|
Post by laughter on Oct 11, 2013 8:31:28 GMT -5
Quinn: That's what I'm interested in, and you describe your situation exactly as two or three others have described it. Some people--let's call them "people with a strong center"-- have a very strong sense of "me" at a very early age. It appears that these people (I include myself) identify themselves with the activities that are important to them. They think, "I am a scientist, or artist, or creative person, or athlete, etc." They know what they like, what they think, what they feel, what they want, etc. They feel like unique creatures with particular attributes and/or abilities. Other folks do not have a strong center. They do not know who they are because they haven't attached to a strong identity as X, Y, or Z. They're not sure what they feel or think about things, and they often watch other people in an effort to conform to however they think other people expect them to be. I recently met a guy who is both a strong feeler and also a strong thinker (he has a Phd in physics and is so smart that a branch of the military service hired him when he graduated from high school, paid for his advanced education, and today allows him to do whatever kind of pure research interests him with no strings attached. Pretty rare!) He told me that when he was a kid, he used to watch what other children were doing and how they were acting in order to figure out how he should act and what he should do. At a certain point he found a key that helped him discover, for himself, what he thought and felt about things. Using that key he was able to develop a way of knowing what he thought and felt without having to watch other people. I found that story amazing, and I recently wrote him to ask if he could explain the key that allowed him to know his own preferences. When he told me his story, it seemed utterly alien to me because I never cared what anyone else thought when I was a kid. I knew exactly who I was (which later turned out to be incorrect--ha ha), what I wanted, and what I was interested in, and I assumed that everyone else was just like me in this respect. FWIW, three people who have described their outlook in almost identical words to yours would rank high on the "feeler" end of the Meiers-Briggs feeling--thinking continuum, whereas I rank at the far end of the thinking end of the spectrum. It makes me wonder if this feeling/thinking orientation is a primary component of one's sense of selfhood or the lack thereof? Well, I don't know. If your friend ranked high on both feeling and thinking, that wouldn't fit. My Mom had the Meyers-Briggs book (I found it in her stuff after she passed) and I tried taking the test last summer. But I couldn't pin down the thinker/feeler part. The others came out quite clear, but not that. My profession is computers and my specialty has always been logic, so there's a lot of thinker there but the feeler side is strong too. The book suggested if you have trouble pin-pointing, it could be that you were born with one trait but were unable to express it in childhood so developed the other. So maybe there is a correlation, but it'd be hard to say definitively. All I can say is that once I realized that there really was no center (as you call it), it wasn't traumatic or earth-shattering at all. It was a relief! I had been trying to find something that wasn't there in the first place and I could finally STOP. Haha! Halleluiah! The young man you were talking about is Midnight. He was also on the forum I came here from. He was kind of a fun-loving irreverent guy at first, then went through this change and posted quite a bit about it over there. The disassociation (or whatever it is) had been going on for a while before he posted here. Life moves in many different ways, eh? The last we heard from Patrick (here at ST) he had gotten a job (and, if my memory serves me right, perhaps even a girlfriend) and correspondingly "had less time to be disassociated".
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 11, 2013 8:33:57 GMT -5
Well, I don't know. If your friend ranked high on both feeling and thinking, that wouldn't fit. My Mom had the Meyers-Briggs book (I found it in her stuff after she passed) and I tried taking the test last summer. But I couldn't pin down the thinker/feeler part. The others came out quite clear, but not that. My profession is computers and my specialty has always been logic, so there's a lot of thinker there but the feeler side is strong too. The book suggested if you have trouble pin-pointing, it could be that you were born with one trait but were unable to express it in childhood so developed the other. So maybe there is a correlation, but it'd be hard to say definitively. All I can say is that once I realized that there really was no center (as you call it), it wasn't traumatic or earth-shattering at all. It was a relief! I had been trying to find something that wasn't there in the first place and I could finally STOP. Haha! Halleluiah! The young man you were talking about is Midnight. He was also on the forum I came here from. He was kind of a fun-loving irreverent guy at first, then went through this change and posted quite a bit about it over there. The disassociation (or whatever it is) had been going on for a while before he posted here. Life moves in many different ways, eh? The last we heard from Patrick (here at ST) he had gotten a job (and, if my memory serves me right, perhaps even a girlfriend) and correspondingly "had less time to be disassociated". that's good news! Perhaps householderism is the most advanced method.
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Oct 11, 2013 8:52:23 GMT -5
Quinn: Yes, it does. I was interested in what Klein told Segal because it indicated an approach that might help Midnight (couldn't remember his screen name). Doing the Mooji meditation seems to have triggered for him the same sort of identity loss that Segal experienced, and Klein's advice would probably be appropos--stop the habit of looking for what has disappeared, and stop telling a story that pathologizes what has happened. This would be asking him in a different way than usual to accept what has happened and move forward in a state of emptiness. My wife's story is similar to your own. She had no center, and did all kinds of things to create one. Nothing worked. Then she read Segal's story, and realized that if she ever created a self, she'd have to eventually get rid of it. Ha ha. It was therefore a relief to give up that effort. She still wants to know who she is, but she isn't suffering under the illusion that she is a little person inside the body looking at a world outside the body. I guess the best advice to give someone in that situation is to stop the part of the mind that wants to know what it is, and just be what is. What seems ironic to me is that some of us know that who we think we are is an illusion, but the illusion continues. The illusion for us is the dualistic thought structure of inside/outside. Other people don't know who they are, but want to know. I guess the illusion for them is the dualistic thought structure of personal/impersonal. Does that make sense?
I'm thinking out loud, so if anyone sees a better way to explain this, please jump in. Nowhereman: I've written to the guy to ask him about the key. I can't remember what it was. I was so fascinated by his story that I didn't pay attention to the most important part of it. Ha ha. In reflecting on this it seems to me that there's what can be described as a spectrum involved. In my personal experience, the sense of identity changed radically over time -- and while it's only a pale reflection of his experience, the "Catcher In the Rye" sense of alienation that Patrick expressed was something I could certainly relate to. Looking back, it was at the transitions, when one set of identifiers was lost, that this sense of inner confusion and a sort of feeling of emptiness would set in. If you consider the fact that any localized sense of identity really is abstract, it's always going to be incomplete, and there's always going to be some sort of self-identification one sees in others that will result in puzzlement. For example, consider "Men are from Mars, Women are from Venus". On the other hand, there seems to be a certain inevitable movement if the "others" share enough outward characteristics with you and those around you express the expectation that you should be like them.
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Oct 11, 2013 8:55:25 GMT -5
The last we heard from Patrick (here at ST) he had gotten a job (and, if my memory serves me right, perhaps even a girlfriend) and correspondingly "had less time to be disassociated". that's good news! Perhaps householderism is the most advanced method. Gives one ample opportunity to notice what they aren't, wouldn't you say?
|
|
|
Post by tzujanli on Oct 11, 2013 9:16:11 GMT -5
Greetings.. Quinn: Yes, it does. I was interested in what Klein told Segal because it indicated an approach that might help Midnight (couldn't remember his screen name). Doing the Mooji meditation seems to have triggered for him the same sort of identity loss that Segal experienced, and Klein's advice would probably be appropos--stop the habit of looking for what has disappeared, and stop telling a story that pathologizes what has happened. This would be asking him in a different way than usual to accept what has happened and move forward in a state of emptiness. My wife's story is similar to your own. She had no center, and did all kinds of things to create one. Nothing worked. Then she read Segal's story, and realized that if she ever created a self, she'd have to eventually get rid of it. Ha ha. It was therefore a relief to give up that effort. She still wants to know who she is, but she isn't suffering under the illusion that she is a little person inside the body looking at a world outside the body. I guess the best advice to give someone in that situation is to stop the part of the mind that wants to know what it is, and just be what is. What seems ironic to me is that some of us know that who we think we are is an illusion, but the illusion continues. The illusion for us is the dualistic thought structure of inside/outside. Other people don't know who they are, but want to know. I guess the illusion for them is the dualistic thought structure of personal/impersonal. Does that make sense?
I'm thinking out loud, so if anyone sees a better way to explain this, please jump in. Nowhereman: I've written to the guy to ask him about the key. I can't remember what it was. I was so fascinated by his story that I didn't pay attention to the most important part of it. Ha ha. In reflecting on this it seems to me that there's what can be described as a spectrum involved. In my personal experience, the sense of identity changed radically over time -- and while it's only a pale reflection of his experience, the "Catcher In the Rye" sense of alienation that Patrick expressed was something I could certainly relate to. Looking back, it was at the transitions, when one set of identifiers was lost, that this sense of inner confusion and a sort of feeling of emptiness would set in. If you consider the fact that any localized sense of identity really is abstract, it's always going to be incomplete, and there's always going to be some sort of self-identification one sees in others that will result in puzzlement. For example, consider "Men are from Mars, Women are from Venus". On the other hand, there seems to be a certain inevitable movement if the "others" share enough outward characteristics with you and those around you express the expectation that you should be like them. It is never incomplete.. it seems incomplete when one intends to remove/alienate an aspect of what they 'are', in this case the intent to remove personhood.. Be well..
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Oct 11, 2013 9:24:58 GMT -5
Greetings.. In reflecting on this it seems to me that there's what can be described as a spectrum involved. In my personal experience, the sense of identity changed radically over time -- and while it's only a pale reflection of his experience, the "Catcher In the Rye" sense of alienation that Patrick expressed was something I could certainly relate to. Looking back, it was at the transitions, when one set of identifiers was lost, that this sense of inner confusion and a sort of feeling of emptiness would set in. If you consider the fact that any localized sense of identity really is abstract, it's always going to be incomplete, and there's always going to be some sort of self-identification one sees in others that will result in puzzlement. For example, consider "Men are from Mars, Women are from Venus". On the other hand, there seems to be a certain inevitable movement if the "others" share enough outward characteristics with you and those around you express the expectation that you should be like them. It is never incomplete.. it seems incomplete when one intends to remove/alienate an aspect of what they 'are', in this case the intent to remove personhood.. Be well.. (** "Nah ...." **)
|
|
|
Post by zendancer on Oct 11, 2013 9:40:25 GMT -5
Greetings.. It is never incomplete.. it seems incomplete when one intends to remove/alienate an aspect of what they 'are', in this case the intent to remove personhood.. Be well.. (** "Nah ...." **) I may be wrong, but I think what Tzu is saying is that everything is always "complete" and "whole" at every moment, even when one feels alienated or falsely identified. Nothing changes when personhood is seen to be an illusion; there is only a shift in perspective.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 11, 2013 9:48:08 GMT -5
that's good news! Perhaps householderism is the most advanced method. Gives one ample opportunity to notice what they aren't, wouldn't you say? Ample! Abundant! Endless!
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Oct 11, 2013 9:52:05 GMT -5
I may be wrong, but I think what Tzu is saying is that everything is always "complete" and "whole" at every moment, even when one feels alienated or falsely identified. Nothing changes when personhood is seen to be an illusion; there is only a shift in perspective. Yes, that's true, nothing happens ... but if one is identified with an abstraction, there will always be an underlying sensation of lack, of existential desire. In my experience, and from the vicarious experience of others by description, this sense of desire can be obscured by activity or even temporarily satisfied. On one hand, if there's no identification then there's no corresponding abstraction. On the other, any identification (or at least any identification that can be elucidated ), will result in what figless refers to as a "divying up of experience". Said another way, any vocalized expression of identity states a set of finite ideas.
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Oct 11, 2013 9:52:29 GMT -5
Gives one ample opportunity to notice what they aren't, wouldn't you say? Ample! Abundant! Endless!
|
|
|
Post by tzujanli on Oct 11, 2013 10:17:19 GMT -5
Greetings.. I may be wrong, but I think what Tzu is saying is that everything is always "complete" and "whole" at every moment, even when one feels alienated or falsely identified. Nothing changes when personhood is seen to be an illusion; there is only a shift in perspective. LOL.. no, personhood is not an 'illusion', that's a story that suits a preferred belief.. the 'person', the unique result of an individual's 'private mindscape of understanding' and the intention/action that flows from it exerts a real force upon this 'now' experience of creation.. look at the history of 'persons' exerting unmistakable force on what was happening, Buddha, Jesus, Gandhi, and a host of others including each person that lives.. each of us leaves the evolving human experience changed by our included participation.. your experience of Zen was made possible by a person's unique force of understanding affecting the person that is you.. some 'persons' here are affected by the unique force of Niz's understanding.. What 'Tzu' is saying, is that the person is as real as as any other experience, the person is as real as any realization, any awareness, it is in the rejection of the 'person' that conflict arises.. Be well..
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Oct 11, 2013 10:26:01 GMT -5
I may be wrong, but I think what Tzu is saying is that everything is always "complete" and "whole" at every moment, even when one feels alienated or falsely identified. Nothing changes when personhood is seen to be an illusion; there is only a shift in perspective. ( (** "Nah..." **) expressed refraining from the debate over the word person )
|
|
|
Post by zendancer on Oct 11, 2013 11:11:44 GMT -5
I may be wrong, but I think what Tzu is saying is that everything is always "complete" and "whole" at every moment, even when one feels alienated or falsely identified. Nothing changes when personhood is seen to be an illusion; there is only a shift in perspective. ( (** "Nah..." **) expressed refraining from the debate over the word person )Ha ha. I understand. *silently bows and walks away*
|
|
|
Post by quinn on Oct 11, 2013 12:34:39 GMT -5
I'm not sure what ZD's different categories are but I do think there is something to it. It seems like if there is a solid sense of self it's easier to see and surpass or whatever. If it's a clueless mishmash there is less easily noticeable contrast with what is happening. Oh, interesting. I would have said the opposite. The solid-sense-of-self people would have so much more to let go of and it would be such a SHOCK! That's where I see these Dark Night of the Soul or Spiritual Crisis thingys happening. The only thing the clueless have to give up on is believing they will ever have a clue. Me, too. All of that. If you don't mind going into it...I'm curious about the "almost did me in" part. What was the struggle? Did you actually go off alone to a cabin in Alaska and then feel crazy?
|
|
|
Post by quinn on Oct 11, 2013 12:40:07 GMT -5
The last we heard from Patrick (here at ST) he had gotten a job (and, if my memory serves me right, perhaps even a girlfriend) and correspondingly "had less time to be disassociated". Oh, good! A couple of years ago I was watching a Jac O'Keeffe video and the woman she was speaking with was in a major head-spin. You could just tell that everything was mis-mashed in her thinking and it was going about 100mph. Jac told her to get some structure in her life - eat 3 times a day, go to bed at the same time each day, that kind of thing. I thought, oh...um...not the non-dualist advice I would have expected. But entirely appropriate.
|
|