|
Post by laughter on Mar 27, 2019 14:55:48 GMT -5
Human physiology is as intricate as it is fascinating. But a scholar can accept the premises of nonduality and it's pointers, and understand, in exquisite detail, how the false sense of mistaken personal identity manifests, and why, and yet still harbor it subconsciously, whether they realize that, or not. I agree with this. Have you ever applied your interior practice to this possibility as an opportunity to become more conscious?
|
|
|
Post by stardustpilgrim on Mar 27, 2019 15:27:22 GMT -5
Have you ever applied your interior practice to this possibility as an opportunity to become more conscious? The very purpose of interior practice is to become more conscious. (Meaning, in a very real sense, making the unconscious, conscious). That's the drum I've been beating for ten years here. (It takes a certain quality and quantity of energy [from practice] to *~stand outside of~*/be objective to/be-impartial-toward/not get sucked in to/not-say-"I"-to self).
|
|
|
Post by stardustpilgrim on Mar 27, 2019 15:48:32 GMT -5
Just finished up Deviate by Lotto.
"The embodiment of perception inside our brains is the experience of objects out there is the reason we feel we are seeing reality, although our perceptions themselves, as we now know, aren't reality. Everything you see--everything--exists in only one place: in here. Inside your head. Everything you experience is only taking place inside your brain and body, constructed in "the space between', arising from the ecology of interaction between you and your world of others, and in the space between you and the world of yourself.
It doesn't feel this way because we project perceptions that were created in the space between (i.e., arising from interactions between things) onto to stuff out there. Thus, a red surface may appear one meter in front of you, but in fact it couldn't be closer...the red of that surface is inside you. It is as if our eyes and all our other senses combine with the rest of our brain to create a video projector. The world out there is really just our three-dimensional screen. ...Our perceptions are the feedback onto our perceptions, creating a self-reinforcing narrative, albeit an effective one for survival, and one that makes life livable. What you perceive right now is a consequence of the history of your perceptions that led to this point. As soon as you perceive it, that perception too becomes a part of your future past, thereby contributing to what you will see in the future". pgs 302, 303 Deviate by Lotto 2017 (emphasis by Lotto)
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Mar 27, 2019 16:29:49 GMT -5
Have you ever applied your interior practice to this possibility as an opportunity to become more conscious? The very purpose of interior practice is to become more conscious. (Meaning, in a very real sense, making the unconscious, conscious). That's the drum I've been beating for ten years here. (It takes a certain quality and quantity of energy [from practice] to *~stand outside of~*/be objective to/be-impartial-toward/not get sucked in to/not-say-"I"-to self). Right .. that's kinda' why I asked that question .. that you didn't answer.
|
|
|
Post by stardustpilgrim on Mar 27, 2019 19:41:51 GMT -5
The very purpose of interior practice is to become more conscious. (Meaning, in a very real sense, making the unconscious, conscious). That's the drum I've been beating for ten years here. (It takes a certain quality and quantity of energy [from practice] to *~stand outside of~*/be objective to/be-impartial-toward/not get sucked in to/not-say-"I"-to self). Right .. that's kinda' why I asked that question .. that you didn't answer. What question didn't I answer?
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Mar 28, 2019 12:39:37 GMT -5
Right .. that's kinda' why I asked that question .. that you didn't answer. What question didn't I answer? Have you ever applied internal practice to the question of whether or not that you, as a scholar, understand, in exquisite detail, how the false sense of mistaken personal identity manifests, and why, and yet still, potentially, might harbor it subconsciously, yourself?
|
|
|
Post by stardustpilgrim on Mar 29, 2019 13:27:05 GMT -5
What question didn't I answer? Have you ever applied internal practice to the question of whether or not that you, as a scholar, understand, in exquisite detail, how the false sense of mistaken personal identity manifests, and why, and yet still, potentially, might harbor it subconsciously, yourself? Yes, this is the debate I've had for ten years here. I don't agree in the least that the false sense of self is some kind of ephemeral wispy misattribution that goes away and is non-acting upon some kind of realization (the realization that the false sense of self is illusory, doesn't make it a wispy imaginary non-thing. The fact that many if not most here take it to be that, and a tiny ~flip of the switch~ makes it go away, quite boggles my mind, it's Ostrich head in the sand nonsense). The false sense of self is very soft-wired into the neural structure. And it is not just reflexive thinking, it's feeling and "muscle memory" associations also. Yes, I know how it theoretically manifests and how it actually manifests (in me). The fact that it's in the neural structure means it's mostly unconscious, that is, subconscious.
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Mar 29, 2019 14:10:18 GMT -5
Have you ever applied internal practice to the question of whether or not that you, as a scholar, understand, in exquisite detail, how the false sense of mistaken personal identity manifests, and why, and yet still, potentially, might harbor it subconsciously, yourself? Yes, this is the debate I've had for ten years here. I don't agree in the least that the false sense of self is some kind of ephemeral wispy misattribution that goes away and is non-acting upon some kind of realization (the realization that the false sense of self is illusory, doesn't make it a wispy imaginary non-thing. The fact that many if not most here take it to be that, and a tiny ~flip of the switch~ makes it go away, quite boggles my mind, it's Ostrich head in the sand nonsense). The false sense of self is very soft-wired into the neural structure. And it is not just reflexive thinking, it's feeling and "muscle memory" associations also. Yes, I know how it theoretically manifests and how it actually manifests (in me). The fact that it's in the neural structure means it's mostly unconscious, that is, subconscious. Well, the way I think of the sort of internal practice that would settle the matter, what other people believe, is a total non-issue.
|
|
|
Post by stardustpilgrim on Mar 29, 2019 14:28:58 GMT -5
Yes, this is the debate I've had for ten years here. I don't agree in the least that the false sense of self is some kind of ephemeral wispy misattribution that goes away and is non-acting upon some kind of realization (the realization that the false sense of self is illusory, doesn't make it a wispy imaginary non-thing. The fact that many if not most here take it to be that, and a tiny ~flip of the switch~ makes it go away, quite boggles my mind, it's Ostrich head in the sand nonsense). The false sense of self is very soft-wired into the neural structure. And it is not just reflexive thinking, it's feeling and "muscle memory" associations also. Yes, I know how it theoretically manifests and how it actually manifests (in me). The fact that it's in the neural structure means it's mostly unconscious, that is, subconscious. Well, the way I think of the sort of internal practice that would settle the matter, what other people believe, is a total non-issue. I know I can't influence anyone, I just give alternatives (people have to be moved from within). I'm the pea in the Princess and the pea story.
|
|
|
Post by stardustpilgrim on Apr 2, 2019 13:28:10 GMT -5
Have you ever applied internal practice to the question of whether or not that you, as a scholar, understand, in exquisite detail, how the false sense of mistaken personal identity manifests, and why, and yet still, potentially, might harbor it subconsciously, yourself? Yes, this is the debate I've had for ten years here. I don't agree in the least that the false sense of self is some kind of ephemeral wispy misattribution that goes away and is non-acting upon some kind of realization (the realization that the false sense of self is illusory, doesn't make it a wispy imaginary non-thing. The fact that many if not most here take it to be that, and a tiny ~flip of the switch~ makes it go away, quite boggles my mind, it's Ostrich head in the sand nonsense). The false sense of self is very soft-wired into the neural structure. And it is not just reflexive thinking, it's feeling and "muscle memory" associations also. Yes, I know how it theoretically manifests and how it actually manifests (in me). The fact that it's in the neural structure means it's mostly unconscious, that is, subconscious. laughter, I answered yes.
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Apr 2, 2019 14:21:33 GMT -5
Yes, this is the debate I've had for ten years here. I don't agree in the least that the false sense of self is some kind of ephemeral wispy misattribution that goes away and is non-acting upon some kind of realization (the realization that the false sense of self is illusory, doesn't make it a wispy imaginary non-thing. The fact that many if not most here take it to be that, and a tiny ~flip of the switch~ makes it go away, quite boggles my mind, it's Ostrich head in the sand nonsense). The false sense of self is very soft-wired into the neural structure. And it is not just reflexive thinking, it's feeling and "muscle memory" associations also. Yes, I know how it theoretically manifests and how it actually manifests (in me). The fact that it's in the neural structure means it's mostly unconscious, that is, subconscious. laughter, I answered yes. Yes! I see that now, my bad. To be honest, what followed the "Yes," seemed to me to ambiguate the reply, so .. I didn't even read to the end, as I didn't think you were flat out answering "Yes". How shameful! I'm not gonna' bother to argue with you about this, but, are you at least conscious of how your strong opinion on the topic might be obscuring the possibility of something outside of your experience?
|
|
|
Post by stardustpilgrim on Apr 3, 2019 7:25:41 GMT -5
laughter, I answered yes. I'm not gonna' bother to argue with you about this, but, are you at least conscious of how your strong opinion on the topic might be obscuring the possibility of something outside of your experience? I wouldn't call it strong opinion, it's understanding. I agree with a lot posted here, but up to a point. I agree that we do not have our own I, the superficial sense of self most of us have is a false sense of self. But in my tradition it is the aim TO HAVE Real individuality (but never in any sense a SEPARATE self, I don't even know what that means). Yes, self-referential thinking is part of the false sense of self. But Self-Awareness is different from self-referential thinking. Here is where we depart, when my attention is absorbed, or taken, by a thought or feeling, or an object, THAT'S identification, that is our ordinary state. But "ND" calls that non dual. In my tradition the beginning of having one's own I is to ~separate out~ attention and awareness. This is what presence is, to be present TO what's occurring, present to functions (thinking, feeling/emotions, bodily actions, sensations), or present to events. THIS, is Self-Awareness. It is not self-referential thinking, in this state there is no thinking. It is the beginning of I Am, as in, "Life Is Real Only Then, When I Am". These are not just ideas for me, this, very briefly put here, is what practice Is, it's not merely opinion. To be absorbed in-to, to have one's attention or awareness taken-by thinking, feeling, bodily action or things, is a state of identification, sleep.
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Apr 3, 2019 10:46:21 GMT -5
I'm not gonna' bother to argue with you about this, but, are you at least conscious of how your strong opinion on the topic might be obscuring the possibility of something outside of your experience? I wouldn't call it strong opinion, it's understanding. I agree with a lot posted here, but up to a point. I agree that we do not have our own I, the superficial sense of self most of us have is a false sense of self. But in my tradition it is the aim TO HAVE Real individuality (but never in any sense a SEPARATE self, I don't even know what that means). Yes, self-referential thinking is part of the false sense of self. But Self-Awareness is different from self-referential thinking. Here is where we depart, when my attention is absorbed, or taken, by a thought or feeling, or an object, THAT'S identification, that is our ordinary state. But "ND" calls that non dual. In my tradition the beginning of having one's own I is to ~separate out~ attention and awareness. This is what presence is, t o be present TO what's occurring, present to functions (thinking, feeling/emotions, bodily actions, sensations), or present to events. THIS, is Self-Awareness. It is not self-referential thinking, in this state there is no thinking. It is the beginning of I Am, as in, "Life Is Real Only Then, When I Am". These are not just ideas for me, this, very briefly put here, is what practice Is, it's not merely opinion. To be absorbed in-to, to have one's attention or awareness taken-by thinking, feeling, bodily action or things, is a state of identification, sleep. To my eye, this is just a difference in vocabulary and preference for describing flow and mushin. We agree that there's an absence of thought in action. Here you call that "identification", and while I can definitely relate to the experience, to me, the most salient aspect of it is the absence of self-referential distraction, which I say is the absence of identification. If you want to call that "REAL individuality", and a form of "identification", fine. I'm not going to start following your lead on that, and while I suspect that there's actually an existential opportunity for you here, I've got no beef with it, nor any interest in debating it. One aside: it's also possible to enter this state when doing mind work, specifically, when writing code. I think we've covered this topic before that you've likely got a point of reference for something similar from your career, the difference being that the physical activity when coding is entirely minimal. So now, let's revisit this: I don't agree in the least that the false sense of self is some kind of ephemeral wispy misattribution that goes away and is non-acting upon some kind of realization (the realization that the false sense of self is illusory, doesn't make it a wispy imaginary non-thing. The fact that many if not most here take it to be that, and a tiny ~flip of the switch~ makes it go away, quite boggles my mind, it's Ostrich head in the sand nonsense). Before I can address it I have to invite you onto common ground. Realization as to the falsity of identification with form, of the personal perspective, is sudden, yes. For me it did come with a complete and sustained cessation of self-referential thought and emotion, that lasted months, and during that time, the individual that moved in the world was not only able to appear to function, but functioned blissfully with the outward appearance of functioning very effectively. What "goes away", is the subconscious sense of identity with form that is the source of most self-referential thought and emotion. That's the illusion that's dispelled, so another point where we seem to disagree is that: Yes, I know how it theoretically manifests and how it actually manifests (in me). The fact that it's in the neural structure means it's mostly unconscious, that is, subconscious. .. if I understand you correctly, you're saying that this sense of identification will always remain in your subconscious, and that my self-assessment otherwise, is a self-deception. Do I have that right?
|
|
|
Post by stardustpilgrim on Apr 3, 2019 15:03:36 GMT -5
I wouldn't call it strong opinion, it's understanding. I agree with a lot posted here, but up to a point. I agree that we do not have our own I, the superficial sense of self most of us have is a false sense of self. But in my tradition it is the aim TO HAVE Real individuality (but never in any sense a SEPARATE self, I don't even know what that means). Yes, self-referential thinking is part of the false sense of self. But Self-Awareness is different from self-referential thinking. Here is where we depart, when my attention is absorbed, or taken, by a thought or feeling, or an object, THAT'S identification, that is our ordinary state. But "ND" calls that non dual. In my tradition the beginning of having one's own I is to ~separate out~ attention and awareness. This is what presence is, t o be present TO what's occurring, present to functions (thinking, feeling/emotions, bodily actions, sensations), or present to events. THIS, is Self-Awareness. It is not self-referential thinking, in this state there is no thinking. It is the beginning of I Am, as in, "Life Is Real Only Then, When I Am". These are not just ideas for me, this, very briefly put here, is what practice Is, it's not merely opinion. To be absorbed in-to, to have one's attention or awareness taken-by thinking, feeling, bodily action or things, is a state of identification, sleep. To my eye, this is just a difference in vocabulary and preference for describing flow and mushin. We agree that there's an absence of thought in action. Here you call that "identification", and while I can definitely relate to the experience, to me, the most salient aspect of it is the absence of self-referential distraction, which I say is the absence of identification. If you want to call that "REAL individuality", and a form of "identification", fine. I'm not going to start following your lead on that, and while I suspect that there's actually an existential opportunity for you here, I've got no beef with it, nor any interest in debating it. One aside: it's also possible to enter this state when doing mind work, specifically, when writing code. I think we've covered this topic before that you've likely got a point of reference for something similar from your career, the difference being that the physical activity when coding is entirely minimal. So now, let's revisit this: I don't agree in the least that the false sense of self is some kind of ephemeral wispy misattribution that goes away and is non-acting upon some kind of realization (the realization that the false sense of self is illusory, doesn't make it a wispy imaginary non-thing. The fact that many if not most here take it to be that, and a tiny ~flip of the switch~ makes it go away, quite boggles my mind, it's Ostrich head in the sand nonsense). Before I can address it I have to invite you onto common ground. Realization as to the falsity of identification with form, of the personal perspective, is sudden, yes. For me it did come with a complete and sustained cessation of self-referential thought and emotion, that lasted months, and during that time, the individual that moved in the world was not only able to appear to function, but functioned blissfully with the outward appearance of functioning very effectively. What "goes away", is the subconscious sense of identity with form that is the source of most self-referential thought and emotion. That's the illusion that's dispelled, so another point where we seem to disagree is that: Yes, I know how it theoretically manifests and how it actually manifests (in me). The fact that it's in the neural structure means it's mostly unconscious, that is, subconscious. .. if I understand you correctly, you're saying that this sense of identification will always remain in your subconscious, and that my self-assessment otherwise, is a self-deception. Do I have that right?
Real individuality and identification are mutually exclusive, so you have misunderstood me. So we are in somewhat more agreement than you expressed. {The absence of self-referential thinking is not necessarily the absence of identification (we use the term non-identification), see note* at end}. Identification is our usual state (defined in the original post). Identification is to be identified with the false sense of self (identified with the functions, thinking, feeling/emotions, bodily actions/muscle memory, see below). This is an ongoing practical/functional matter ( not a once and for all realization). "Real individuality" is not our usual state, it is that which we are aiming for. To be present-to, and to be absorbed-in, are mutually exclusive. To be present-to would be non-identification (or absence of identification). To be absorbed-in would be to be identified. The last question: Our ordinary sense of self is a state of identification, this where the false sense of self is functionally *operational* ( see above). This is a state of automaticity, or operation on autopilot. But yes, it arises from the subconscious, it is a network of automatic reactions, virtually the definition of the subconscious. Now, some of these are personal, (we generally unconsciously try to recreate the environment we were raised in); some are not personal, (knowing how to read and write, riding a bicycle, etc.). But the eventual goal is to become free from these (psychological) automatic reactions, to make the subconscious, conscious.I think I've gone too far in trying to clarify, but reread the original post in light of these comments. Hopefully I have clarified, not complicated. Additionally, ( *note at end) flow and mushin are not necessarily merely different vocabulary for "absence of identification" (non-identification) or Self-Awareness. One can learn a skill or a craft (coding for example), and be-in-flow, or mushin, while performing/doing that skill or craft, and still be identified (practically speaking). One can be in the midst of a skilled activity which has been ingrained into muscle memory, and in a state of flow or mushin, yet still be functionally identified, from my POV. Again, the aim and eventual fulfillment of that aim is to have individuality is a Real sense, something that not-now-is. To- have one's own I.
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Apr 9, 2019 20:06:15 GMT -5
To my eye, this is just a difference in vocabulary and preference for describing flow and mushin. We agree that there's an absence of thought in action. Here you call that "identification", and while I can definitely relate to the experience, to me, the most salient aspect of it is the absence of self-referential distraction, which I say is the absence of identification. If you want to call that "REAL individuality", and a form of "identification", fine. I'm not going to start following your lead on that, and while I suspect that there's actually an existential opportunity for you here, I've got no beef with it, nor any interest in debating it. One aside: it's also possible to enter this state when doing mind work, specifically, when writing code. I think we've covered this topic before that you've likely got a point of reference for something similar from your career, the difference being that the physical activity when coding is entirely minimal. So now, let's revisit this: Before I can address it I have to invite you onto common ground. Realization as to the falsity of identification with form, of the personal perspective, is sudden, yes. For me it did come with a complete and sustained cessation of self-referential thought and emotion, that lasted months, and during that time, the individual that moved in the world was not only able to appear to function, but functioned blissfully with the outward appearance of functioning very effectively. What "goes away", is the subconscious sense of identity with form that is the source of most self-referential thought and emotion. That's the illusion that's dispelled, so another point where we seem to disagree is that: .. if I understand you correctly, you're saying that this sense of identification will always remain in your subconscious, and that my self-assessment otherwise, is a self-deception. Do I have that right?
Real individuality and identification are mutually exclusive, so you have misunderstood me. So we are in somewhat more agreement than you expressed. {The absence of self-referential thinking is not necessarily the absence of identification (we use the term non-identification), see note* at end}. Identification is our usual state (defined in the original post). Identification is to be identified with the false sense of self (identified with the functions, thinking, feeling/emotions, bodily actions/muscle memory, see below). This is an ongoing practical/functional matter ( not a once and for all realization). "Real individuality" is not our usual state, it is that which we are aiming for. To be present-to, and to be absorbed-in, are mutually exclusive. To be present-to would be non-identification (or absence of identification). To be absorbed-in would be to be identified. The last question: Our ordinary sense of self is a state of identification, this where the false sense of self is functionally *operational* ( see above). This is a state of automaticity, or operation on autopilot. But yes, it arises from the subconscious, it is a network of automatic reactions, virtually the definition of the subconscious. Now, some of these are personal, (we generally unconsciously try to recreate the environment we were raised in); some are not personal, (knowing how to read and write, riding a bicycle, etc.). But the eventual goal is to become free from these (psychological) automatic reactions, to make the subconscious, conscious.I think I've gone too far in trying to clarify, but reread the original post in light of these comments. Hopefully I have clarified, not complicated. Additionally, ( *note at end) flow and mushin are not necessarily merely different vocabulary for "absence of identification" (non-identification) or Self-Awareness. One can learn a skill or a craft (coding for example), and be-in-flow, or mushin, while performing/doing that skill or craft, and still be identified (practically speaking). One can be in the midst of a skilled activity which has been ingrained into muscle memory, and in a state of flow or mushin, yet still be functionally identified, from my POV. Again, the aim and eventual fulfillment of that aim is to have individuality is a Real sense, something that not-now-is. To- have one's own I. The self-realization that you termed the way of the ostrich is a sudden re-orientation of perspective, that cannot be worked toward gradually by a relative process of revealing the subconscious to the forefront of your conscious focus. Have you ever considered the possibility that what you think you've learned from internal practice might be entrenching you into a position of refusal? Metaphorically, it would be declining to get an operation to enable the sense of hearing in someone born deaf. Think about it: if a deaf person were convinced there was no such thing as sound, then they wouldn't see a need for the operation, right?
|
|