silly, trivial or insignificant that have the longer term or greatest influence on my personal fullfillment.

This open question certainly holds the door ajar for any key matters to be identified and bypasses any manipulations coming from the 'monkey mind'.
 

surnevs

visitor
Joined
Apr 25, 2021
Messages
653
Reaction score
323
Normally we say that the past is in our memory, thinking of the memory we do have when alive. I sometimes think about "the other memory" that we do have, but which we are unconscious about, I think it was Freud or Jung who called it the "Id" (??? in English ???) that lays latent/hidden in us learned from mankind's earliest existence on Earth - a memory that is more in our physic-, than in our psychic awareness and which (sometimes) helps us to spontaneously take the right decisions - and without us knowing from where we knew to precisely take this or that decision. Sort of a "hidden library" within us undiscovered.....
:rolleyes: just a thought. (hopefully not to be caught in :cool: )
 

surnevs

visitor
Joined
Apr 25, 2021
Messages
653
Reaction score
323
"Id" meaning "the inherited instinctive impulses of the individual as part of the unconscious. [Latin = that, translation of German, es] ".
The Concise Oxford Dictionary
 

dfreed

Inactive
Joined
Feb 6, 2021
Messages
1,045
Reaction score
409
"Id" meaning "the inherited instinctive impulses of the individual as part of the unconscious.

Based on my layperson's understanding, I think this corresponds to Jung's 'Shadow', which one website describes as:

".... the animal side of our personality (like the id in Freud). It is the source of both our creative and destructive energies. In line with evolutionary theory, it may be that Jung’s archetypes reflect predispositions that once had survival value." This is of course only one person's perspective (found on the internet); personally, I don't always associate the Shadow (or Id) with just our 'animal side'.

I think that the shaman's or hero's journey includes seeing these shadow (deep, perhaps hidden, perhaps ancient) parts of our selves, so we can both heal from their negative aspects and their unseen hold on us, and also reveal or 'unleash' our hidden creative potential / energies.

And as with all oracles - and also spiritual traditions - we can use the Yi in this journey. But the Shadow can reside here as well, and has the potential to change or distort our journeys, sometimes in not good ways. Most vividly for me, we saw this when a spiritual group turned into a suicide cult as happened in Jonestown, and we saw this with the "Aum Shinrikyo" group in Japan and their sarin attacks. But we also have many, many positive and creative journeys too, and these can serve as models and inspiration.

Within the realm of historic Chinese thought and philosophies, we find hundreds of approaches, or 'schools' - some of which we might think of as being useful for 'revealing the shadow'.

One 'school' I read about (Confucian I think) believed that humans are inherently good, but that we are like pieces of unworked jade or marble - and the purpose of the Dao, or of 'tools' like the Yi, or fine or martial arts - is to carve and shape a human until these fine qualities were revealed.

Another school (at least as I understand it) thought that we were more like unformed pieces of clay - or that we might even start off as inherently not so good - and that we need to be molded and shaped into a good and moral person. And again, the Yi - or other tools - could be used to 'bring us into shape' - which could sometimes mean to bring us into conformity with society (a decidedly Confucian notion).

Though somewhat different, both of these remind me of the idea of uncovering the Shadow. And regardless of the specific 'school' or tradition, the Yi can be a good tool in this regard.

D.
 
Last edited:

surnevs

visitor
Joined
Apr 25, 2021
Messages
653
Reaction score
323
"".... the animal side of our personality (like the id in Freud). It is..............." (#8)

We are "the tool-animals" using tools in a significant way; other animals use tools too but not at such a high level. One of my friends is convinced that some animals communicate at a higher level than we do, but that because we don't understand their language (birds, dolphins....) we do think that our kind of communication is at the highest level on this planet.
 

my_key

visitor
Joined
Mar 22, 1971
Messages
2,892
Reaction score
1,334
.....we do think that our kind of communication is at the highest level on this planet.
Hi surnevs
I agree that all creatures use tools and each have a different level of ability with each different tool. How arrogant is that for any of mankind to take on a perspective of superiority about any aspect of our being? Any person taking a stance that egoically invests in their supposed superiority over any of the animal realms just disrespects all that is around them. That for me is why honouring the diversity in this world is vital.

Elephants are not that accomplished at climbing trees.
Fish are not well equipped for climbing trees either.
Who knows the long-term consequences of these supposed inadequacies? the length of shadow they will cast.

If global warming continues elephants may wish they had practiced their tree climbing skills. For fish there will be no real consequence. So are the fish and the elephant equal or is the fish superior to the elephant?

Reference post #1, for me there is a clear implication of free-will choice contained in the comments regarding 'a serious enquiry'. Also a degree of discrimination needs to be applied to be able to discern between seriousness and importance.
A serious enquiry may not be important, just as an important enquiry does not have to be serious.

Maybe the discernment in these situations comes from an adeptness at being able to apply and trust in an altogether different tool: intuition. Perhaps this is the level at which many birds and animals communicate. Perhaps this is the level of communication that mankind falls way behind on. Think of the patterns formed by shoals of fish or flocks of birds as they move unerringly as one body. Then think of mankind.
 
Last edited:

surnevs

visitor
Joined
Apr 25, 2021
Messages
653
Reaction score
323
"..................Maybe the discernment in these situations comes from an adeptness at being able to apply and trust in an altogether different tool: intuition. Perhaps this is the level at which many birds and animals communicate. Perhaps this is the level of communication that mankind falls way behind on. Think of the patterns formed by shoals of fish or flocks of birds as they move unerringly as one body. Then think of mankind." (#10)

Intuition! This was in my mind when I in #6 pointed toward an "inner library", this 6' sense that was maybe created as part of our self-defence back millions of years ago when naked and without a chance to see the hunters of the nighttime, cats and snakes to example, long before being able to master the fire - that's how I see it, a bit naive but when we learned to make tools and fire and so on, slowly our dependency of the intuition weakened and are not really important in the same way for us today, yet it's still a part of us, thou more in our unconsciousness and awakened in situations where our awareness fails concerning invisible dangers at hand. And here I lean on dfreed's, quote: "Based on my layperson's understanding"
 

my_key

visitor
Joined
Mar 22, 1971
Messages
2,892
Reaction score
1,334
Hi surnevs
I'm glad that we are now talking the same language. Your reference to 'inner library' was not something I immediately understood as intuition.

I don't think that mankind has ever had a dependency on intuition, though. Dependency lends itself to images of control or reliance and I do not see intuition as something that mankind is in control of or reliant upon. I'm sure it was easier to connect with our intuition in the days before 'civilisation' burst upon the scene. In those days things were charged with a greater purity and there were not so many ways for our 'monkey mind' to be fed. As civilisation grew so did the monkey-mind where it increasing tried to grab star billing and to stand centre stage pretending to be 'the truth'.

Intuition, I think, can be better viewed as a conduit for our connection with the collective unconscious. A channel for connection with the deeper energies of past, present and future. It is a part of our very core. An elemental influence, which although a natural, fundamental and basic part of our make up is not one that I see as purely animalistic in the way that Freud uses the term 'id'.

In Freud's world the Id is the immature inner child resident inside us. It resides in the unconscious mind and focuses it's actions as un-organised emotional responses to create chaos, pleasure and gratification. Based in emotions, it is instinctual in it's nature and is responsible for many of our gut feelings. However, it does not carry the same depth of charge as intuition.

Additionally and perhaps most importantly, intuition starts it's journey from outside our body / mind (both conscious and unconscious) and it's motion is moving inwards / moving deeper. The Id instinct starts it's journey within our unconscious mind and does not wander far, remaining as a somatic presence where it habitually plays out it's games or dramas.

Many people through cultural, social or personal pressures have repressed or suppressed their natural intuition and in those cases their intuitive connection does indeed reside in the Shadow. So there is a clear distinction here, in which you can see that Freud's Id is not exactly the same as Jung's Shadow, especially when it comes to the topic of intuition.
 
Last edited:

Trojina

Supporter
Clarity Supporter
Joined
May 29, 2006
Messages
26,920
Reaction score
4,424
Yes there's no connection really between Freud's concept of the Id and Jung's Shadow. Pretty important to understand that.
The id is always there from birth, unconscious impulses of a basic nature present in the baby. We develop the ego, in Freud's theory, to navigate between society's restrictions and our own very basic drives of the Id which we cannot always immediately satisfy such as 'I want to shit now'. The id is always unconscious. Jung's concept of the Shadow is repressed aspects of ourselves we don't recognise. Freud and Jung are coming from 2 very different perspectives.


I don't think that mankind has ever had a dependency on intuition, though. Dependency lends itself to images of control or reliance and I do not see intuition as something that mankind is in control of or reliant upon. I'm sure it was easier to connect with our intuition in the days before 'civilisation' burst upon the scene. In those days things were charged with a greater purity and there were not so many ways for our 'monkey mind' to be fed. As civilisation grew so did the monkey-mind where it increasing tried to grab star billing and to stand centre stage pretending to be 'the truth'.

I think you're taking the word 'dependency' out of context somewhat. I think it was meant in terms of what we use to get by in our every day lives such as 'I am dependent on my rational mind to make budgeting decisions', or 'I am dependent on my legs to walk'. There's no reference to 'control' there at all but a statement of necessity of usage. Early humans were perhaps less reliant on rational thinking and more reliant on intuition, which I define as 'knowing but not knowing how you know'. They had to be given their world was far less in their control than ours is. Maybe they needed to sense when there was a dangerous predator about and so on. They had to go by feelings more often I imagine.

However intuition is just as alive through all our modern technology. Minds connecting online meet many synchronicities, I don't think modern life blocks intuition it just provides new avenues for it. The only problem is where we question our intuition too much and give it no heed at all because we have been taught rational decisions are the only way.


I have a terrible sense of direction but one day I directed a person with a very good sense of direction/ability to plot location and route to take a certain road to get where we were going and I realised somehow I knew without knowing how I knew. So I am bad at maps and directions but it seems sometimes in the middle of nowhere I can know which way to go and not know how I know. To me that is intuition and it is worth listening to. Same with readings, it's not all analysis is it, there has to be room for the intuition to speak.
 
Last edited:

my_key

visitor
Joined
Mar 22, 1971
Messages
2,892
Reaction score
1,334
Yes there's no connection really between Freud's concept of the Id and Jung's shadow. Pretty important to understand that.
In simple terms the shadow can be viewed as a repository, a store-house if you like, for unmet emotional needs; the id is more a shoot from the hip instigator of ways aimed at meeting unmet emotional needs.
 

dfreed

Inactive
Joined
Feb 6, 2021
Messages
1,045
Reaction score
409
* ".... the animal side of our personality (like the id in Freud) ...."
* We are "the tool-animals" using tools in a significant way;
* " .... communication ... at the highest level on this planet."

The distinction I make is that we humans are 'tool-making' animals. There are other animals that use tools, but I think we're the only species that thinks up and then produces the tools we then use.



******************************************************

The Buddha gave a 'special' significance to being born in a human body - in that this was the only form or 'vehicle' through which we could experience what we call enlightenment or 'Buddhahood' (Buddha meaning the 'enlightened one' or 'the knower') or that we can attain 'Bodhi' - wisdom. I can see this as being another definition for when we talk about being or attaining a 'higher level'. (And it seems similar to the definition of a shaman as 'one who knows'.)

I don't think the Buddha ever meant this in any sort of arrogant or superior sort of way - that this human ability made us better than other animals and beings. The Buddha - as do shamans and others - recognized the existence of many 'non-worldly' beings, such as giants, spirits, devas, angels, demons .... but he said none of these had the ability to attain this 'higher level' (except perhaps some of the devas who were enlightened humans in another form).

Others say that animals, etc. already have or live in this 'higher' place (whatever we wish to call it!) This could be why shamans are associated with animal spirits which they contact via trance states or by taking substances (drugs). Or why some of us can - at times - more easily communicate with horses, or dogs, .... sometimes more easily than we can with our own species.



******************************************************

I was just reading about the Australian Aboriginal people's creation myth: the Spirit Ancestors came to Earth in human form and then set about making the world, creating humans, animals, plants, rocks, rivers, lakes, land forms .... and when they were done, instead of leaving, they turned themselves into animals, plants, rocks, rivers ....

If someone visits a spring, not only is this a place where you can get water and food, and where you can contact the ancestors, but this place is the ancestors, as are the water, animals and plants found here. This gives me a very different understanding of whom our 'ancestors' are, and what this world is really made of.

And perhaps then the Ancestors didn't end up residing in some ancient, ancestral landscape, but they are the actual landscape, and are 'of-this-earth'. So, Moses or Fuxi, or Oden .... are all (potential) ancestors, but so are the rocks on the beach, and the herons, or some virus many of us are concerned about right now ....

I also read that none of the hundreds of Aboriginal languages contain a word for time. They refer to Dreaming or Dreamtime - which I imagine (but don't really know) contains all of these - ancestors, rocks, cauldrons, springs, dragons, cranes ... and they are all happening 'out of time' or at the same time - or beyond our usual idea of time, where stuff only is in past, or is only in the present, or future - but is not multi-dimensional.

And perhaps this is also similar to what we mean by (recognizing, uncovering) our Shadow, or our animal nature, or our collective unconscious.



******************************************************

Sarah Allan - in her book, the Shape of the Turtle - talks about myths, and how they need not be historic nor accurate, or even 'real' in an evidence-based or historically-based way. I've been playing with this notion lately when working with the Yi.

So, 55.2 - "The Capital in shadow, the ladle appears in the middle of the sun" ....

... this is an historic Zhou-era event, AND it is also how people 20,000-100,000 years ago felt when there was an unexpected dust storm or total eclipse and they saw lights or 'bright anomalies' mid-day .... AND it is also how it feels to see the Big Dipper - also called, a ladle, or the Plow - in the middle of the day, especially since these starts are also our ancestors, ...

... AND it is also trigram Li: 'Middle-Daughter-Ancestor-Light' interacting with trigram 'Heavenly-Creative-Focus', so they can both clearly see the big - or heavenly - picture ... AND it is also the idea that 'embracing darkness' lets us see in new ways:
To go in the dark with a light is to know the light.
To know the dark, go dark. Go without sight,
and find that the dark, too, blooms and sings,
and is traveled by dark feet and dark wings.
- Wendell Berry: "To Know the Dark"​



******************************************************

And I've also been playing with the idea of the Yi's response being in Dreamtime, and just as in a dream, none of the 'parts' have to fit, or make rational sense - but as with dreams, we can still interpret them:
In my dream, I'm a traveler starting a wonderful (auspicious) journey (56)! I'm approaching a lodge carrying my few cherished provisions, when all of a sudden a boy is walking next to me, and I sense (know) that he is my servant, my helper, my ally! - and this all feels like good fortune (56.2).
And then suddenly I see a bird burning its nest. At first I laugh at this (how can a bird 'burn' anything?), but then I realize how sad it makes me feel, and I weep.
And then suddenly I'm in a distant land called Yi (not Oz, nor Kansas, nor America) and I have lost my cattle - this is so unfortunate! (56.6)

And then I woke up from my dream - and tried to figure out what it means!

Best, D
 
Last edited:

surnevs

visitor
Joined
Apr 25, 2021
Messages
653
Reaction score
323
For this not to end in the jungle: when I wrote, #11, a million years ago it was an expression (I don't know when we arrived at the stage here as humans *) to underline when we were really, really defenceless and in a Darwinistic sense like monkeys without any ability to use tools, make fire etc. etc. and possibly could have (sic) enveloped an intuition as in the dark night - which were dark and where we were blind in the literary sense - to be able to sense the dangers as mentioned from the night-hunting animals. "The inner/hidden Library" ie. the sum of experiences laying latent within us and which we are not conscious about in our "daily awareness" and which includes this intuition possibly enveloped back then: at the beginning of our earliest appearance here...
I belong thou to those who are open to another possibility, namely that we have been on a higher level once from which we are fallen due to a catastrophe of a kind (also expressed with: the will of God) but I think I better stop here for now.

*)
".......... the last of the primates to evolve were the early humans ........ 4-9 million years old........" etc. on pg. 38 The Cambridge history of Ancient China. Cambridge University Press, Loewe & Shaughnessy, N.Y. 1999
 
Last edited:

my_key

visitor
Joined
Mar 22, 1971
Messages
2,892
Reaction score
1,334
Hi David
I know from the response you made in the Moderation thread that there has been an undertaking by you to 'strive to be clearer in my communication' , so I would like to give you some feedback with respect to the clarity of this communication (post#15) from my perspective. Communication is not communication if what is being communicated is not understood by the intended recipients of the communication. I place myself currently in this not understanding category.

I have learnt of the diversity and high brow nature of your personal reading and your sources. You have shone your brilliance brightly in your words. However I am not really seeing the substance of what you are actually saying here with respect to joining the dots together. Yes, you have started with comments about tool usage and the animal kingdom so there is a starting connection. From there the path becomes increasingly hazy. There is a mazy route of dots through Buddha, Shamans, Non worldly beings, Ancestors, Moses, Fuxi, Oden, Hopi Culture, Australian Aboriginal culture - Dream Time & no words for time, Shapes of Turtles, Zhou cosmology, Wendell Berry quotes, I Ching hexagram 56, dream interpretation ....and then finally you woke up. I have to confess that I am still laying dazed within the dream you have created having dropped between the dots on more than one occassion.

I would love to be able to respond to what you are saying here, however I am stumbling through a quagmire of what I see as unrelated images: still blinded in the headlights of your words. Again, as in a previous thread, I invite you to give a one or two line precis of what you are actually saying here - your words, your thoughts and how they relate to the thread or the previous comment from svenrus. A concise precis would certainly help me and promote more effective communication between us and could even help you draw closer to the thing for which you are striving.

I agree that humans are tool making animals and I truly hope you can find / create a tool to help you with your clarity of communication. Remember, sometimes less is more: sometimes telling one story at a time allows clarity to unfold naturally.
 
Last edited:

my_key

visitor
Joined
Mar 22, 1971
Messages
2,892
Reaction score
1,334
I think you're taking the word 'dependency' out of context somewhat. I think it was meant in terms of what we use to get by in our every day lives such as 'I am dependent on my rational mind to make budgeting decisions', or 'I am dependent on my legs to walk'. There's no reference to 'control' there at all but a statement of necessity of usage. Early humans were perhaps less reliant on rational thinking and more reliant on intuition, which I define as 'knowing but not knowing how you know'. They had to be given their world was far less in their control than ours is. Maybe they needed to sense when there was a dangerous predator about and so on. They had to go by feelings more often I imagine.
I see what you are saying. You are right I hadn't really seen things in the context you describe. Only @surnevs will be able to say for sure which context he was thinking of when he used 'dependency'.
If your perspective is right, maybe 'contingent upon' would be a better phrasing and certainly would not carry any weighting with respect to control.

Early humans would, in my estimation too, be more adept at going with the flow and following their core instincts or intuition. An ability to be 'unconsciously competent' ( 'knowing but not knowing how we know'), especially when it came to facing moments in life laced with danger would, I'm sure, have certainly been something enthusiastically embraced by our ancestors.
 
Last edited:

dfreed

Inactive
Joined
Feb 6, 2021
Messages
1,045
Reaction score
409
Communication is not communication if what is being communicated is not understood by the intended recipients of the communication. I place myself currently in this not understanding category.

As to me striving to be 'clearer' in my communication: Yes, that's what I - and all of us are - strive for, though I admit I don't always hit the mark. But more importantly, in the context of what I said in the Moderation thread, I want to be 'cleaner' in my communications - meaning I will try to not cause harm or ill-will in what I say.

Towards that end, I intend no ill will in my communications in this thread. Not at all. I do find myself, however, wondering what you mean by my "high brow nature"? Perhaps you mean to say that I'm "highly cultured and educated"? (I really can't claim either, though maybe the words 'curious', or 'interested', or 'interesting' might fit - and I do like to explore the Yi in different ways.)


******************************************************

So ... I am exploring different ideas here: I'm exploring the Yi's responses as if they were part of a myth, along with other ways we can 'interpret' a particular line, as I did with Line 55.2.

There have been discussions on this forum where people have discussed Hex. 55 and the lines about 'screens' and 'shadows' darkening the sky at mid-day. As I said, I can see this as a record of an historic event (something about an eclipse being a sign for a Zhou king - if memory serves me?); and it can also be about how ancient peoples - before there writing - viewed eclipses as omens; .... or how we can 'interpret' this line in terms of the trigrams, and so forth.

I'm exploring the idea that using myth and dreamtime allows us to see a particular image, verse, or line from the Yi in multiple ways: here I am building on the idea of the Aboriginal creation myth - where the ancestors created people, rocks, trees, rivers - AND the ancestors are also these very same people, rocks, trees, rivers, stars, dragons ....

This opens up all kinds of possibilities for how I understand and make use of the Yi, and divination in general.


******************************************************

.... as to the 'ancestors' - they play a large part in the Yi, and in Chinese culture. My idea - perhaps not well-conveyed - was to explore this idea of who - or what - our (or my) ancestors are: someone might consider Fuxi as their ancestor, or I might consider Moses my people's ancestor. But what if (according to the Aboriginal spirits) I also thought of the the rocks on the beach, and the herons, and my friend's dog as my ancestors?

That certainly changes my outlook in a big way! And if we see everything - including animals - as our ancestors, that surely relates to what you said above, that "Any person taking a stance that egoically invests in their supposed superiority over any of the animal realms just disrespects all that is around them."

And note, it was what you said here (and above) about animals which prompted me to explore this idea of aboriginal Dreamtime and ancestors!


******************************************************

I also explored what the Buddha shared - that people do have a unique ability and opportunity to become enlightened - but that does not convey any sort of superiority or better-ness on us! It's more along the lines of, "Fish gotta swim, Birds gotta fly" and humans can attain Buddha-hood!

And what prompted me to explore this was Surnevs's comment about "communication at the highest level" - which reminds me of this idea of enlightenment, and again, also what you said about animals and that we are not superior to them.


******************************************************

And .... I am also exploring the Yi's response as if it were part (or parts) of a dream, as I did with 56, 56.2 and 56.6.

On this site, I've often heard people say they have questions, problems, issues when working with multiple lines in a reading. Here I shared a way of 'putting all the parts together' - by seeing them as part of a dream; and like dreams, they don't always make sense (nor do they have to), and they are not always in 'real time' .... But we can still interpret them - or at least try to. That's another idea I'm exploring here.


******************************************************

Having said all this, I can see how it might be (or is!) confusing! But I hope this helps explain what I was trying to convey. Please let me know if it helps explain what I'm saying - or if it doesn't. Next time I might separate these out into different posts, though I thought they were interconnected in some ways, which is why I put them in one thread.

And please feel free ask me more questions if there's anything I can try and clarify for you.


D
 
Last edited:

dfreed

Inactive
Joined
Feb 6, 2021
Messages
1,045
Reaction score
409
There is a mazy route of dots through Buddha, Shamans, Non worldly beings, Ancestors,

I get that from someone else's perspective, this seems like a mazy (or hazy, or fuzzy) route. It seems clear as day to me - or maybe as clear as one might see things in a dream, or see the dipper during an eclipse or a wind storm! :spinning:

But I am more than happy to explain what I mean, as I did above.

PS - in my above threads I conveyed that I was sharing separate (but perhaps overlapping) ideas by separating them with ****************************************************** (which I have made larger to better separate the ideas I'm sharing) You can - if you wish - consider each of these on their own, if that helps to clarify what I'm sharing.

PPS - you said, "Communication is not communication if what is being communicated is not understood by the intended recipients of the communication ...."

Another way I look at this is - it is 'communication' if one of us is trying to genuinely and authentically communicate their thoughts and feelings. There are all sorts of reasons why something communicated is not clear to another person - especially in the digital age. Therefore, communication also includes working out "what's what" when there is a misunderstanding - and it is especially in this realm where I want to strive to cause no harm.

Best, D
 
Last edited:

IrfanK

visitor
Joined
Dec 15, 2011
Messages
752
Reaction score
561
However intuition is just as alive through all our modern technology. Minds connecting online meet many synchronicities, I don't think modern life blocks intuition it just provides new avenues for it.
Ye-es .... The only issue I have with that is intuition is often built on a big base of past experiences. If I'm a nomadic gatherer in the forest and every single time I go down to the waterhole I hear birds singing, then one day I don't, I would be intensely aware of it and would have an intuitive sense that something was amiss, maybe some kind of predator in the area. .In the pre-agricultural era, things stayed pretty much the same, or followed the same patterns, for generation after generation.

These days they don't. The world changes so fast that your past experiences may not be a good guide.

It's also one of the reasons that respect for the elderly is such a strong part of stable, traditional societies. The old lived and survived through very similar conditions as the young are going through now, so their experiences are a good guide. These days, the old grew up in such a different world that their experiences don't mean so much for the young.

I remember when I was about ten or eleven, I found a copy of Alvin Toffler's Future Shock lying about the house. I haven't read it since, but I remember the idea that future shock is like culture shock -- only worse, because with culture shock, you can go back to your own society. When the whole world has changed, there's no going back.

I do suffer increasingly from culture shock, future shock, intense nostalgia for times past. And I do find that in the context of a rapidly changing world, my intuition is not always reliable. It seems to be part of growing old in the 20th and 21st century.
 

surnevs

visitor
Joined
Apr 25, 2021
Messages
653
Reaction score
323
My_key: concerning #18 on dependency.
On #11 I wrote: "...........when we learned to make tools and fire and so on, slowly our dependency of the intuition weakened and are not really important in the same way for us today..............."
It's like with our dependency on gasoline today which will maybe be weakened along the time as will maybe electricity take over its role... In a hundred, or thousands, of years from here on gasoline will be completely forgotten as it has only been used since somewhere around the time of the "Industrial Revolution" in Europe while - I guess - the intuition was enveloped in us in the very beginning over a much longer period until we learned to manage for ourself to create light/fire and defence ourself with tools/weapons against the dangers that lurked in the utter darkness back then; I think our intuition was used for self-defence in such a long period that we, contrary to the example with gasoline versus electricity, never forgot it ie. it's still dominant* within us.

*) see #24

(I have edited some grammar + that marked in green, nothing else.)
 
Last edited:

Trojina

Supporter
Clarity Supporter
Joined
May 29, 2006
Messages
26,920
Reaction score
4,424
I see what you are saying. You are right I hadn't really seen things in the context you describe. Only @surnevs will be able to say for sure which context he was thinking of when he used 'dependency'.
If your perspective is right, maybe 'contingent upon' would be a better phrasing and certainly would not carry any weighting with respect to control.

This is strange since to me it's not a perspective it's just an everyday use of English, there's no question mark over it. Strange as we live in the same county in south west England I think and surnevs lives in Denmark but you aren't using the same language as me :cool: . The word 'dependence' can't be confined to psychological issues which is how you're tending to view it possibly. It seems pretty usual to me to say 'I depend on these glasses to see well'....or 'I depend on petrol to run my car'....it's a way of saying it's necessary, I use it, I lean on it. No one would say if they lost their glasses 'My sight is contingent upon these glasses' not in everyday UK speech. They might say 'I really depended on those I wish I could find them'. People will often say 'I depend upon my state pension to get by' things like that. They wouldn't say 'my life is contingent upon my state pension to get by'...not where I live anyway but further south in the county, where you are it could be different...... :D


One can rely on logic, or one might depend on intuition, I can't see any issue with the use of the word 'depend' in that context. Sometimes I'm torn as to which to rely on most. There's been many times I used too little logic in my life and could have done with a bit more and other times I'd have been better leaning on/depending on my intuition.






Irfan, another definition issue, I don't see intuition as you do

Ye-es .... The only issue I have with that is intuition is often built on a big base of past experiences. If I'm a nomadic gatherer in the forest and every single time I go down to the waterhole I hear birds singing, then one day I don't, I would be intensely aware of it and would have an intuitive sense that something was amiss, maybe some kind of predator in the area. .In the pre-agricultural era, things stayed pretty much the same, or followed the same patterns, for generation after generation.
I see what you mean but then again the point of real intuition is that it really isn't based on past experiences at all it comes from nowhere. If it were just based on past experience it wouldn't be called intuition but 'wisdom' . Knowledge based on past experience and intuition really are very different although I can see at times what looks like intuition is previous knowledge. What you describe above isn't intuition as I'd mean it, it would be beyond that.

Intuition can be where you get a nudge or an urge that has no cause in the outer world. For example one day leaving my partner at home when I went out I was just continually thinking I should go home but my rational brain argued there was no good reason to. I recall the inner dialogue that went on and on. My body was almost already turning for home all by itself but my brain was saying everything was okay and there was just no reason to go home. I went home quite soon, we spent the afternoon together and he died the next day. I had no reason to think that would happen. He'd been a bit off colour and wanted to rest but nothing that would give that overwhelming message to me to turn back, forget my outing and go to him. I know that wasn't me picking up subtle environmental clues, it wasn't like that.

I don't think intuition in readings is reliant on past experiences either. A person can have an intuitive response to a cast without ever having consulted before.

These days they don't. The world changes so fast that your past experiences may not be a good guide.

It's also one of the reasons that respect for the elderly is such a strong part of stable, traditional societies. The old lived and survived through very similar conditions as the young are going through now, so their experiences are a good guide. These days, the old grew up in such a different world that their experiences don't mean so much for the young.
Intuition isn't about past experiences. As I said behaviour can look intuitive when you encounter someone very experienced but that doesn't mean past experience and intuition are the same thing at all. Intuition can seem crazy as it often goes against everything you can see and hear. It takes courage to follow it sometimes when there's no outer reason to. I think we all had it well trained out of us as young people and have to relearn to trust it as it doesn't fail if you can discern it's true voice and take it seriously.

I'm always quite glad I'm not part of a stable traditional society. There's benefits, security and such but I imagine it's also pretty stifling if you want to live your own life particularly as a woman.

I remember when I was about ten or eleven, I found a copy of Alvin Toffler's Future Shock lying about the house. I haven't read it since, but I remember the idea that future shock is like culture shock -- only worse, because with culture shock, you can go back to your own society. When the whole world has changed, there's no going back.

I do suffer increasingly from culture shock, future shock, intense nostalgia for times past. And I do find that in the context of a rapidly changing world, my intuition is not always reliable. It seems to be part of growing old in the 20th and 21st century.

Yes, so true. In lockdown so many of us older ones were saying how the world reminded them of their childhood now the cars had gone. Hadn't realised how being able to wander around freely was really so blighted by cars. So much nostalgia for the days where my life could happen all in one village. No traffic jams, local shops, local school, fields to play in without anxious parents coming to collect in their cars.. The scenes of my childhood are now on nostalgic biscuit tins and jigsaw puzzles. Still those times were also oppressive for so many people. Sex abuse scarcely acknowledged, domestic violence seen as normal, women seen as subhuman, gays being persecuted. Sometimes I think the nostalgia is for the days those things didn't appear to exist because they weren't seen.

I think it can be difficult to discern between intuition which is often repetitive nudgings and neurotic compulsion also repetitive, there's a subtle difference. But I don't think the modern age has in any way touched the deep well of intuition we all have as birthright.

As surnevs said
I think our intuition was used for self-defence in such a long period that we, like with the example with gasoline versus electricity, never forgot it ie. it's still dominant within us.


I think intuition is there always it's just it got a little stunted because there is also a fear of it. The rational powers/worldly powers are threatened by ways of knowing that don't follow their pathways....we have the persecution of witches/denial of the wisdom and knowing of women.


The I Ching, which is not a 'tool' by any means in my view, a living intelligence cannot be used as tool, we 'operate' tools, we do not 'operate' the I Ching; but it is an aid or a teacher, is a good way to reconnect with one's intuition. At times 'technical' aspects of interpretation can get in the way of that.
 
Last edited:

Trojina

Supporter
Clarity Supporter
Joined
May 29, 2006
Messages
26,920
Reaction score
4,424
I think our intuition was used for self-defence in such a long period that we, like with the example with gasoline versus electricity, never forgot it ie. it's still dominant within us.
I think here you perhaps mean 'dormant' rather than 'dominant' ? Dormant would mean it's there but sleeping within us.
 

surnevs

visitor
Joined
Apr 25, 2021
Messages
653
Reaction score
323
Of cause, yes - thank You Trojina. (compared to Logic which has dominance in our daily life, Intuition lays latent or hidden, or behind it all: Dormant.)
 
Last edited:

my_key

visitor
Joined
Mar 22, 1971
Messages
2,892
Reaction score
1,334
Hi David
I have read your response (post #19 and post #20) and can see that during the editing of both your posts have made moves to make things clearer for the reader through your setting up of boundaries between each topic. I also notice changes in your wording and deletions of certain things since I first read your posts a few minutes after you made them. I will touch on this again later.

I hear in your post #19 your declaration to continue with striving to be 'clearer in my communication' and how by making your posts cleaner you also equate this to yout commitment not to do harm. Your focus was on writing a genuine and authentic communication and less so on whether that communication would be fully understood. I also can see that you are aware that this is a work in progress for you. Like you, I am aware that effective communication is a work in progress for everyone.

To answer you question about what I mean by 'high brow nature' here I am using the term in the way defined in one dictionary as 'intellectual or rarefied in taste'. So to be clearer, a part of your nature likes using your mind and shows an interest in things that are nor always considered ordinary by the average man in the street.

I also now understand better that your original post was showing your personal explorations into a range of topics and your acknowledgement that the way you wrote it could be confusing for others is good to hear. You have certainly made efforts in post #19 and #20 to bring clarity higher up you priority list: adding your asterisk boundaries, contextual statements and connections to thread content does make for easier digestion (at least for me) of what you were looking to convey. Thank you for that.

I would like to feedback a little about the hurt I experienced when reading your original version of post #19.

My first hurt came from the disregard you again gave to my request for a short precis. For me, and maybe for others too, not being heard, being over looked, having requests that state my needs being unacknowledged by others can open many old wounds. Your reply has clearly been based in how you needed to reply - and I am have no beef with that. An example of a response that would have been less hurtful for me, would have been words like "I hear (see, notice, acknowledge... take your pick) that you want me to respond in a brief manner, however I would be uncomfortable doing this and so will respond as follows". Adding a simple recognition statement is one way to avoid inflicting this type of hurt. After all how do any of us know what are the wounds carried by another and what is going to hurt them.

My second hurt came while reading your closing line which, on reflection, you have chosen to delete. In fact, it evoked for me a number of hurts. I believe, though, that somewhere you understood what those words conveyed (via tone and content) and that there was a high chance that they would inflict hurt. Perhaps, even, they were sent with that intent originally - only you will know that. Thank you again for reflecting on what you had written and removing that final sentence. For me, it had left a nasty after taste and detracted considerably from all of the good work you had completed in the other 98% of your post.

I think it is only fair to let you know that I am not experiencing any hurt or a nasty after taste from anything that is now showing in posts #19 and 20. What I can see, though, are the nuggets that are conveyed through your words.

I particularly like the way you have displayed your uniqueness and the, now visible, insights you have shared around the shortcomings of adopting a superior stance ( using my own words to substantiate your viewpoint). Additionally, you link this to thoughts around enlightenment and surnevs comment about "communication at the highest level". The dots are joining up for me.

The main thing that I will take away with me, though, is the your perspective on collaboration as being the best way to work through misunderstanding.

Take care
 
Last edited:

IrfanK

visitor
Joined
Dec 15, 2011
Messages
752
Reaction score
561
I see what you mean but then again the point of real intuition is that it really isn't based on past experiences at all it comes from nowhere. If it were just based on past experience it wouldn't be called intuition but 'wisdom' . Knowledge based on past experience and intuition really are very different although I can see at times what looks like intuition is previous knowledge. What you describe above isn't intuition as I'd mean it, it would be beyond that.

Intuition can be where you get a nudge or an urge that has no cause in the outer world. For example one day leaving my partner at home when I went out I was just continually thinking I should go home but my rational brain argued there was no good reason to. I recall the inner dialogue that went on and on. My body was almost already turning for home all by itself but my brain was saying everything was okay and there was just no reason to go home. I went home quite soon, we spent the afternoon together and he died the next day. I had no reason to think that would happen. He'd been a bit off colour and wanted to rest but nothing that would give that overwhelming message to me to turn back, forget my outing and go to him. I know that wasn't me picking up subtle environmental clues, it wasn't like that

I'm glad you went home to your partner. Yes, I've had an experience a bit like that, back when I was a completely trashed 18 year old, not in contact with my family at the time. And one morning I woke up with various kinds of hangovers on the floor of the living room of a shared house and just got up without even thinking and walked to a public telephone to call my father, for the first time in months, to inquire about my grandfather. And my father said "You're too late. He died this morning."

But what I meant about past experience and intuition, and the waterhole, was that you may not even be aware of the fact that the birds aren't singing, you just know that something is wrong. You notice all sorts of little signs without noticing that you're noticing. If you're aware of it, it's wisdom. But I'm talking about when you just know something without knowing why.

I was thinking earlier about a very intensive breathwork course I did a few years ago, a lot of pairwork, deliberate extended eye contact, that kind of thing. And one exercise was to consciously try to bring your breath into alignment with your partners. Go around the room, find a partner without using words, sit down, breath together without saying anything until you both agree that you're in alignment, nod to signal, get up, find a new partner. If you do it with someone in normal times, you do become very conscious of how they are breathing, and it means that you become quite aware of little disturbances, shocks, they gasp slightly or hold their breath for a second or two or something like that. So you get quite a conscious sense of what they are feeling (it's fun to do with someone on a film date in a dark cinema!)

But I think people who never did that kind of training would also be conscious of someone else's breathing too, and of the feelings it signified, except that they wouldn't be aware that they were picking it up from the breath. They'd know without knowing how, and call it intuition.
 

Trojina

Supporter
Clarity Supporter
Joined
May 29, 2006
Messages
26,920
Reaction score
4,424
I would think, if you follow the evolution of the thread, you might see that the latest posts were to do with the degree to which early humans might have used intuition over logic. The quote then would fit in with that theme. The nature of humans, 'are we human - or are we dancers' (song title) or are we animals or are we angels?

The key to understanding the quote therefore is to follow the later posts in the thread.

Threads evolve and so the title of the thread does not always describe what is talked about as the conversation branches out.

People often begin fairly open wide ranging threads in Open Space which they add to whenever they feel like it.
 
Last edited:

Clarity,
Office 17622,
PO Box 6945,
London.
W1A 6US
United Kingdom

Phone/ Voicemail:
+44 (0)20 3287 3053 (UK)
+1 (561) 459-4758 (US).

Top