|
Post by laughter on Oct 11, 2020 16:27:43 GMT -5
I basically agree with this. Maybe I should clarify. By self here I don't mean a sense of self. What I mean is an identity, a story that is necessary to function in society, like a name, that identifies you as unique from others. If you don't have that, society doesn't know what to do with you. You can't be categorized, you don't fit in because you can't be assigned a place in society and so you cannot function in society. But sages can function very well in society, because they can remember their name and date of birth and vita when required, which means they can at least project a self when required, even though there may not be an actual sense of self the entire time. Let's say you fly to another country. On arrival, you are asked to fill out an arrival form with your name, date and place of birth, health condition, itinerary etc. You can do that easily. When they check your passport and ask you "So you are Bob from America?" you say "Yes, that's me." What you have done here is projecting a self. It's the only way you can get thru customs. If you wouldn't do that, they wouldn't know what to do with you and probably lock you away. That's what I mean by a self being required in order to function in society. Projecting a self is the most natural thing to do as adults (not so easy for little children though). And it's the only way to get along smoothly in a system of names and numbers. That doesn't mean though that there has to be a sense of actually being a name and a number, even though a lot of adults tend to identify as a name and a number at some point. Okay, but playing the devil's advocate, is the recognition and acceptance that other people imagine that everyone is a SVP, and appropriately responding to their ideas about that, the same as "projecting" anything? Even in the case of the passport/customs thingy no thought about self-identification needs to occur in order to satisfy the officials; the whole transaction can occur in internal silence. It can all happen without any form of reflection, and this is what Zen people call "thinking that is not-thinking" or "non-abidance in mind." IOW, a sage doesn't have to put on an act at being someone with an identity in order to interact intelligently with people in any situation. S/he knows directly, at an internalized subconscious level, what's going on in the same way that s/he knows what a tree IS without a conceptual overlay. I agree that everything can happen without a sense of self, but I'm questioning the idea that projection of a fictitious identity, as a psychological act, is what's happening. It seems simpler and more direct than that. If we consider someone like Ramana, did he ever say anything that would indicate the projection of a self in order to function within a social setting, or were his words and actions indicative of something more like blood cells knowing where to go next without the necessity of anything as abstract as intent? There is madness in this world, and the ego evolved as both the source and a coping mechanism for the madness, in a rather nasty self-reinforcing feedback loop. It's quite a subtle reverberation to consider the question of whether any conscious engagement with the madness is ever really necessary. At the extremes, it's certainly easy to set aside any question of self when one is near the top of Maslow's hierarchy. Remember: Gary describes running a meeting (in a thought-free state), as the director of his laboratory. On the other end of that spectrum, some of the most stressful situations can force flow, and you can even see that as having been institutionalized by the Christians in the past. As with any form of the existential question, "do I need self?" is best approached, with silence. But I think the question of whether or not we project a self is a forgone conclusion. For as long as there are people-peeps, this is going to happen.
|
|
|
Post by inavalan on Oct 11, 2020 16:50:19 GMT -5
Interesting. I believe that the point that "there is no birth and no death for YOU" hence "what does this karma and reincarnation business have to do with YOU?" misses that there is a reason for which we are here. It is like saying that whatever you dream has nothing to do with the awake you, which I believe to be incorrect. The fact that many of us ignore the connection between our dreams and our awake selves, doesn't mean that there isn't a connection. Even more, ignorance of that connection is detrimental both to you and YOU. Also "ultimate stateless state of being" besides being an oxymoron, this is like if I don't understand beyond that point then there is nothing over there. I agree that we should recognize our intellectual and intuitive limitations, that we should be careful not to convert our beliefs and expectations into truths, that pushing beyond a limit is futile, but I disagree that if we can't know everything then what we can know is less valuable even unimportant (as the "nullifying bliss" seems to promote). There is formless okay; there is beyond our physical senses of course, but this should entice us to wish, and push to know beyond form, and beyond the physical senses. There is direct knowledge. Secular humanist culture is no stranger to a sense of awe, which is where the turn from intellect to emotions [1], and a connection to something deeper, wider and non-material can be found within that culture. One common conclusion they come to is that the reason for consciousness is so " that the Universe may see and know itself" [2]. What are your thoughts on that? To be clear, this was an answer to that question that I subscribed to at one point, but wouldn't necessarily advocate for in most situations these days. I'm just genuinely curious as to your reaction to it at this particular point of the dialog. [1] The way I define and differentiate these terms, in everything and at very level and sublevel, there is an incomplete progression: instincts, emotions, intellect, intuition. Man mastered instincts, is dominated by emotions, started to develop intellect, mostly has no working intuition. Man's life goes through same progression with large variations among individuals, groups of people, nations, etc.. [2] I don't personify the universe in any possible accept I can think of. I believe that in the multidimensional universe (I guess that's what you referred to), made of consciousness, every point of awareness follows a process of evolvement, of which I can't understand beyond the progression mentioned above [1]. All my beliefs are sourced from my inner source of knowledge and guidance, so at some point I asked what is beyond, what is the ultimate scope, and I understood that my source although understands more than I do, is still ignorant beyond a point, but that that's okay, it's infinite. I asked questions about widely talked opinions like "experiencing everything", "knowing itself", "unconditional love", "god", and I understood that all are wishful thinking, misinterpretations of concepts that leaked into our conscious, and that slow down our individual evolvement. The closest, in relation to what you asked, comes Seth's concept of "value fulfillment" of every point of awareness. So, as far as I can say, there isn't a Universe aware of itself, but an infinity of points of awareness in various degrees of evolvement.
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Oct 11, 2020 20:03:24 GMT -5
Secular humanist culture is no stranger to a sense of awe, which is where the turn from intellect to emotions [1], and a connection to something deeper, wider and non-material can be found within that culture. One common conclusion they come to is that the reason for consciousness is so " that the Universe may see and know itself" [2]. What are your thoughts on that? To be clear, this was an answer to that question that I subscribed to at one point, but wouldn't necessarily advocate for in most situations these days. I'm just genuinely curious as to your reaction to it at this particular point of the dialog. [1] The way I define and differentiate these terms, in everything and at very level and sublevel, there is an incomplete progression: instincts, emotions, intellect, intuition. Man mastered instincts, is dominated by emotions, started to develop intellect, mostly has no working intuition. Man's life goes through same progression with large variations among individuals, groups of people, nations, etc.. [2] I don't personify the universe in any possible accept I can think of. I believe that in the multidimensional universe (I guess that's what you referred to), made of consciousness, every point of awareness follows a process of evolvement, of which I can't understand beyond the progression mentioned above [1]. All my beliefs are sourced from my inner source of knowledge and guidance, so at some point I asked what is beyond, what is the ultimate scope, and I understood that my source although understands more than I do, is still ignorant beyond a point, but that that's okay, it's infinite. I asked questions about widely talked opinions like "experiencing everything", "knowing itself", "unconditional love", "god", and I understood that all are wishful thinking, misinterpretations of concepts that leaked into our conscious, and that slow down our individual evolvement. The closest, in relation to what you asked, comes Seth's concept of "value fulfillment" of every point of awareness. So, as far as I can say, there isn't a Universe aware of itself, but an infinity of points of awareness in various degrees of evolvement. Well, I wouldn't necessarily infer/impute an objective reality at the core of the notion of "to see/know Itself", and it's actually the ultimate in impersonality, rather than a personalization. Now, as an aside, my referring to those different aspects of psyche were only motivational, not meant as definitional to the notion, which was limited to the question of existential meaning. So, I would infer that your inner-guidance reports a very different answer as to your metaphor of this reality as a school, than it does, those other notions?
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Oct 11, 2020 20:10:46 GMT -5
Read again. If I believed that you are genuinely interested, I would spend more time explaining. But you aren't. You want to prove me wrong, and I don't do that. I will read it again...several times... With no intention to offend invalan, it seems to me that this notion that there is nothing that isn't belief is ultimately rather unassailable by direct challenge, similar to the premise of solipsism, or even, along more prosaic lines, a common, egoic blind spot. I understand that he's come to the same conclusion about some of what some of us have written, as well. And I don't mean to imply, of course, that it's not worth pointing out disagreement with it, just that one shouldn't expect very much out of the act of doing the pointing, at least, in the short term, anyways.
|
|
|
Post by stardustpilgrim on Oct 11, 2020 20:32:36 GMT -5
I will read it again...several times... With no intention to offend invalan, it seems to me that this notion that there is nothing that isn't belief is ultimately rather unassailable by direct challenge, similar to the premise of solipsism, or even, along more prosaic lines, a common, egoic blind spot. I understand that he's come to the same conclusion about some of what some of us have written, as well. And I don't mean to imply, of course, that it's not worth pointing out disagreement with it, just that one shouldn't expect very much out of the act of doing the pointing, at least, in the short term, anyways. To each, their own.
|
|
|
Post by inavalan on Oct 11, 2020 20:42:36 GMT -5
[1] The way I define and differentiate these terms, in everything and at very level and sublevel, there is an incomplete progression: instincts, emotions, intellect, intuition. Man mastered instincts, is dominated by emotions, started to develop intellect, mostly has no working intuition. Man's life goes through same progression with large variations among individuals, groups of people, nations, etc.. [2] I don't personify the universe in any possible accept I can think of. I believe that in the multidimensional universe (I guess that's what you referred to), made of consciousness, every point of awareness follows a process of evolvement, of which I can't understand beyond the progression mentioned above [1]. All my beliefs are sourced from my inner source of knowledge and guidance, so at some point I asked what is beyond, what is the ultimate scope, and I understood that my source although understands more than I do, is still ignorant beyond a point, but that that's okay, it's infinite. I asked questions about widely talked opinions like "experiencing everything", "knowing itself", "unconditional love", "god", and I understood that all are wishful thinking, misinterpretations of concepts that leaked into our conscious, and that slow down our individual evolvement. The closest, in relation to what you asked, comes Seth's concept of "value fulfillment" of every point of awareness. So, as far as I can say, there isn't a Universe aware of itself, but an infinity of points of awareness in various degrees of evolvement. Well, I wouldn't necessarily infer/impute an objective reality at the core of the notion of "to see/know Itself", and it's actually the ultimate in impersonality, rather than a personalization. Now, as an aside, my referring to those different aspects of psyche were only motivational, not meant as definitional to the notion, which was limited to the question of existential meaning. So, I would infer that your inner-guidance reports a very different answer as to your metaphor of this reality as a school, than it does, those other notions?You might need to rephrase your question. I don't understand what you're asking / concluding. Generally, I believe there isn't a matter of "knowing itself", at any level. It is a matter of evolving itself. "Knowing itself" implies discovering yourself, which is different from changing yourself. There is pretty much nothing to discover about yourself. When you die you wake up to a you that is pretty much the you who died, in matters of "knowing"; not smarter, nor more intuitive, nor more in control of your emotions, having only a slightly wider perspective of what's happening, even after you shake off the indoctrination.
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Oct 11, 2020 21:32:39 GMT -5
Well, I wouldn't necessarily infer/impute an objective reality at the core of the notion of "to see/know Itself", and it's actually the ultimate in impersonality, rather than a personalization. Now, as an aside, my referring to those different aspects of psyche were only motivational, not meant as definitional to the notion, which was limited to the question of existential meaning. So, I would infer that your inner-guidance reports a very different answer as to your metaphor of this reality as a school, than it does, those other notions?You might need to rephrase your question. I don't understand what you're asking / concluding. Generally, I believe there isn't a matter of "knowing itself", at any level. It is a matter of evolving itself. "Knowing itself" implies discovering yourself, which is different from changing yourself. There is pretty much nothing to discover about yourself. When you die you wake up to a you that is pretty much the you who died, in matters of "knowing"; not smarter, nor more intuitive, nor more in control of your emotions, having only a slightly wider perspective of what's happening, even after you shake off the indoctrination. I meant this and this by "your metaphor of of this reality as a school". Is that a fair statement of how you currently see your answer to the question of life purpose? So, to summarize, you seem to me to believe that the purpose of life is "a training ground to acquire a skill", and that, on the other hand, your inner guidance has led you to believe that "knowing Itself" is wishful thinking. So, I infer that your inner guidance is the source of what you do believe about the purpose of life.
|
|
|
Post by inavalan on Oct 11, 2020 22:23:10 GMT -5
You might need to rephrase your question. I don't understand what you're asking / concluding. Generally, I believe there isn't a matter of "knowing itself", at any level. It is a matter of evolving itself. "Knowing itself" implies discovering yourself, which is different from changing yourself. There is pretty much nothing to discover about yourself. When you die you wake up to a you that is pretty much the you who died, in matters of "knowing"; not smarter, nor more intuitive, nor more in control of your emotions, having only a slightly wider perspective of what's happening, even after you shake off the indoctrination. I meant this and this by "your metaphor of of this reality as a school". Is that a fair statement of how you currently see your answer to the question of life purpose? So, to summarize, you seem to me to believe that the purpose of life is "a training ground to acquire a skill", and that, on the other hand, your inner guidance has led you to believe that "knowing Itself" is wishful thinking. So, I infer that your inner guidance is the source of what you do believe about the purpose of life. "Acquiring a skill" doesn't mean "knowing itself", means "evolving" (see above). There is no contradiction there. For every point of awareness, the purpose of entering this virtual framework that the physical universe is, is learning to consciously create reality.
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Oct 11, 2020 22:41:20 GMT -5
I meant this and this by "your metaphor of of this reality as a school". Is that a fair statement of how you currently see your answer to the question of life purpose? So, to summarize, you seem to me to believe that the purpose of life is "a training ground to acquire a skill", and that, on the other hand, your inner guidance has led you to believe that "knowing Itself" is wishful thinking. So, I infer that your inner guidance is the source of what you do believe about the purpose of life. "Acquiring a skill" doesn't mean "knowing itself", means "evolving" (see above). There is no contradiction there.For every point of awareness, the purpose of entering this virtual framework that the physical universe is, is learning to consciously create reality. I didn't say there was a contradiction, and neither blurred nor conflated "knowing Itself" with/onto your writing. That said, there does seem to be an obvious similarity between "knowing" and "learning", which is why I was interested in your reply to the question: whether this is the result of the same inner-guidance that "opinions like 'experiencing everything', 'knowing itself'" etc are "wishful thinking" and "misinterpretations".
|
|
|
Post by inavalan on Oct 11, 2020 23:31:54 GMT -5
"Acquiring a skill" doesn't mean "knowing itself", means "evolving" (see above). There is no contradiction there.For every point of awareness, the purpose of entering this virtual framework that the physical universe is, is learning to consciously create reality. I didn't say there was a contradiction, and neither blurred nor conflated "knowing Itself" with/onto your writing. That said, there does seem to be an obvious similarity between "knowing" and "learning", which is why I was interested in your reply to the question: whether this is the result of the same inner-guidance that "opinions like 'experiencing everything', 'knowing itself'" etc are "wishful thinking" and "misinterpretations". Man ... So have I answered your question?
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Oct 12, 2020 16:24:48 GMT -5
I didn't say there was a contradiction, and neither blurred nor conflated "knowing Itself" with/onto your writing. That said, there does seem to be an obvious similarity between "knowing" and "learning", which is why I was interested in your reply to the question: whether this is the result of the same inner-guidance that "opinions like 'experiencing everything', 'knowing itself'" etc are "wishful thinking" and "misinterpretations". Man ... So have I answered your question? No, quite clearly you haven't answered this one directly, but I've already stated that I'm inferring a positive answer from the totality of your writing.
|
|
|
Post by inavalan on Oct 12, 2020 20:12:13 GMT -5
Man ... So have I answered your question? No, quite clearly you haven't answered this one directly, but I've already stated that I'm inferring a positive answer from the totality of your writing. okay.
|
|
|
Post by Reefs on Oct 15, 2020 11:18:31 GMT -5
But that's not what I'm saying. YOU exist prior to both the waking you and the dream you. Dream you and waking you belong to one and the same context. That's why comparing your dream experience to your waking experience will only help you learning more about you, but nothing about YOU. I believe that you are a YOU who are enrolled in an educational process, are taught concepts which you then practice. YOU and you are the same in different situations, like somebody while at home, at school, listening to a lesson, practicing what he learned. You are taught while sleeping, practice while (rem) dreaming, and practicing the basics while awake. Dreams in which you are an observer are teaching dreams, dreams in which you are the first person are practice dreams, of the same concepts. Dream experiences teach about YOU and concepts YOU need to know. YOU and you are the same in different situations. Awake experiences, rem-dreams, non-ream-sleep reflect symbolically the same concepts. I don't think you understood what I meant by 'YOU'. What you call 'YOU', I'd still call 'you'.
|
|
|
Post by Reefs on Oct 15, 2020 11:24:51 GMT -5
If it isn't a belief, then what is it? Asking for a friend. I don't think there is something that isn't a belief. It is like there is nothing that isn't changing. I don't see how these two statements are related. Can you elaborate?
|
|
|
Post by Reefs on Oct 15, 2020 11:48:49 GMT -5
I basically agree with this. Maybe I should clarify. By self here I don't mean a sense of self. What I mean is an identity, a story that is necessary to function in society, like a name, that identifies you as unique from others. If you don't have that, society doesn't know what to do with you. You can't be categorized, you don't fit in because you can't be assigned a place in society and so you cannot function in society. But sages can function very well in society, because they can remember their name and date of birth and vita when required, which means they can at least project a self when required, even though there may not be an actual sense of self the entire time. Let's say you fly to another country. On arrival, you are asked to fill out an arrival form with your name, date and place of birth, health condition, itinerary etc. You can do that easily. When they check your passport and ask you "So you are Bob from America?" you say "Yes, that's me." What you have done here is projecting a self. It's the only way you can get thru customs. If you wouldn't do that, they wouldn't know what to do with you and probably lock you away. That's what I mean by a self being required in order to function in society. Projecting a self is the most natural thing to do as adults (not so easy for little children though). And it's the only way to get along smoothly in a system of names and numbers. That doesn't mean though that there has to be a sense of actually being a name and a number, even though a lot of adults tend to identify as a name and a number at some point. Okay, but playing the devil's advocate, is the recognition and acceptance that other people imagine that everyone is a SVP, and appropriately responding to their ideas about that, the same as "projecting" anything? Even in the case of the passport/customs thingy no thought about self-identification needs to occur in order to satisfy the officials; the whole transaction can occur in internal silence. It can all happen without any form of reflection, and this is what Zen people call "thinking that is not-thinking" or "non-abidance in mind." IOW, a sage doesn't have to put on an act at being someone with an identity in order to interact intelligently with people in any situation. S/he knows directly, at an internalized subconscious level, what's going on in the same way that s/he knows what a tree IS without a conceptual overlay. I agree that everything can happen without a sense of self, but I'm questioning the idea that projection of a fictitious identity, as a psychological act, is what's happening. It seems simpler and more direct than that. If we consider someone like Ramana, did he ever say anything that would indicate the projection of a self in order to function within a social setting, or were his words and actions indicative of something more like blood cells knowing where to go next without the necessity of anything as abstract as intent? I'm not talking about the SVP, I'm talking about the P in the term SVP. It arises spontaneously and disappears again spontaneously whenever required in social interaction. It's similar to how UG explained it once, when he was sitting in his chair looking at the clock on the wall. His mind was silent and so he actually had no idea what he was looking at (in conceptual terms). He only became aware that it was a clock when someone would ask him "What time is it?" Then his mind would become active again and he'd spontaneously and correctly reply something like "Twelve o'clock". And after he said that, his mind would go silent again and he would go back to sitting there and looking at the clock without knowing that it is a clock. So he can perfectly interact on the level of names and things if required (person) even though he doesn't self-identify on the level of names and things (separate volitional person).
|
|