Can you say what it would mean for ‘it’ to not be ‘okay’?
(This has been asked already in another thread, but I have not seen an answer.)
In other words, “it’s okay”… as opposed to what?
Or, to put it yet another way:
I—as far as I know—do not have this ‘Looking’ skill that we’ve been hearing about. I have certainly never meditated, experienced enlightenment, taken hallucinogenic drugs of any sort, or done anything else which might trigger “non-symbolic experiences” of a similar sort (to use the terminology from the paper linked elsethread).
However, I also don’t find myself “freaking out”, “moralizing reality”, or otherwise having any sense that ‘it’, or things-in-general, are “not okay”. Should I? What am I missing?
Edit: To add yet another rephrasing of my question: presumably, you have gained this skill of ‘Looking’ at some point, prior to which time you did not possess it. What, exactly, was “not okay” before that, and how?
I would not personally use the phrases “it is/things are/whatever is okay.” But one way reacting like “it’s not okay” could look is the instinct to make reality retrospectively not be how it is. Denial. We can affect the future, but there’s no use denying what already is.
If the first thing you do is interpret that new info would make the world a bad place (moralizing reality), you may flinch into rationalizing ways it can’t be so before you even notice what you did.
I don’t claim that I gained this skill of ‘Looking’ at some point, prior to which time I did not possess it.
I claim I am recognizing a concept shaped thing that I already did more than average, and am now labelling it with the name Looking. I think I’ve gotten better over time and now that I label it, I think I could practice more deliberately. If I’m totally wrong, there’s still this thing I think I could practice because I’m labelling it now.
I think people are hung up on the meditation/enlightenment idea. It’s not the skill. It’s an old fashioned way to practice. I think the paper being linked is going to confuse more people than it helps.
It is super basic and not as otherworldly or profound as people seem to expect it to be.
Edit: I don’t mean to say it’s basic, so you should already understand. I mean to say it’s basic, and you’re looking for something complicated. Like maybe you are rejecting or will reject the answer even if YOU think of it, or already do Looking, because it’s just not an impressive complicated thing. You’ve invested a lot of effort in understanding this concept, and I wonder if the realization, when/if you get it, will be disappointing. Maybe it will be a relief though.
Re: “it’s okay”:
Can you say what it would mean for ‘it’ to not be ‘okay’?
(This has been asked already in another thread, but I have not seen an answer.)
In other words, “it’s okay”… as opposed to what?
Or, to put it yet another way:
I—as far as I know—do not have this ‘Looking’ skill that we’ve been hearing about. I have certainly never meditated, experienced enlightenment, taken hallucinogenic drugs of any sort, or done anything else which might trigger “non-symbolic experiences” of a similar sort (to use the terminology from the paper linked elsethread).
However, I also don’t find myself “freaking out”, “moralizing reality”, or otherwise having any sense that ‘it’, or things-in-general, are “not okay”. Should I? What am I missing?
Edit: To add yet another rephrasing of my question: presumably, you have gained this skill of ‘Looking’ at some point, prior to which time you did not possess it. What, exactly, was “not okay” before that, and how?
I would not personally use the phrases “it is/things are/whatever is okay.” But one way reacting like “it’s not okay” could look is the instinct to make reality retrospectively not be how it is. Denial. We can affect the future, but there’s no use denying what already is.
If the first thing you do is interpret that new info would make the world a bad place (moralizing reality), you may flinch into rationalizing ways it can’t be so before you even notice what you did.
I don’t claim that I gained this skill of ‘Looking’ at some point, prior to which time I did not possess it.
I claim I am recognizing a concept shaped thing that I already did more than average, and am now labelling it with the name Looking. I think I’ve gotten better over time and now that I label it, I think I could practice more deliberately. If I’m totally wrong, there’s still this thing I think I could practice because I’m labelling it now.
I think people are hung up on the meditation/enlightenment idea. It’s not the skill. It’s an old fashioned way to practice. I think the paper being linked is going to confuse more people than it helps.
It is super basic and not as otherworldly or profound as people seem to expect it to be.
Edit: I don’t mean to say it’s basic, so you should already understand. I mean to say it’s basic, and you’re looking for something complicated. Like maybe you are rejecting or will reject the answer even if YOU think of it, or already do Looking, because it’s just not an impressive complicated thing. You’ve invested a lot of effort in understanding this concept, and I wonder if the realization, when/if you get it, will be disappointing. Maybe it will be a relief though.