What a delight to be gifted with such a thoughtful comment! So many wise and good ideas here.
I think you’re right to provide the criticism of the word outshine, and I agree that the concepts complement each other. I suppose I was just trying to say that yes-and-ness envelops and makes more clear the same thing that is pointed to by the t…
What a delight to be gifted with such a thoughtful comment! So many wise and good ideas here.
I think you’re right to provide the criticism of the word outshine, and I agree that the concepts complement each other. I suppose I was just trying to say that yes-and-ness envelops and makes more clear the same thing that is pointed to by the term radical acceptance.
But screw the competitive language, both/and is almost always better!
I do think that if you zoom out enough, there is no who or what that can be said to be the causative agent in an action that free will is apparently demonstrated in. I also think there’s value in zooming in a little bit and seeing our individual aspects of the totality as self-contained systems with semi permeable self selected boundaries.
If you zoom in enough, the fingers of a hand might seem like their own individual beings zoom out and they’re part of a human who, if you zoom out more, is one with the universe. It seems like a shitty metaphor, but sometimes people develop “alien hands” as a result of brain surgery that behave with a will of their own, and that the person they belong to can’t explain the actions of.
So it’s true if you zoom all the way out, that we are an indivisible whole, but there are benefits to being able to navigate different depths.
You could say a finger does its grasping better when it does its own particular job well AND knows that it’s part of a hand.
But wow: an infinite number of simultaneous happenings with the appearance of an individual action! What a perfect succinct way to describe the impossibility of locating will within a totally zoomed out perspective!
But all that said, I never could’ve imagined that my efforts would bring me the fruits of this opportunity to expand my exploration of these ideas. Thanks so much!
What a delight to be gifted with such a thoughtful comment! So many wise and good ideas here.
I think you’re right to provide the criticism of the word outshine, and I agree that the concepts complement each other. I suppose I was just trying to say that yes-and-ness envelops and makes more clear the same thing that is pointed to by the term radical acceptance.
But screw the competitive language, both/and is almost always better!
I do think that if you zoom out enough, there is no who or what that can be said to be the causative agent in an action that free will is apparently demonstrated in. I also think there’s value in zooming in a little bit and seeing our individual aspects of the totality as self-contained systems with semi permeable self selected boundaries.
If you zoom in enough, the fingers of a hand might seem like their own individual beings zoom out and they’re part of a human who, if you zoom out more, is one with the universe. It seems like a shitty metaphor, but sometimes people develop “alien hands” as a result of brain surgery that behave with a will of their own, and that the person they belong to can’t explain the actions of.
So it’s true if you zoom all the way out, that we are an indivisible whole, but there are benefits to being able to navigate different depths.
You could say a finger does its grasping better when it does its own particular job well AND knows that it’s part of a hand.
But wow: an infinite number of simultaneous happenings with the appearance of an individual action! What a perfect succinct way to describe the impossibility of locating will within a totally zoomed out perspective!
But all that said, I never could’ve imagined that my efforts would bring me the fruits of this opportunity to expand my exploration of these ideas. Thanks so much!
Fruitful (no pun intended 🍌) inquiry all the way around! Thx for the exchange, Geoff!