I allow myself to be in the present. Say I'm going for a walk, I can still relax. Notice the leaves, breathe in the quality of the air, hear the birdsong. Not thinking about the future or the past. Not thinking but being.
>>17210364 here he is again. fuck off 'buddha' i bet you tripped acid once and now you're all like 'oh i understand everything so i can put people down because i know everything about "relaxing"' god damnit. how dumb can you be? haven't you ever heard of the saying that the only wise man is the one that acknowledges he knows nothing? Don't you find that IRONIC? Huh? Mister I know fucking everythign?
>>17210402 Yeah but some people have trouble relaxing under stress, so I'd say it is hard for some.
>>17210405 No idea, sorry. I just am. I'm not trying to be cryptic or anything, I'm just relaxed. Maybe it's just lack of caring too much or putting too much importance on anything. But I don't think so 'cus I do care. Not sure. Maybe it's a certain confidence in myself or a belief that I have to control and it's all just a wild ride anyway or something.
>>17210467 Huh? Did you read past that? >Even if they aren't trying. Some people just have a hard time with it. I'm trying to think of why that may be. Lack of confidence. Fear. Inability to adapt to change. Dun-a-know
>If you're having that much trouble disconnecting you should stop eating so much sugar I will continue to eat my cherry sours and be relaxed, thank you.
>>17210444 How do you face a challenge without imagining the impact your actions will have on the future (which is when it will be resolved)? You can't face anything if you're entirely in the present. Instead the present just happens.
As an example, let's say you're strapped down to a table and someone is hurting you in some way, rape or something. You notice that one of the ropes binding your arms to the table has become loose and you could probably set yourself free. If you're entirely in the present, all you feel is the rape, you cannot imagine the consequences of breaking that rope and setting yourself free, because in order to do so you would have to create a simulated scenario in your head of what would happen when you break the rope, an imaginary future of sorts.
You could not, by referencing the past (knowledge that you can break ropes), put together a cause and effect relationship that you could then manifest in reality. Instead you would endure the pain that is inflicted on you, without having a clue as to why it is happening (which requires past knowledge) or how it might resolve (requiring future projections) until external agents, who have more power than you because you have actively chosen to relinquish control of the situation, decide that you no longer have to. It would be agonizing torment that one would be unable to even make sense of. There wouldn't even be continuity between one moment and the next so it would just be an incredibly confusing and traumatic experience. Like living out multiple tiny dots of encapsulated horrible existences that don't even seem to be sequenced.
Unless "being in the present" means something other than "ignoring your recollection of the past and your vision of the potential future"
I get it in the context of being preoccupied with things that don't exist and treating them as if they were currently reality, but complete abandonment seems like de-evolution. Facing a challenge has no value if it can't be remembered.
>>17210551 There's certainly nothing to learn from you and cryptic threats don't scare me. Why don't you learn some humility, keep your mouth shut for a few minutes and try to listen to what other people have to say rather than constantly spewing useless words at people because you are so knowledgable?
>>17210564 Being present in the moment is being aware of everything you're sensing so why would you only feel the rape and no longer be aware of the loose ropes in this case? Not that someone would seriously be trying to "relax" while being raped anyway.
>>17210524 Ah, ok I think Isee where the confusion is coming from. My statement that "it's harder for some than others" didn't literally mean that they are trying harder or not. Just that it is harder for some to become relaxed, meaning it takes them more time to relax, or realize what it means to relax. I didn't mean it took some less physical or mental effort to become relaxed in the moment than others. I hope that actually makes sense.
>Do or do not. There is no try. This never made sense to me. Of course there is such a thing as trying. You can try and do or try and not do.
>>17210583 You would be -aware- of the ropes, but you would not know what to do with them
The act of breaking a rope in order to escape requires a minute glimpse into an imaginary future that may or may not coincide with reality, even if it occurs on a subconscious level. The knowledge that breaking the rope can set you free relies on memory, an imperfect depiction of the past.
If you're entirely in the present you can't really do anything, instead the present just does you.
I'm referring to complete abandonment of the notion of the future and the notion of the past, taking the idea to an extreme level. Someone who is aware of the present, the potential future, and their recollection of the past simultaneously has a much higher chance of ending the conflict in this scenario than someone who is fixated only on reality alone.
>>17210625 I'm just gonna once again say that I think you can't relax because your over-thinking it. I don't think begin relaxed means shutting down your brain, at least not for me. You can do all that and be relaxed. I can relax while walking and that requires me to know where I'm going to know where I'm going to extent and to remember how to walk.
>>17210625 You ignored the second part of my post though. The point is that no one is going to be trying to "live in the moment" when they're being raped because it doesn't make sense.
Everything you said is true. This is why we sometimes have to step back from experience and process it all in order to make good choices. So basically, if you're trying to say that we shouldn't be living this way (mindfully, only in the present moment) all of the time, you're right. There is time to experience things and there is time to reflect on (and make sense of) those experiences. Both are equally important.
>>17210656 >>17210655 I was specifically responding to the guy's response to my question "what if something bad is happening in the present?" The purpose of the example was to provide a scenario where his/her response was ineffective.
He/she literally responded by saying that living in the moment is an effective strategy for handling a situation where something bad is happening to you.
And it turns out he/she is totally right, I automatically -assumed- that what he/she meant by "living in the moment" meant abandoning cognitive projections of the past and future entirely in favor of the moment, when really, in this case, using all three in concert is probably more effective (which DOES require being in the moment).
>>17210711 >So you'd rather just be raped Well if I really, really didn't know, then it'd be like I'm not being raped at all from my frame of reference. Like it's not happening to me, it's happening to -someone else-. Unless I'm striving for some universal ideal where all bad shit is eliminated, I don't know why I'd feel compelled to experience something that doesn't effect me.
Being half in the moment but not entirely removed from it would suck tho, or if you were in a state where you could be reintroduced to it at random (or not random) intervals.
I guess you're right, on a broader ideological scale it's still something I'd feel compelled to prevent, just because even if it isn't me it's happening to it could always be -someone-.
>There's no women here I always thought /x/ had a relatively high ratio of female to male posters for some reason. It's not really cause of that that I do it, moreso because that's my more "default" way of referring to people (other than using they as a pronoun) and I'm trying to stick it to board culture in some small way :)
>>17210737 > It's not really cause of that that I do it, moreso because that's my more "default" way of referring to people (other than using they as a pronoun) and I'm trying to stick it to board culture in some small way :)
>>17210737 >Well if I really, really didn't know, then it'd be like I'm not being raped at all from my frame of reference. Oh no, you're still raped you just didn't know and therefore don't have to worry, unless you found out some how, in which case why worry anyway, it already happened.
>There's no women here It was a joke. We're all just voices in one anon's head anyway or part of the program or astral goblins or something.
>>17210769 But it being me is contingent upon me knowing that it was me
If you had another body in some parallel universe, and you remained unaware of this body for eternity and whatever else lies outside of eternity, could you say that that body is really another of your bodies? In the situation where your awareness of yourself is intermittent, like if you were drugged and raped and then had to wake up afterwards, I'd be more inclined to believe that it was "still you" because you are living out the consequences of what happened to you whether you knew it happened to you or not.
How do you define an object as yourself vs another? I, personally, do, by whether or not I know that object's experiences the same as I know my own. It's not "you" until you understand it to be you. Otherwise it's someone else. I dunno, I just see this as the only thing that separates one entity from the next.
Now if that other you being raped somehow influenced your current behavior, and you don't know why your behavior has changed (because you don't know what caused it), then it would become a lot more important.
>>17210829 I'm talking about complete absence of moment Entire dissolution of the moment would = not being aware of it at all. Like I said earlier, I'm testing these concepts by taking them to their extremes. You sound retarded for calling me retarded because you are too retarded to understand what I'm saying. Sorry bro.
>>17210872 Also this wasn't the actual conclusion I reached with regards to my little example with the other guy. I already stated that the ideal situation would be to both be in the moment and analyze it using the potential future and recalled past as reference points over being in the moment at the expense of both the potential future and recalled past, or vice-versa.
>>17210872 Humans are incapable of completely detaching from their senses. How can you not know that? You sound retarded because you're pretending that this is something that's possible in real life. It's not. If you are awake, you are going to know you're being raped. What don't YOU understand about what I'm saying?
The majority of people don't exist "in the present" most of the time. That doesn't mean they aren't aware of what's going on around them.
>>17210823 >But it being me is contingent upon me knowing that it was me Ha no. It's you because that's the situation we're talking about. You're definitely being raped you just don't know it. The question is would you prefer that to knowing it and having a chance to do something about it. We also have to consider the rapist point of view. He knows, even if you don't.
All the rest of that sounds like mumbo jumbo to me. It is without a doubt you, you just don't know it. You can tell yourself whatever you like, but it's still you.
>>17210899 >Humans are incapable of completely detaching from their senses But this is still what represents the opposite of being in the moment.
>You sound retarded because you're pretending that this is something that's possible in real life. It's not. If you are awake, you are going to know you're being raped Again, you sound retarded for calling me retarded because you're too retarded to understand what I'm saying. I'm talking in ideals and the ideal way to avoid being raped further while being raped is to either escape or completely detach.
>What don't YOU understand about what I'm saying? I understand what you're saying, and what you're saying isn't relevant to what I'm saying. You're saying you can't detach entirely from your perceptions of being raped while being raped. I'm saying that first of all, you can if you're drugged, and secondly whether or not you CAN doesn't matter- it would be -ideal to- if you could, and more importantly that the fact that you can't dissociate completely doesn't somehow justify being more in the moment at the expensive of future/past when you're being raped.
>The majority of people don't exist "in the present" most of the time. That doesn't mean they aren't aware of what's going on around them. Define in the present. I was going off of the definition that one should abandon preconceptions of the future and recollections of the past and "just exist".
My argument against this as a means to escape a negative situation (which, if you remember, was my point all along) is that the potential future and recalled past provide means to alter the present, but in order to alter the present you must also be aware of it. So a balance between all three is preferable when the present is something you want to change (meaning when the present isn't good). Or, if you can escape completely by dissolving the moment itself, that is also viable provided the moment is dissolved permanently and that you aren't reintroduced to it.
>>17210948 >that is also viable provided the moment is dissolved permanently and that you aren't reintroduced to it. Provided that you're okay with the fact that a rape occurred -at all- to anyone, but you were not aware of it, which might be against some people's ideologies (including mine)
>>17210978 If you're over-analyzing an idea to the point that you're asking people to define the word "you," your ideas are needlessly abstract, don't apply to the real world and are therefore meaningless. Maybe you just like to argue about an arbitrary point but this is ridiculous.
>>17210995 >your ideas are needlessly abstract Again, according to you You think I'm being too abstract, point taken. I'm saying I don't care.
My overarching point, that I keep repeating, that "being in the moment" at the expense of preconceptions of the future and recollection of the past, in order to counteract a bad situation, is NOT an effective way to deal with one, is still valid. Instead all you're doing is amplifying negative stimuli and robbing yourself of the control needed to alleviate it.
I'm taking a shot in the dark here but it seems like you're associating one of my trains of thought with the other when really they're pretty self-contained.
>>17211004 The conclusion I reached was that I would prefer to do something about, and that thing would not be "being in the moment" and abandoning the past and future. The detachment thing was just an idea I had.
>What? You, as in the reader. Nonono I mean how are you defining you as a term. Like your physical body you, your awareness you, which?
>According to the figurative situation I'm describing In what way? That's what I'm asking. You're being vague.
>>17211025 >abandoning the past and future. I don't think that's what being in the moment means
>Nonono I mean how are you defining you as a term. Like your physical body you, your awareness you, which? Sure, your physical body then. We're talking about you not knowing so your awareness would be none. It's still you though so your body is going through this.
>In what way? That's what I'm asking. You're being vague. I'm honestly not sure how I could be any clearer. I feel like you're trying to complicate this with a lot of abstract nonsense.
The situation is this...You(the reader) are being raped(oh no) but what's this, you have a choice
A. You can make yourself unaware of this and forget it ever happened. After the rapist has finished he will be on his way, and you won't have to live with knowing you've been raped(Unless, of course, you're raped in the future...or were once before)
B. You are aware you're being raped(oh no...wait..no you're positive it's you) but you can do something to stop it (good job).
>>17211103 >The situation is this...You(the reader) are being raped(oh no) but what's this, you have a choice I already told you how I feel about that situation.
>Sure, your physical body then Yes it happened to you in that respect. So the question, then, would be whether or not the aftereffects (when you are conscious again) would mess with your awareness enough to be cause for concern, or if you ever even become aware of it having happened in the future. Like what if someone got really hammered at a party, got raped, didn't know it, woke up the next day in their bed, had no physical aftereffects... and never knew? How much would the event truly influence them, and would it be better that they had known it happened? That's really up to speculation, so I'm not gonna take a stance either way on that.
And to be fair originally I am being -very- abstract, I was talking more about the fundamental definition of "you" in general. If your awareness isn't present when it occurs then who is it happening to? One you but not another seems like the answer I'm coming to atm.
>I'm honestly not sure how I could be any clearer You just were it's all good in the neighborhood. You answered my question in your sentence above the one I'm quoting.
>I don't think that's what being in the moment means
>I allow myself to be in the present. Say I'm going for a walk, I can still relax. Notice the leaves, breathe in the quality of the air, hear the birdsong. Not thinking about the future or the past. Not thinking but being. >Not thinking about the future or the past
As it was defined by the person who I was initially arguing with. Or do you want this to be an issue of semantics alone? What definition are you operating on? If you're operating on a different definition, then that is probably not the one I am attacking.
>>17211162 >So the question, then[...] Oh and this isn't part of my argument It's just a tangential thought experiment. My argument with regards to this situation really is >The conclusion I reached was that I would prefer to do something about, and that thing would not be "being in the moment" and abandoning the past and future
I'm half arguing half thinking out loud, sorry about that.
>>17211162 >I already told you how I feel about that situation. And I didn't ask again, I just restated the situation trying to be more clear, I guess.
>Yes it happened to you in that respect. ect. The effects are of no concern and you will never be made aware of this. It happened and you will never know. It's a simple physiological question, I think. Would you escape the moment and never have to deal with it or would you accept the situation for what it was and take action. Again not asking just restating. . >If your awareness isn't present when it occurs then who is it happening to? Your awareness is also of no concern. Things happen all the time and not everyone is aware of them, but they still happen. In the big book of truths (if it existed) it would say you were raped.
>Not thinking about the future or the past. I'm not him, but I can use my knowledge of "me strong rope weak" without having to recall the time when my grandfather taught me how to chop a rope in half using only my will power so I could avenge my father. his isn't one of my Japanese animes. Likewise, I needn't worry about the future as long as it means it's one without me being raped.
I know you already said you were taking things to extremes but it's getting a little ridiculous.
>>17211223 >"me strong rope weak" Well what's really going on here? >data input from the *present* (sensory input) >comparison to the *past* (it's a rope, it's fraying or something, ropes that are frayed are easy to break) >projection of the *future* (if I break this rope, then (if/then = cause and effect, present projected into an imaginary future) I can escape) >integration into the *present* (you break the rope in order to manifest your vision of the future in the present (you being free))
>I know you already said you were taking things to extremes but it's getting a little ridiculous Well if I applied these concepts to a more complex situation that is equally as threatening and required a lot of prior knowledge plus the ability to see how you can use that prior knowledge to reach a desired outcome in the future, then it would make more sense in that context.
It cannot be said that the best way to deal with a bad situation, universally speaking, is to be in the moment and just calm down, especially when the moment is counterproductive to calming down. Though I guess you could also say that the converse might be true, and that you can't say it universally isn't either.
>I know you already said you were taking things to extremes but it's getting a little ridiculous I'm trying to work with these concepts in really distilled forms just to demonstrate whether or not they hold up, and my example wasn't meant to be concrete but just a setup for how these concepts would play out in a generic terrifying scenario.
>>17211265 And that anon is, in my opinion, right in that there is a certain degree of in the moment that you DO want to be if breaking free is your objective.
Not so in the past and present that you're thinking about what you had for dinner last night or an exciting trip you're planning, and enough in the present that you can see what's going on around you and manipulate it.
But as an absolute concept, in that really sort of absolute no-thought way, in this scenario it's probably not going to get you out, if that is your objective.
>>17211265 Again, I don't think being in the moment means what you think it means.
You're overthinking it which, I'm pretty sure, is the opposite of being in the moment.
>It cannot be said that the best way to deal with a bad situation, universally speaking, is to be in the moment and just calm down, especially when the moment is counterproductive to calming down. I disagree. Maybe not for all situations but sometimes it's better to be calm and figure things out as they come. Actually now that I think about that... >universally speaking it could be the best response. In the grand scheme of things chaos rules all. What does any of this matter on a universal scale. Trust your instincts.
>Though I guess you could also say that the converse might be true, and that you can't say it universally isn't either. Wh-wha-ah what?
We've strayed so far off-topic. I need to get something to eat. Everyone just relax, and have a nice night.
>>17211346 May your meal be delicious and succulent
>You're overthinking it which, I'm pretty sure, is the opposite of being in the moment Aw man no it's the opposite with me, I overthink WHEN I'm relaxed. Otherwise thoughts are too impeded. I'm not in the moment, I'm making the moment <33
>>17211384 >Being in the present is paying attention to the past, the present, and the future simultaneously If this is what you mean by being in the present then yeah I totally 100% agree with you It really does come down to semantics, different people can mean different things when they say the same words. Seems like that happens a lot with all of this esoteric stuff, so you gotta make sure when you're arguing something you're talking about the same meaning behind the words you're arguing, otherwise you just misrepresent each other endlessly.
All trademarks and copyrights on this page are owned by their respective parties. Images uploaded are the responsibility of the Poster. Comments are owned by the Poster.
This is a 4chan archive - all of the shown content originated from that site. This means that 4Archive shows their content, archived. If you need information for a Poster - contact them.
If a post contains personal/copyrighted/illegal content, then use the post's [Report] link! If a post is not removed within 24h contact me at email@example.com with the post's information.