|
|
Post by sree on Jun 3, 2022 13:05:36 GMT -5
Cite me one existential belief (other than knowledge derived from the hard sciences) that claims your body is the only ruler. Your body is the only ruler. So, you think my assertion "Your body is the only ruler" is a belief and not a truth. The sad truth is, the whole world shares your perception. And that is why we, the self, have become the ruler of the body which we can use as a tool.
The self, on the other hand, is not just a person but is limitless: whatever you want it to be. And this is your belief, your idea of spirituality?
|
|
|
|
Post by sree on Jun 3, 2022 22:42:28 GMT -5
Your familiarity with JK's work is good for our discussion on a matter important to me. My approach to fathoming the nature of the self is outside the paradigms of academic philosophy (metaphysics) and religious ideology (spiritualism). Both these paradigms are the product of culture which, as you have pointed out, conditions our points of view.
Fundamental inquiry into the self, the observer that is what I am, has a cause: the disease of human existence. Mankind is sick, and I must find a cure for this malaise However, if I cannot be free of the paradigms of culture, which is the root of our sickness, then my inquiry won't bear fruit. Krishnamurti's record of his abnormal perceptual experience is the only thing of curiosity to me. His so-called teaching has no value, as far as I am concerned. Perception is a phenomenological fact. Consciousness is an idea, "a product of thought" (Krishnamurti). Inquiry, therefore, is the empirical study of facts related to the examination of the nature of perception.
The sole reason as to why we don't have the truth about anything is because we can't see straight. All points of views are politically biased and conditioned by culture, as you pointed out. But no one wants to take off his/her screwed up second hand eyeglasses handed down through the ages and messed up by modern day intellectuals. If I were to hold up something that I think is the truth, are you willing to tell me what you see?
Yes, sure. I dread subjecting you to another bout of Krishnamurti teaching. This short 16 minute video below is about eliminating the observer.
Simply put, perception is the ability to become aware of something. Awareness is only possible through cognition. Without cognition, which is the processing and identification of captured sense data, perception is not possible. To recognize what is seen involves the past, the recall of knowledge, experience captured in the memory. Perception, therefore, is recognition. This is the nature of consciousness.
The observer is part and parcel of existential reality, our way of life. This is the truth. What do you see?
|
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Jun 4, 2022 9:56:23 GMT -5
So, you think my assertion "Your body is the only ruler" is a belief and not a truth. The sad truth is, the whole world shares your perception. And that is why we, the self, have become the ruler of the body which we can use as a tool.
The self, on the other hand, is not just a person but is limitless: whatever you want it to be. And this is your belief, your idea of spirituality? Well, I'm not going to argue with you about what you consider a truth vs. your belief.  |
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Jun 4, 2022 10:03:56 GMT -5
None, really. I just live.  Seriously, I mean that. In retrospect, social roles are sometimes just a mundane and prosaic necessity, like when you interact with the IRS or the DMV. So that's like knowing how to tie your shoe. In the most important instances, say, in close relationships, I'd say the role is an after-the-fact description. It's not something I ever consciously play out as it's happening. Finally, at work, or, say, in a situation like a restaurant or an automechanic shop etc .., there can be some risk of loss, inconvenience or other pain involved if one doesn't respond to various stimuli as expected. So there can be some self-conscious adjustment, on a moment-to-moment basis, as things are happening, but that's generally, for the most part, rather minimal. None? Really? I like that. Seriously. Don't fool around. This is real meditation, as Krishnamurti would say. Ok, at the IRS, DMV, or the grocery store, you come on as whatever character you are expected to play in your reality show. You are acting consciously. In a close relationship with your father, mother or wife, you do what?
Me, I don't have personal relationships, neither in the real world out there nor here in cyber space where, as a rule, all interactions are out in open forum and none in personal messaging. It is not ethical. Lying cut both ways. If you are lying to your wife in a role as her husband, then you are corrupt. I am not trying to corner you. We are both figuring our way out of an existential web from which no one has escaped.
Well, as I've said in so many words already, there is no web, nothing to escape from, nowhere to go but here and now, and the one who would escape is a cognitive trick of the mind played via the device of identity. As far as close relationships and roles go, the thing about a "role" is it always involves some measure of pretending, rather than simply being. The question of doership is actually another way to phrase the question of self-inquiry. In practical terms, I'd guest that many or most people follow an arc in their lives where they pretend less and less as they get older in relating to others. There are many exceptions to this, of course. But I think Billy Shakes put it as well as anyone ever could. |
|
|
|
Post by stardustpilgrim on Jun 4, 2022 10:09:41 GMT -5
I dread subjecting you to another bout of Krishnamurti teaching. This short 16 minute video below is about eliminating the observer.
Simply put, perception is the ability to become aware of something. Awareness is only possible through cognition. Without cognition, which is the processing and identification of captured sense data, perception is not possible. To recognize what is seen involves the past, the recall of knowledge, experience captured in the memory. Perception, therefore, is recognition. This is the nature of consciousness.
The observer is part and parcel of existential reality, our way of life. This is the truth. What do you see?
Just now saw your post. I wanted to comment before I watch the video. I've studied perception pretty extensively, the neuroscience of perception. Paragraph 2 is exactly correct concerning how perception works. (There are different areas in the brain where sensory data from the five senses are sent for processing. For sight, the brain takes data points and constructs what we see. In part of the process, memory tells us what we are seeing). Will add just one thing here. J Krishnamurti was ahead of neuroscience. Before psychologists knew there was such a thing as neuroplasticity, JK spoke about actual changes in the brain taking place when we learn, or unlearn. In the '60's neuroscientists believed that once neural pathways were formed, they stayed as is throughout one's life. So when JK spoke about the brain cells changing he was going against the science of the time. |
|
|
|
Post by stardustpilgrim on Jun 4, 2022 11:24:06 GMT -5
I dread subjecting you to another bout of Krishnamurti teaching. This short 16 minute video below is about eliminating the observer.
Simply put, perception is the ability to become aware of something. Awareness is only possible through cognition. Without cognition, which is the processing and identification of captured sense data, perception is not possible. To recognize what is seen involves the past, the recall of knowledge, experience captured in the memory. Perception, therefore, is recognition. This is the nature of consciousness.
The observer is part and parcel of existential reality, our way of life. This is the truth. What do you see?
If you go back to page one the 5th post you will see that I tried to raise this very question to Krishnamurti. My question, I was there. I watched again just now only the beginning. But this very question is almost the whole of Krishnamurti, if you get this you get almost everything that can be gotten out of JK. (This is in fact what zd continually points to, and what his ATA-T is all about, what nonduality is all about). So I agreed then, 42 years ago, still agree, as far as JK goes. In the present moment, the observer is not. (self = observer, so in the present moment, self is not). But yes, the past as the observer (the observer as the observed) continually ~resurfaces~ and tries to take control. I could recommend this video to anybody. Other places JK says we clearly need to make a distinction between knowledge which is necessary to function in life, and the past as the psychological self/(observer), which will always bring conflict. So the problem becomes, how can one live without the psychological self-baggage (which one is), continually? If you have solved that then you have a most excellent life. (Have you?) If we are still in disagreement, I'm very open to exploring this further. |
|
|
|
Post by sree on Jun 4, 2022 16:36:04 GMT -5
I dread subjecting you to another bout of Krishnamurti teaching. This short 16 minute video below is about eliminating the observer.
Simply put, perception is the ability to become aware of something. Awareness is only possible through cognition. Without cognition, which is the processing and identification of captured sense data, perception is not possible. To recognize what is seen involves the past, the recall of knowledge, experience captured in the memory. Perception, therefore, is recognition. This is the nature of consciousness.
The observer is part and parcel of existential reality, our way of life. This is the truth. What do you see?
If you go back to page one the 5th post you will see that I tried to raise this very question to Krishnamurti. My question, I was there. I watched again just now only the beginning. But this very question is almost the whole of Krishnamurti, if you get this you get almost everything that can be gotten out of JK. (This is in fact what zd continually points to, and what his ATA-T is all about, what nonduality is all about). So I agreed then, 42 years ago, still agree, as far as JK goes. In the present moment, the observer is not. (self = observer, so in the present moment, self is not). But yes, the past as the observer (the observer as the observed) continually ~resurfaces~ and tries to take control. I could recommend this video to anybody. Other places JK says we clearly need to make a distinction between knowledge which is necessary to function in life, and the past as the psychological self/(observer), which will always bring conflict. So the problem becomes, how can one live without the psychological self-baggage (which one is), continually? If you have solved that then you have a most excellent life. (Have you?) If we are still in disagreement, I'm very open to exploring this further. I have gotten nothing out of JK. I like listening to him, though; mainly because his focus was on the human condition, a matter of vital interest to me.
My issue with Krishnamurti is how he presented the existential problem. He dismissed conventional spirituality as a product of thought. I agree with that. It is when he got down to the nitty-gritty of the observer as the center of observation that he muddied the water.
The so-called psychological self-baggage is part and parcel of the phenomenon of perception. Without the "baggage" (i.e. database), there is no perception. The computer reads the file and uses the information to plot the image on the screen. This is similar to the generation of awareness through the cognitive process. Listening to Krishnamurti's explanation is like listening to a village idiot. Nothing made sense. No wonder Bohm couldn't get it. After struggling for years, I had to reject Krishnamurti's prescribed cure for our existential disease.
The incidence of the observer in relation to the observed is a natural presentation of the world in which we live. However, the incidence of the American observer (the good guy) in relation to the observed Russian (the bad guy) is not a natural but a neurotic version of reality. Therefore, getting rid of the observer is the wrong call. Without the observer, even Jesus cannot navigate his way to the bathroom. The right cure is a clean-up of corrupted files on the hard drive.
Getting rid of the bugs in the psychological self-baggage is fine but the self is necessary for living a sane life. The "no self" state is insane.
|
|
|
|
Post by stardustpilgrim on Jun 4, 2022 19:01:34 GMT -5
If you go back to page one the 5th post you will see that I tried to raise this very question to Krishnamurti. My question, I was there. I watched again just now only the beginning. But this very question is almost the whole of Krishnamurti, if you get this you get almost everything that can be gotten out of JK. (This is in fact what zd continually points to, and what his ATA-T is all about, what nonduality is all about). So I agreed then, 42 years ago, still agree, as far as JK goes. In the present moment, the observer is not. (self = observer, so in the present moment, self is not). But yes, the past as the observer (the observer as the observed) continually ~resurfaces~ and tries to take control. I could recommend this video to anybody. Other places JK says we clearly need to make a distinction between knowledge which is necessary to function in life, and the past as the psychological self/(observer), which will always bring conflict. So the problem becomes, how can one live without the psychological self-baggage (which one is), continually? If you have solved that then you have a most excellent life. (Have you?) If we are still in disagreement, I'm very open to exploring this further. I have gotten nothing out of JK. I like listening to him, though; mainly because his focus was on the human condition, a matter of vital interest to me.
My issue with Krishnamurti is how he presented the existential problem. He dismissed conventional spirituality as a product of thought. I agree with that. It is when he got down to the nitty-gritty of the observer as the center of observation that he muddied the water. The so-called psychological self-baggage is part and parcel of the phenomenon of perception. Without the "baggage" (i.e. database), there is no perception. The computer reads the file and uses the information to plot the image on the screen. This is similar to the generation of awareness through the cognitive process. Listening to Krishnamurti's explanation is like listening to a village idiot. Nothing made sense. No wonder Bohm couldn't get it. After struggling for years, I had to reject Krishnamurti's prescribed cure for our existential disease. The incidence of the observer in relation to the observed is a natural presentation of the world in which we live. However, the incidence of the American observer (the good guy) in relation to the observed Russian (the bad guy) is not a natural but a neurotic version of reality. Therefore, getting rid of the observer is the wrong call. Without the observer, even Jesus cannot navigate his way to the bathroom. The right cure is a clean-up of corrupted files on the hard drive.
Getting rid of the bugs in the psychological self-baggage is fine but the self is necessary for living a sane life. The "no self" state is insane.
So what is your direction now? What are you looking for? What is your aim in life? Do you have a good question? |
|
|
|
Post by sree on Jun 4, 2022 19:15:06 GMT -5
You may be associating my rainbow experience with conventional spirituality that abscissa said (in her post 74) has nothing to do with an inquiry into why people are crazy. Spirituality of the Krishnamurti kind does inquire into why people are crazy; not clinical craziness but fundamental craziness. Let me explain the distinction between the two. I turned on the TV this morning and across the screen was the trooping of the colors, a splash of pomp and circumstance viewed probably across the entire western world: the platinum jubilee celebration of 75 years on the British Throne. This must be the mother of all anniversary celebrations by people who are not clinically crazy but fundamentally crazy. Do you get the drift?
It's impossible to wake up from delusion if you are the person at the center of all that conditioning for 75 years affirming that you are the Queen of England. None of us can wake up from our roles as Joe Blows, who are merely centers of their respective families and tiny circles of friends. Try imagining her being the Defender of the Faith, Head of the Commonwealth, and Monarch of the British realm when she sits on the throne in her bathroom clearing out her gut. Your body is the only ruler. If this reminder doesn't wake you up, nothing will. My rainbow experience did only one thing. It rattled my perception of reality momentarily. It was an awakening to the cause of fundamental craziness: the perception of being a person, an observer separate from the observed.
I don't deny my individuality as a person in the world. Living in this world is like line dancing. I keep in step with every fundamentally crazy son of a gun on the planet. If I don't, folks like abscissa would tell me to see a therapist who would use psychology to inquire into why I act crazy. Do I talk crazy?
No, it doesn't sound crazy to me. But, what I said is that there is a depth of potential experience similar to your rainbow tale. I can recognize something in what you described: a subtly altered state of consciousness. These experiences come with a matter of degree, and some involve realizations that shift the existential perspective. This notion that "your body is the only ruler" is quite a limiting view, similar to any one of a number of existential beliefs. Absicca mentioned acausality, and that acausality is with regard to existential realization. As in, you cannot force such a realization, there is no cookbook or blueprint for it. But this is not a commutative operation, as we can certainly say what obscures such a realization, and existential beliefs do exactly that. And, perhaps most importantly, there are things one can do to precipitate these types of experiences, just no guarantees with respect to the realization. Sure, I can imagine being a monarch, and I can tell you, the social roles one plays are, unlike the existential beliefs, no such impediment to realization. Altered state of consciousness? Are you referring to my consciousness as opposed to your consciousness or Joe Biden's consciousness?
I don't think just because we are Americans, human consciousness for mankind is defined by the US Constitution.
Consciousness, in my opinion, is a stream in which all mankind lives ( as characterized by Krishnamurti). It is not a personal consciousness protected by the First Amendment and imbued with the right to life, freedom, and the pursuit of happiness.
An altered state of consciousness is a universal change that affects all mankind. My rainbow effect did not alter "my consciousness". It was a jog, a nudge, in my perception. And it caused me to reflect, investigate, inquire into why you are so damn sure you are correct about yourself. You follow?
|
|
|
|
Post by sree on Jun 4, 2022 19:23:34 GMT -5
I have gotten nothing out of JK. I like listening to him, though; mainly because his focus was on the human condition, a matter of vital interest to me.
My issue with Krishnamurti is how he presented the existential problem. He dismissed conventional spirituality as a product of thought. I agree with that. It is when he got down to the nitty-gritty of the observer as the center of observation that he muddied the water. The so-called psychological self-baggage is part and parcel of the phenomenon of perception. Without the "baggage" (i.e. database), there is no perception. The computer reads the file and uses the information to plot the image on the screen. This is similar to the generation of awareness through the cognitive process. Listening to Krishnamurti's explanation is like listening to a village idiot. Nothing made sense. No wonder Bohm couldn't get it. After struggling for years, I had to reject Krishnamurti's prescribed cure for our existential disease. The incidence of the observer in relation to the observed is a natural presentation of the world in which we live. However, the incidence of the American observer (the good guy) in relation to the observed Russian (the bad guy) is not a natural but a neurotic version of reality. Therefore, getting rid of the observer is the wrong call. Without the observer, even Jesus cannot navigate his way to the bathroom. The right cure is a clean-up of corrupted files on the hard drive.
Getting rid of the bugs in the psychological self-baggage is fine but the self is necessary for living a sane life. The "no self" state is insane.
So what is your direction now? What are you looking for? What is your aim in life? Do you have a good question? What do you mean by a good question?
I appreciate your engagement in this dialogue. You are obviously a serious inquirer. And because you are familiar with Krishnamurti, it makes our collaborative effort so much more effective in making a breakthrough. And for that, I am grateful.
My direction? I wish I know. But in hindsight, looking at the tracks I made ever since I gave up conventional life in response to Krishnamurti's call to "find out", I have no regrets.
|
|
|
|
Post by stardustpilgrim on Jun 4, 2022 19:46:29 GMT -5
So what is your direction now? What are you looking for? What is your aim in life? Do you have a good question? What do you mean by a good question?
I appreciate your engagement in this dialogue. You are obviously a serious inquirer. And because you are familiar with Krishnamurti, it makes our collaborative effort so much more effective in making a breakthrough. And for that, I am grateful. My direction? I wish I know. But in hindsight, looking at the tracks I made ever since I gave up conventional life in response to Krishnamurti's call to "find out", I have no regrets.
Ultimately, anyone has to come to their own answers. Even if you could ask the wisest man on earth or a "Highest Intelligence" any question, you would still have to verify whatever answer was given, make it your own. So, hypothetically, say you could ask one question, and get a real and accurate answer, what would you ask? That's what I mean. I think it's quite admirable that you gave up a conventional life, in pursuit... |
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Jun 5, 2022 5:57:51 GMT -5
No, it doesn't sound crazy to me. But, what I said is that there is a depth of potential experience similar to your rainbow tale. I can recognize something in what you described: a subtly altered state of consciousness. These experiences come with a matter of degree, and some involve realizations that shift the existential perspective. This notion that "your body is the only ruler" is quite a limiting view, similar to any one of a number of existential beliefs. Absicca mentioned acausality, and that acausality is with regard to existential realization. As in, you cannot force such a realization, there is no cookbook or blueprint for it. But this is not a commutative operation, as we can certainly say what obscures such a realization, and existential beliefs do exactly that. And, perhaps most importantly, there are things one can do to precipitate these types of experiences, just no guarantees with respect to the realization. Sure, I can imagine being a monarch, and I can tell you, the social roles one plays are, unlike the existential beliefs, no such impediment to realization. Altered state of consciousness? Are you referring to my consciousness as opposed to your consciousness or Joe Biden's consciousness?
I don't think just because we are Americans, human consciousness for mankind is defined by the US Constitution.
Consciousness, in my opinion, is a stream in which all mankind lives ( as characterized by Krishnamurti). It is not a personal consciousness protected by the First Amendment and imbued with the right to life, freedom, and the pursuit of happiness. An altered state of consciousness is a universal change that affects all mankind. My rainbow effect did not alter "my consciousness". It was a jog, a nudge, in my perception. And it caused me to reflect, investigate, inquire into why you are so damn sure you are correct about yourself. You follow?
I'm neither certain nor uncertain, and, in existential terms, there is nothing to be correct about. |
|
|
|
Post by sree on Jun 5, 2022 15:22:20 GMT -5
What do you mean by a good question?
I appreciate your engagement in this dialogue. You are obviously a serious inquirer. And because you are familiar with Krishnamurti, it makes our collaborative effort so much more effective in making a breakthrough. And for that, I am grateful. My direction? I wish I know. But in hindsight, looking at the tracks I made ever since I gave up conventional life in response to Krishnamurti's call to "find out", I have no regrets.
Ultimately, anyone has to come to their own answers. Even if you could ask the wisest man on earth or a "Highest Intelligence" any question, you would still have to verify whatever answer was given, make it your own. So, hypothetically, say you could ask one question, and get a real and accurate answer, what would you ask? That's what I mean. I think it's quite admirable that you gave up a conventional life, in pursuit... Living a conventional life was like being in a loveless relationship between two fake parties: me and the material world (in which I lived).
This is an aside. I want to point out that a meaningful conversation is worthwhile in itself. It's like the flow of a stream that nourishes regardless of whether or not it provides answers.
This just struck me. Selflessness is not a viable existential state (of material reality) in which the observer is absent. Thought is necessary for the daily living of practical life in which the observer is at the center.
Self-forgetfulness is another matter. It can be "a state of awareness in which the self is not", as Krishnamurti phrased it.
The existential state (of material reality) is ever-present 24/7 if you are conditioned by knowledge to believe that you are a biological organism (i.e. human body) living in a material world defined by science. This is the consensus worldview that maintains the default position of the observer in conducting one's relationship with everything and everyone in conventional life.
Giving up conventional life amounted to "stepping out of the stream of consciousness in which mankind lives" (Krishnamurti). Does this mean that I have attained "existential realization" because I have experienced an "altered state of consciousness" that changed my "existential perspective" as laughter explained it? I would think so but not as imagined by laughter and his circle of conventional spiritualists.
You know what? The reason why "fundamental transformation" is impossible to realize is due to our mistaken belief of what it is. Additionally, Krishnamurti - through his impassioned plea, urging us to change - had unwittingly presented himself as the model of the transformed human being. And we believe it on account of our faith in conventional spirituality. Krishnamurti was a "living Buddha".
I realized that physical time is an illusion long before that circular rainbow appeared and clued me into the nature of physical space. It is not magic and I could write a technical paper to explain it. The magic is in the mystery of sensory perception that gives rise to our existence in this beautiful yet horrid world of suffering.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 16, 2022 9:39:44 GMT -5
If you go back to page one the 5th post you will see that I tried to raise this very question to Krishnamurti. My question, I was there. I watched again just now only the beginning. But this very question is almost the whole of Krishnamurti, if you get this you get almost everything that can be gotten out of JK. (This is in fact what zd continually points to, and what his ATA-T is all about, what nonduality is all about). So I agreed then, 42 years ago, still agree, as far as JK goes. In the present moment, the observer is not. (self = observer, so in the present moment, self is not). But yes, the past as the observer (the observer as the observed) continually ~resurfaces~ and tries to take control. I could recommend this video to anybody. Other places JK says we clearly need to make a distinction between knowledge which is necessary to function in life, and the past as the psychological self/(observer), which will always bring conflict. So the problem becomes, how can one live without the psychological self-baggage (which one is), continually? If you have solved that then you have a most excellent life. (Have you?) If we are still in disagreement, I'm very open to exploring this further. I have gotten nothing out of JK. I like listening to him, though; mainly because his focus was on the human condition, a matter of vital interest to me.
My issue with Krishnamurti is how he presented the existential problem. He dismissed conventional spirituality as a product of thought. I agree with that. It is when he got down to the nitty-gritty of the observer as the center of observation that he muddied the water. The so-called psychological self-baggage is part and parcel of the phenomenon of perception. Without the "baggage" (i.e. database), there is no perception. The computer reads the file and uses the information to plot the image on the screen. This is similar to the generation of awareness through the cognitive process. Listening to Krishnamurti's explanation is like listening to a village idiot. Nothing made sense. No wonder Bohm couldn't get it. After struggling for years, I had to reject Krishnamurti's prescribed cure for our existential disease. The incidence of the observer in relation to the observed is a natural presentation of the world in which we live. However, the incidence of the American observer (the good guy) in relation to the observed Russian (the bad guy) is not a natural but a neurotic version of reality. Therefore, getting rid of the observer is the wrong call. Without the observer, even Jesus cannot navigate his way to the bathroom. The right cure is a clean-up of corrupted files on the hard drive.
Getting rid of the bugs in the psychological self-baggage is fine but the self is necessary for living a sane life. The "no self" state is insane. Could you explain how that insanity is forming please? |
|
|
|
Post by sree on Jun 16, 2022 11:26:55 GMT -5
I have gotten nothing out of JK. I like listening to him, though; mainly because his focus was on the human condition, a matter of vital interest to me.
My issue with Krishnamurti is how he presented the existential problem. He dismissed conventional spirituality as a product of thought. I agree with that. It is when he got down to the nitty-gritty of the observer as the center of observation that he muddied the water. The so-called psychological self-baggage is part and parcel of the phenomenon of perception. Without the "baggage" (i.e. database), there is no perception. The computer reads the file and uses the information to plot the image on the screen. This is similar to the generation of awareness through the cognitive process. Listening to Krishnamurti's explanation is like listening to a village idiot. Nothing made sense. No wonder Bohm couldn't get it. After struggling for years, I had to reject Krishnamurti's prescribed cure for our existential disease. The incidence of the observer in relation to the observed is a natural presentation of the world in which we live. However, the incidence of the American observer (the good guy) in relation to the observed Russian (the bad guy) is not a natural but a neurotic version of reality. Therefore, getting rid of the observer is the wrong call. Without the observer, even Jesus cannot navigate his way to the bathroom. The right cure is a clean-up of corrupted files on the hard drive.
Getting rid of the bugs in the psychological self-baggage is fine but the self is necessary for living a sane life. The "no self" state is insane. Could you explain how that insanity is forming please? What is there to explain? "No self" means no observer.
Let's imagine that you are with your friend and he is flying you in his airplane to his home on Martha's Vineyard. He has a heart attack and goes unconsciousness. You don't know how to fly the damn thing but know enough to grab the flight radio and cry for help. The first question air traffic control will ask you is where your are at, your position. You follow?
The "no self" mantra is for astral travel. In the real world where sanity is, you've got to have a self, a center for navigating through a spatial domain.
|
|
Seriously, I mean that. In retrospect, social roles are sometimes just a mundane and prosaic necessity, like when you interact with the IRS or the DMV. So that's like knowing how to tie your shoe. In the most important instances, say, in close relationships, I'd say the role is an after-the-fact description. It's not something I ever consciously play out as it's happening. 