|
Post by andrew on Mar 4, 2018 15:54:33 GMT -5
An amoeba is classified as 'living' isn't it (as opposed to non-living)? To say that it has a 'sense of self' doesn't really sound right, but I might say that in a minuscule microcosmic way, the seed of the sense of self is there. According to Seth, even electrons have a sense of self. I can't get on board with Seth's use of language there, but I am on board with the 'sentiment' of it.
|
|
|
Post by andrew on Mar 4, 2018 15:57:28 GMT -5
yeah, in terms of the distinctions, that all works for me. Did you ever see the monkeys sit the 'fairness' test? It goes something like this. 2 monkeys sit the same test, and when they both get the answers right, they get rewarded, but one gets their favourite food and the other gets some kind of crappy bit of food. After this happens a couple of times, the latter monkey is having a proper tantrum at what he sees as 'unfair' reward. So yeah, I would say they can psychologically suffer. Prolly so. chimpanzeesAnts! Didn't see that coming.
|
|
|
Post by andrew on Mar 4, 2018 16:01:01 GMT -5
You're not saying that an amoeba is experiencing are you? Call in the solipsists hehe. Actually, I'm not sure what you are asking me here, or is it more of a sort of rhetorical agreement with what I said...? From the perspective that there is only what you are .. all life forms experience . I was pointing towards the reason for experiencing .. If there was no sense of the experience had in reflection of what you are, then there would be no point manifesting as this or that . I think some peeps see a sense of self or what you are as something different from a self identity . There are different levels at play for sure regarding identifying self butt when a bunny defends it's space it does so because the sense of itself is identified otherwise it wouldn't behave as it does . An amoeba that feeds, move, reproduces I would say has it's own self identifying experience . yeah I do agree, though I believe that there is a useful distinction to be made between animals that can consider who they are and where they come from, and animals (or plants or ameobas or electrons) that can't, because this kind of self-reflection can come with a particular kind of suffering. Making that distinction gives us something to work with in a way.
|
|
|
Post by andrew on Mar 4, 2018 16:02:22 GMT -5
The main point is one has to see a difference, for a choice to even be possible. By default, no (unconscious, mechanical) choices are possible. Choice always begins with what Reefs describes, which is a conscious effort. All efforts not so chosen, are mechanical and [relatively] unconscious. I think I get it now what Andrew was trying to describe earlier and what looks to us like indecision or overthinking. It is actually what A-H call sorting and sifting, the chewing on the data of experience, the ruminating - which eventually leads to a decision. And that's essentially the job of the ego. Usually this happens more or less unconsciously in the background but in this case it seems to happen fully conscious. Yeah
|
|
|
Post by andrew on Mar 4, 2018 16:07:26 GMT -5
In its purest form I think some form a sense of self transcends birth even, but on reflection concede it would seem odd to talk about that in terms of ego. The Buddha taught conception was the point of the coming together of the aggregation we think of as the mind-body expression, but that even prior to that are propelling (kammic) forces which condition that occurrence, of which identity view is a major cause. So I'm talking about a cycle of rebirth where ultimately identity view is effectively a cause of birth, which I know is hard to get your head around. Anyway, the process of birth itself is stressful (dukkha), and we see that the first thing the baby does upon arrival is wail at the top of its lungs, as it separates from the warmth, security, and nourishment of the mother, and as if on some level it knows it's pretty much downhill all the way from there, hehe. And where birth is the cause, death is the inevitable effect, and in the meantime life is subject to struggle, ageing, dis-ease and loss of loved ones, and this happens in perpituity until true liberation. But I digress. The process at aged two seems to be more about where identification with the mind-body expression comes to fruition, which would be a requisite condition for existential angst, I suppose. Although interestingly, out of that additional fall from grace I see coming the potential for sapience, and by extension liberation. I'm sure you have video evidence to support what you say, but is it possible the infant was nonplussed by the experience of being forced through a hole the size of a grapefruit? I think the way that humans handle birth is the first 'existential' wound for the baby. In some ways we are so advanced, and yet in other ways we are more barbaric than the animals. We are so concerned with 'preserving' life, that we create all sorts of traumatic ways to do this.
|
|
|
Post by andrew on Mar 4, 2018 16:19:37 GMT -5
Finally, we get to a point where we can actually discuss. All creatures are born with a sense of self, a sense of existing, the sense of 'I am'. This makes it possible for creatures to function in the world. Even the mosquito has a sense of existing, but it is very simple. It's not a concept or a thought, and so does not lend itself to self referential conclusions and stories. You also have a sense of self, and around it you've developed all manner of stories about what that sense refers to; what it is that exists. A person with a body and a mind and likes and dislikes and hopes and fears and needs. A complex self image, the tendency to analyze the past and predict future scenarios, etc. This is the source of all psychological suffering, and most of your physical suffering. What I call the point of suffering is a critical point at which non-problematic fear and resistance turn to suffering. That point is different for everyone, but it's critical in understanding how and why suffering comes to be, and offers a clue about how to end it. I contend that most of the lower animals (and infants) have no such story telling ability, and do not experience the suffering associated with it. In every animal, physical pain and fear serve to protect the creature, but when an animal without a story telling ability responds in that mode, it shouldn't be assumed that all the human stories that usually accompany that behavior are also present. Running is not suffering, fear is not suffering, crying out is not suffering, resistance is not suffering. The point of suffering is hidden from the adult because we don't know something unnatural has taken place in our minds. I don't get that you don't get that (past) suffering is the reason for future or now suffering. If there was not origin suffering there would be no reason for later suffering. yes I agree. The main benefit of Enigma's understanding that I see, is that it kind of gives us an empowered and useful place to begin to work from. We can identify the conceptual 'I' and see that it is not 'me'. 'Illusions' can be seen through. But when it comes to emotional issues that predate the ability to tell abstract stories, we have no particular way to go about resolving that. My experience is that deep emotional hurts naturally come out in the wash of life experience, and spirituality has given me the ability to handle this with some intelligence, rather than just continuing to suppress or distract or deny or whatever.
|
|
|
Post by enigma on Mar 4, 2018 20:16:41 GMT -5
I contend that most of the lower animals (and infants) have no such story telling ability, and do not experience the suffering associated with it. In every animal, physical pain and fear serve to protect the creature, but when an animal without a story telling ability responds in that mode, it shouldn't be assumed that all the human stories that usually accompany that behavior are also present. Running is not suffering, fear is not suffering, crying out is not suffering, resistance is not suffering. The point of suffering is hidden from the adult because we don't know something unnatural has taken place in our minds. stpauls.vxcommunity.com/Issue/Us-Experiment-On-Infants-Withholding-Affection/13213Wait...what?! They halted the experiment after half the infants died? Did they figure they had enough data at that point?
|
|
|
Post by enigma on Mar 4, 2018 20:31:01 GMT -5
Finally, we get to a point where we can actually discuss. All creatures are born with a sense of self, a sense of existing, the sense of 'I am'. This makes it possible for creatures to function in the world. Even the mosquito has a sense of existing, but it is very simple. It's not a concept or a thought, and so does not lend itself to self referential conclusions and stories. You also have a sense of self, and around it you've developed all manner of stories about what that sense refers to; what it is that exists. A person with a body and a mind and likes and dislikes and hopes and fears and needs. A complex self image, the tendency to analyze the past and predict future scenarios, etc. This is the source of all psychological suffering, and most of your physical suffering. What I call the point of suffering is a critical point at which non-problematic fear and resistance turn to suffering. That point is different for everyone, but it's critical in understanding how and why suffering comes to be, and offers a clue about how to end it. I contend that most of the lower animals (and infants) have no such story telling ability, and do not experience the suffering associated with it. In every animal, physical pain and fear serve to protect the creature, but when an animal without a story telling ability responds in that mode, it shouldn't be assumed that all the human stories that usually accompany that behavior are also present. Running is not suffering, fear is not suffering, crying out is not suffering, resistance is not suffering. The point of suffering is hidden from the adult because we don't know something unnatural has taken place in our minds. I work with a rescue dog who seven years on still cowers and flinches on first touch. The notion that animals or infants aren't traumatized because they can't tell stories is plain silly. I have a friend who was raped as an infant. Her life has been pure hell even though she remembers nothing. It's a tidy world you live in. Doesn't resemble the one I live in, but true it might be just perspective, a little bit of that Catholic upbringing still sticks with me. "There but for the grace of God go I." Obviously, animals learn from experience to be wary of certain situations. If they didn't, they wouldn't survive long. You call it being traumatized and conclude suffering, but you don't know that. Part of my interest here is to get peeps to stop knowing things they don't really know. As for the infant, she can't remember being raped because there was no 'me' structure around which to form a traumatic event. Same reason you can't remember anything as an infant either. I don't know why her life is hell, but I'm not going to assume it's because of an event she doesn't remember.
|
|
|
Post by enigma on Mar 4, 2018 20:52:34 GMT -5
If you choose to define ego that way, but it's a bit of an assassination. Perhaps we could say that there's a pre-cognitive or non-reflective sense of self prior to age two, and somewhere around age two it becomes reflectively established and obvious to adults. Infants seem to be genetically attracted to human faces, and will stare into people's eyes with great interest shortly after birth, but there comes a point at which infants realize that the face they're looking at in a mirror is their own. I forget at what age this occurs (Piaget and others have written about it), but ego, as reflective self-identification, seems to crystallize somewhere between the age of one and two, and this process of more-and-more intensely-identifying as a self continues throughout life unless SR occurs. Zen people distinguish this psychological process as one involving "nen" actions. The first nen is an outward movement of consciousness; the second nen is an inward-looking or reflecting action of consciousness (which can relate to a first nen action), and the third nen, which is another reflecting action of consciousness, gives rise to self-identification. As Sekida writes, "(the third nen) ...is responsible for a thought like, "I know I was aware of my knowing that I noticed I had been thinking, 'The weather is fine today." In Zen terms an infant is primarily focused upon first nen sensory input, and it is only later that the second and third nen reflecting actions begin to occur. Someone pursuing ATA-T is solely focused upon first nen phenomena--sights, sounds, etc. Sekida writes, "Man thinks and acts without noticing. When he thinks, 'It is fine today,' he is aware of the weather, but not his own thought. It is the reflecting action of consciousness that comes immediately after the thought that makes him aware of his own thinking. The act of thinking of the weather is an outward-looking one and is absorbed in the object of its thought. On the other hand, the reflecting action of consciousness looks inward and notes the preceding action that has just gone by--still leaving its trace behind as the direct past." He writes a lot more about this, but my point is that an infant does not initially have this kind of reflecting action that allows it to know itself as an entity separate from all else. I'm down with that.
|
|
|
Post by enigma on Mar 4, 2018 21:29:34 GMT -5
Of course it has a sense of itself just as it has a sense of another bunny . You keep missing out the sense of identity because there needs a sense of identity in order to differentiate the other bunny from the fox . I don't really know what a sense of identity is. Is it body identification or something else? Regardless, all that is needed in order to differentiate is the ability to differentiate.
|
|
|
Post by Reefs on Mar 4, 2018 22:38:00 GMT -5
If you choose to define ego that way, but it's a bit of an assassination. Perhaps we could say that there's a pre-cognitive or non-reflective sense of self prior to age two, and somewhere around age two it becomes reflectively established and obvious to adults. That's basically my position.
|
|
|
Post by Reefs on Mar 4, 2018 22:41:47 GMT -5
When I hear you talking about Gurdjieff it always seems as if what he has to say I have read or heard somewhere else before. What would you say, how much of what he taught is genuine Gurdjieff? Virtually none of it. He didn't claim to originate what he taught. He (specifically said he) taught what he learned from others (but he didn't reveal certain sources, deliberately so). He is even more specific that he didn't originate the interior practices. And he said his, for him artificial ~career as a writer~, was to preserve the teaching, in theory. I have personally seen the practice self-remembering written only once (but it was no so named), it is not in any of the multiple books by or about Gurdjieff, as this is firm rule. The writer wrote concerning another field, but in a later book he described how he had participated in "the Gurdjieff Work" earlier in his life. I was not surprised, suspected as much. When I learned about Dzogchen (from Tibetan Buddhism), I surely felt Gurdjieff had penetrated the Dzogchen tradition (he spent considerable time in Tibet). The (roots of) special words he invented (for specific reasons) for parts of Beelzebub's Tales (which IS a unique allegory) comes from a wide field. Okay. Maybe that explains why I never felt like picking up one of the books even though I heard the name Gurdjieff mentioned a lot.
|
|
|
Post by Reefs on Mar 4, 2018 22:45:28 GMT -5
"If, however, the person was presented with two equally good options, they would have to stop, as objects did while under the influence of equal forces, and wait until one option became better than the other." It's clearly not so, so I don't see where anyone sees a paradox. Eventually, making one of the choices becomes a priority over making no choice, and a choice is made to make a choice. Sometimes I find two options to be very very equal, and it can be over something very innocuous. For example, I can pull out of the drive way and there be two equal options as to which grocer store to go to. What I do in that situation is get completely and totally out of the way and 'let the car decide'. If the car goes left, then it means I am going to Safeway. if it goes right, it means I am going to Co-Op (though occasionally this too can change before I get there). From my perspective that just means you don't have any clear preferences in that regard. And so either option will do and whatever option you eventually choose can be undone as easily.
|
|
|
Post by Reefs on Mar 4, 2018 22:57:59 GMT -5
I just see the definition for suffering narrowing to a meaningless sliver by the persistent desire to defend a notion that is plainly silly. I'm curious about the motivation. It would be simple to concede and say everyone suffers. Instead we're trapped into saying things like "pain" isn't suffering or trauma isn't suffering or animals and infants don't suffer. I'll take your word that something does cease, not being awake. It used to be that I somehow saw myself as better than my Christian, Muslim, Buddhist, non practicing, "unenlightened" folk around me. I find that in my sufering I've acquired a certain appreciation for others. For whatever it's worth I don't want to convince you of anything. Not of a conceptual point about the vocabulary, nor of some subjective personal point about myself. That's what they all say. I am interested, though, in making clear that I don't think suffering is an illusion or that it can be defined, in narrow or any other objective terms. I haven't seen any of the others that I generally agree with here say that suffering is an illusion, and while I might disagree with them about the definition of suffering, I see that as a disagreement about the semantics of "pointing". They might be using concise terminology, but it makes reference to some heavy-duty notions that bring alot along for the ride. And I can see that clearly now. I'm just more familiar with talking about the other end of the stick, i.e. thriving and well-being. And that end of the stick seems a lot more clear-cut (at least to me). But the conversation so far was quite enlightening. So, thanks for all the new insights.
|
|
|
Post by Reefs on Mar 4, 2018 23:12:57 GMT -5
Suppose there's a war and no one shows up. Then what? BTW how did that landlord situation you mentioned a few days ago turn out? Exactly as you predicted? yeah it unfolded as I had felt. If I decide to argue a subject and the other person doesn't show up, it can go different ways. In this case, it's not a strong and congruent desire, so 'no show' is fine. That's really what the capacity to argue boils down to isn't it, it's the amount of satisfaction one finds in arguing a particular point. And I guess one has to find satisfaction in arguing itself. Right, no strong preferences. What you are describing, conceptualizing it and even verbalizing it is what ZD would call mind chatter. And that's not even necessary. The arriving at decisions can happen in a much more intuitive way. But I agree, thinking can be fun as well, playing around with ideas. It's part of the creative process. And as such it is fine. But if it becomes a way of life, when you start thinking your way thru life instead of feeling (or 'intuiting') your way thru life than it can become a burden and a source of suffering. And you seem to do a bit of both (as we probably all do) but with slightly more stress on the thinking part.
|
|