Cover photo
Terry Lightfoot
Works at Freelance Graphics
35,767 followers|4,194,161 views



Terry Lightfoot

Shared publicly  - 
Finished a digital collage - 'The Bather.'

#art   #digitalcollage   #surrealism   #photomanipulation  
Игорь Фадеев's profile photoemilio lozano's profile photoArt Scott's profile photoAgnès Tirifahy's profile photo
hopefully not enough to cause any permanent damage +Larry Stark, ;-)
Add a comment...

Terry Lightfoot

Shared publicly  - 
Very helpful advice for #meditation.
Right effort in cultivation: meditating beyond the first instructions

   Recently, a student told me she was meditating with her eyes closed… so far so normal, but it sounded a bit too 'fixed', so I asked why. I was told that, as she mostly uses sound as an anchor for the time being, sight was a distracting phenomenon, sight carried the mind away and she would often lose the audible anchor.

   A core trait of meditation practice is to train us to re-center, to come back to an equanimous stance, free from tendencies, free from preferences and biases… so regularly drifting away is necessary for the training:  without drifting, there's no training in re-centering, in re-anchoring in reality, in stepping back from obsessive thoughts (too scattered or too focused)!

   If you find yourself incapable of catching the drift, incapable for very long periods of noticing it, then to train in easier conditions (e.g. with eyes closed) for a while  might prove useful: any training has to be possible, manageable… or it isn't training, it's just a trap for failure.

   But one should then be mindful not to get too comfortable with a practice that works "just fine": if you don't drift enough, there's not enough training anymore. There's certainly focus, but no learning, no insight…

   The Buddha described appropriate concentration as "neither too loose, nor too tight." Too much control isn't helping.

   This can be understood if you put back your practice into context. The goal is not  a 'perfect' meditation while you meditate. That's (relatively speaking) easy. The goal is to lead a wise life, as free from conditionings as possible, responding appropriately to the situation at hand rather than clinging to prejudices and preferences…
   This goal is embodied if you can  re-center to an equanimous stance, if you can  "step back" from the ordinary "me, myself and I", whenever  circumstances carry your mind away, whenever circumstances resonate with past experiences and blind you from what's new, whenever circumstances lead to cravings or aversions, whenever circumstances make you respond in automatic (without awareness, without choice, i.e. without freedom).
   This goal is not  about being fine and equanimous only when everything is fine and nothing is disturbing in the least. The goal is about wisely handling the variety of conditions and circumstances out of the meditation cushion and about unconditionally finding equanimity in the midst of life.
   So, when you can handle your training in controlled conditions, the cultivation is to be ramped up to a 'richer' set of circumstances.

   The goal of meditation is to see reality as it is. Calm and peace are side-effects of such a clarity, of such a lack of distortions, not the goal. To see reality as it is, one has to drop many ignorant views, which is achieved by study. Studying requires appropriate effort (not so much that it leads to burn out, but not so little that no progress is measured either and despondency takes root). The study may well be experiential and beyond usual labels/concepts, but meditation is not restful in and of itself: studying is work, is effort.

   Regularly push the limits of what you can handle!
   If your meditation is comfortable, a safe heaven, then it's a refuge, not a raft. At times, we need to rest and a refuge is a great place to do so, but the point remains to continue the journey once rested: use the raft from refuge to refuge, even if the raft shakes, even if the raft is uncomfortable, even if effort is required! For explorers, effort doesn't equate suffering: you can embody enthusiasm as a motivation, and effort as its manifestation! Enthusiasm is always a better motivation than fear or aversion to pain; and equanimity is not met by fleeing dukkha.
   Mindfulness includes mindfulness of how you feel about your practice, about your cultivation. If your current practice is challenging but doable, you're in a position to learn something (maybe not what is expected, but that's a different conversation). If your practice is too hard, too easy or too stable, then you're stuck… and adjusting (more or less temporarily) the practice is necessary.

   To make it harder, maybe keep the eyes open! Maybe meditate in public transport! See if you can still remain anchored (in breath, in audible context, in any visualisation you're cultivating, in any mantra…) when the environment gets richer, louder, busier.

   If the goal is about unconditionally finding equanimity in the midst of life, then it's not much a "specialised trade": it's not about being better and better in narrow, specific, well-controlled conditions. Shake the conditions a little, and more!
   And when it gets beyond your ability to re-connect with equanimity, pull back a little, and learn to deal with this… It's not about running before you know how to walk, don't let ambition blind you. When ready, try pushing again! Not too easy, not too hard!

   This is the practice: re-anchor in reality as often as you can, look at what needs to be done and let go of mental fabrications and other scheming as often as you can.
   The cushion is helpful at times, but it's not key: the study is of your mind and how it relates to the world (mostly clinging to one branch or the next, as if your life depended on it, even though you just caught the branch that presented itself, without much choice about it!). A cushion can do nothing for you; learn to see reality (beyond the immediate branch, appropriated as your 'own' and imagined in 'need' to be defended against others) and, for this, don't limit reality to a cushion!

#Buddhism   #meditation   #Dharma  
illustration: "Mystic Nostalgia" © Tiffani Gyatso
6 comments on original post
Add a comment...

Terry Lightfoot

Shared publicly  - 
What the hell, be my guest.

/via +Chris Payne
Terence Towles Canote's profile photoDavid Bollenberg's profile photoWilliam Wylde's profile photo
As I've often told my sister, if some random stranger wants to pay our bills, they are more than welcome to!
Add a comment...

Terry Lightfoot

Shared publicly  - 
@+Denis Wallez explains how individualization has helped economic growth but divided the masses. We've lost solidarity, fraternity & sharing.
Great post.

#politics #buddhism #awareness

   Individualization has been a recipe for engineering economic growth: by separating generations, one needs more houses, more TVs, more cars, more phones… Some new services were required, to compensate those once provided by familial solidarity across generations: more nurseries are needed when grandparents aren't at hand, homes for the elderlies are needed when the youngsters 'delegate' the task of helping the elders live in dignity…
   As this could only go so far, individualization was pushed further… so that each member of each family would have one's own TV, computer, car, phone… Some new services were required, to compensate those once provided by the basic familial unit. Diners are all the more needed when families don't dine together, VOD services are all the more required when each person looks at a different program on their screens, ring tones services are 'required' when each person wants to individualise their own phone… 

   Once sharing is completely gone, and each person individually owns equipment that makes more collective sense than individual sense (house…), the pseudo-opportunity for 'growth' has run its course. How many TVs and phones and cars does one single individual need?

   Blinded by GDP, people have lost sight of what counts. People have called economic 'growth' what grows on the misery of people, e.g. legal proceedings (from divorce to commercial conflicts) and healthcare… Rejoicing when conflicts multiply and when people are sick is ethically questionable, to say the least!
   People also have called economic 'growth' what grows on the morally-dubious selfishness of people, e.g. financial services to minimise/avoid tax, professional lobbyists… Many new services are born around maximising the exploitation and the misery of others!

   When this becomes acceptable (or even desirable) 'economic growth', then solidarity is lost, fraternity is lost (and humanity is lost: we're social  animals!); the big picture is lost.

   Naturally, the individualisation formats the psyche of people so that they don't even consider that solidarity might be a real possibility, that collective action could be wholesome… The individualisation also undermines all ethical guidelines (since ethics start with considering the interest of others and not only of oneself…): the law of the strongest is easily used to justify ignoring people having it worse.
   This can be hidden behind one's "conscience" and other nice-sounding narratives (nice-sounding until they appear for what they are, e.g. a story of "religious freedom" to oppress others while also claiming to be oppressed before others could possibly maybe rely on the same narrative back!).
   The combination of lower ethics reduced to self-serving narratives, of vanishing compassion, and of lack of trust in the power of the group (including lack of trust in democracy) mostly weakens the weaker though.

   At this point, it is important to remember that individual free will and other theories of freedom never reject social responsibility: if you're free, you're not forced  to be horrible to your neighbours.
   And if you're not free, then there are enough humanistic guidance (religious or not) around for you to stop spending so much energy trying to explain why the world is 'fair' when it happens to be to your advantage, and unfair otherwise.
   Logical fallacies abound that allow one to erroneously convince oneself that one is right (even to convince oneself that one doesn't fall for fallacies while  very much falling for them); fallacies abound, but they don't make reason!

   When reasoning about such issues, start by inverting roles (put yourself in the shoes of the person you so easily condemn) and see if your conclusion holds.
   Try to do so with honesty: no, you wouldn't gladly accept that you should be 'fully responsible' for mere mistakes or ignorance… no, you wouldn't silently accept to be accused of 'cult' or of 'axis of evil' as soon as your spiritual tradition or non-tradition is not aligned with your interlocutors'… no, you wouldn't like others to impose on you the 'truths' from their 'right' book, while dismissing anything you might say… and no, you wouldn't necessarily recognise yourself as 'lazy' just for being unlucky at birth! You wouldn't embrace poverty as 'fair', or health issues as 'fair'. No, you wouldn't exactly dream of finishing your life alone, abandoned by others judging you to be a 'dead weight' as soon as convenient for them to do so…

   Ethics start with taking into account the interest of others, not only of oneself. You can frame it as the Golden Rule (do onto others…), you can frame it as God's instructions (through its prophets) of solidarity and fraternity, you can frame it as mathematical game theory even!
   At the end of the day, individualisation is an extreme, and like all extremes it runs into the wall by denying the nuances of reality, the ineffable richness of circumstances and conditions, the exceptions to the (simplistic) rules.

   Individualization makes sense as long as the group's interest is also  considered, as long as the balance between individual and group is engaged with, negotiated, worked through.

   Collectivism is an oppressive extreme; individualism is too: the illusion of separateness —seeing essence in mere nuances— is as ignorant as the denial of nuances.
   Buddhist teachings on 'selflessness' are as key as ever to embody a Middle Way between extremes. This being said, other traditions use different vocabularies but reach similar conclusions (e.g. secular Darwinism goes via 'fitness', but the fitness is to the environment, to the Other; it is not some closed loop of the individual onto itself… and the environment notably includes other members of the same specie, as well as other species —either as resources or as dangers).
   The key ignorance is the blind belief that individualism is above all else.  There's no freedom, no choice, when one is blind to the constraints at hand, to the context, to the Other. Blindness leads to mere randomness, neither to choice nor to appropriateness/wisdom.

   A society is obviously inter-dependent with the individuals that constitute it; however, it also is a distinct phenomenon, a 'meme' if you wish, with emergent  properties (e.g. a history that is 'bigger' than the history of any  individual of it): just like fluid dynamics are not modelled directly out of modelling each particle of the fluid, a nation can display dynamics that aren't well captured at the individual level.
   Group dynamics are complementary (not contradictory) to individual dynamics. Posing individualism as the "only way" is missing part of the picture.
   Group dynamics might lead to the cessation of the tyranny of the individual, or to the tyranny of the majority. To only highlight the potential of the tyranny of the majority though is to fall into an extreme and, for Americans, a denial of the American roots as a group  ending the tyranny of one  (king)… A naïve belief in individualism leads to the law of the strongest. This is an issue at the heart of inequality, and not of e.g. the American dream: the latter, as the name suggests, relies on a social / national  context commonly cultivated  in order to give to each individual reasonable chances to move upward. The true "American dream" is at heart a collective dream, not simply some combination of unexamined selfishness and unquestioned competition that assumes "the end justifies the means".
   So we ought to consider a balanced approach between group and individuality, with individuals caring about others (ethics) to the point that they don't so automatically focus on their self-interest, and  with the group refraining from its natural tendency to impose uniformity / predictability (status quo) / certainty / control.

   Some individuals already show dedication to others. By reducing the "don't automatically focus on your self-interest"  to an individual choice, we indeed allow for some individuals to show dedication to others. We allow for exceptional, individual generosity… but we don't promote a "balanced approach for most" enough…
   When we reduce "moral education" to a question of individual  choices, we make ourselves see morals solely at the individual level, even though we have clear historical examples that morality may also be tied to group dynamics (we have examples both ways: one of the best ways to make people question the morality of their choices is to ask them to consider how they'd feel if their decision and involvement in it was made public… and one of the worst ways to let people off the hook is to suggest that peer-pressure —or even 'orders'— took their responsibility away).
   No matter how careful and accurate we might be when taking a one-sided perspective (individualism / collectivism), it remains one-sided, i.e. an incomplete picture that might lead to inappropriate (caricatural) answers.

   A balanced approach is not naturally satisfactory for our little heads looking for clear answers, predefined certainties before we even face a situation, a generic easy-to-use "user manual" of "what we ought to do" in the world.
   We'd naturally like to spare ourselves from the anguish of "not knowing but having to answer anyway",  of being 'responsible' without having all the elements at hand to decide with confidence…
   We'd like to spare ourselves from being forced to iterate, to re-engage, to review and try again differently… All we crave for is a silver-bullet that would allow to turn the page at the problem at hand once and for all.
   We may well crave for extreme, black&white answers… but reality is of levels of grey. Too much focus on individual  freedom / ethics is letting some of the current societal  issues unanswered (discriminations, climate change…), simply because no single individual might address them alone! No more than a single molecule changing course would solve the problematic flow of a rushing river.
   So we're individually 'responsible'… in participating to an emerging response at the societal  level, even if this response might 'impose' individual restraint! We can certainly work at minimising the imposed restraint, but that's very different from assuming there shouldn't be any, out of some extremist caricature around individualism.

   Community and individuals co-dependently arise: none exists without the other.

Is it because the idea of the collective good has given way to ‘individualization’? Whatever happened to e pluribus unum?
15 comments on original post
Add a comment...

Terry Lightfoot

Shared publicly  - 
"It's the only show that's in my bones." - Peter Capaldi at San Diego Comic-Con.
~ Bless his fanboy hearts.

#petercapaldi #DoctorWho #SDCC #jennacoleman
Erisa lule's profile photoRyan Olsen's profile photoDirty WHOers's profile photoKarina Cruz's profile photo
"Missy's" face
Add a comment...
In her circles
1,129 people
Have her in circles
35,767 people
John Crowley's profile photo
ba baba's profile photo
Norma Mariscal's profile photo
Carolyn Adkins's profile photo
DesignFactorySR's profile photo
Allison Bruce's profile photo
rocky russ's profile photo
Daniel Benitez's profile photo
muammer şahin's profile photo

Terry Lightfoot

Shared publicly  - 
Finally. It did feel strange that people had to pay royalties for that song.

/via +glyn moody
Happy Birthday Copyright Bombshell: New Evidence Warner Music Previously Hid Shows Song Is Public Domain - wow
Last minute evidence that completely turns a legal case on its head doesn't come about all that often -- despite what you see in Hollywood movies and TV shows. The discovery process in a lawsuit generally reveals most of the evidence revealed to...
View original post
Will Burns's profile photoSnaily Waily (Shaken Daily)'s profile photoWilliam Wylde's profile photoJordan Henderson's profile photo
$2 million they made and screw a lot for place from singing it  to kids and all..
I know we had those song books in my grad mother collection  of books (show was born 1902) so those book were just part of ones we had.
I remember  the song being in part of  her books she had .  the song was in there as we were leaning it to play on a Guitar.  So i guess they need to stop their production of the documentary . Still wish some of the people milked could get that funds back.. at lease send out letter o placer then can sing it legally again.
Add a comment...

Terry Lightfoot

Shared publicly  - 
Something beautiful to fall asleep with.

João Paca originally shared to Black and White Fine Art Photography (Black and White fine art photograph of the day - Admin pick):
Portfolio Fine Art - Darker than Black | Title: No matter how far you travel, you can never get away from yourself.
No matter how far you travel, you can never get away from yourself. <br /> <br />Fine Art - Darker than Black
View original post
William Wylde's profile photo
Add a comment...

Terry Lightfoot

Shared publicly  - 
So, yeah, Moriarty - Proof that James Bond and Sherlock Holmes are in the same universe.

#spectre #jamesbond
Encrypted Ronin's profile photoStanley Shook's profile photo
Add a comment...

Terry Lightfoot

Shared publicly  - 
Mind blown. ;-}
Kemal YEŞİLTAŞ's profile photoTeslaCoyel AtekGrid's profile photoScott Mills's profile photo
Man, my head has felt that way a few times. 
Add a comment...

Terry Lightfoot

Shared publicly  - 
Somehow sexier than the original.

#starwars #SDCC
Carl Draper's profile photo
I'd like to see a version with Chewie instead :D
Add a comment...

Terry Lightfoot

Shared publicly  - 
Moustafa “‫مصطفى شملي‬‎” Chamli's profile photoTerry Lightfoot's profile photoWilliam Wylde's profile photo
I kid. ;-)
Add a comment...
In her circles
1,129 people
Have her in circles
35,767 people
John Crowley's profile photo
ba baba's profile photo
Norma Mariscal's profile photo
Carolyn Adkins's profile photo
DesignFactorySR's profile photo
Allison Bruce's profile photo
rocky russ's profile photo
Daniel Benitez's profile photo
muammer şahin's profile photo
Free lance graphics and web design, podcasting, virtual clothing design. One fourth of the Dirty WHOers.
Design, Art, Devil's advocate.
  • Freelance Graphics
    Self-employed, present
  • To-a-T
  • The Primgraph e-magazine
    Graphics, Layout Designer, 2009 - 2011
Intellect and romance over brute force and cynicism.
My love of art, all things Victoriana and Doctor Who means I exist in a world of airships, Dingoes, time-machines, and California sunsets. I live in a garret, surviving on a diet of Absinthe and Paella, with a very understanding husband and my K9 pal Cassidy.

A passionate lover of art, ideas, typography, collage, and graphic design. 

Additional interests include: My husband, friends, New media, Doctor Who, Steampunk, virtual worlds,science fiction, faux physics, my dogs, philosophy, music and general geeking out.

Let me know you like Doctor Who and I'll add you to my Doctor Who share circle. :-D
And please check out the Dirty WHOers podcast.
or visit the Dirty WHOers G+ page
Basic Information
Terry Lightfoot's +1's are the things they like, agree with, or want to recommend.
Gigs | Eddie Izzard

US Tour On Sale Now. June. 25th. Seattle Paramount. Tickets. Force Majeure - 25th June. Venue: Paramount; Location: Seattle. Force Majeure i

High levels of moral reasoning correspond with increased gray matter in ...

Individuals with a higher level of moral reasoning skills showed increased gray matter in the areas of the brain implicated in complex socia

Indoors. No Heavy Lifting.: How do you go Incognito When Viewing LinkedI...

I colleague of mine at Tank was conducting some private research the other day, and asked me a question I had to think about: "How do you go

One Last Time

The proposition: that all Doctor Who is ridiculous, hackneyed, and saa-aad... ...unless you're interested in the time in which it was made.

Dirty Whoers: Dirty WHOers Podcast - Episode 68

Dirty WHOers podcast - Chaos, bad language, and direct piss-taking. Irreverent, but knowledgeable Whoness.

Dirty Whoers: Dirty WHOers Podcast - Terry &amp; Nancy&#39;s Little Chri...

Dirty WHOers podcast - Chaos, bad language, and direct piss-taking. Irreverent, but knowledgeable Whoness.

Suggested 2014 resolution: be present!

For who embraced meditation in 2013, how to cultivate further?


Collect your choice of gallery quality Giclée, or fine art prints custom trimmed by hand in a variety of sizes with a white border for frami


This has been my practice of Dāna (generosity): to write, share and teach, and hopefully transforming my time into value for you. In order t

Tee offer

Our buddies over at RIPT Apparel have got another great Doctor Who t~shirt for sale - for 24 hours only! Titled The Minions Have The Phone B

Daphne Ashbrook

Life on both sides of the camera -- and occasionally behind a microphone.

Dirty WHOers

Chaos, bad language, &amp; direct piss-taking. Irreverent, but knowledgeable Whoness.

Google Maps

Download the latest release of Google Maps, and never carry a paper map again. Get Google Maps with Navigation (Beta), Places, and Latitude

RIP Fangates. It’s all change for Facebook Business Pages.

There are going to be some big changes to Facebook business pages in the coming days, and one of the biggest is the death of the &#39;fangat

Doctor Who: "The First Question" - 50th Anniversary Trailer (HD)


Hazardous: Praxis Gas

Gases in the praxis range are extremely hazardous, and can even be poisonous to Time Lords. But nev…