|
Post by zendancer on Dec 17, 2012 0:39:02 GMT -5
You care about not feeling like a self, which is extremely odd. It's only odd to you because you have clearly never experienced it. Everyone keeps saying that I have a self that is upset at the loss of a self, but that's really just your own projections, because for me, it does feel as if I am non-existant & not real & not present in the world as a self, particularly in my more dissociated moments when I've been on the computer for an hour or more. Midnight: I suspect that you've described your experience quite accurately. I also suspect that almost no one on the forum has experienced exactly what you've been describing. Everyone wants to help, but because no one has been through exactly the same thing, everyone is simply offering guesses concerning what might alleviate the mind-generated fear. I suspect that most people on this path have incremental experiences and realizations that allow the mind to gradually adjust to a process of progressive disillusionment rather than a falling-off-a-cliff-into-emptiness kind of experience. More than 25 years ago, about fifteen minutes into an initial experience of cosmic consciousness there was a point when everything I looked at began to dissolve and/or disappear (something commonly reported by schizophrenics). In retrospect it seems clear that something was happening to the body's normal mode of perception, but it was quite unnerving to watch the center of a man's body begin disappearing even though I was staring straight at it! I had to make a strong mental effort to hold onto reality and bring back the missing part of the man's torso, but the experience was quite frightening. I had the sense that if I didn't run away from what was happening, I was going to be plunged into some unfathomable emptiness and totally lose touch with reality. Fortunately, perhaps, after literally running away from the scene and after another five minutes or so I suddenly snapped back to "normal," and the perceptual instability instantly ceased. I have no idea what would have happened if the body/mind had plunged into emptiness or a total absence of selfhood at that point in time, but it might have resulted in exactly the kind of thing that you have described. As it happened, that initial experience (and the accompanying realizations) was only the first collapse of many other thought structures that supported the consensus trance of ordinary reality. Many more would follow, and by the time the illusion of selfhood finally collapsed it was a relatively undramatic event--a bit like an older child suddenly realizing who Santa Claus must be ("Well, of course! How stupid of me not have seen this sooner.") ha ha. When S. Segal (who was diagnosed as disassociated by many psychiatrists and who bought into that story totally) told Jean Klein, "There's no me. There used to be one, but now there isn't anymore," he replied, "Well, that's perfect." Segal said, "But Jean, why is there so much anxiety?" He replied, "You must stop the part of the mind that constantly keeps trying to look back at the experience." Segal wrote, "There was a part of the mind--perhaps what we call the self-reflective or introspective function--that kept turning to look and, finding emptiness, kept sending the message that something was wrong. It was a reflex that had developed during the years of living in the illusion of individuality, a reflex we commonly consider necessary to know ourselves. We 'look within' repeatedly to determine what we think and feel, to make a study of ourselves and track our states of mind and heart. Now that there was no longer an 'in' to look 'into,' the self-reflective reflex was adrift but it persisted. It kept turning in and turning in, unable to come to terms with the fact that there was no 'in' anymore, only emptiness." The main thing to realize is that there is no "in" and there never has been. Other people are under the illusion that there is an "in" but it is just an illusion. There was never a Midnight/Patrick in any sense whatsoever. There was only and always just THIS--a seamlessly unified field of being--, and it is neither empty nor full. It is what it is. It is what is happening right now. The body/mind fell off of a psychological cliff when it did the Mooji exercise, and the imagined person got more than was bargained for. Most people don't fall off the cliff all at once; they stumble downhill gradually, so the shock isn't so great. I doubt that there is any going back to a conventional sense of selfhood for the body/mind, and I suspect that sooner or later the body/mind will accept this. TRF once described the difference between the personal and the impersonal perspective very succinctly. Is the world seen as if by a person located behind the eyes, or is it perceived by a field of awareness not locatable in any specific sense? If it is the latter, then you might want to try meditation as a way to put the mind at rest and end its patholigization and rejection of what is actual. fWIW, it's an activity that helped Segal come to terms with her similar situation.
|
|
|
Post by andrew on Dec 17, 2012 3:23:44 GMT -5
Hi Tzu, My inquiry is specific to midnight as he seems to be stuck in a form of self-loathing. He says he is in a dissociated state, absent of the feeling of having a self and yet there is something present which hates the feeling of being selfless. The question is meant to turn his attention to what is present with or without a self in these experiences. He thinks his plight is significant or special, and no one else could possibly have the same experience and not have a problem with it. He doesn't believe any of us that say we are dissociated just as he is, but we have accommodated the change in experience and the change in frame of reference. He wants help, but doesn't want help at the same time. He wants to put the genie back in the bottle, to crawl back into the womb of the illusion of being a persona and not the present awareness that is experienced in the absence of individuality and absence of the personal mental content. I don't think my plight is particularly significant in the greater scheme of things any more Topology, I can assure you of that. I definitely did used to think what I was experiencing was really special, but now I see it as an immense inconvenience, still pretty scary, though not mystical anymore (even though some of the symptoms are so bizarre I can't believe this isn't a 'dark night of the soul' still.) Not many on here could possibly be dissociated in the same way, because otherwise there would be many more threads on the forum with people complaining of feeling acute anxiety, panic, dread etc. So here's the thing, I believe that many people here have experienced dissociation or are experiencing it now, but not in the way that it becomes a problem that disrupts their lives, like it has for my life.That's a more fair perspective. Does that make sense? Yeah, I definitely am stuck in self-loathing, it's almost like my mind is trying to block out the pain of intense self-hatred. Good observation. I am not sure how to remedy this self-loathing part though, therapy doesn't seem to get to the root of it, though I have been trying. I know what its like to be so disassociated, alienated and distant that I felt like I was a ghost. I know the terror of that and my only relief from the terror was crying, because at least the tears connected me to SOMETHING. I lost my girlfriend, my job, and had to move back in with my parents at the age of 30 who thought I was insane. Which I probably was. There was a lot of self-judgement on my part too. Things were hellish for a year or two. I want to try and explain all this another way. Most people experience a 'gap' between themselves and life but they don't generally experience this gap as problematic (aside from usual day to day stresses) because their attachment to stuff acts like a link between them and life. Its bridges the gap. In your case, you have lost the link/the bridge, the gap is still there and the distance you feel from life can be frightening. As I see it, rather than try and get the link/bridge back, the solution is to close the gap so there is no more experience of distance between you and life, so that you are totally and fully immersed in life, so that you experience life in an associated, direct and immediate way. All humans have access to 3 perceptual positions. One position is to be fully associated in an experience - life is being experienced directly and head on, with you in the drivers seat. The next position is to put yourself in someone else's shoes. The final position is to drift above yourself and look down on and analyze what is happening from a kind of...'observer' perspective. www.renewal.ca/nlp16.htmWhat you are doing is spending a lot of your time in position 2 and 3. It may not SEEM like it on the surface because I guess you spend a lot of time thinking about your problems (which might perhaps make it seem like you are in position one), but position 2 and 3 is where you spend a lot of your time. 'In your mind' basically (and without a bridge). Position 1 is far more helpful for you because it is an associated position. Looking through your eyes. Looking directly at life rather than analyzing your position from above or putting yourself in someone else's shoes and seeing yourself through judging eyes. And the way to do this is to get fully in your body, to get fully in your energy or in your being, and to embrace your individuality (as opposed to the personality). But in order to be willing to do this, you've also gotta be willing to get over yourself, which really means, getting over the past.
|
|
|
Post by andrew on Dec 17, 2012 3:58:38 GMT -5
"If you will permit me this distinction: the difference between the impersonal perspective and the personal perspective. I'm fine with the impersonal perspective being somewhat of a platonic ideal, perhaps never perfectly achieved but that one can create a qualitative measure of what is closer to being impersonal rather than personal. The fundamental difference between these two perspectives deals with how a body-mind interprets and then responds/reacts to perceived events." Topology If I may...IMO, both are personal because they/we are perceiving from a perspective of personal or impersonal. My feeling is that there is that which is not a perspective and that is unattainable. My feeling is that it is the backdrop of life, the blank canvas of life and we are that as much as we are that which perceives, either personally or impersonally. That is what I observe in life/in me. James Impersonal doesn't imply the absence of a perspective, it means that the perspective is formed on the basis of what is actually perceived rather than the interpretation of that perception through a personal filter of needs, fears, expectations, etc. It's the result of what I mean by 'coming empty'. As such, it also doesn't imply that some objective truth about the world is being perceived, as it is still a perspective and subject to all the potential errors of perception inherent in a given perspective. It just means everything isn't viewed through the imagined structure of personhood. Yes, and attachment to the impersonal position would be attachment to the boundary between actual and imaginary. We know when there is attachment to the impersonal position when we are closed to the actuality of 'the personal'. The thing is that 'coming empty' is really a useful and practical ideal. In the context of there being individuals (and if we are talking about an impersonal position, then we are talking within the context of there being individuals), individuals come with preferences, focus, values, standards, and as such are never really 'coming empty' in the sense of coming blank or perfectly neutral or totally absent of individual filter. As such, the impersonal position is really only ever a temporary position that individuals can adopt when appropriate, its not a permanent position. In non-attachment we are open to the actuality of individuality and yet are free to adopt the impersonal position when required. Ironically, this is probably the position in which the individual is most 'empty'. Non-attachment therefore transcends both personal and impersonal. I might be wrong but what I saw James alluding to was an openness to impersonal and personal.
|
|
|
Post by andrew on Dec 17, 2012 4:09:00 GMT -5
Yes i agree that impersonal doesn't imply lack of a perspective and that was my point. "Coming empty" however, seems unlikely to me unless you come down with Dimenzia. Oh, yes, it's possible to see without your personal filters. In your case in particular, it would be necessary to give less power to feeling, or at least be clear about where your feelings come from so that they don't manipulate you. I don't quite know what you mean by 'personal filters' but as I said, if we are talking about the impersonal position, then we are in the context of individuality anyway, and therefore there is always going to be individual filter. I also don't understand how you have concluded that James isn't clear about where his feelings come from or that he gives too much power to feeling. Surely not on what he just said? If not, how does that fit in with 'coming empty'?
|
|
|
Post by tzujanli on Dec 17, 2012 11:26:41 GMT -5
Greetings.. Greetings.. Hi reefs: An absolute ('only') built on 'if/then' assumptions? The philosophizing you refer to, may not be philosophizing at all, it might simply be 'my' experience.. but yes, the 'still mind' i refer to is also a reference to a mind that is open and receptive, not engaged in 'thinking'.. will you explain the understanding that you employ to justify your statement, " the philosophizing above can only come from a place of bondage and confusion and not from clarity and liberation".. Be well.. Well, that's how it works with this text format. Logic and grammar are the rules of this game, the rules that create meaning by connecting the dots in a certain way. So according to logic and basic grammar, that's the conclusion one should come to according to the basic rules based on what you've said. What else could it mean? even if you only type down your experience, you still have to put it into words which requires some basic analyzing. It's absolute within this format. That's all. Philosophizing is what I call 'minding' (minding = mind taken as a verb to avoid treating mind as an entity but rather as a process). And Minding means personal vantage point, means subject to space, time and all kinds of other stuff - in short: bondage and confusion.Now you could insist that you weren't really aware of what you were typing, that your fingers were just moving and when 'post reply' was clicked and you saw what had been written, you were kinda surprised what just had been coming thru your fingers. I've read similar stories about Anandamayi Ma who very often seemed to be surprised what kind of funny things had just come out of her mouth. Were you implying that? I didn't see that in your post. Okay, are you clear on how language and symbology function, "logic and grammar" inform the mind, what happens within the mind's functioning is actually beyond most people's understanding.. maybe you are different, but i'm only seeing a pejorative intent, a reasonable indication of a 'self' not liberated.. anyway, it seems that you believe " space, time and all kinds of other stuff" equates with " bondage and confusion", which is evidence of your attachment to your preferred ideology.. can you 'let that go', and just see what is happening without judging "bondage and confusion"? " all kinds of other stuff" is vague and subjective, hardly consistent with " rules that create meaning by connecting the dots in a certain way", unless " you weren't really aware of what you were typing, that your fingers were just moving and when 'post reply' was clicked and you saw what had been written, you were kinda surprised what just had been coming thru your fingers".. is this " how it works with this text format"? Be well..
|
|
|
Post by enigma on Dec 17, 2012 12:01:27 GMT -5
Impersonal doesn't imply the absence of a perspective, it means that the perspective is formed on the basis of what is actually perceived rather than the interpretation of that perception through a personal filter of needs, fears, expectations, etc. It's the result of what I mean by 'coming empty'. As such, it also doesn't imply that some objective truth about the world is being perceived, as it is still a perspective and subject to all the potential errors of perception inherent in a given perspective. It just means everything isn't viewed through the imagined structure of personhood. Yes, and attachment to the impersonal position would be attachment to the boundary between actual and imaginary. We know when there is attachment to the impersonal position when we are closed to the actuality of 'the personal'. The impersonal is the position of non-attachment, but it doesn't pander to the whims of the person, so you won't find it of much interest.
|
|
|
Post by andrew on Dec 17, 2012 13:25:01 GMT -5
Yes, and attachment to the impersonal position would be attachment to the boundary between actual and imaginary. We know when there is attachment to the impersonal position when we are closed to the actuality of 'the personal'. The impersonal is the position of non-attachment, but it doesn't pander to the whims of the person, so you won't find it of much interest. Its not actually. In the context of there being individuals, the personal position is the default position. From the personal position, an impersonal position can be adopted, but this is more a 'doing' not a 'being'. Its why, as much as you advocate 'coming empty', you often are not. That's not your fault, the 'coming empty' position is a very useful ideal more than anything else. Its okay to resonate with some things and not with others, to have some level of preference and bias. Its okay to have a sense of familiarity with people, to 'get to know' people, to recall old conversations and bring them forth into current conversations. I mean, you do it all the time anyway....quite obviously you don't judge my delusion based on just one conversation, you judge it on a years worth of conversation hehe. As a conceptual contrast, I would say it is useful to differentiate between 3 positions. The personal is the default position, but I think it is also useful to distinguish between an attached personal position and a non-attached personal position. So I would say the non-attached position is 'transpersonal' (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transpersonal_psychology). From this position we are free to take the impersonal position, and it has definite relevance, but there is no attachment to that position. There is no attachment to NOT having bias, preference, familiarity, and no attachment to NOT being personal,....these things are allowed as they arise if its appropriate to allow them. In the transpersonal position, there is no rejection of individuality, the individual is not considered to be imaginary or false.
|
|
|
Post by tzujanli on Dec 17, 2012 13:52:48 GMT -5
Greetngs.. The impersonal is the position of non-attachment, but it doesn't pander to the whims of the person, so you won't find it of much interest. Its not actually. In the context of there being individuals, the personal position is the default position. From the personal position, an impersonal position can be adopted, but this is more a 'doing' not a 'being'. Its why, as much as you advocate 'coming empty', you often are not. That's not your fault, the 'coming empty' position is a very useful ideal more than anything else. Its okay to resonate with some things and not with others, to have some level of preference and bias. Its okay to have a sense of familiarity with people, to 'get to know' people, to recall old conversations and bring them forth into current conversations. I mean, you do it all the time anyway....quite obviously you don't judge my delusion based on just one conversation, you judge it on a years worth of conversation hehe. As a conceptual contrast, I would say it is useful to differentiate between 3 positions. The personal is the default position, but I think it is also useful to distinguish between an attached personal position and a non-attached personal position. So I would say the non-attached position is 'transpersonal' (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transpersonal_psychology). From this position we are free to take the impersonal position, and it has definite relevance, but there is no attachment to that position. There is no attachment to NOT having bias, preference, familiarity, and no attachment to NOT being personal,....these things are allowed as they arise if its appropriate to allow them. In the transpersonal position, there is no rejection of individuality, the individual is not considered to be imaginary or false. Hi Andrew: Very nicely articulated, although the label, "transpersonal" may take on its own identity.. if understood though, 'transpersonal' as you have described it, is a useful understanding.. Be well..
|
|
|
Post by silence on Dec 17, 2012 15:55:44 GMT -5
You care about not feeling like a self, which is extremely odd. It's only odd to you because you have clearly never experienced it. Everyone keeps saying that I have a self that is upset at the loss of a self, but that's really just your own projections, because for me, it does feel as if I am non-existant & not real & not present in the world as a self, particularly in my more dissociated moments when I've been on the computer for an hour or more. Complaining about not existing is precisely what keeps recharging the sense of self. You get on the computer for an hour or more and you forget to complain or have self referencing thoughts. Things get quiet. Quiet leads to fear. You return to find solutions to your problem because suffering might be painful but at least it's not as bad as falling into the void right?
|
|
|
Post by enigma on Dec 17, 2012 17:04:40 GMT -5
The impersonal is the position of non-attachment, but it doesn't pander to the whims of the person, so you won't find it of much interest. Its not actually. In the context of there being individuals, the personal position is the default position. From the personal position, an impersonal position can be adopted, but this is more a 'doing' not a 'being'. Its why, as much as you advocate 'coming empty', you often are not. That's not your fault, the 'coming empty' position is a very useful ideal more than anything else. Its okay to resonate with some things and not with others, to have some level of preference and bias. Its okay to have a sense of familiarity with people, to 'get to know' people, to recall old conversations and bring them forth into current conversations. I mean, you do it all the time anyway....quite obviously you don't judge my delusion based on just one conversation, you judge it on a years worth of conversation hehe. You've decided that you know what I mean by coming empty and then you critique what you think I mean. It appears that you think it involves attachment and dismissing history, but instead it means what I said it means. You've also decided that I'm often not empty, but you can't know because you consistently fill everything with your own stuff and declare it mine.
|
|
|
Post by andrew on Dec 17, 2012 17:11:55 GMT -5
Greetngs.. Its not actually. In the context of there being individuals, the personal position is the default position. From the personal position, an impersonal position can be adopted, but this is more a 'doing' not a 'being'. Its why, as much as you advocate 'coming empty', you often are not. That's not your fault, the 'coming empty' position is a very useful ideal more than anything else. Its okay to resonate with some things and not with others, to have some level of preference and bias. Its okay to have a sense of familiarity with people, to 'get to know' people, to recall old conversations and bring them forth into current conversations. I mean, you do it all the time anyway....quite obviously you don't judge my delusion based on just one conversation, you judge it on a years worth of conversation hehe. As a conceptual contrast, I would say it is useful to differentiate between 3 positions. The personal is the default position, but I think it is also useful to distinguish between an attached personal position and a non-attached personal position. So I would say the non-attached position is 'transpersonal' (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transpersonal_psychology). From this position we are free to take the impersonal position, and it has definite relevance, but there is no attachment to that position. There is no attachment to NOT having bias, preference, familiarity, and no attachment to NOT being personal,....these things are allowed as they arise if its appropriate to allow them. In the transpersonal position, there is no rejection of individuality, the individual is not considered to be imaginary or false. Hi Andrew: Very nicely articulated, although the label, "transpersonal" may take on its own identity.. if understood though, 'transpersonal' as you have described it, is a useful understanding.. Be well.. Cheers tzu, and yes, I agree that the label could take on its own identity. Something I have learned in the last few years is that just as spiritual labels can be helpful, they can be as equally unhelpful!
|
|
|
Post by midnight on Dec 17, 2012 17:18:24 GMT -5
It's only odd to you because you have clearly never experienced it. Everyone keeps saying that I have a self that is upset at the loss of a self, but that's really just your own projections, because for me, it does feel as if I am non-existant & not real & not present in the world as a self, particularly in my more dissociated moments when I've been on the computer for an hour or more. Complaining about not existing is precisely what keeps recharging the sense of self. You get on the computer for an hour or more and you forget to complain or have self referencing thoughts. Things get quiet. Quiet leads to fear. You return to find solutions to your problem because suffering might be painful but at least it's not as bad as falling into the void right? Things get quiet I guess yeah, but it's more like things stop existing. When I come off the computer I feel awful. I forget what I've been doing all day and I need to snap myself back into reality to become less of a walking zombie. How do I know that the void you are speaking of is the same one I speak about? Cos maybe you are talking about a void that doesn't feel like one is drifting into madness, while the one I seem to sense feels like total loss of mental stability and a murky pool of suppressed emotional pain. Are we talking about the same void? An utterly depressing blackness bleak beyond description? I feel like when I am not thinking about myself I am drifting into annihilation. Btw, thanks for the replies, it's been very educational, especially Zendancer and Andrewtemp
|
|
|
Post by andrew on Dec 17, 2012 17:34:00 GMT -5
Its not actually. In the context of there being individuals, the personal position is the default position. From the personal position, an impersonal position can be adopted, but this is more a 'doing' not a 'being'. Its why, as much as you advocate 'coming empty', you often are not. That's not your fault, the 'coming empty' position is a very useful ideal more than anything else. Its okay to resonate with some things and not with others, to have some level of preference and bias. Its okay to have a sense of familiarity with people, to 'get to know' people, to recall old conversations and bring them forth into current conversations. I mean, you do it all the time anyway....quite obviously you don't judge my delusion based on just one conversation, you judge it on a years worth of conversation hehe. You've decided that you know what I mean by coming empty and then you critique what you think I mean. It appears that you think it involves attachment and dismissing history, but instead it means what I said it means. You've also decided that I'm often not empty, but you can't know because you consistently fill everything with your own stuff and declare it mine. In that last sentence, are you filling everything with your own stuff and declaring it mine hehe? Joke aside there, I am basing 'coming empty' on what you have said...you have talked about it a fair bit! I don't think that it involves 'attachment' as such, though I would say it dismisses history in the sense that it is about 'attending to what is being said' (to use your words). Its not so very different from the idea of 'beginners mind'. The thing is that these labels (personal, impersonal, transpersonal) create the illusion of different, separate groups, or different sides of a fence. The reality is a lot less clear cut. Its not a case of this, or that, or the other. Its a case of this and that with a bit of the other. Or the other with a bit of this and a bit of that.
|
|
|
Post by enigma on Dec 17, 2012 18:37:01 GMT -5
You've decided that you know what I mean by coming empty and then you critique what you think I mean. It appears that you think it involves attachment and dismissing history, but instead it means what I said it means. You've also decided that I'm often not empty, but you can't know because you consistently fill everything with your own stuff and declare it mine. In that last sentence, are you filling everything with your own stuff and declaring it mine hehe? Joke aside there, I am basing 'coming empty' on what you have said...you have talked about it a fair bit! I don't think that it involves 'attachment' as such, though I would say it dismisses history in the sense that it is about 'attending to what is being said' (to use your words). Its not so very different from the idea of 'beginners mind'. The thing is that these labels (personal, impersonal, transpersonal) create the illusion of different, separate groups, or different sides of a fence. The reality is a lot less clear cut. Its not a case of this, or that, or the other. Its a case of this and that with a bit of the other. Or the other with a bit of this and a bit of that. Doesn't seem particularly important to me.
|
|
|
Post by whiteshaman on Dec 17, 2012 19:00:25 GMT -5
The impersonal is the position of non-attachment, but it doesn't pander to the whims of the person, so you won't find it of much interest. Its not actually. In the context of there being individuals, the personal position is the default position. From the personal position, an impersonal position can be adopted, but this is more a 'doing' not a 'being'. Its why, as much as you advocate 'coming empty', you often are not. That's not your fault, the 'coming empty' position is a very useful ideal more than anything else. Its okay to resonate with some things and not with others, to have some level of preference and bias. Its okay to have a sense of familiarity with people, to 'get to know' people, to recall old conversations and bring them forth into current conversations. I mean, you do it all the time anyway....quite obviously you don't judge my delusion based on just one conversation, you judge it on a years worth of conversation hehe. As a conceptual contrast, I would say it is useful to differentiate between 3 positions. The personal is the default position, but I think it is also useful to distinguish between an attached personal position and a non-attached personal position. So I would say the non-attached position is 'transpersonal' (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transpersonal_psychology). From this position we are free to take the impersonal position, and it has definite relevance, but there is no attachment to that position. There is no attachment to NOT having bias, preference, familiarity, and no attachment to NOT being personal,....these things are allowed as they arise if its appropriate to allow them. In the transpersonal position, there is no rejection of individuality, the individual is not considered to be imaginary or false. Nice...........
|
|