Mõtteteri, mida tahaks ka teistega jagada

See postitus oleks siis selliste mõttevälgatuste auks, mida erinevad kirjatsurad oma teostes teistega jaganud.

Ma loen paris mitmeid inspiratsiooni pakkuvaid raamatuid ja tahtsin mõningaid tsitaate ka siinse rahvaga jagada

Tsiteerin: :

It is well to respect leader. Learn from him. Observe him. Study him. But donät worship him. Believe you can surpass. Believe you can go beyond. Those who harbor the second best attitude are invariably second best doers.

D.J. Schwartz
-The magic of thinking big-

Tsiteerin: :

Anything is one of a million paths. Therefore you must always keep in mind that a path is only a path; if you feel you should not follow it, you must not stay with it under any conditions. To have such clarity you must lead a disciplined life. Only then will you know that any path is only a path and there is no affront, to oneself or to others, in dropping it if that is what your heart tells you to do. But your decision to keep on the path or to leave it must be free of fear or ambition. I warn you. Look at every path closely and deliberately. Try it as many times as you think necessary.
This question is one that only a very old man asks. Does this path have a heart? All paths are the same: they lead nowhere. They are paths going through the bush, or into the bush. In my own life I could say I have traversed long long paths, but I am not anywhere. Does this path have a heart? If it does, the path is good; if it doesn't, it is of no use. Both paths lead nowhere; but one has a heart, the other doesn't. One makes for a joyful journey; as long as you follow it, you are one with it. The other will make you curse your life. One makes you strong; the other weakens you.

Before you embark on any path ask the question: Does this path have a heart? If the answer is no, you will know it, and then you must choose another path. The trouble is nobody asks the question; and when a man finally realizes that he has taken a path without a heart, the path is ready to kill him. At that point very few men can stop to deliberate, and leave the path. A path without a heart is never enjoyable. You have to work hard even to take it. On the other hand, a path with heart is easy; it does not make you work at liking it.
I have told you that to choose a path you must be free from fear and ambition. The desire to learn is not ambition. It is our lot as men to want to know.
The path without a heart will turn against men and destroy them. It does not take much to die, and to seek death is to seek nothing.

Carlos Castaneda, "Don Juani opetused"

Tsiteerin: :

You must stop talking to yourself. Every one of us does that. We carry on an internal talk. We talk about our world. In fact we maintain our world with our internal talk. Whenever we finish talking to ourselves the world is always as it should be. We renew it, we kindle it with life, we uphold it with our internal talk. Not only that, but we also choose our paths as we talk to ourselves. Thus we repeat the same choices over and over until the day we die, because we keep on repeating the same internal talk over and over until the day we die.
The world is such-and-such or so-and-so only because we tell ourselves that that is the way it is. If we stop telling ourselves that the world is so-and-so, the world will stop being so-and-so. You must start slowly to undo the world.
Your problem is that you confuse the world with what people do. The things people do are the shields against the forces that surround us; what we do as people gives us comfort and makes us feel safe; what people do is rightfully very important, but only as a shield. We never learn that the things we do as people are only shields and we let them dominate and topple our lives. In fact I could say that for mankind, what people do is greater and more important than the world itself.
The world is all that is encased here; life, death, people, the allies, and everything else that surrounds us. The world is incomprehensible. We won't ever understand it; we won't ever unravel its secrets. Thus we must treat it as it is, a sheer mystery!
An average man doesn't do this, though. The world is never a mystery for him, and when he arrives at old age he is convinced he has nothing more to live for. An old man has not exhausted the world. He has exhausted only what people do. But in his stupid confusion he believes that the world has no more mysteries for him. What a wretched price to pay for our shields!

C. Castaneda "A separate Reality"

Leidsin väga huvitava mõtte Stephen Law raamatust "Filosoofia"(lk. 68-69), milles autor käsitleb Descartes'i mõtet Jumala idee kohta:

"Igal ideel peab olema põhjus, väidab Descartes, ja kui põhjuseks pole kogemus või meie oma meeled, siis järelikult on see idee "sisemine". Sisemised ideed ei pruugi meile sünnist saati kättesaadavad olla. Ent nad on juba mingil kujul olemas. Ta väidab, et Jumala-idee põhjuseks saab olla ainult Jumal. Miks peab selle idee põhjuseks olema Jumal? Descartese järgi peab põhjus olema vähemalt samavõrra tegelik kui selle tulemus."

"Ebatäiusliku ja ajaliku olendina ei saa me luua ideed millestki, mis oleks "mitteajalik" ja "mittetäiuslik". Ent see negatiivne lõpmatuse ja täiuslikkuse konteptsioon pole Jumala-idee, väidab Descartes. Jumala-idee on positiivne kontseptsioon lõpmatusest ja täiuslikkusest, mitte ainult piiride puudumine. See on idee millestki, mille jaoks ei saa olla olemas piire. Seega, isegi kui see on ainult idee, siis ei saa see pärineda meie mõistuselt. Vaid Jumal sai selle luua.

Descartes'i teosest "Metafüüsilised meditatsioonid": "Oleks võimatu, et minus võiks olla idee Jumalast, kui Jumalat poleks olemas."

väga huvitav mõte tõesti

Kõik on Jumalast, järelikult ka mõte/usk, et ON üks ja ainust Jumal.

Tsiteerin: :

"Oleks võimatu, et minus võiks olla idee Jumalast, kui Jumalat poleks olemas."

seega koik, mille kohta on olemas idee, on olemas?

Kõik täiuslik/lõputu/ajatu, jah

Tsiteerin: :

Don't believe me but learn to listen. Don't believe me. Because what i'm telling you is just a story. It's a point of how i see the life. And it's truth just for me. But if you learn to listen, you will inderstand what i'm trying to communicate. Then don't believe me but learn to listen.
The second rule is slightly more difficult: don't believe yourself. You know that your head is talking all the time. It's like a wild horse that's taking you anywhere. If you don't learn how to train that horse, the horse will take you wherever the horse wants to. Then don't believe yourself but learn to LISTEN.

The third rule is very interesting also. Don't believe anybody else. Exactly for the same reason. Whatever they tell you is truth only for them. And it's the way how do they express the experience they had in life. But if you learn to listen you will see that in between of all those lies the truth is coming and you will be able to percieve the truth.

Then if you don't believe yourself, if you don't believe anybody else and you don't believe me, all those lies will not survive, but the truth will survive.

Believe it or not, the sun will be in the sky every single day. You do not need to believe in the truth in order to the truth to access. But for the lies to access you need to believe in those lies

see katkend oli kunagi ammu tarmo postitatud videolingist "living luminaries".. Kus miskid tegelinskid (mul on kahtlane tunne et samasarnase filosoofiaga nagu eelpoolmainitud castaneda raamatud opetasid.. mainitud oli "sodalase teed"..)

Aga vaga hea point on sellles jutus..

Lugesin täna midagi hästi põnevat, mida tahtsin ka teiega jagada Mulle see mõte väga meeldis.

Tegu on Stephen Law ümberjutustusega Sigmund Freudi teooriast, miks mõned inimesed jumalikke ilmutusi näevad. Aga mis minu tähelepanu selles jutus köitis, oli mõte selle kohta, et kui me oleme Jumala looming, tähendab see seda, et suhe Jumalaga peab olema meie sügavaim soov.

Alguses ei pruugigi selles lauses midagi nii põhjapanevat olla Aga kuna ma enne seda vahetult lugesin just ühe teise vähemtuntud teadlase teooriaid, kus ta mainis Jumalat ja kunstnikku samas kontekstis, siis pani mind see mõte pikemaks juurdlema

Mõelge selle üle(siit edasi minu oma mõtted, mitte Freudi omad): kui kunstnik loob oma teose, tähendab see seda, et see teos on sõltuvuses kunstniku vaadetest ja tema soovist kujutada lõuendit just sellisena nagu seda kujutatud on. Looming on otseses suhtes kunstnikuga, sest ta on kõik see, mida kunstnik on tahtnud luua. Loomingut ei saa eksisteerida ilma kunstnikuta ning seda ei saa ka tekkida ilma selleta. Loomingul on paratamatult passiivne tung olla suhtes looja endaga, kui te saate aru, mida ma mõtlen. See tähendab, et teosel pole küll teadvust ega tahet(mistõttu on taoline tung ka pasiivne), kuid vaatamata sellele eksisteerib see sõltuvus ja suhtlus ikkagi. Kui kunstnik vaatab oma teost, näeb ta selles midagi sellist, mida mitte keegi teine ei näe, sest keegi teine pole seda ka loonud ja seega pole ka mõistnud kunstniku vaateid ja mõtteid. Seetõttu suhtleb teos kõige õigemal ja kõige sügavamal viisil vaid kunstniku endaga, sest vaid tema mõistab oma teost.

Kui nüüd luua paralleel siit ka Jumala ja inimese vahele võttes aluseks selle sama lause, et suhe Jumalaga on meie sügavaim soov, siis võib olla võimalik, et inimese tugev tung näiteks palvetada, olla pidevas, otseses aga ka tugevas suhtes Jumalaga (antud juhul aktiivselt, sest me oleme teadvusega olendid) ongi tingitud sellest, et meie oleme looming ja Jumal on meie kunstnikuks, meie autoriks. Me püüame teostena esindada midagi, mida Jumal autorina on soovinud meis algselt näha, kui Ta meid lõi (mistõttu me parandame end iga kord, kui tunneme, et oleme teinud valesti, või vähemasti tunneme tugevat soovi parandamiseks süümepiinade läbi). Jumal näeb meid ja tunneb meis ära selle, kelle Ta on loonud, näeb meis seda mõtet ja seda perspektiivi/vaatevinklit, keda me esindama oleme määratud läbi "kunstniku". Sellest võib tuleneda ka meie nii sügav soov olla pidevas kontaktis ja suhtes oma "autoriga", täpselt nagu kunstiteosel on tugev tung olla suhtluses oma kunstnikuga.

Niiet kui me oleme Jumala looming, siis peab ju tõepoolest olema meie suhe Temaga meie sügavaim soov, sest mis eesmärk on teosel veel, kui mitte esindada oma autori perspektiivi ja näida autorile sellisena nagu Ta meist algusest peale mõtles?

Võibolla mõtles Freud selle lausega sama? :D