I could see that, to a point, but that could affirm my argument as well - that by metacognition, one could make sure they don’t identify with loss or negativity of any kind, or don’t make their self the effect of their problem by giving it so much attention.
“He who identifies with loss, loss enjoys to ruin” Tao Te Ching
....I could benefit enormously simply by acquiring some basic assumptions that highly successful people live by ...but the exact assumptions are hard to find because of mutual blind spots (such people tend not to be able to conceive of my perspective, nor I theirs, which is often a cause of frustration... and worse, few people feel safe examining their assumptions and many prefer to use them to maintain a superior frame over whoever they can, which is why I almost never get a supportive answer when I ask.
It isn’t always easy to aviod identifying with loss, when that identity is cued all over the place. Any game where we know we can win or lose that counts tends to worry most people, and if one losses a game, peers tend to ask tricky questions, any of which, if answered wrong, inadvertently cause one to identify with loss....which is why successful people learn to care less about outcome....but some people become passive when they try not to care about outcome...it’s not obvious via the objective frame, but more of an independent, personal attitude. The trope of Mafia bosses seems to fit the kind of person good at never identifying with loss, and also trapping others not doing so.
It’s similar to the desire paradox in Buddhism, whereby desiring not to suffer causes suffering, so if that is your impetus for practicing Buddhism, you’d better examine yourself...without clinging to any concept whatsoever. ... And that’s also related to what I’m getting at with the scientific mind...something to do with the problem of being an observer, as an “effect” of some objective form.
If being “the cause” is not to be the effect of someone or thing, it should also mean not to desire, because desire is a mental fixation- to be the effect, often delusional. To have no desire, yet remain active, to not identify with any name or label, suggests to me a state of inner freedom and forceless power.
When you don’t make yourself the “Observer effect“ of your obstacle, nor your identifications, but return to a beginners mind, or put your mind on something outside the context of win vs loss...I think something good is around the corner.
Jamie
CAUTION:
This email originated from outside of JMU. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe.
Jamie,
If we can become skilled at metacognition, then it seems your quoted claim becomes false.
(I apologize if I am responding to this one post out of context; I have not studied the full thread.)
Thanks,
Lee Beaumont
From: tree of knowledge system discussion <[log in to unmask]>
On Behalf Of Jamie D
Sent: Sunday, November 22, 2020 7:19 AM
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Clarification on the costs of scientific mindset
CAUTION:
This email originated from outside of JMU. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe.
Your reply was vague, suggesting I may have communicated.
Is the following common knowledge or redundant in some way?
"When the obstacle is not an external object to be controlled or manipulated, but one's very internal state, the scientific mind can't win, because the person will continually declare the problem each time they try to change it."
(This should have to do with intersecting between mind's 3a and 3b, and how mind 1b expresses Mind 3a's identification with loss non-volitionally, subverting any efforts to connect or cultivate a joyful, attractive persona.)
############################
To unsubscribe from the TOK-SOCIETY-L list:
write to: mailto:[log in to unmask]
or click the following link:
http://listserv.jmu.edu/cgi-bin/wa?SUBED1=TOK-SOCIETY-L&A=1