Guest guest Posted January 3, 2007 Report Share Posted January 3, 2007 Dear Adithya, Am 03.01.2007 um 03:06 schrieb adithya_comming: > >>> >>> It seems to me that work >>> as it is taught by 4 questions >>> is a " reactive " technique. When >>> you have stressful though; question >>> it. >>> >>> But, it is my experience that >>> " reactivity " is not the BEST >>> way to lead life. >> >> I love reactivity. There is no better way to live! > > When one really " loves " reactivity; > he/she is not really being reactive! Interesting. > Recativity is the state of 'opposition'. " Recativity " , huh? You seem to have a different understanding of reactivity than me. I think of " reactivity " as a doing. And a story around this doing, that something triggered it. > It is the state of 'not accepting', 'not > loving'. Only from the state of not accepting > reactivity is born. When you love - reactivity > dissapears! You know, what I hear is your definition of " not loving " . Talking duality? Seems like a philosophical concept, sometimes. I think that " not loving " doesn't exist. As " not doing " doesn't exist. " not to love " means to fake. >> It is the personality that wants. > What is a 'personality'? A story that one is something he's not. >> If you want to not live reactively, > 'Not wanting' is part and parcel of > reactivity. Only when one 'not want' > something - one reacts! Still, I have trouble with this concept... where is the difference between " doing " and " reacting " I throw a ball, you catch it. Did you react? Did you " not love " something? And thank you. ___________________________________________________________ Telefonate ohne weitere Kosten vom PC zum PC: http://messenger.yahoo.de Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted January 3, 2007 Report Share Posted January 3, 2007 > >>> > >>> It seems to me that work > >>> as it is taught by 4 questions > >>> is a " reactive " technique. When > >>> you have stressful though; question > >>> it. > >>> > >>> But, it is my experience that > >>> " reactivity " is not the BEST > >>> way to lead life. > >> > >> I love reactivity. There is no better way to live! > > > > When one really " loves " reactivity; > > he/she is not really being reactive! > Interesting. > > > Recativity is the state of 'opposition'. > " Recativity " , huh? > You seem to have a different understanding of reactivity than me. That is possible. I see that reactivity/react has many definions in the dictionary. The meaning that I am using here is: ---------------------- 3. to act in a reverse direction or manner, esp. so as to return to a prior condition. 4. to act in opposition, as against some force. 5. to respond to a stimulus in a particular manner: reacting to a shock by jumping; to react to the word " coward " with anger. --------------------- > > I think of " reactivity " as a doing. And a story around this doing, > that something triggered it. That is not what I meant by reactivity here. In this message, I meant: I don't want stress. I don't like stress. I want to get rid of stress. I want to undo stress - so when I get stressful thoughts I investigate [with implicit 'promise' of getting rid of stress]. This is what I meant by reactivity here. > > > It is the state of 'not accepting', 'not > > loving'. Only from the state of not accepting > > reactivity is born. When you love - reactivity > > dissapears! > You know, what I hear is your definition of " not loving " . > Talking duality? No. y, I don't understand 'duality' and 'nonduality'. > Seems like a philosophical concept, sometimes. Yes, 'duality' and 'nonduality' does seem like a philosophical concept to me, sometimes. > > I think that " not loving " doesn't exist. As " not doing " doesn't exist. I think what you say above is just another - philosphy like I and you non existing in the philosphy of non duality! > > " not to love " means to fake. I don't know. I think it all depends. Sometimes, to not love is to be fake and sometimes " to love " is to be fake. > > >> It is the personality that wants. > > What is a 'personality'? > A story that one is something he's not. > > >> If you want to not live reactively, > > 'Not wanting' is part and parcel of > > reactivity. Only when one 'not want' > > something - one reacts! > Still, I have trouble with this concept... where is the difference > between " doing " and " reacting " In the meaning that I have used here: Doing includes hugging my son when I see him come running towards me! Reacting is attacking a robber when I see him come running towards me! > > I throw a ball, you catch it. Did you react? It depends. Were we playing a 'game' that we both wanted to play? > Did you " not love " > something? On the contrary, I might love it a lot if it was part of a game that I wanted to play with you. In that instance, I would be thankful to you for participating. > > And thank you. > You are welcome ! Regrads, ac Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted January 3, 2007 Report Share Posted January 3, 2007 >>>>> But, it is my experience that >>>>> " reactivity " is not the BEST >>>>> way to lead life. >>>> >>>> I love reactivity. There is no better way to live! >>> When one really " loves " reactivity; >>> he/she is not really being reactive! >> Interesting. >> >>> Recativity is the state of 'opposition'. >> " Recativity " , huh? >> You seem to have a different understanding of reactivity than me. > > That is possible. I see that reactivity/react > has many definions in the dictionary. The > meaning that I am using here is: > ---------------------- > 3. to act in a reverse direction or manner, esp. > so as to return to a prior condition. > 4. to act in opposition, as against some force. > 5. to respond to a stimulus in a particular > manner: reacting to a shock by jumping; to react > to the word " coward " with anger. > --------------------- Why do you want to use other people's wisdom so badly? Some people wrote down definitions. Is this what it means to you, too? What is a " reaction " ? For you? And I don't care for the answer. >> I think of " reactivity " as a doing. And a story around this >> doing, that something triggered it. > > That is not what I meant by reactivity here. > In this message, I meant: > > I don't want stress. I don't like stress. > I want to get rid of stress. I want to > undo stress - so when I get stressful thoughts > I investigate [with implicit 'promise' of > getting rid of stress]. > > This is what I meant by reactivity here. Ok, I call that investigation. And you say it's a state of opposition? I don't thinks so. >>> It is the state of 'not accepting', 'not >>> loving'. Only from the state of not accepting >>> reactivity is born. When you love - reactivity >>> dissapears! >> You know, what I hear is your definition of " not loving " . >> Talking duality? > No. y, I don't understand 'duality' > and 'nonduality'. >> Seems like a philosophical concept, sometimes. > Yes, 'duality' and 'nonduality' does seem like > a philosophical concept to me, sometimes. Good. >> I think that " not loving " doesn't exist. As " not doing " doesn't >> exist. > I think what you say above is just another - philosphy > like I and you non existing in the philosphy of > non duality! No, I'm saying: I can't " not do " something. >> " not to love " means to fake. > I don't know. I think it all depends. > Sometimes, to not love is to be fake > and sometimes " to love " is to be fake. No, I'm saying: when I think I don't love something, I'm confused. I assume you are talking about trying to fool others on your mood. >>>> It is the personality that wants. >>> What is a 'personality'? >> A story that one is something he's not. >>>> If you want to not live reactively, >>> 'Not wanting' is part and parcel of >>> reactivity. Only when one 'not want' >>> something - one reacts! >> Still, I have trouble with this concept... where is the >> difference >> between " doing " and " reacting " > > In the meaning that I have used here: > > Doing includes hugging my son when I > see him come running towards me! > Reacting is attacking a robber when I > see him come running towards me! I don't see the difference. Other than in my thinking that the other one is one who does what he should do, or if I think he's doing what he shouldn't do. >> I throw a ball, you catch it. Did you react? > It depends. Were we playing a 'game' that we both > wanted to play? > >> Did you " not love " >> something? > On the contrary, I might love it a lot > if it was part of a game that I wanted > to play with you. In that instance, I would > be thankful to you for participating. Ok, you impose a meaning on my action. That's what I call a " story " . One that I like to investigate: a ball comes flying towards me. Who am I with the story that we are playing a game? Who am I with the story that it's a game? Who am I with the story that I didn't play? Reality is: Ball flying towards me. And that doesn't change, but my story changes. So, I hear you give me your definition of " reactivity " . Thank you for that. And I assume you think your definition of reactifity is the same for all members? Since you wrote: >>> When one really " loves " reactivity; >>> he/she is not really being reactive! Love, ___________________________________________________________ Der frühe Vogel fängt den Wurm. Hier gelangen Sie zum neuen Yahoo! Mail: http://mail.yahoo.de Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted January 3, 2007 Report Share Posted January 3, 2007 [...] > > So, I hear you give me your definition of " reactivity " . Thank you for that. You are welcome. > > And I assume you think your definition of reactifity is the same for all members? In English, words can have many different meanings. I used " reactivity " to mean a certain thing in the context of this message. It is my effort to make the meaning I used clear to the reader by the context of the message. If there is a confusion, I am gald to clarify. > Since you wrote: > >>> When one really " loves " reactivity; > >>> he/she is not really being reactive! > > > Love, > Regards, ac Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted January 3, 2007 Report Share Posted January 3, 2007 > > >>>>> But, it is my experience that > >>>>> " reactivity " is not the BEST > >>>>> way to lead life. > >>>> > >>>> I love reactivity. There is no better way to live! > >>> When one really " loves " reactivity; > >>> he/she is not really being reactive! > >> Interesting. > >> > >>> Recativity is the state of 'opposition'. > >> " Recativity " , huh? > >> You seem to have a different understanding of reactivity than me. > > > > That is possible. I see that reactivity/react > > has many definions in the dictionary. The > > meaning that I am using here is****: > > ---------------------- > > 3. to act in a reverse direction or manner, esp. > > so as to return to a prior condition. > > 4. to act in opposition, as against some force. > > 5. to respond to a stimulus in a particular > > manner: reacting to a shock by jumping; to react > > to the word " coward " with anger. > > --------------------- > Why do you want to use other people's wisdom so badly? Some people wrote down definitions. Is this what it means to you, too? I call it 'knowledge' not 'wisdom'. I didn't invent English langauge nor did I invent words like react/reactivity. Both the language, words and their meaning and usage are defined by others and is governed the commonaly agreed upon rules. This is what makes 'communication' possible. If each of us held different meaning of the word; it would become difficult to verbally communicate. Whenever possible, I try to learn from the meaning and usage of the words from the 'dictionary'. I don't think there is anything wrong with it. > > What is a " reaction " ? For you? It better be same thing as it is 'commonly agreed' [as in dictionary] else I would better use a different word. Again, the meaning of reactivity that I used here is listed in the text above***. > And I don't care for the answer. What does that mean? > > > >> I think of " reactivity " as a doing. And a story around this > >> doing, that something triggered it. > > > > That is not what I meant by reactivity here. > > In this message, I meant: > > > > I don't want stress. I don't like stress. > > I want to get rid of stress. I want to > > undo stress - so when I get stressful thoughts > > I investigate [with implicit 'promise' of > > getting rid of stress]. > > > > This is what I meant by reactivity here. > Ok, I call that investigation. I call it 'reactivity' [i don't like what has happened so I make effort to to return to a prior condition.]. Investigation to me is the impartial effort of finding truth. For me, the only goal of true investigation is finding truth. The moment I have any other 'motive' [such as getting rid of what has happened eg. stress], it is no longer true investigation to me. [...] Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You are posting as a guest. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.