|
|
Post by stardustpilgrim on Jan 4, 2024 12:34:25 GMT -5
Do you think it's possible that something else could emerge from ATA-T inwardly (rather than 'outward') sensing, absent the minds conclusions clouding the view? I wonder if that was part of the 'advanced' practices.But yes, lots of futility is typically experienced in the journey/path. Joseph Campbell presented that well in his discussions on the Hero with a Thousand Faces, to reveal what's behind the mask. I haven't gotten around to listening to F aggin in full, but got the gist of his descriptions while doing dishes. He's coming to terms with it, and may be able to present it in a way that a larger part of the scientific audience can relate to. Insh'allah let's see what happens. . ZD has always refused to consider this, as for ZD, there is no inside and no outside. However, energy flows where attention goes. Listed are the seven requirements for correct self-observation. ATA inwardly is self-observation (called active awareness in the quote). emerge is the key word. ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Chapter 2 The Activation of Consciousness The problem of the activation of human consciousness is one whose difficulty and sublety cannot be overemphasized. Especially is this so in the case of the naturally predisposed intellectualist or 'thinker,' for he is that type of man in whom the cortical activity of the correlation neurons is very complex and frequently intense also. This intensity, registered in his actually passive experience, makes it most difficult for him to recognize that the activity is not his own (this is ZD's recognition of the illusory nature of self, note sdp) but, instead, is that of his nervous system (the self-circuits, note sdp). To be sure, the purpose implied here is to make the activity his own eventually; but obviously, if he mistakenly assumes that it is now already his own (which is the case with most people, note sdp), nothing can be accomplished toward reversing the his really passive consciousness (the meaning of non-volition) until his mistaken opinion about its present nature has been reversed. A great many persons entertain the false belief that their consciousness is active when in fact all of the involved activity is simply neurological. One way in which to destroy the delusion (that we have volition, note sdp) is through careful and sincere reflection upon the true nature of the case (this doesn't work so well, note sdp); the other way is by means of the technique shortly to be described (the seven), through the practice of which anyone ( emphasis sdp) may become convinced that his behavior is mechanical and automatic, including his mental behavior. (that is, he has no volition, note sdp). Thus the first great difficulty is the false assumption that, because the thoughts are active, therefore the consciousness or conscious-relationship-to-them is active. If this does not arise from the mistaken identification of consciousness with thought process, it will often lead to it. But consciousness is no more to be identified with thought process (despite the latter's complexity) than with the knee jerk, or any other purely physiological, reflex. Thought process, too, is neurological activity (we could note here that Tenka calls all neurological activity, thought, sdp), but consciousness is the relationship to neurological activity which creates experience for the subject. (He's saying there consciousness is different and separate from thought-as-function, note sdp. And, basically, we can share thoughts with another, but as Federico Fa ggin found out, we can only know consciousness in ourselves, it can't be shared with another. This is also where Gopal is correct, technically, we can't know if others are *~real~* or not, we can only know we our self, is conscious, real). He gets deep into the weeds for two paragraphs about the functions, physical movement, sensory response, conceptual thinking and feelings/emotions, but emerges: The novel, and indeed the sole, activity in which the subject himself can engage purely upon his own initiative is an active awareness of all the aforementioned processes. (That is, what is it that a man (or woman, of course) can actually do?, note sdp) This may sound easy but it is indeed an extremely formidable undertaking even to understand the exact meaning of such a type of awareness. Our usual awareness is an automatic response to predetermined stimulation and it is precisely this type of awareness that is passive in character and that defines our passive type of consciousness. (Again, the meaning here is that we have no volition, passive means it merely happens). What is indicated now is an active type of awareness; and the reversed distinction is highly difficult to apprehend. Of what is one to be aware in this fashion? There is only a single entity of which one can be aware directly, and that is one's own body (this is what lolly has discovered, so he is more on the right track than others here). pages 29, 30, 31, The Human States of Consciousness by C. Daly King, 1963. King was a student of AR Orage, a student of Gurdjieff. ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Here are the seven requirements for correct self-observation, mentioned in the quote above. King uses the term active awareness. ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ We may summarize the characteristics of active awareness as: 1. excluding any element of criticism; 2. excluding any element of tutorialness (not having any idea of self-teaching or learning-from, note sdp, inavalan can look up the word for us); 3. excluding any element of analysis or other mental process (for Tenka, that means no conceptualization of any kind); 4. involving a complete non-identification from the organism; 5. being directed only toward the prescribed area of objectivity (this was someNOTHING's question, note sdp); 6. involving the mediation of all sensations appropriate to its objects; 7. not being limited in its exercise to any special times or places. The core of this technique and by far its most important feature lies in its fourth definitory characteristic, the attitude of non-identification from which it is exercised. This objectivizing the 'I'-entity (what we call the self, or person, the small s self, note sdp) by setting it to one side while the organic body is set to the other side, involves in the first place a distinct division of our energies of attention. ...It implies also the possibility of a state of consciousness beyond our ordinary present experience, of greater clarity and extent than the waking state to which we are accustomed. ...all seven defining characteristic, as rigorously described above, must be present without fail if active awareness is to be exercised. If a single characteristic be lacking, then, whatever may be taking place, it cannot, by definition, be active awareness. pages 40, 41 ( emphasis sdp) ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ And all this is why Zen answers come from the body, and not the thing above the shoulders (the intellectual center, which is actually the weakest center in most people). This is also why Albert Low mentions Gurdjieff at least once in all his books, he had an interesting link to Gurdjieff. It is also why Charlotte Joko Beck said she learned more from The Supreme Doctrine, by Hubert Benoit, than from any teacher. Going to emphasize a few things for laughter, he may or may not be interested. (Bazinga, I don't know how to otherwise single out a post, to link). I find it quite interesting that two posts so closely related came up within about 12 hours of each other. |
|
|
|
Post by stardustpilgrim on Jan 4, 2024 12:45:09 GMT -5
Ok, told the Tolle tale many times past, the readers digest version is: had no knowledge of meditation, nonduality and only a vague notion of Eastern metaphysical thought or even Western philosophy at the time. Tolle suggests meditation in Now, of various forms (mostly moving/eyes open) without calling it meditation. The result for me after a few weeks was a total-bliss-out, and a complete quelling of my interests in history and science. Lucky beginner's mind. Months later I was all like " wow .. what was that??  ". That's the prelude. Looking back, that's when seeking and self-inquiry went from subconscious to conscious. I landed at the forum I describe here. At the time it was #1 on the google result for "Tolle discussion". There was a moderator, Sighclone Andy, he posted something simple (to everyone) that went along the lines of: "if you think your thoughts are 'yours', this is incorrect", and I thought that a bit extreme, but was surprised that I had to sorta' agree with it. Then I started debating the evil frog about free will. The idea of free will is so embedded into the culture that I grew up in that I never considered the idea before then. I was surprised that all the arguments that I made against the frog had to dead-end on negating the notion of predetermination. I couldn't deny the direct experience of the absence of self-reference from the bliss-out. I couldn't make a sincere argument for free will, because I couldn't make a sincere argument in favor of an individuated entity that was the source of the "will". This sort of shocked me, at the time. Sighclone Andy was generally supportive of my position in the argument, but at the same time didn't directly contradict the frog. Andy recommended The Iron Cow of Zen. This mind was later informed of the glorious confusion that can be had at the top of the flag pole.  Just an interesting correspondence, linking an earlier post (just above), suitably bolded correspondence, two subjects. laughter may or may not be interested. All this also answers tenka's concern (at least speaks to) that there is a personal person, and zazeniac's walk on the tightrope. |
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Jan 5, 2024 5:20:12 GMT -5
Bingo. ZD has always refused to consider this, as for ZD, there is no inside and no outside. However, energy flows where attention goes. Listed are the seven requirements for correct self-observation. ATA inwardly is self-observation (called active awareness in the quote). emerge is the key word. ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Chapter 2 The Activation of Consciousness The problem of the activation of human consciousness is one whose difficulty and sublety cannot be overemphasized. Especially is this so in the case of the naturally predisposed intellectualist or 'thinker,' for he is that type of man in whom the cortical activity of the correlation neurons is very complex and frequently intense also. This intensity, registered in his actually passive experience, makes it most difficult for him to recognize that the activity is not his own (this is ZD's recognition of the illusory nature of self, note sdp) but, instead, is that of his nervous system (the self-circuits, note sdp). To be sure, the purpose implied here is to make the activity his own eventually; but obviously, if he mistakenly assumes that it is now already his own (which is the case with most people, note sdp), nothing can be accomplished toward reversing the his really passive consciousness (the meaning of non-volition) until his mistaken opinion about its present nature has been reversed. A great many persons entertain the false belief that their consciousness is active when in fact all of the involved activity is simply neurological. One way in which to destroy the delusion (that we have volition, note sdp) is through careful and sincere reflection upon the true nature of the case (this doesn't work so well, note sdp); the other way is by means of the technique shortly to be described (the seven), through the practice of which anyone ( emphasis sdp) may become convinced that his behavior is mechanical and automatic, including his mental behavior. (that is, he has no volition, note sdp). Thus the first great difficulty is the false assumption that, because the thoughts are active, therefore the consciousness or conscious-relationship-to-them is active. If this does not arise from the mistaken identification of consciousness with thought process, it will often lead to it. But consciousness is no more to be identified with thought process (despite the latter's complexity) than with the knee jerk, or any other purely physiological, reflex. Thought process, too, is neurological activity (we could note here that Tenka calls all neurological activity, thought, sdp), but consciousness is the relationship to neurological activity which creates experience for the subject. (He's saying there consciousness is different and separate from thought-as-function, note sdp. And, basically, we can share thoughts with another, but as Federico Fa ggin found out, we can only know consciousness in ourselves, it can't be shared with another. This is also where Gopal is correct, technically, we can't know if others are *~real~* or not, we can only know we our self, is conscious, real). He gets deep into the weeds for two paragraphs about the functions, physical movement, sensory response, conceptual thinking and feelings/emotions, but emerges: The novel, and indeed the sole, activity in which the subject himself can engage purely upon his own initiative is an active awareness of all the aforementioned processes. (That is, what is it that a man (or woman, of course) can actually do?, note sdp) This may sound easy but it is indeed an extremely formidable undertaking even to understand the exact meaning of such a type of awareness. Our usual awareness is an automatic response to predetermined stimulation and it is precisely this type of awareness that is passive in character and that defines our passive type of consciousness. (Again, the meaning here is that we have no volition, passive means it merely happens). What is indicated now is an active type of awareness; and the reversed distinction is highly difficult to apprehend. Of what is one to be aware in this fashion? There is only a single entity of which one can be aware directly, and that is one's own body (this is what lolly has discovered, so he is more on the right track than others here). pages 29, 30, 31, The Human States of Consciousness by C. Daly King, 1963. King was a student of AR Orage, a student of Gurdjieff. ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Here are the seven requirements for correct self-observation, mentioned in the quote above. King uses the term active awareness. ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ We may summarize the characteristics of active awareness as: 1. excluding any element of criticism; 2. excluding any element of tutorialness (not having any idea of self-teaching or learning-from, note sdp, inavalan can look up the word for us); 3. excluding any element of analysis or other mental process (for Tenka, that means no conceptualization of any kind); 4. involving a complete non-identification from the organism; 5. being directed only toward the prescribed area of objectivity (this was someNOTHING's question, note sdp); 6. involving the mediation of all sensations appropriate to its objects; 7. not being limited in its exercise to any special times or places. The core of this technique and by far its most important feature lies in its fourth definitory characteristic, the attitude of non-identification from which it is exercised. This objectivizing the 'I'-entity (what we call the self, or person, the small s self, note sdp) by setting it to one side while the organic body is set to the other side, involves in the first place a distinct division of our energies of attention. ...It implies also the possibility of a state of consciousness beyond our ordinary present experience, of greater clarity and extent than the waking state to which we are accustomed. ...all seven defining characteristic, as rigorously described above, must be present without fail if active awareness is to be exercised. If a single characteristic be lacking, then, whatever may be taking place, it cannot, by definition, be active awareness. pages 40, 41 ( emphasis sdp) ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ And all this is why Zen answers come from the body, and not the thing above the shoulders (the intellectual center, which is actually the weakest center in most people). This is also why Albert Low mentions Gurdjieff at least once in all his books, he had an interesting link to Gurdjieff. It is also why Charlotte Joko Beck said she learned more from The Supreme Doctrine, by Hubert Benoit, than from any teacher. Going to emphasize a few things for laughter, he may or may not be interested. (Bazinga, I don't know how to otherwise single out a post, to link). I find it quite interesting that two posts so closely related came up within about 12 hours of each other. This is a functional definition of nonvolition. Those are the images on the side of Plato's cave. You, are not a machine. This isn't to say that the 10 gazillionidy thimgamabobbies aren't interesting. Material insights such as the one you allude to here can also be profoundly practical. But metaphysically, there's always another side of the argument. The secular humanist consensus is that consciousness is a gestalt, an emergent phenomenon. If that's the case then we can say the experiments that measure the formation of a thought of intent, and locate the event after the action, are a similar expression of gestalt, and the brain process is just an expression of some other process with a (higher-level) noetic cause. I understand your an inavalen's basis for the idea of a "free will", in the big picture. I'm sure they're are many details each of you could enlighten me about. I've traced the dialog here all the way back to E's 2020 post, and this is where I'll join it: Found this in the poking around. Dimensions or a hierarchy of levels of being doesn't negate ND in any way whatsoever. I'd be curious to read how you might flip this statement in a way that expresses a pointer to ND. Or is that against one of your rules? .. to you: noone really disagrees with what you wrote there. The dimensions and hierarchies aren't negated. They are placed into context, into perspective. There's nothing wrong with spending a lifetime exploring them, refining your understanding and experience. But the notion of free will is premised on a dichotomy, and that dichotomy is, existentially speaking, a misconception. That doesn't mean that functionally speaking, you can't have an interesting and even potentially useful model and even practical engagement with that model, that includes "free will". The gestalt is the illusion, but I still like watching movies.  You seem to understand this point about the gestalt, but your understanding of "non-separation", based on the refrigerator experiment, is rooted in functionalism. This is one of those shadows. |
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Jan 5, 2024 5:34:08 GMT -5
Ok, told the Tolle tale many times past, the readers digest version is: had no knowledge of meditation, nonduality and only a vague notion of Eastern metaphysical thought or even Western philosophy at the time. Tolle suggests meditation in Now, of various forms (mostly moving/eyes open) without calling it meditation. The result for me after a few weeks was a total-bliss-out, and a complete quelling of my interests in history and science. Lucky beginner's mind. Months later I was all like " wow .. what was that?? ". That's the prelude. Looking back, that's when seeking and self-inquiry went from subconscious to conscious. I landed at the forum I describe here. At the time it was #1 on the google result for "Tolle discussion". There was a moderator, Sighclone Andy, he posted something simple (to everyone) that went along the lines of: "if you think your thoughts are 'yours', this is incorrect", and I thought that a bit extreme, but was surprised that I had to sorta' agree with it. Then I started debating the evil frog about free will. The idea of free will is so embedded into the culture that I grew up in that I never considered the idea before then. I was surprised that all the arguments that I made against the frog had to dead-end on negating the notion of predetermination. I couldn't deny the direct experience of the absence of self-reference from the bliss-out. I couldn't make a sincere argument for free will, because I couldn't make a sincere argument in favor of an individuated entity that was the source of the "will". This sort of shocked me, at the time. Sighclone Andy was generally supportive of my position in the argument, but at the same time didn't directly contradict the frog. Andy recommended The Iron Cow of Zen. This mind was later informed of the glorious confusion that can be had at the top of the flag pole. Just an interesting correspondence, linking an earlier post (just above), suitably bolded correspondence, two subjects. laughter may or may not be interested. All this also answers tenka's concern (at least speaks to) that there is a personal person, and zazeniac's walk on the tightrope. I was interested only in so far as to offer a few examples of "informing of mind". Your understanding of personality results in you writing about it in a way that I agree with, but we're coming at it in different ways. You express your understanding in terms of functionality. I consider that to be a shadow on the side of Plato's cave. The source of the shadow is what the Buddhists call "emptiness". People who point using emptiness are sometimes mistaken as dismissing the material and the relative as unimportant. "Spiritual bypassing". Now, bypassing is a thing, but not everyone pointing to emptiness is doing that. |
|
|
|
Post by stardustpilgrim on Jan 5, 2024 10:36:15 GMT -5
Going to emphasize a few things for laughter, he may or may not be interested. (Bazinga, I don't know how to otherwise single out a post, to link). I find it quite interesting that two posts so closely related came up within about 12 hours of each other. This is a functional definition of nonvolition. Those are the images on the side of Plato's cave. You, are not a machine. This isn't to say that the 10 gazillionidy thimgamabobbies aren't interesting. Material insights such as the one you allude to here can also be profoundly practical. But metaphysically, there's always another side of the argument. The secular humanist consensus is that consciousness is a gestalt, an emergent phenomenon. If that's the case then we can say the experiments that measure the formation of a thought of intent, and locate the event after the action, are a similar expression of gestalt, and the brain process is just an expression of some other process with a (higher-level) noetic cause. I understand your an inavalen's basis for the idea of a "free will", in the big picture. I'm sure they're are many details each of you could enlighten me about. I've traced the dialog here all the way back to E's 2020 post, and this is where I'll join it: I'd be curious to read how you might flip this statement in a way that expresses a pointer to ND. Or is that against one of your rules? .. to you: noone really disagrees with what you wrote there. The dimensions and hierarchies aren't negated. They are placed into context, into perspective. There's nothing wrong with spending a lifetime exploring them, refining your understanding and experience. But the notion of free will is premised on a dichotomy, and that dichotomy is, existentially speaking, a misconception. That doesn't mean that functionally speaking, you can't have an interesting and even potentially useful model and even practical engagement with that model, that includes "free will". The gestalt is the illusion, but I still like watching movies. You seem to understand this point about the gestalt, but your understanding of "non-separation", based on the refrigerator experiment, is rooted in functionalism. This is one of those shadows. Thanks for taking the time. I've been busy with something else for almost 3 hours, so my brain needs a rest. The refrigerator thought experiment was just a beginning, a theoretical toehold, a metaphor. |
|
|
|
Post by stardustpilgrim on Jan 5, 2024 10:37:57 GMT -5
Just an interesting correspondence, linking an earlier post (just above), suitably bolded correspondence, two subjects. laughter may or may not be interested. All this also answers tenka's concern (at least speaks to) that there is a personal person, and zazeniac's walk on the tightrope. I was interested only in so far as to offer a few examples of "informing of mind". Your understanding of personality results in you writing about it in a way that I agree with, but we're coming at it in different ways. You express your understanding in terms of functionality. I consider that to be a shadow on the side of Plato's cave. The source of the shadow is what the Buddhists call "emptiness". People who point using emptiness are sometimes mistaken as dismissing the material and the relative as unimportant. "Spiritual bypassing". Now, bypassing is a thing, but not everyone pointing to emptiness is doing that. Again, thanks for taking the time, I needed to get the other done first. |
|
|
|
Post by tenka on Jan 5, 2024 15:42:20 GMT -5
Ok, told the Tolle tale many times past, the readers digest version is: had no knowledge of meditation, nonduality and only a vague notion of Eastern metaphysical thought or even Western philosophy at the time. Tolle suggests meditation in Now, of various forms (mostly moving/eyes open) without calling it meditation. The result for me after a few weeks was a total-bliss-out, and a complete quelling of my interests in history and science. Lucky beginner's mind. Months later I was all like " wow .. what was that?? ". That's the prelude. Looking back, that's when seeking and self-inquiry went from subconscious to conscious. I landed at the forum I describe here. At the time it was #1 on the google result for "Tolle discussion". There was a moderator, Sighclone Andy, he posted something simple (to everyone) that went along the lines of: "if you think your thoughts are 'yours', this is incorrect", and I thought that a bit extreme, but was surprised that I had to sorta' agree with it. Then I started debating the evil frog about free will. The idea of free will is so embedded into the culture that I grew up in that I never considered the idea before then. I was surprised that all the arguments that I made against the frog had to dead-end on negating the notion of predetermination. I couldn't deny the direct experience of the absence of self-reference from the bliss-out. I couldn't make a sincere argument for free will, because I couldn't make a sincere argument in favor of an individuated entity that was the source of the "will". This sort of shocked me, at the time. Sighclone Andy was generally supportive of my position in the argument, but at the same time didn't directly contradict the frog. Andy recommended The Iron Cow of Zen. This mind was later informed of the glorious confusion that can be had at the top of the flag pole. Just an interesting correspondence, linking an earlier post (just above), suitably bolded correspondence, two subjects. laughter may or may not be interested. All this also answers tenka's concern (at least speaks to) that there is a personal person, and zazeniac's walk on the tightrope. There are so many N.D. guidelines that one can't say this or that. From the person that only exists as an illusory SVP leaves no room for there being a person that isn't a SVP, to one that has a spirit and soul etc etc. One has to follow the rule book. Free will emanates from the same rule book. You never really get straight answers, even if individual consciousness gets thrown in the mix, no-one knows what that is. As a foundation there isn't much to be certain of. I know lets have another poem or analogy |
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Jan 6, 2024 14:47:49 GMT -5
Just an interesting correspondence, linking an earlier post (just above), suitably bolded correspondence, two subjects. laughter may or may not be interested. All this also answers tenka's concern (at least speaks to) that there is a personal person, and zazeniac's walk on the tightrope. There are so many N.D. guidelines that one can't say this or that. From the person that only exists as an illusory SVP leaves no room for there being a person that isn't a SVP, to one that has a spirit and soul etc etc. One has to follow the rule book. Free will emanates from the same rule book. You never really get straight answers, even if individual consciousness gets thrown in the mix, no-one knows what that is. As a foundation there isn't much to be certain of. I know lets have another poem or analogy If a nonduality pointing erodes a foundation - any sort of foundation - then it's working. Guidbook? Rules? Nah.  |
|
|
|
Post by someNOTHING! on Jan 6, 2024 15:29:13 GMT -5
Going to emphasize a few things for laughter, he may or may not be interested. (Bazinga, I don't know how to otherwise single out a post, to link). I find it quite interesting that two posts so closely related came up within about 12 hours of each other. This is a functional definition of nonvolition. Those are the images on the side of Plato's cave. You, are not a machine. This isn't to say that the 10 gazillionidy thimgamabobbies aren't interesting. Material insights such as the one you allude to here can also be profoundly practical. But metaphysically, there's always another side of the argument. The secular humanist consensus is that consciousness is a gestalt, an emergent phenomenon. If that's the case then we can say the experiments that measure the formation of a thought of intent, and locate the event after the action, are a similar expression of gestalt, and the brain process is just an expression of some other process with a (higher-level) noetic cause. I understand your an inavalen's basis for the idea of a "free will", in the big picture. I'm sure they're are many details each of you could enlighten me about. I've traced the dialog here all the way back to E's 2020 post, and this is where I'll join it: I'd be curious to read how you might flip this statement in a way that expresses a pointer to ND. Or is that against one of your rules? .. to you: noone really disagrees with what you wrote there. The dimensions and hierarchies aren't negated. They are placed into context, into perspective. There's nothing wrong with spending a lifetime exploring them, refining your understanding and experience. But the notion of free will is premised on a dichotomy, and that dichotomy is, existentially speaking, a misconception. That doesn't mean that functionally speaking, you can't have an interesting and even potentially useful model and even practical engagement with that model, that includes "free will". The gestalt is the illusion, but I still like watching movies. You seem to understand this point about the gestalt, but your understanding of "non-separation", based on the refrigerator experiment, is rooted in functionalism. This is one of those shadows. That's a purddy nice application of how I was thinking the Plotinus model could (maybe) help clear up some misunderstandings, whether you are using it or not. In how I've been thinking about it (with respect to the convos/discussion here), it puts the perspective of the search as an 'upward' movement (in that model), while what one does (outside the search or after realization) is 'downward' from any 'height' on the flagpole. It seems that has been part of the confusion, anyway. Of course, any such model can make sense to mind, logically, as it's supposed to. Whereas, any potential pop at the top (peak experience/CC/satori/kensho/woowoo/etc) changes the calculus of cavernous thought, sometimes dramatically. That will still need to be brought into better light than found in the cave, which is what can really get the fire burning. Some of that plays out here in convos, methinks. 🔥 Once burned down sufficiently, more of a flow-like 'just THIS' attitude and clarity can rise above the ashes. |
|
You seem to understand this point about the gestalt, but your understanding of "non-separation", based on the refrigerator experiment, is rooted in functionalism. This is one of those shadows. 
