On Sun, 30 May 2010 13:55:40 -0700, "Dutch" > wrote:

>"niunian" > wrote
>> On Sun, 30 May 2010 12:09:47 -0700, "Dutch" > wrote:
>>
>>>"niunian" > wrote
>>>
>>>>>What I am describing is practical and real. It is taught by sports
>>>>>psychologists and is the basis for most spiritual practices such as
>>>>>Yoga,
>>>>>meditation or Tai Chi. It centres around being aware/present in the
>>>>>moment,
>>>>>the here and now, being IN the process, not in the thinking mind,
>>>>>distracted
>>>>>worrying about the mechanics of the swing, the rough or miss-hitting or
>>>>>what
>>>>>your score is going to be or what others are thinking about you, etc..
>>>>>As
>>>>>such it is a freeing experience, it the struggle of the ego/mind that
>>>>>drains
>>>>>your energy. The same applies in the rest of life. When I have been
>>>>>lucky
>>>>>enough to play golf or tennis or pool in this state I have always
>>>>>performed
>>>>>at the top of my abilities and ended up feeling refreshed and clear
>>>>>headed.
>>>>>
>>>>>Describe what you're talking about, so far you've been vague.
>>>>>
>>>>>And by the way, I love "everyday living" as much as any part of life.
>>>>
>>>> I think the difference between you and me is, while you are talking
>>>> about how to "practice" Tai Chi, I'm talking about how to "fight" as a
>>>> Tai Chi master.
>>>
>>>Now you're resorting to semantics. "Practicing" as in an art or discipline
>>>like Tai Chi, Karate, Yoga, meditation, golf, driving a car, or medicine,
>>>means to perform that discipline.
>>
>> Perhaps you want to talk about art or discipline, but I'm only
>> interested in the practical mean to win a battle or game.
>
>I am talking about peak performance, winning is a by-product, not part of
>the process. You talk about "battle", that brings up the notion of
>adrenaline, combat, aggression, how are there these compatible with golf?

If you only want to play golf for entertainment, then winning is
indeed just a by-product. In that case, you can do whatever you want,
and it's perfectly fine with me. However, if you want to win some
price in golf or any other game, then it becomes a battle that you
must fight in order to win. Peak performance means nothing in a
relaxed friendly game. Peak performance is only needed in a real
competition.

>
> I think you
>> over complicate the issue too much with those concepts. They are not
>> necessary in actual battle.
>
>There are no complications, no concepts in the zone, no score, no winning or
>losing, only the process. It is purely the individual totally immersed in
>the process.
>
>These words are not the zone, they are just an admittedly imperfect way of
>describing it.

Well, I don't think you need to describe it or even think about it. If
you are fully focused in the game, you wouldn't notice any of it
anyway. By conceptualizing it, you only make it an unnecessary
distraction.

>
>
>>>> In everyday practice, what you say sounds good enough,
>>>> but in actual combat, it's entirely another story. The problem I'm
>>>> trying to raise here is, you can't fight effortlessly in an actual
>>>> combat. In actual combat, there is no "flow", there is no "zone", and
>>>> there is no time to worry about "being".
>>>
>>>I am afraid you're missing the point badly. There is a flow to life's
>>>energy
>>>and there is a zone where one is in tune with that flow and there are many
>>>states where one is not. The zone is a well known phenomenon. And as I
>>>already clearly stated, there is no "worry" in being, no time either.
>>>Worrying is thinking and there is no thinking in the zone.
>>
>> These are all your beliefs. They only exist because you want them to
>> exist.
>
>They are my beliefs for many reasons, including considerable reading and
>years of personal experience. The beliefs I "want to exist" as you so glibly
>put it, are those beliefs which fit my experience and that of those who know
>about the subject. If you present anything substantial to add to or modify
>those beliefs then I will incorporate them into those beliefs which I "want
>to exist".

Too bad. I want you to forget about it to become truly focused.

>
>
>>
>>>
>>>
>>> There is only the battle and
>>>> the best strategy of winning the battle. If you keep trying to get the
>>>> right "feeling" during a game, it's likely you are going to lose the
>>>> game anyway.
>>>
>>>There's no "trying" in the zone, there's no winning or losing, there is
>>>only
>>>the process.
>>>
>>>And you still have not explained what you're talking about, are you
>>>suggesting I need to get angry to play my best golf?
>>
>> I'm talking exactly what you are talking about which is how to reach
>> the best performance in a battle or game. The only difference is, I
>> don't need to tune in to the "zone", and I do need to invest great
>> effort and concentration in order to win. To me, without effort means
>> without the will power. Without will power, nothing is going to
>> happen.
>
>OK, what do you mean by that? Explain in terms of say, golf. In my golf
>experience good golf is relaxed and effortless. Effort means tension means
>bad golf.

By effort, I mean mental power instead of physical power. With strong
effort, one becomes deeply focused in the game which often produces
surprising result. It simply means that concentration is the key. When
you have good concentration, you always perform your best no matter
what you do.

>
>>>This is an interesting subject but I really do not want it to degenerate
>>>into another battle of egos, where "winning" the debate becomes more
>>>important that the process of examining the ideas. That would be too
>>>ironic.
>>
>> That is never my concern. I only talk to you because I think I have my
>> two cents worth that you might be interested. I think if you can drop
>> those concepts to just concentrate, you might be able to perform even
>> better.
>
>What do you mean by "concentrate"? How? On what? On the ball? Keeping your
>head down? Keeping your right elbow in? Staying behind the ball?

Again, it's about the concentration of the mind instead of anything
else. It's something you must have in order to be in the "zone".

>
>That kind of concentration is for "practice" in the sense of getting
>prepared for the game, not for the game. If you simply relax, trust, allow
>yourself to become immersed quietly in the physical/mental process of the
>game of golf then maximum "concentration" will ensue, without "effort" which
>I read as "trying".
>

It's perfectly fine to be physically relaxed, but mentally speaking,
one needs to be alert and ready. That requires concentration.

On Sun, 30 May 2010 14:21:37 -0700, "Dutch" > wrote:

<snip>

I'm curious as to what your rant has to do with veg?

"niunian" > wrote in message
...
> On Sun, 30 May 2010 13:55:40 -0700, "Dutch" > wrote:
>
>>"niunian" > wrote
>>> On Sun, 30 May 2010 12:09:47 -0700, "Dutch" > wrote:
>>>
>>>>"niunian" > wrote
>>>>
>>>>>>What I am describing is practical and real. It is taught by sports
>>>>>>psychologists and is the basis for most spiritual practices such as
>>>>>>Yoga,
>>>>>>meditation or Tai Chi. It centres around being aware/present in the
>>>>>>moment,
>>>>>>the here and now, being IN the process, not in the thinking mind,
>>>>>>distracted
>>>>>>worrying about the mechanics of the swing, the rough or miss-hitting
>>>>>>or
>>>>>>what
>>>>>>your score is going to be or what others are thinking about you, etc..
>>>>>>As
>>>>>>such it is a freeing experience, it the struggle of the ego/mind that
>>>>>>drains
>>>>>>your energy. The same applies in the rest of life. When I have been
>>>>>>lucky
>>>>>>enough to play golf or tennis or pool in this state I have always
>>>>>>performed
>>>>>>at the top of my abilities and ended up feeling refreshed and clear
>>>>>>headed.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>Describe what you're talking about, so far you've been vague.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>And by the way, I love "everyday living" as much as any part of life.
>>>>>
>>>>> I think the difference between you and me is, while you are talking
>>>>> about how to "practice" Tai Chi, I'm talking about how to "fight" as a
>>>>> Tai Chi master.
>>>>
>>>>Now you're resorting to semantics. "Practicing" as in an art or
>>>>discipline
>>>>like Tai Chi, Karate, Yoga, meditation, golf, driving a car, or
>>>>medicine,
>>>>means to perform that discipline.
>>>
>>> Perhaps you want to talk about art or discipline, but I'm only
>>> interested in the practical mean to win a battle or game.
>>
>>I am talking about peak performance, winning is a by-product, not part of
>>the process. You talk about "battle", that brings up the notion of
>>adrenaline, combat, aggression, how are there these compatible with golf?
>
> If you only want to play golf for entertainment, then winning is
> indeed just a by-product.

Winning is always a by-product. If winning is your focus then you will never
play your best because it is not something you can control.

The only thing you can control is your own execution, your own actions and
reactions in the moment.

>In that case, you can do whatever you want,
> and it's perfectly fine with me. However, if you want to win some
> price in golf or any other game, then it becomes a battle that you
> must fight in order to win. Peak performance means nothing in a
> relaxed friendly game. Peak performance is only needed in a real
> competition.

Peak performance is something to be strived for at any time, it doesn't
matter what the circumstances. You don't win a golf game by "fighting", you
win by acheiving a better score than other players. Since you can't control
what score they make, you don't control winning. In fact you can't control
your own score either, that is an illusion. All you can control is how well
you execute each shot. If Mark O'Meara is in a tournament I'm not going to
win no matter how well I play. In a football game you don't control winning
either, you control how well you execute your assignment on each play.

>> I think you
>>> over complicate the issue too much with those concepts. They are not
>>> necessary in actual battle.
>>
>>There are no complications, no concepts in the zone, no score, no winning
>>or
>>losing, only the process. It is purely the individual totally immersed in
>>the process.
>>
>>These words are not the zone, they are just an admittedly imperfect way of
>>describing it.
>
> Well, I don't think you need to describe it or even think about it. If
> you are fully focused in the game, you wouldn't notice any of it
> anyway. By conceptualizing it, you only make it an unnecessary
> distraction.

You're confusing having a conversation about it and doing it. In order to
communicate the idea it needs to be put into words.

>>
>>
>>>>> In everyday practice, what you say sounds good enough,
>>>>> but in actual combat, it's entirely another story. The problem I'm
>>>>> trying to raise here is, you can't fight effortlessly in an actual
>>>>> combat. In actual combat, there is no "flow", there is no "zone", and
>>>>> there is no time to worry about "being".
>>>>
>>>>I am afraid you're missing the point badly. There is a flow to life's
>>>>energy
>>>>and there is a zone where one is in tune with that flow and there are
>>>>many
>>>>states where one is not. The zone is a well known phenomenon. And as I
>>>>already clearly stated, there is no "worry" in being, no time either.
>>>>Worrying is thinking and there is no thinking in the zone.
>>>
>>> These are all your beliefs. They only exist because you want them to
>>> exist.
>>
>>They are my beliefs for many reasons, including considerable reading and
>>years of personal experience. The beliefs I "want to exist" as you so
>>glibly
>>put it, are those beliefs which fit my experience and that of those who
>>know
>>about the subject. If you present anything substantial to add to or modify
>>those beliefs then I will incorporate them into those beliefs which I
>>"want
>>to exist".
>
> Too bad. I want you to forget about it to become truly focused.

Why? I have stated repeatedly that when in "the zone" there is no thought.
The right ideas lead to the desired state which leads to the desired
outcome.

This here now is not the zone, this *talking about* the zone. Talking about
the mental side of performance is useful to help one eliminate mental
mistakes and bad habits and establish good ones.

And you still are not articulating what you mean by "truly focused" although
more and more in a roundabout way you appear to coming around to saying the
same thing I am.



>>>> There is only the battle and
>>>>> the best strategy of winning the battle. If you keep trying to get the
>>>>> right "feeling" during a game, it's likely you are going to lose the
>>>>> game anyway.
>>>>
>>>>There's no "trying" in the zone, there's no winning or losing, there is
>>>>only
>>>>the process.
>>>>
>>>>And you still have not explained what you're talking about, are you
>>>>suggesting I need to get angry to play my best golf?
>>>
>>> I'm talking exactly what you are talking about which is how to reach
>>> the best performance in a battle or game. The only difference is, I
>>> don't need to tune in to the "zone", and I do need to invest great
>>> effort and concentration in order to win. To me, without effort means
>>> without the will power. Without will power, nothing is going to
>>> happen.
>>
>>OK, what do you mean by that? Explain in terms of say, golf. In my golf
>>experience good golf is relaxed and effortless. Effort means tension means
>>bad golf.
>
> By effort, I mean mental power instead of physical power. With strong
> effort, one becomes deeply focused in the game which often produces
> surprising result. It simply means that concentration is the key. When
> you have good concentration, you always perform your best no matter
> what you do.

What do you mean by "effort", and "concentration"? How do I execute those
ideas in the reality of the game?

>>>>This is an interesting subject but I really do not want it to degenerate
>>>>into another battle of egos, where "winning" the debate becomes more
>>>>important that the process of examining the ideas. That would be too
>>>>ironic.
>>>
>>> That is never my concern. I only talk to you because I think I have my
>>> two cents worth that you might be interested. I think if you can drop
>>> those concepts to just concentrate, you might be able to perform even
>>> better.
>>
>>What do you mean by "concentrate"? How? On what? On the ball? Keeping your
>>head down? Keeping your right elbow in? Staying behind the ball?
>
> Again, it's about the concentration of the mind instead of anything
> else. It's something you must have in order to be in the "zone".

Good concentration is a property of the zone. Once unwanted things which
block performance are eliminated the zone can begin to manifest along with
it's high level of concentration, heightened reflexes and state of
relaxation.

I would suggest that saying to yourself "Concentrate dammit!" will not
work, so another approach is needed.


>>That kind of concentration is for "practice" in the sense of getting
>>prepared for the game, not for the game. If you simply relax, trust, allow
>>yourself to become immersed quietly in the physical/mental process of the
>>game of golf then maximum "concentration" will ensue, without "effort"
>>which
>>I read as "trying".
>>
>
> It's perfectly fine to be physically relaxed, but mentally speaking,
> one needs to be alert and ready. That requires concentration.

I agree, how does one reach this state of relaxed, alert, readiness? I have
suggested the outline of such a method, what is yours?

On Sun, 30 May 2010 15:47:52 -0700, "Dutch" > wrote:

>
>"niunian" > wrote in message
.. .
>> On Sun, 30 May 2010 13:55:40 -0700, "Dutch" > wrote:
>>
>>>"niunian" > wrote
>>>> On Sun, 30 May 2010 12:09:47 -0700, "Dutch" > wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>"niunian" > wrote
>>>>>
>>>>>>>What I am describing is practical and real. It is taught by sports
>>>>>>>psychologists and is the basis for most spiritual practices such as
>>>>>>>Yoga,
>>>>>>>meditation or Tai Chi. It centres around being aware/present in the
>>>>>>>moment,
>>>>>>>the here and now, being IN the process, not in the thinking mind,
>>>>>>>distracted
>>>>>>>worrying about the mechanics of the swing, the rough or miss-hitting
>>>>>>>or
>>>>>>>what
>>>>>>>your score is going to be or what others are thinking about you, etc..
>>>>>>>As
>>>>>>>such it is a freeing experience, it the struggle of the ego/mind that
>>>>>>>drains
>>>>>>>your energy. The same applies in the rest of life. When I have been
>>>>>>>lucky
>>>>>>>enough to play golf or tennis or pool in this state I have always
>>>>>>>performed
>>>>>>>at the top of my abilities and ended up feeling refreshed and clear
>>>>>>>headed.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>Describe what you're talking about, so far you've been vague.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>And by the way, I love "everyday living" as much as any part of life.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I think the difference between you and me is, while you are talking
>>>>>> about how to "practice" Tai Chi, I'm talking about how to "fight" as a
>>>>>> Tai Chi master.
>>>>>
>>>>>Now you're resorting to semantics. "Practicing" as in an art or
>>>>>discipline
>>>>>like Tai Chi, Karate, Yoga, meditation, golf, driving a car, or
>>>>>medicine,
>>>>>means to perform that discipline.
>>>>
>>>> Perhaps you want to talk about art or discipline, but I'm only
>>>> interested in the practical mean to win a battle or game.
>>>
>>>I am talking about peak performance, winning is a by-product, not part of
>>>the process. You talk about "battle", that brings up the notion of
>>>adrenaline, combat, aggression, how are there these compatible with golf?
>>
>> If you only want to play golf for entertainment, then winning is
>> indeed just a by-product.
>
>Winning is always a by-product. If winning is your focus then you will never
>play your best because it is not something you can control.
>
>The only thing you can control is your own execution, your own actions and
>reactions in the moment.

Winning is the goal of the game. It has nothing to do with control. I
don't understand why you don't want to face the fact and be honest
about it.

>
>>In that case, you can do whatever you want,
>> and it's perfectly fine with me. However, if you want to win some
>> price in golf or any other game, then it becomes a battle that you
>> must fight in order to win. Peak performance means nothing in a
>> relaxed friendly game. Peak performance is only needed in a real
>> competition.
>
>Peak performance is something to be strived for at any time, it doesn't
>matter what the circumstances. You don't win a golf game by "fighting", you
>win by acheiving a better score than other players. Since you can't control
>what score they make, you don't control winning. In fact you can't control
>your own score either, that is an illusion. All you can control is how well
>you execute each shot. If Mark O'Meara is in a tournament I'm not going to
>win no matter how well I play. In a football game you don't control winning
>either, you control how well you execute your assignment on each play.

I have not talked about control at all. I don't know how you get that
idea. Apparently you have completely missed my simple point in the
above. I don't know why.

>
>>> I think you
>>>> over complicate the issue too much with those concepts. They are not
>>>> necessary in actual battle.
>>>
>>>There are no complications, no concepts in the zone, no score, no winning
>>>or
>>>losing, only the process. It is purely the individual totally immersed in
>>>the process.
>>>
>>>These words are not the zone, they are just an admittedly imperfect way of
>>>describing it.
>>
>> Well, I don't think you need to describe it or even think about it. If
>> you are fully focused in the game, you wouldn't notice any of it
>> anyway. By conceptualizing it, you only make it an unnecessary
>> distraction.
>
>You're confusing having a conversation about it and doing it. In order to
>communicate the idea it needs to be put into words.

The problem is, by trying to describe it, you are missing the real
point. There are certain feelings people will experience when they are
in deep concentration. It happens in Tai Chi, in yoga, and all the
other things. But those things are not important. They are to be
acknowledged and then forgotten. If you pursue those feelings, you are
going to the wrong direction. Your focus should not be the flow or the
zone. Your focus should always be the game alone.

>
>>>
>>>
>>>>>> In everyday practice, what you say sounds good enough,
>>>>>> but in actual combat, it's entirely another story. The problem I'm
>>>>>> trying to raise here is, you can't fight effortlessly in an actual
>>>>>> combat. In actual combat, there is no "flow", there is no "zone", and
>>>>>> there is no time to worry about "being".
>>>>>
>>>>>I am afraid you're missing the point badly. There is a flow to life's
>>>>>energy
>>>>>and there is a zone where one is in tune with that flow and there are
>>>>>many
>>>>>states where one is not. The zone is a well known phenomenon. And as I
>>>>>already clearly stated, there is no "worry" in being, no time either.
>>>>>Worrying is thinking and there is no thinking in the zone.
>>>>
>>>> These are all your beliefs. They only exist because you want them to
>>>> exist.
>>>
>>>They are my beliefs for many reasons, including considerable reading and
>>>years of personal experience. The beliefs I "want to exist" as you so
>>>glibly
>>>put it, are those beliefs which fit my experience and that of those who
>>>know
>>>about the subject. If you present anything substantial to add to or modify
>>>those beliefs then I will incorporate them into those beliefs which I
>>>"want
>>>to exist".
>>
>> Too bad. I want you to forget about it to become truly focused.
>
>Why? I have stated repeatedly that when in "the zone" there is no thought.
>The right ideas lead to the desired state which leads to the desired
>outcome.
>
>This here now is not the zone, this *talking about* the zone. Talking about
>the mental side of performance is useful to help one eliminate mental
>mistakes and bad habits and establish good ones.
>
>And you still are not articulating what you mean by "truly focused" although
>more and more in a roundabout way you appear to coming around to saying the
>same thing I am.

To me, the zone is just a highly focused mental state. There is really
nothing much to talk about. It's all about how to concentrate all your
mental power in solving the problem at hand. The more mental power you
can gather, the better you perform in your game. That is what I mean
by "truly focused".

>
>
>
>>>>> There is only the battle and
>>>>>> the best strategy of winning the battle. If you keep trying to get the
>>>>>> right "feeling" during a game, it's likely you are going to lose the
>>>>>> game anyway.
>>>>>
>>>>>There's no "trying" in the zone, there's no winning or losing, there is
>>>>>only
>>>>>the process.
>>>>>
>>>>>And you still have not explained what you're talking about, are you
>>>>>suggesting I need to get angry to play my best golf?
>>>>
>>>> I'm talking exactly what you are talking about which is how to reach
>>>> the best performance in a battle or game. The only difference is, I
>>>> don't need to tune in to the "zone", and I do need to invest great
>>>> effort and concentration in order to win. To me, without effort means
>>>> without the will power. Without will power, nothing is going to
>>>> happen.
>>>
>>>OK, what do you mean by that? Explain in terms of say, golf. In my golf
>>>experience good golf is relaxed and effortless. Effort means tension means
>>>bad golf.
>>
>> By effort, I mean mental power instead of physical power. With strong
>> effort, one becomes deeply focused in the game which often produces
>> surprising result. It simply means that concentration is the key. When
>> you have good concentration, you always perform your best no matter
>> what you do.
>
>What do you mean by "effort", and "concentration"? How do I execute those
>ideas in the reality of the game?

With good effort and concentration, you are going to do everything to
the best of your ability. When everything runs smoothly, you are not
going to relax your alertness. When things run into problem, you are
willing to go extra miles to make the best of it. You do not rush
things, yet everything you do is efficient. Because you do not waste
your energy on irrelevant things, you always have the extra energy to
make things better. The more you make things better, the more you
enjoy the game.

>
>>>>>This is an interesting subject but I really do not want it to degenerate
>>>>>into another battle of egos, where "winning" the debate becomes more
>>>>>important that the process of examining the ideas. That would be too
>>>>>ironic.
>>>>
>>>> That is never my concern. I only talk to you because I think I have my
>>>> two cents worth that you might be interested. I think if you can drop
>>>> those concepts to just concentrate, you might be able to perform even
>>>> better.
>>>
>>>What do you mean by "concentrate"? How? On what? On the ball? Keeping your
>>>head down? Keeping your right elbow in? Staying behind the ball?
>>
>> Again, it's about the concentration of the mind instead of anything
>> else. It's something you must have in order to be in the "zone".
>
>Good concentration is a property of the zone. Once unwanted things which
>block performance are eliminated the zone can begin to manifest along with
>it's high level of concentration, heightened reflexes and state of
>relaxation.
>
>I would suggest that saying to yourself "Concentrate dammit!" will not
>work, so another approach is needed.

I disagree. The mind will always concentrate if you are willing to
make it concentrate. It all depends you and how much you are willing
to invest yourself in such concentration. If you are serious enough,
the concentration will always come automatically. After all, it is a
natural function of the mind.

>
>
>>>That kind of concentration is for "practice" in the sense of getting
>>>prepared for the game, not for the game. If you simply relax, trust, allow
>>>yourself to become immersed quietly in the physical/mental process of the
>>>game of golf then maximum "concentration" will ensue, without "effort"
>>>which
>>>I read as "trying".
>>>
>>
>> It's perfectly fine to be physically relaxed, but mentally speaking,
>> one needs to be alert and ready. That requires concentration.
>
>I agree, how does one reach this state of relaxed, alert, readiness? I have
>suggested the outline of such a method, what is yours?
>

To me, all it takes is a concentrated mind.

Dutch wrote:
> "niunian" > wrote
>
>>> What I am describing is practical and real. It is taught by sports
>>> psychologists and is the basis for most spiritual practices such as
>>> Yoga,
>>> meditation or Tai Chi. It centres around being aware/present in the
>>> moment,
>>> the here and now, being IN the process, not in the thinking mind,
>>> distracted
>>> worrying about the mechanics of the swing, the rough or miss-hitting
>>> or what
>>> your score is going to be or what others are thinking about you,
>>> etc.. As
>>> such it is a freeing experience, it the struggle of the ego/mind that
>>> drains
>>> your energy. The same applies in the rest of life. When I have been
>>> lucky
>>> enough to play golf or tennis or pool in this state I have always
>>> performed
>>> at the top of my abilities and ended up feeling refreshed and clear
>>> headed.
>>>
>>> Describe what you're talking about, so far you've been vague.
>>>
>>> And by the way, I love "everyday living" as much as any part of life.
>>
>>
>> I think the difference between you and me is, while you are talking
>> about how to "practice" Tai Chi, I'm talking about how to "fight" as a
>> Tai Chi master.
>
>
> Now you're resorting to semantics. "Practicing" as in an art or
> discipline like Tai Chi, Karate, Yoga, meditation, golf, driving a car,
> or medicine, means to perform that discipline.
>
>> In everyday practice, what you say sounds good enough,
>> but in actual combat, it's entirely another story. The problem I'm
>> trying to raise here is, you can't fight effortlessly in an actual
>> combat. In actual combat, there is no "flow", there is no "zone", and
>> there is no time to worry about "being".
>
>
> I am afraid you're missing the point badly. There is a flow to life's
> energy and there is a zone where one is in tune with that flow and there
> are many states where one is not. The zone is a well known phenomenon.
> And as I already clearly stated, there is no "worry" in being, no time
> either. Worrying is thinking and there is no thinking in the zone.
>
>
> There is only the battle and
>
>> the best strategy of winning the battle. If you keep trying to get the
>> right "feeling" during a game, it's likely you are going to lose the
>> game anyway.
>
>
> There's no "trying" in the zone, there's no winning or losing, there is
> only the process.

Yoda is in the zone.

Robert

= = = = = = = = = = =

On Sun, 30 May 2010 23:34:31 -0400, halfawake >
wrote:

>Dutch wrote:
>> "niunian" > wrote
>>
>>>> What I am describing is practical and real. It is taught by sports
>>>> psychologists and is the basis for most spiritual practices such as
>>>> Yoga,
>>>> meditation or Tai Chi. It centres around being aware/present in the
>>>> moment,
>>>> the here and now, being IN the process, not in the thinking mind,
>>>> distracted
>>>> worrying about the mechanics of the swing, the rough or miss-hitting
>>>> or what
>>>> your score is going to be or what others are thinking about you,
>>>> etc.. As
>>>> such it is a freeing experience, it the struggle of the ego/mind that
>>>> drains
>>>> your energy. The same applies in the rest of life. When I have been
>>>> lucky
>>>> enough to play golf or tennis or pool in this state I have always
>>>> performed
>>>> at the top of my abilities and ended up feeling refreshed and clear
>>>> headed.
>>>>
>>>> Describe what you're talking about, so far you've been vague.
>>>>
>>>> And by the way, I love "everyday living" as much as any part of life.
>>>
>>>
>>> I think the difference between you and me is, while you are talking
>>> about how to "practice" Tai Chi, I'm talking about how to "fight" as a
>>> Tai Chi master.
>>
>>
>> Now you're resorting to semantics. "Practicing" as in an art or
>> discipline like Tai Chi, Karate, Yoga, meditation, golf, driving a car,
>> or medicine, means to perform that discipline.
>>
>>> In everyday practice, what you say sounds good enough,
>>> but in actual combat, it's entirely another story. The problem I'm
>>> trying to raise here is, you can't fight effortlessly in an actual
>>> combat. In actual combat, there is no "flow", there is no "zone", and
>>> there is no time to worry about "being".
>>
>>
>> I am afraid you're missing the point badly. There is a flow to life's
>> energy and there is a zone where one is in tune with that flow and there
>> are many states where one is not. The zone is a well known phenomenon.
>> And as I already clearly stated, there is no "worry" in being, no time
>> either. Worrying is thinking and there is no thinking in the zone.
>>
>>
>> There is only the battle and
>>
>>> the best strategy of winning the battle. If you keep trying to get the
>>> right "feeling" during a game, it's likely you are going to lose the
>>> game anyway.
>>
>>
>> There's no "trying" in the zone, there's no winning or losing, there is
>> only the process.
>
>Yoda is in the zone.
>
>Robert
>
>= = = = = = = = = = =

the cube is in the zone.

Dutch wrote:

>
> "halfawake" > wrote in message
> ...
>
>> Dutch wrote:
>>
>>>
>>> "Fred C. Dobbs" > wrote
>>>
>>>> On 5/29/2010 12:09 AM, Dutch wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> [..]
>>>
>>>>>>> Existence is not stressful per se, *struggling* is stressful.
>>>>>>> Existence
>>>>>>> itself, or "being", is blissful.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I wouldn't say that. Existence /per se/ has no quality
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> I don't agree, pure existence, being, is blissful by it's very nature
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> You're just restating your assertion.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> It's a point of view, your opinion is that "being" is by default a
>>> neutral
>>> state, mine is that it is blissful.
>>>
>>>> A boulder exists. Is it in a state of bliss?
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> I don't know, my impression is that boulders have no experiential
>>> existence.
>>> When a human exists he is a very different organic process than that
>>> of a
>>> rock.
>>>
>>>>>> "Bliss" is actually a very positive term - it is a state of
>>>>>> contentment.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Not exactly. Contentment, from something like acheiving some goal,
>>>>> winning a game, attaining a degree, that is contentment derived from
>>>>> acheivement in the outside world, bliss normally refers to a state
>>>>> reached through sprititual practice, yoga, meditation, deeping
>>>>> breathing, acceptance, freedom from attachments, etc. It is not a
>>>>> native
>>>>> Western concept.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Of *course* it's a native western concept! The word itself has ancient
>>>> Germanic roots that predate western contact with Eastern
>>>> philosophies that
>>>> include any of the practices you describe.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Never heard of that, interesting, however there is a difference
>>> between the
>>> peace one feels through the attainment of inner balance and the
>>> gratification one feels through the attainment of outward goals. The
>>> two are
>>> different but not incompatible. There's no scorecard or degree to
>>> tell the
>>> world you are peaceful, but they are aware of it nonetheless.
>>>
>>>>
>>>> Every dictionary definition available defines bliss as meaning
>>>> /extreme/
>>>> joy or satisfaction. In economics, the bliss point is the point at
>>>> which
>>>> you have exactly the right amount of something you desire - your
>>>> "utility"
>>>> is at a maximum, and an epsilon less *or* more of the good would reduce
>>>> your happiness.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Attainment of worldly desires leads to satisfaction/gratification, an
>>> ego
>>> boost, but that is not the same as what one derives from those
>>> practices we
>>> were talking about.
>>
>>
>> The way I've always heard and used bliss is as an extreme spiritual
>> state constituted by extreme, sometimes almost unbearable,
>> joy/pleasure/happiness. It is usually caused only by extreme events
>> such as falling in love, intense spiritual practice or psychotropic
>> drugs.
>>
>> Even in the spiritual version most teachers will say that bliss is an
>> energetic and turbulent state and that the seeker can often get into
>> trouble by clinging to it. It is not the final state on the spiritual
>> journey. After letting go of the high-energy bliss, one finds the
>> true spiritual state of deep, unperturbed peace or equanimity, which
>> is not blissful in the same sense, but is still a state of extreme
>> happiness, without the intensity. Bliss often still has an egoic self
>> experiencing the extreme pleasure, whereas deep peace is without a
>> sense of separate self.
>>
>> Bliss can become a kind of spiritual masturbatory state if it is the
>> product of craving. One becomes totally involved in feeling good. On
>> the other hand, it doesn't have to be that way. One can feel good and
>> focus on others and transmit joy to them through the overflow and that
>> is a very different experience which is more likely to transmute into
>> the peaceful, selfless state naturally.
>>
>> Robert
>>
>> = = = = = = = = = =
>
>
> That's interesting Robert, I was not familiar with that definition of
> "bliss", it's not a word I often use. The practical sprititual practice
> I have been most involved with centers primarily around quieting of mind
> chatter and living in the present moment. I don't know where that fits
> into the "spiritual path" but it has more to do with internal peace than
> any kind of excitement.
>
> [..]
>

That is a common and sensible form of spiritual practice. Seeking inner
peace and equanimity is probably the most "correct" path there is, since
the end point of spiritual growth is a state of peace, openness, balance
and harmony with surrounding conditions and circumstances. I just don't
think "bliss" will always be understood to denote a peaceful state,
rather than a highly energized happy state, which can also represent an
aspect of the spiritual path, but can also get overblown if the ego
takes over.

Here's a definition of blissful: "Extremely happy; full of joy..."
I'm not saying that's a bad thing...

Robert

= = = = = = = =

Fred C. Dobbs wrote:

> On 5/30/2010 1:27 PM, halfawake wrote:
>
>> Dutch wrote:
>>
>>>
>>> "halfawake" > wrote in message
>>> ...
>>>
>>>> Dutch wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> "Rupert" > wrote in message
>>>>> ...
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> On May 29, 3:13 am, "Fred C. Dobbs" >
>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> It can't be. To talk about "better than" or "worse than" is
>>>>>> necessarily
>>>>>> to be comparing two states of welfare, but there is only one state of
>>>>>> welfare in this putative comparison. It is abject nonsense to
>>>>>> suggest a
>>>>>> person might rationally think he is "better off" for existing rather
>>>>>> than never existing, because the flip side is that the person
>>>>>> would be
>>>>>> "worse off" for never existing - but there wouldn't be a person to
>>>>>> experience the "worse off" condition if the person never existed.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> This is not the same as a person who exists with a miserable welfare
>>>>>> thinking he'd prefer to die. Even then, it makes no sense for the
>>>>>> person to think he'd be "better off" if he ended his existence,
>>>>>> because
>>>>>> again, there would be no entity to experience the better welfare. It
>>>>>> still can make sense for the person with a miserable welfare to
>>>>>> want to
>>>>>> die, if his existence is intolerable to him.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> I fully agree with you on all these points, but the question arises
>>>>> what exactly you achieve by posting this.
>>>>>
>>>>> There will be some who already fully agree with you before you even
>>>>> made the post, and there will be some who will never be convinced no
>>>>> matter what you say.
>>>>>
>>>>> Does that not cover everyone?
>>>>> -->
>>>>>
>>>>> No, there are people who don't agree at first but see that the logic
>>>>> in your argument is sound, realize you're right, and change their
>>>>> minds. I realize this kind of critical thinking is very rare, but it
>>>>> is worth seeking out. Dare to dream.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> So critical thinking consists of hearing what *you* have to say and
>>>> agreeing with you? HA HA HA HA HA HA HA. You're a ****ing moron.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> No, my comments apply to me too, but you haven't offered an argument
>>> to support your point of view yet, there's not much chance of you
>>> convincing me to change my mind until you do. So far you have asserted
>>> that you think existence is better than non-existence and you think
>>> lots of other people think it too. You have completely ignored sound
>>> arguments which show that it is impossible to say that, rationally.
>>
>>
>> This is sort of interesting. I never said that existence is better than
>> non-existence.
>
>
> You have disputed the assertion that existence is *not* better than
> never existing - not "non existence" - without ever offering a basis for
> your disagreement. If you're disputing the assertion that existence is
> not better than never existing, than you're pretty damned close to
> asserting, implicitly, that it *is* better.

a/ no
b/ "pretty damned close" - a subjective assessment on your part - is the
same thing as "has not" as I did not actually say that. I said it was
possible to make that comparison. I never made it myself, nor implied
that I would. I gave no opinion about whether existence might or might
not be preferable to non-existence, as that is not the subject at hand.
The fact that you want to blur that difference says a lot. All you
care about is your argument, not about what is actually asserted, nor why.

>> You haven't been reading very carefully - maybe that's
>> why you don't understand my point of view.
>
>
> Your point of view is incoherent. You've never given a coherent reason
> for your disagreement.
>
>
>>
>>> I could say that I am better off than I was when I lived in Siberia,
>>> but since I never lived in Siberia my statement doesn't mean much. The
>>> same goes for your statement.
>>
>>
>> People make judgments like that all the time, except they don't say
>> "when I lived" which would be a fiction, but "if I lived." And they
>> imagine what it might be like.
>>
>> No one can "imagine" non-existence since it would be a nullity, but they
>> can understand that it would be the absence of all their current
>> experiences, and they might prefer a state of nothingness over their
>> existence.
>
>
> You must exist in order to hold that preference. Once you exist, "never
> existing" is an absurdity. You can try to imagine what life would have
> been like for others had you never existed, but you can't imagine
> anything about "never existing" pertaining to yourself.
>
>
>> And one *can* desire that if they wish, despite your objection.
>
>
> One can desire no longer to exist; one cannot rationally wish never to
> have existed.
>
>
>> When people say "I wish I'd never been born," they express a desire to
>> have "never experienced" all that they have, including their own
>> experience of being a living being.
>
>
> Bullshit. What they're expressing is a deep unhappiness with what is
> going on in the moment, or in the very recent past.

That's your interpretation. As I have said, this discussion is
fruitless. You just enjoy barking. Please bark at someone else.

Robert

= = = = = = =

On Mon, 31 May 2010 00:06:55 -0400, halfawake >
wrote:

>Fred C. Dobbs wrote:
>
>> On 5/30/2010 1:27 PM, halfawake wrote:
>>
>>> Dutch wrote:
>>>
>>>>
>>>> "halfawake" > wrote in message
>>>> ...
>>>>
>>>>> Dutch wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> "Rupert" > wrote in message
>>>>>> ...
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> On May 29, 3:13 am, "Fred C. Dobbs" >
>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> It can't be. To talk about "better than" or "worse than" is
>>>>>>> necessarily
>>>>>>> to be comparing two states of welfare, but there is only one state of
>>>>>>> welfare in this putative comparison. It is abject nonsense to
>>>>>>> suggest a
>>>>>>> person might rationally think he is "better off" for existing rather
>>>>>>> than never existing, because the flip side is that the person
>>>>>>> would be
>>>>>>> "worse off" for never existing - but there wouldn't be a person to
>>>>>>> experience the "worse off" condition if the person never existed.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> This is not the same as a person who exists with a miserable welfare
>>>>>>> thinking he'd prefer to die. Even then, it makes no sense for the
>>>>>>> person to think he'd be "better off" if he ended his existence,
>>>>>>> because
>>>>>>> again, there would be no entity to experience the better welfare. It
>>>>>>> still can make sense for the person with a miserable welfare to
>>>>>>> want to
>>>>>>> die, if his existence is intolerable to him.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I fully agree with you on all these points, but the question arises
>>>>>> what exactly you achieve by posting this.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> There will be some who already fully agree with you before you even
>>>>>> made the post, and there will be some who will never be convinced no
>>>>>> matter what you say.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Does that not cover everyone?
>>>>>> -->
>>>>>>
>>>>>> No, there are people who don't agree at first but see that the logic
>>>>>> in your argument is sound, realize you're right, and change their
>>>>>> minds. I realize this kind of critical thinking is very rare, but it
>>>>>> is worth seeking out. Dare to dream.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> So critical thinking consists of hearing what *you* have to say and
>>>>> agreeing with you? HA HA HA HA HA HA HA. You're a ****ing moron.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> No, my comments apply to me too, but you haven't offered an argument
>>>> to support your point of view yet, there's not much chance of you
>>>> convincing me to change my mind until you do. So far you have asserted
>>>> that you think existence is better than non-existence and you think
>>>> lots of other people think it too. You have completely ignored sound
>>>> arguments which show that it is impossible to say that, rationally.
>>>
>>>
>>> This is sort of interesting. I never said that existence is better than
>>> non-existence.
>>
>>
>> You have disputed the assertion that existence is *not* better than
>> never existing - not "non existence" - without ever offering a basis for
>> your disagreement. If you're disputing the assertion that existence is
>> not better than never existing, than you're pretty damned close to
>> asserting, implicitly, that it *is* better.
>
>a/ no
>b/ "pretty damned close" - a subjective assessment on your part - is the
>same thing as "has not" as I did not actually say that. I said it was
>possible to make that comparison. I never made it myself, nor implied
>that I would. I gave no opinion about whether existence might or might
>not be preferable to non-existence, as that is not the subject at hand.
> The fact that you want to blur that difference says a lot. All you
>care about is your argument, not about what is actually asserted, nor why.
>
>>> You haven't been reading very carefully - maybe that's
>>> why you don't understand my point of view.
>>
>>
>> Your point of view is incoherent. You've never given a coherent reason
>> for your disagreement.
>>
>>
>>>
>>>> I could say that I am better off than I was when I lived in Siberia,
>>>> but since I never lived in Siberia my statement doesn't mean much. The
>>>> same goes for your statement.
>>>
>>>
>>> People make judgments like that all the time, except they don't say
>>> "when I lived" which would be a fiction, but "if I lived." And they
>>> imagine what it might be like.
>>>
>>> No one can "imagine" non-existence since it would be a nullity, but they
>>> can understand that it would be the absence of all their current
>>> experiences, and they might prefer a state of nothingness over their
>>> existence.
>>
>>
>> You must exist in order to hold that preference. Once you exist, "never
>> existing" is an absurdity. You can try to imagine what life would have
>> been like for others had you never existed, but you can't imagine
>> anything about "never existing" pertaining to yourself.
>>
>>
>>> And one *can* desire that if they wish, despite your objection.
>>
>>
>> One can desire no longer to exist; one cannot rationally wish never to
>> have existed.
>>
>>
>>> When people say "I wish I'd never been born," they express a desire to
>>> have "never experienced" all that they have, including their own
>>> experience of being a living being.
>>
>>
>> Bullshit. What they're expressing is a deep unhappiness with what is
>> going on in the moment, or in the very recent past.
>
>That's your interpretation. As I have said, this discussion is
>fruitless. You just enjoy barking. Please bark at someone else.
>
>Robert
>
>= = = = = = =

gooo robert! your guard like habits are fully redeemed.

On 5/30/2010 9:06 PM, halfawake wrote:
> Fred C. Dobbs wrote:
>
>> On 5/30/2010 1:27 PM, halfawake wrote:
>>
>>> Dutch wrote:
>>>
>>>>
>>>> "halfawake" > wrote in message
>>>> ...
>>>>
>>>>> Dutch wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> "Rupert" > wrote in message
>>>>>> ...
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> On May 29, 3:13 am, "Fred C. Dobbs" >
>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> It can't be. To talk about "better than" or "worse than" is
>>>>>>> necessarily
>>>>>>> to be comparing two states of welfare, but there is only one
>>>>>>> state of
>>>>>>> welfare in this putative comparison. It is abject nonsense to
>>>>>>> suggest a
>>>>>>> person might rationally think he is "better off" for existing rather
>>>>>>> than never existing, because the flip side is that the person
>>>>>>> would be
>>>>>>> "worse off" for never existing - but there wouldn't be a person to
>>>>>>> experience the "worse off" condition if the person never existed.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> This is not the same as a person who exists with a miserable welfare
>>>>>>> thinking he'd prefer to die. Even then, it makes no sense for the
>>>>>>> person to think he'd be "better off" if he ended his existence,
>>>>>>> because
>>>>>>> again, there would be no entity to experience the better welfare. It
>>>>>>> still can make sense for the person with a miserable welfare to
>>>>>>> want to
>>>>>>> die, if his existence is intolerable to him.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I fully agree with you on all these points, but the question arises
>>>>>> what exactly you achieve by posting this.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> There will be some who already fully agree with you before you even
>>>>>> made the post, and there will be some who will never be convinced no
>>>>>> matter what you say.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Does that not cover everyone?
>>>>>> -->
>>>>>>
>>>>>> No, there are people who don't agree at first but see that the logic
>>>>>> in your argument is sound, realize you're right, and change their
>>>>>> minds. I realize this kind of critical thinking is very rare, but it
>>>>>> is worth seeking out. Dare to dream.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> So critical thinking consists of hearing what *you* have to say and
>>>>> agreeing with you? HA HA HA HA HA HA HA. You're a ****ing moron.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> No, my comments apply to me too, but you haven't offered an argument
>>>> to support your point of view yet, there's not much chance of you
>>>> convincing me to change my mind until you do. So far you have asserted
>>>> that you think existence is better than non-existence and you think
>>>> lots of other people think it too. You have completely ignored sound
>>>> arguments which show that it is impossible to say that, rationally.
>>>
>>>
>>> This is sort of interesting. I never said that existence is better than
>>> non-existence.
>>
>>
>> You have disputed the assertion that existence is *not* better than
>> never existing - not "non existence" - without ever offering a basis
>> for your disagreement. If you're disputing the assertion that
>> existence is not better than never existing, than you're pretty damned
>> close to asserting, implicitly, that it *is* better.
>
> a/ no

*yes*

> b/ "pretty damned close" - a subjective assessment on your part

No.


>>> You haven't been reading very carefully - maybe that's
>>> why you don't understand my point of view.
>>
>>
>> Your point of view is incoherent. You've never given a coherent reason
>> for your disagreement.

Your tacit acceptance is noted.


>>>> I could say that I am better off than I was when I lived in Siberia,
>>>> but since I never lived in Siberia my statement doesn't mean much. The
>>>> same goes for your statement.
>>>
>>>
>>> People make judgments like that all the time, except they don't say
>>> "when I lived" which would be a fiction, but "if I lived." And they
>>> imagine what it might be like.
>>>
>>> No one can "imagine" non-existence since it would be a nullity, but they
>>> can understand that it would be the absence of all their current
>>> experiences, and they might prefer a state of nothingness over their
>>> existence.
>>
>>
>> You must exist in order to hold that preference. Once you exist,
>> "never existing" is an absurdity. You can try to imagine what life
>> would have been like for others had you never existed, but you can't
>> imagine anything about "never existing" pertaining to yourself.
>>
>>
>>> And one *can* desire that if they wish, despite your objection.
>>
>>
>> One can desire no longer to exist; one cannot rationally wish never to
>> have existed.
>>
>>
>>> When people say "I wish I'd never been born," they express a desire to
>>> have "never experienced" all that they have, including their own
>>> experience of being a living being.
>>
>>
>> Bullshit. What they're expressing is a deep unhappiness with what is
>> going on in the moment, or in the very recent past.
>
> That's your interpretation.

No. It's an observation of lots of people.

*Yours* was merely an interpretation, and one based on nothing more than
empty supposition.

Dr Who Duh wrote:

> On Mon, 31 May 2010 00:06:55 -0400, halfawake >
> wrote:
>
>
>>Fred C. Dobbs wrote:
>>
>>
>>>On 5/30/2010 1:27 PM, halfawake wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>>Dutch wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>"halfawake" > wrote in message
...
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>Dutch wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>"Rupert" > wrote in message
...
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>On May 29, 3:13 am, "Fred C. Dobbs" >
>>>>>>>wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>It can't be. To talk about "better than" or "worse than" is
>>>>>>>>necessarily
>>>>>>>>to be comparing two states of welfare, but there is only one state of
>>>>>>>>welfare in this putative comparison. It is abject nonsense to
>>>>>>>>suggest a
>>>>>>>>person might rationally think he is "better off" for existing rather
>>>>>>>>than never existing, because the flip side is that the person
>>>>>>>>would be
>>>>>>>>"worse off" for never existing - but there wouldn't be a person to
>>>>>>>>experience the "worse off" condition if the person never existed.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>This is not the same as a person who exists with a miserable welfare
>>>>>>>>thinking he'd prefer to die. Even then, it makes no sense for the
>>>>>>>>person to think he'd be "better off" if he ended his existence,
>>>>>>>>because
>>>>>>>>again, there would be no entity to experience the better welfare. It
>>>>>>>>still can make sense for the person with a miserable welfare to
>>>>>>>>want to
>>>>>>>>die, if his existence is intolerable to him.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>I fully agree with you on all these points, but the question arises
>>>>>>>what exactly you achieve by posting this.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>There will be some who already fully agree with you before you even
>>>>>>>made the post, and there will be some who will never be convinced no
>>>>>>>matter what you say.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>Does that not cover everyone?
>>>>>>>-->
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>No, there are people who don't agree at first but see that the logic
>>>>>>>in your argument is sound, realize you're right, and change their
>>>>>>>minds. I realize this kind of critical thinking is very rare, but it
>>>>>>>is worth seeking out. Dare to dream.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>So critical thinking consists of hearing what *you* have to say and
>>>>>>agreeing with you? HA HA HA HA HA HA HA. You're a ****ing moron.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>No, my comments apply to me too, but you haven't offered an argument
>>>>>to support your point of view yet, there's not much chance of you
>>>>>convincing me to change my mind until you do. So far you have asserted
>>>>>that you think existence is better than non-existence and you think
>>>>>lots of other people think it too. You have completely ignored sound
>>>>>arguments which show that it is impossible to say that, rationally.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>This is sort of interesting. I never said that existence is better than
>>>>non-existence.
>>>
>>>
>>>You have disputed the assertion that existence is *not* better than
>>>never existing - not "non existence" - without ever offering a basis for
>>>your disagreement. If you're disputing the assertion that existence is
>>>not better than never existing, than you're pretty damned close to
>>>asserting, implicitly, that it *is* better.
>>
>>a/ no
>>b/ "pretty damned close" - a subjective assessment on your part - is the
>>same thing as "has not" as I did not actually say that. I said it was
>>possible to make that comparison. I never made it myself, nor implied
>>that I would. I gave no opinion about whether existence might or might
>>not be preferable to non-existence, as that is not the subject at hand.
>> The fact that you want to blur that difference says a lot. All you
>>care about is your argument, not about what is actually asserted, nor why.
>>
>>
>>>>You haven't been reading very carefully - maybe that's
>>>>why you don't understand my point of view.
>>>
>>>
>>>Your point of view is incoherent. You've never given a coherent reason
>>>for your disagreement.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>>>I could say that I am better off than I was when I lived in Siberia,
>>>>>but since I never lived in Siberia my statement doesn't mean much. The
>>>>>same goes for your statement.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>People make judgments like that all the time, except they don't say
>>>>"when I lived" which would be a fiction, but "if I lived." And they
>>>>imagine what it might be like.
>>>>
>>>>No one can "imagine" non-existence since it would be a nullity, but they
>>>>can understand that it would be the absence of all their current
>>>>experiences, and they might prefer a state of nothingness over their
>>>>existence.
>>>
>>>
>>>You must exist in order to hold that preference. Once you exist, "never
>>>existing" is an absurdity. You can try to imagine what life would have
>>>been like for others had you never existed, but you can't imagine
>>>anything about "never existing" pertaining to yourself.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>>And one *can* desire that if they wish, despite your objection.
>>>
>>>
>>>One can desire no longer to exist; one cannot rationally wish never to
>>>have existed.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>>When people say "I wish I'd never been born," they express a desire to
>>>>have "never experienced" all that they have, including their own
>>>>experience of being a living being.
>>>
>>>
>>>Bullshit. What they're expressing is a deep unhappiness with what is
>>>going on in the moment, or in the very recent past.
>>
>>That's your interpretation. As I have said, this discussion is
>>fruitless. You just enjoy barking. Please bark at someone else.
>>
>>Robert
>>
>>= = = = = = =
>
>
> gooo robert! your guard like habits are fully redeemed.

thanks for the compliment. now please explain what you said.



robert

= = = = = =

On Mon, 31 May 2010 01:50:22 -0400, halfawake >
wrote:

>Dr Who Duh wrote:
>
>> On Mon, 31 May 2010 00:06:55 -0400, halfawake >
>> wrote:
>>
>>
>>>Fred C. Dobbs wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>>On 5/30/2010 1:27 PM, halfawake wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>Dutch wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>"halfawake" > wrote in message
...
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>Dutch wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>"Rupert" > wrote in message
...
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>On May 29, 3:13 am, "Fred C. Dobbs" >
>>>>>>>>wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>It can't be. To talk about "better than" or "worse than" is
>>>>>>>>>necessarily
>>>>>>>>>to be comparing two states of welfare, but there is only one state of
>>>>>>>>>welfare in this putative comparison. It is abject nonsense to
>>>>>>>>>suggest a
>>>>>>>>>person might rationally think he is "better off" for existing rather
>>>>>>>>>than never existing, because the flip side is that the person
>>>>>>>>>would be
>>>>>>>>>"worse off" for never existing - but there wouldn't be a person to
>>>>>>>>>experience the "worse off" condition if the person never existed.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>This is not the same as a person who exists with a miserable welfare
>>>>>>>>>thinking he'd prefer to die. Even then, it makes no sense for the
>>>>>>>>>person to think he'd be "better off" if he ended his existence,
>>>>>>>>>because
>>>>>>>>>again, there would be no entity to experience the better welfare. It
>>>>>>>>>still can make sense for the person with a miserable welfare to
>>>>>>>>>want to
>>>>>>>>>die, if his existence is intolerable to him.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>I fully agree with you on all these points, but the question arises
>>>>>>>>what exactly you achieve by posting this.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>There will be some who already fully agree with you before you even
>>>>>>>>made the post, and there will be some who will never be convinced no
>>>>>>>>matter what you say.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>Does that not cover everyone?
>>>>>>>>-->
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>No, there are people who don't agree at first but see that the logic
>>>>>>>>in your argument is sound, realize you're right, and change their
>>>>>>>>minds. I realize this kind of critical thinking is very rare, but it
>>>>>>>>is worth seeking out. Dare to dream.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>So critical thinking consists of hearing what *you* have to say and
>>>>>>>agreeing with you? HA HA HA HA HA HA HA. You're a ****ing moron.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>No, my comments apply to me too, but you haven't offered an argument
>>>>>>to support your point of view yet, there's not much chance of you
>>>>>>convincing me to change my mind until you do. So far you have asserted
>>>>>>that you think existence is better than non-existence and you think
>>>>>>lots of other people think it too. You have completely ignored sound
>>>>>>arguments which show that it is impossible to say that, rationally.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>This is sort of interesting. I never said that existence is better than
>>>>>non-existence.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>You have disputed the assertion that existence is *not* better than
>>>>never existing - not "non existence" - without ever offering a basis for
>>>>your disagreement. If you're disputing the assertion that existence is
>>>>not better than never existing, than you're pretty damned close to
>>>>asserting, implicitly, that it *is* better.
>>>
>>>a/ no
>>>b/ "pretty damned close" - a subjective assessment on your part - is the
>>>same thing as "has not" as I did not actually say that. I said it was
>>>possible to make that comparison. I never made it myself, nor implied
>>>that I would. I gave no opinion about whether existence might or might
>>>not be preferable to non-existence, as that is not the subject at hand.
>>> The fact that you want to blur that difference says a lot. All you
>>>care about is your argument, not about what is actually asserted, nor why.
>>>
>>>
>>>>>You haven't been reading very carefully - maybe that's
>>>>>why you don't understand my point of view.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>Your point of view is incoherent. You've never given a coherent reason
>>>>for your disagreement.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>>I could say that I am better off than I was when I lived in Siberia,
>>>>>>but since I never lived in Siberia my statement doesn't mean much. The
>>>>>>same goes for your statement.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>People make judgments like that all the time, except they don't say
>>>>>"when I lived" which would be a fiction, but "if I lived." And they
>>>>>imagine what it might be like.
>>>>>
>>>>>No one can "imagine" non-existence since it would be a nullity, but they
>>>>>can understand that it would be the absence of all their current
>>>>>experiences, and they might prefer a state of nothingness over their
>>>>>existence.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>You must exist in order to hold that preference. Once you exist, "never
>>>>existing" is an absurdity. You can try to imagine what life would have
>>>>been like for others had you never existed, but you can't imagine
>>>>anything about "never existing" pertaining to yourself.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>And one *can* desire that if they wish, despite your objection.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>One can desire no longer to exist; one cannot rationally wish never to
>>>>have existed.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>When people say "I wish I'd never been born," they express a desire to
>>>>>have "never experienced" all that they have, including their own
>>>>>experience of being a living being.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>Bullshit. What they're expressing is a deep unhappiness with what is
>>>>going on in the moment, or in the very recent past.
>>>
>>>That's your interpretation. As I have said, this discussion is
>>>fruitless. You just enjoy barking. Please bark at someone else.
>>>
>>>Robert
>>>
>>>= = = = = = =
>>
>>
>> gooo robert! your guard like habits are fully redeemed.
>
>thanks for the compliment. now please explain what you said.
>
>
>
>robert
>
>= = = = = =

leave the compliment locked in its mystery my pet.

"niunian" > wrote in message
...
> On Sun, 30 May 2010 15:47:52 -0700, "Dutch" > wrote:
>
>>
>>"niunian" > wrote in message
. ..
>>> On Sun, 30 May 2010 13:55:40 -0700, "Dutch" > wrote:
>>>
>>>>"niunian" > wrote
>>>>> On Sun, 30 May 2010 12:09:47 -0700, "Dutch" > wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>>"niunian" > wrote
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>What I am describing is practical and real. It is taught by sports
>>>>>>>>psychologists and is the basis for most spiritual practices such as
>>>>>>>>Yoga,
>>>>>>>>meditation or Tai Chi. It centres around being aware/present in the
>>>>>>>>moment,
>>>>>>>>the here and now, being IN the process, not in the thinking mind,
>>>>>>>>distracted
>>>>>>>>worrying about the mechanics of the swing, the rough or miss-hitting
>>>>>>>>or
>>>>>>>>what
>>>>>>>>your score is going to be or what others are thinking about you,
>>>>>>>>etc..
>>>>>>>>As
>>>>>>>>such it is a freeing experience, it the struggle of the ego/mind
>>>>>>>>that
>>>>>>>>drains
>>>>>>>>your energy. The same applies in the rest of life. When I have been
>>>>>>>>lucky
>>>>>>>>enough to play golf or tennis or pool in this state I have always
>>>>>>>>performed
>>>>>>>>at the top of my abilities and ended up feeling refreshed and clear
>>>>>>>>headed.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>Describe what you're talking about, so far you've been vague.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>And by the way, I love "everyday living" as much as any part of
>>>>>>>>life.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I think the difference between you and me is, while you are talking
>>>>>>> about how to "practice" Tai Chi, I'm talking about how to "fight" as
>>>>>>> a
>>>>>>> Tai Chi master.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>Now you're resorting to semantics. "Practicing" as in an art or
>>>>>>discipline
>>>>>>like Tai Chi, Karate, Yoga, meditation, golf, driving a car, or
>>>>>>medicine,
>>>>>>means to perform that discipline.
>>>>>
>>>>> Perhaps you want to talk about art or discipline, but I'm only
>>>>> interested in the practical mean to win a battle or game.
>>>>
>>>>I am talking about peak performance, winning is a by-product, not part
>>>>of
>>>>the process. You talk about "battle", that brings up the notion of
>>>>adrenaline, combat, aggression, how are there these compatible with
>>>>golf?
>>>
>>> If you only want to play golf for entertainment, then winning is
>>> indeed just a by-product.
>>
>>Winning is always a by-product. If winning is your focus then you will
>>never
>>play your best because it is not something you can control.
>>
>>The only thing you can control is your own execution, your own actions and
>>reactions in the moment.
>
> Winning is the goal of the game. It has nothing to do with control.

It has everything to do with control. You have no control over how skilled
or experienced or lucky your opponents are. The only thing you control is
how well you play at each opportunity in which you interface with the game.
If you play your best then you have succeeded, win or lose.

I
> don't understand why you don't want to face the fact and be honest
> about it.

Winning is the goal, or one of the goals of game play, but it can't be the
focus of your play. Focusing on winning is results oriented thinking,
optimum performance comes from a process oriented approach, this is well
known fundamental of sports psychology.



>>>In that case, you can do whatever you want,
>>> and it's perfectly fine with me. However, if you want to win some
>>> price in golf or any other game, then it becomes a battle that you
>>> must fight in order to win. Peak performance means nothing in a
>>> relaxed friendly game. Peak performance is only needed in a real
>>> competition.
>>
>>Peak performance is something to be strived for at any time, it doesn't
>>matter what the circumstances. You don't win a golf game by "fighting",
>>you
>>win by acheiving a better score than other players. Since you can't
>>control
>>what score they make, you don't control winning. In fact you can't control
>>your own score either, that is an illusion. All you can control is how
>>well
>>you execute each shot. If Mark O'Meara is in a tournament I'm not going to
>>win no matter how well I play. In a football game you don't control
>>winning
>>either, you control how well you execute your assignment on each play.
>
> I have not talked about control at all. I don't know how you get that
> idea. Apparently you have completely missed my simple point in the
> above. I don't know why.

I didnt say you talked about control, but if your focus is winning then that
implies that you are somehow involved in how well others play or how skilled
or experienced they are. Winning is an abstract goal, it should be left to
the scorekeeper to decide while you focus on acheiving optimum performance.
>
>>
>>>> I think you
>>>>> over complicate the issue too much with those concepts. They are not
>>>>> necessary in actual battle.
>>>>
>>>>There are no complications, no concepts in the zone, no score, no
>>>>winning
>>>>or
>>>>losing, only the process. It is purely the individual totally immersed
>>>>in
>>>>the process.
>>>>
>>>>These words are not the zone, they are just an admittedly imperfect way
>>>>of
>>>>describing it.
>>>
>>> Well, I don't think you need to describe it or even think about it. If
>>> you are fully focused in the game, you wouldn't notice any of it
>>> anyway. By conceptualizing it, you only make it an unnecessary
>>> distraction.
>>
>>You're confusing having a conversation about it and doing it. In order to
>>communicate the idea it needs to be put into words.
>
> The problem is, by trying to describe it, you are missing the real
> point.

Why would you say that?

There are certain feelings people will experience when they are
> in deep concentration. It happens in Tai Chi, in yoga, and all the
> other things. But those things are not important. They are to be
> acknowledged and then forgotten. If you pursue those feelings, you are
> going to the wrong direction. Your focus should not be the flow or the
> zone. Your focus should always be the game alone.

You're behind the curve here, still in duality.i.e. Me+focus+game=win.
That's not a formula for optimal performance, it's a formula for "trying".
When you are really in "the zone" you are doing something much deeper than
"focusing on the game", you BECOME the game, the club, the ball, the course
it is all one coherent process.


>>>>>>> In everyday practice, what you say sounds good enough,
>>>>>>> but in actual combat, it's entirely another story. The problem I'm
>>>>>>> trying to raise here is, you can't fight effortlessly in an actual
>>>>>>> combat. In actual combat, there is no "flow", there is no "zone",
>>>>>>> and
>>>>>>> there is no time to worry about "being".
>>>>>>
>>>>>>I am afraid you're missing the point badly. There is a flow to life's
>>>>>>energy
>>>>>>and there is a zone where one is in tune with that flow and there are
>>>>>>many
>>>>>>states where one is not. The zone is a well known phenomenon. And as I
>>>>>>already clearly stated, there is no "worry" in being, no time either.
>>>>>>Worrying is thinking and there is no thinking in the zone.
>>>>>
>>>>> These are all your beliefs. They only exist because you want them to
>>>>> exist.
>>>>
>>>>They are my beliefs for many reasons, including considerable reading and
>>>>years of personal experience. The beliefs I "want to exist" as you so
>>>>glibly
>>>>put it, are those beliefs which fit my experience and that of those who
>>>>know
>>>>about the subject. If you present anything substantial to add to or
>>>>modify
>>>>those beliefs then I will incorporate them into those beliefs which I
>>>>"want
>>>>to exist".
>>>
>>> Too bad. I want you to forget about it to become truly focused.
>>
>>Why? I have stated repeatedly that when in "the zone" there is no thought.
>>The right ideas lead to the desired state which leads to the desired
>>outcome.
>>
>>This here now is not the zone, this *talking about* the zone. Talking
>>about
>>the mental side of performance is useful to help one eliminate mental
>>mistakes and bad habits and establish good ones.
>>
>>And you still are not articulating what you mean by "truly focused"
>>although
>>more and more in a roundabout way you appear to coming around to saying
>>the
>>same thing I am.
>
> To me, the zone is just a highly focused mental state. There is really
> nothing much to talk about. It's all about how to concentrate all your
> mental power in solving the problem at hand. The more mental power you
> can gather, the better you perform in your game. That is what I mean
> by "truly focused".

Where do you get this "mental power"?

>>>>>> There is only the battle and
>>>>>>> the best strategy of winning the battle. If you keep trying to get
>>>>>>> the
>>>>>>> right "feeling" during a game, it's likely you are going to lose the
>>>>>>> game anyway.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>There's no "trying" in the zone, there's no winning or losing, there
>>>>>>is
>>>>>>only
>>>>>>the process.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>And you still have not explained what you're talking about, are you
>>>>>>suggesting I need to get angry to play my best golf?
>>>>>
>>>>> I'm talking exactly what you are talking about which is how to reach
>>>>> the best performance in a battle or game. The only difference is, I
>>>>> don't need to tune in to the "zone", and I do need to invest great
>>>>> effort and concentration in order to win. To me, without effort means
>>>>> without the will power. Without will power, nothing is going to
>>>>> happen.
>>>>
>>>>OK, what do you mean by that? Explain in terms of say, golf. In my golf
>>>>experience good golf is relaxed and effortless. Effort means tension
>>>>means
>>>>bad golf.
>>>
>>> By effort, I mean mental power instead of physical power. With strong
>>> effort, one becomes deeply focused in the game which often produces
>>> surprising result. It simply means that concentration is the key. When
>>> you have good concentration, you always perform your best no matter
>>> what you do.
>>
>>What do you mean by "effort", and "concentration"? How do I execute those
>>ideas in the reality of the game?
>
> With good effort and concentration, you are going to do everything to
> the best of your ability. When everything runs smoothly, you are not
> going to relax your alertness. When things run into problem, you are
> willing to go extra miles to make the best of it. You do not rush
> things, yet everything you do is efficient. Because you do not waste
> your energy on irrelevant things, you always have the extra energy to
> make things better. The more you make things better, the more you
> enjoy the game.

That describes good play but it doesn't provide a roadmap to get there.
Simply saying "Concentrate!" is not particularly illuminating.

>>>>>>This is an interesting subject but I really do not want it to
>>>>>>degenerate
>>>>>>into another battle of egos, where "winning" the debate becomes more
>>>>>>important that the process of examining the ideas. That would be too
>>>>>>ironic.
>>>>>
>>>>> That is never my concern. I only talk to you because I think I have my
>>>>> two cents worth that you might be interested. I think if you can drop
>>>>> those concepts to just concentrate, you might be able to perform even
>>>>> better.
>>>>
>>>>What do you mean by "concentrate"? How? On what? On the ball? Keeping
>>>>your
>>>>head down? Keeping your right elbow in? Staying behind the ball?
>>>
>>> Again, it's about the concentration of the mind instead of anything
>>> else. It's something you must have in order to be in the "zone".
>>
>>Good concentration is a property of the zone. Once unwanted things which
>>block performance are eliminated the zone can begin to manifest along with
>>it's high level of concentration, heightened reflexes and state of
>>relaxation.
>>
>>I would suggest that saying to yourself "Concentrate dammit!" will not
>>work, so another approach is needed.
>
> I disagree. The mind will always concentrate if you are willing to
> make it concentrate. It all depends you and how much you are willing
> to invest yourself in such concentration. If you are serious enough,
> the concentration will always come automatically. After all, it is a
> natural function of the mind.
>
>>
>>
>>>>That kind of concentration is for "practice" in the sense of getting
>>>>prepared for the game, not for the game. If you simply relax, trust,
>>>>allow
>>>>yourself to become immersed quietly in the physical/mental process of
>>>>the
>>>>game of golf then maximum "concentration" will ensue, without "effort"
>>>>which
>>>>I read as "trying".
>>>>
>>>
>>> It's perfectly fine to be physically relaxed, but mentally speaking,
>>> one needs to be alert and ready. That requires concentration.
>>
>>I agree, how does one reach this state of relaxed, alert, readiness? I
>>have
>>suggested the outline of such a method, what is yours?
>>
>
> To me, all it takes is a concentrated mind.

Great, OK, best of luck.