Guest guest Report post Posted December 24, 2004 Dear Lewis, There is no " Self " or " Supreme Reality. " There is no " we. " These are concepts, illusions. *Indeed, and.....the absence of this absence How can " you " speak from " Self? " How can you describe the " witness that observes only? " If it is described, it is an " object, " a " perception " or " construct " or " concept. " All of these are empty pointers. * " Empty pointer " is an interesting term, Lewis. How does " we " a concept " automatically [we] become ourselves in the witness that observe only. " This is a concept becoming another concept Ego easily assumes the position of " witness that observes only " and is fully capable of saying " I Am that " by observing it's own mental creations and telling itself it is not any thing (neti, neti). *Yes, the ego is a tricky phenomenon. Is witnessing a spawn of the ego or viceversa? What do you think? Are we talking about " apperception " , perhaps? This term coined by Leibniz and so often used by Wei Wu Wei? Does apperception generate concepts? I don't think so. That's why this term is used. Contemplating it from the outside, it is just a concept like everyone else. Made out of the same substance, with the same dignity. Not even " I am " , Lewis, simply " I " . It is that what we lost entering language as infants and what we will lose again when we die. There is no ego, no subject, no object nor " truth " outside of language. How is one to distinguish between ego that says " I Am that " (not this, not this) and what is? *what is, is the absence of you and the absence of this absence. " That which is beyond the mind " is a koan and nothing more, something aiding ego to realize futility. *.....and the futility of this realization If " That " equals " in the conscious of " BEING " that is awareness, or rather in ourselves " in the Self " , in silence, immobility and plenitude " then it is a ego state based on conceptual creations. *No, it is prior to language, to vocabulary, to grammar. Ego states and language co-arise and are co-dependent. I follow here Lacanian concepts, which I would like to recommend you as an interesting read. I would like to recommend you too reads on developmental psychology, such as writings of Melanie Klein, Winnicott or Kohut. I have posted here, on this board, several links which I considered helpful. I will look it up. Even the question of " BEING " is a linguistic affair. " That " is indescribable and pointers to do little to.... *Yes, to the first part of this sentence but, how did you come to the conclusion in the latter part......??? cheers, Kip Almazy Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted December 24, 2004 kipalmazy wrote: > > Dear Lewis, > > > > There is no " Self " or " Supreme Reality. " There is no " we. " These are > concepts, illusions. > > > *Indeed, and.....the absence of this absence > > > How can " you " speak from " Self? " How can you describe the " witness > that observes only? " If it is described, it is an " object, " a > " perception " or " construct " or " concept. " All of these are empty > pointers. > > > * " Empty pointer " is an interesting term, Lewis. An empty pointer is an expressive attempt to communicate to " ego " a " what is concept " with another concept. The pointer and what it points to, always a concept, are empty. Pointers and the pointed to are of interest to ego. Otherwise, these are " lures, " " trickery, " " deception, " " illusions, " " lies, " " temptations, " " steps " to ego futility and dissolution. > How does " we " a concept " automatically [we] become ourselves in the > witness that observe only. " This is a concept becoming another > concept > Ego easily assumes the position of " witness that observes only " and > is fully capable of saying " I Am that " by observing it's own mental > creations and telling itself it is not any thing (neti, neti). > > > *Yes, the ego is a tricky phenomenon. Is witnessing a spawn of the > ego or viceversa? What do you think? Witnessing is ego effort if neti, neti is employed and certainly if there is a sense of " distance and " non-immersion, " or " watching. " There is no need for an ego even for conventional communication or carrying on in daily life. It can be said that the latter is a common justification made in both discussion and in text for using " I " and " you " and " me " in conversation as a mediator of some sort between that which is and the phenomenal world. An " advanced " claim is simply that such pronouns are empty and that there is no ego present. This claim is transparent, it is dependence on concept, an ego addiction. Are we talking > about " apperception " , perhaps? This term coined by Leibniz and so > often used by Wei Wu Wei? No. It is not the mind's self-reflective awareness of its own thoughts as Kant and Leibniz would say. Wei Wu Wei says something completely different then the former two. What he says is below. " ......Any attempt to cognise what is cognising - and is thereby incognisable - forbids apperception of what-we-are. Such apperception is not a function of split-mind. It can only be an im-mediate apperception released by some sensorial stimulus - auditory, visual, tactile, or of an unrecognisable origin. The supreme obstacle to such apperception, in our space-time context of consciousness, lies in attributing subjectivity to phenomenal objects, and objectivity to what is subjective. Mind cannot be reached by mind, as Huang Po stated. The attempt is itself an obstacle. Awareness is no thing of which we (who are This) can be aware. Knowing this, understanding this, is not awareness of Awareness [This is what Kant and Leibniz refer to; there is no conceptual equivalence]. Awareness is no kind of knowledge. All knowledge is conceptual, all conceptuality inheres in the space-time continuum. There is a solution of continuity between knowledge and Awareness. If one were to say that auditory apprehension might reveal it - such might be an indication of what is implied, but quite certainly not in the sense of deliberately listening to music - nor of deliberately looking at any object, touching any 'thing', or seizing any thought. Why is that so? Because split-mind must be in abeyance, and 'we' must be absent for Awareness to be present. " >Does apperception generate concepts? I > don't think so. In Kant and Leibniz's sense - Yes In Wei Wu Wei's - No That's why this term is used. Contemplating it from > the outside, it is just a concept like everyone else. Made out of > the same substance, with the same dignity. Yes. > > > Not even " I am " , Lewis, simply " I " . It is that what we lost entering > language as infants and what we will lose again when we die. And in the " imagined in - between? " > > There is no ego, no subject, no object nor " truth " outside of > language. Language is empty, it is a concept and is part an parcel with " Ego, " " subjects " and " objects, " " truth. " That statement is a koan for ego to dance in futility with and nothing more (See below). > > > How is one to distinguish between ego that says " I Am that " (not > this, not this) and what is? > > > *what is, is the absence of you and the absence of this absence. > Empty pointing? > > " That which is beyond the mind " is a koan and nothing more, something > aiding ego to realize futility. > > > > *.....and the futility of this realization and the futility of that realization and the futility of that realization and the futility of that realization....... Ego has infinite regression of thought. > > If " That " equals " in the conscious of " BEING " that is awareness, or > rather in ourselves " in the Self " , in silence, immobility and > plenitude " then it is a ego state based on conceptual creations. > > > *No, it is prior to language, to vocabulary, to grammar. Ego states > and language co-arise and are co-dependent. I follow here Lacanian > concepts, which I would like to recommend you as an interesting > read. I would like to recommend you too reads on developmental > psychology, such as writings of Melanie Klein, Winnicott or Kohut. No. THAT is not prior to language. THAT does not exist. THAT is an empty pointer. Language is a systematic means of communicating by the use of vocal sounds, conventional symbols and/or signs such as experienced in sign language. Written language is different as it is experienced. Language is composed of vocal sounds, signs, symbols, text and concepts and ideas and pronouns etc. are " embedded " into the latter medium. " Language " changes so that sounds or set of symbols (words) or gestures, or hand signs, or text, or script, or pictographs can have multiple meanings such as that embedded in the spoken word, signs, and symbols for (vocal sound) " God " and the multiple meanings and variously elaborated concept " God. " Language is systematic linking of sound and thought so that communication occurs. As every attentive Mommy experiences and some attentive Daddies, a baby's cries are language, as defined, and clearly communicative in obtaining food, removal of soiled diapers, alleviation of discomfort of some sort and so on even though the " words " are differential cries. The " cries " are differentiated by " intuition " without thought. Without thought, without effort. It is what human beings do. " Language " as commonly defined and studied in linguistics is not well suited for discussions such as these. " Language " is a concept and therefore disappears as does all concepts. Language, infant or other, human or non-human, is little more than differential cries having communicative and conceptual function. What is this forum but the " cries " the " characteristic utterances " and " concepts " of human beings of a sort. For fun, say this this sentence slowly out loud Kip. Foori boomeemee rondo baaa. Repeat it several times slowly while putting feeling into the sounds. Notice and exaggerate the protruding lips in pronouncing the inital " f " in the word " foori " and then the lip retraction and aspiration on the " ri. " Enjoy the lip protrusion on the first syllable of " boomeemee " and the pouting lip effect of " meemee by smiling " Finish off with " rondo baaa " by holding the " ron " with your teeth on your tongue on the " n " and then aspirate slowing with a open mouth smile after the " b " in 'baaa. " After vocalizing until the words flow, feel what it means by looking at things around you and choose a " thing. " Allow that " thing " to be represented by those sounds. The thing is now conceptualized and words, instead of random sounds, appear. Share the language - the sounds, concept, words with " others. " This crudely demonstrates the formation of language. There is only an appearance that language is " prior. " It is good to realize that " that " that exists in " self-made made time and space " created the ideas offered. > I have posted here, on this board, several links which I considered > helpful. I will look it up. > > > Even the question of " BEING " is a linguistic affair. Acoustic-conceptual affair or as de Saussure would have it, language is a systematic structure serving as a " link " between thought and sound. > > > > " That " is indescribable and pointers to do little to.... > > > > *Yes, to the first part of this sentence but, how did you come to > the conclusion in the latter part......??? Pointers are empty and point to no thing, emptiness. > > cheers, > Kip Almazy Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted December 24, 2004 Nisargadatta , " Nirgunananda " <nirgunananda@t...> wrote: > > TO:LEWIS > FROM:Swami Nirgunananda > I would like answer to Lewis about his questions below : > > Lewis > Who put " me " into mechanical slavery? > > Swami Nirgunananda > Nobody put you into mechanical slavery. You think that you are into mechanical slavery. > > Lewis > Did " I " put " my self " into slavery? > > Swami Nirgunananda > You put when you think that you are into slavery. > > Lewis > Can " I " liberate " my self, " throw off the chains? " > > Swami Nirgunananda > No. You can not, there are not liberate, are thinks about prison. > > Lewis > Or does someone liberate " me? " > > Swami Nirgunananda > No one can liberate you, you must believe that you are not into slavery. > > Lewis > Is it a cooperative venture between " me " and another " I " or is it " me " and a " no me " ? > > Swami Nirgunananda > No it is not, because there are no you, neither other you, no I neither other I. There are no even one, these things of one, two etc, is of the mind. There are the sense of constant " BEING " , the other questions about " I " , " You " , " We " etc is of the mind, not of you, because you are the Supreme Reality that stands beyond of the mind. > > Lewis > Is " someone " being liberated or is it change in interior states? > > Swami Nirgunananda > It is change of concepts of the mind, only. > > Lewis > Is it possible to be liberated? > > Swami Nirgunananda > No it is not possible to be liberated, because You just are liberated, is your mind that think on the contrary. > > Lewis > Is liberation necessary? > > Swami Nirgunananda > Is necessary you understand that you just are liberated. The question of prison is of your mind, only. > > Lewis > What is liberation? Is it a concept, a goal, a state, an experience? > > Swami Nirgunananda > Liberation is not a concept, a goal, a state neither an experience. Liberation is to see the things like the things are: without permanence and without proper essence and substance; or rather the things have not proper existence. > Lewis pay attention, see and feel: you are that sense " I AM, the same sense when you were a child, a teen age, a young, an adult and a old, " THAT " the same sense " I AM " are you. But the sense " I am a boy, a old, a young, or I am mother, father, intellectual, a boss, a man, a woman etc is the mind, no you, ok? > All the other words, things and concepts are of the mind, remember that you are not the mind/body, you are the SELF,you are THAT, which has no name, only awareness. > > Thank you very much > > Namastê > Swami Nirgunananda ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Dear Swami Nirgunananda, Who is Lewis? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted December 25, 2004 anders_lindman wrote: > > Nisargadatta , Lewis Burgess <lbb10@c...> wrote: > > > > > > anders_lindman wrote: > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " Lewis Burgess " <lbb10@c...> > wrote: > > > > > > > ... > > > > > > > > Yes, ego mediated experience can be depressing. However, the > creation > > > > of virtual landscapes need not be depressing. In fact such > landscapes > > > > and others like it, scientific, architectural, philosohpical, > > > > economic, ecological, technological, anthropological, historical, > > > > literary, artistic, etc. can be formed to live, to create, to > enjoy, > > > > to flourish as human beings. Human beings are the only > organisms " out > > > > of touch with reality. " The " natural world " is a marvel living > without > > > > thought of itself. What if human beings did the same? Virtual > > > > landscapes are useful. With their creation and use without ego > > > > mediation, human life can also be a living marvel. > > > > > > > > The problem has been that ego's creation of distorted landscapes, > > > > material expressions of the same, the following self-created and > > > > self-centered purposes, and the ignorant use of and selfish > attachment > > > > to it all has made things messy, ego directed thought and action > > > > creates sensations flows that are, to say the least, unpleasant. > > > > > > > > Back to the scenario. When something needs to be done can it > be done > > > > without creating " virtual landscapes " that interrupt the flow of > > > > sensations? In the planning and waiting scenario what would be > > > > different in an ego-less experience? > > > > > > > > Lewis > > > > > > Without creating virtual landscapes we could, I believe, enter the > > > real landscape of the present moment which is vibrant, creative and > > > alive when not covered by these blankets of virtual landscapes. In > > > present-moment awareness there would not be any need for waiting in > > > the normal meaning of the word. Planning can be done as a > creative act > > > in the moment when needed, and waiting for things in the future could > > > be a part of the plans. Waiting in present-moment awareness need not > > > be unpleasant. For example, sitting in a car waiting for the green > > > traffic light for a long time need _not_ be accompanied by > irritation, > > > stress or boredom. > > > > > > Let's assume we have a plan for taking us from A to B by driving a > > > car. Maybe the plan includes a limited time span, so that we need to > > > reach point B (for example a meeting) at a certain time. If we then > > > are caught in a traffic jam, this plan can be spoiled (we will not > > > reach point B in time), and that causes unpleasant emotions such as > > > stress, fear and anger. This kind of plan is a very rigid constuct. > > > And our whole life is filled with such rigid plans and ideas how > > > things ought to be. Present-moment awareness could 'soften up' this > > > discreteness and rigidity so that instead of a few crude plans > held in > > > the mind, the contiuous flow of life itself could become the > guide for > > > how to live, wich could include and embrace plans, but be much vaster > > > and flexible than just the mechanical slavery to rigid plans and > > > virtual landscapes. > > > > > > /AL > > ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ > > > > Yes. Agreed. > > > > Does entrance to the " present moment awareness, " the " real landscape of > > the present moment which is vibrant, creative and alive, " require the > > end of the " mechanical slavery to rigid plans and virtual landscapes? " > > > > If yes, the circle closes again. How does liberation from mechanical > > slavery occur? Who put " me " into mechanical slavery? Did " I " put " my > > self " into slavery? Can " I " liberate " my self, " throw off the chains? " > > Or does someone liberate " me? " Is it a cooperative venture between " me " > > and another " I " or is it " me " and a " no me " ? Is " someone " being > > liberated or is it change in interior states? Is it possible to be > > liberated? Is liberation necessary? What is liberation? Is it a concept, > > a goal, a state, an experience? Is liberation non-sense? If not, how > > does it occur? Is it by " biological mutation, " " chemical, " > " meditation, " > > " self-inquiry, " " Jesus Christ, " " God, " " grace " , infused contemplation, > > sunyatta, , fana' fi Allah, baqa' bi Allah,.... etc. > > > > If no, what is.....? > > > > > > Lewis > > I think liberation comes with falling away of the idea of time as > something a separate entity can manipulate. > > /AL ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ A search using Google ( http://www.google.com/search?hl=en & lr= & oi=defmore & q=define:time ) returns these definitions, among others, of time. 1. fourth dimension: the fourth coordinate that is required (along with three spatial dimensions) to specify a physical event 2. the continuum of experience in which events pass from the future through the present to the past 3. measurement of how long it takes events to happen; an instance or single occasion for some event 4. an instance or single occasion for some event; " this time he succeeded " ; " he called four times " ; " he could do ten at a clip " 5. an indefinite period (usually marked by specific attributes or activities); " he waited a long time " ; " the time of year for planting " ; " he was a great actor is his time " 6. a period of time considered as a resource under your control and sufficient to accomplish something Concept number six is similar to what was referred to above. All are concepts. They may partially or totally disappear leaving a sense of " timelessness and oneness. " This can occur in all sorts of ways. # Intense and near total mental and physical immersion in an activity as discussed previously naturally or artificially; sports, an engrossing movie, an exciting novel, conversing, posting, meditating, playing video and computer games, drinking alcohol, smoking marijuana, taking hallucinogenic drugs; # A degree of stupidity or brain dysfunction making it impossible to reckon time and to not experience the sense of controlling it since neuronal dysfunction precludes it. # " Ego immaturity " or " conceptual weakness " so that conceptual development of time is incomplete, is soft and flexible, attention is weak in general and not on time and all the ways it measured and kept track of are unknown or unattractive, there is little importance or need to pay attention to time, and there are no or few rewards or punishments associated with time and time management. Experience toddlers and others at play. # Brain disease such as Alzheimer's, dementia, schizophrenia and other physiological disorientations relate to the collapse of conceptual worlds and distorted sensation that may arise in experience. These are all effort full and/or physiological based. The simple common factor is that attention is removed by ego from the concept and reckoning of time due to effortful attention to and immersion in sensations and other concepts or to the inability of the brain to function and then to cause conceptual collapses. This however is not time " falling away. " All of the are matters of attention to time concept and to the attachment to the time concept and all of the concepts associated with it (methods of measurement, duties, rewards and punishments, demands and expectations of others, etc.,) and normal brain function. There is no direct " means " for ego to escape time, to be liberated. Ego is based in time, especially as it is described in Number 2. Ego's " existence, " the sense of continuity, requires this concept of time. If time concept and the attendant goes ego has gone. If time goes , ego remains to recreate it. Time cannot " fall away " completely until ego does. But below is some trickery to add to all the other tricks that can be used to short circuit ego's operative control over mind at least for a time or until there is absolute futility and dissolution which may or may not occur. No one is no one and no one says there is no ego and no one says there is an ego. Take when ego is present, Let it mull it over until..... Live. Repeat until there is " no awareness of awareness. " or Realize there is no essential difference between a squirrel and a natural human being, Both live without thought and make " characteristic utterances " and perform " characteristic behavior " that communicates and creates each as they are. However, human beings are capable of turning sensations into concepts and living in and by concepts, dominated and confused by concepts, rather than being in sensations as they are and using concepts to create " things " not to live by. Realize and live. If this trickery does not help, try the trickery below literally. Give up all questions except one: 'Who am I?' :-) Anders, as it may be experienced, this not " personal. " If there is an ego reading this, it is for it. Otherwise it is for the exchange of experience and concepts for learning and communicating various forms of " skullduggery. " Lewis Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted December 25, 2004 Nisargadatta , " Nirgunananda " <nirgunananda@t...> wrote: > > Hi Lewis and Anders, > > Have you thought from the point of view of the SELF, ( from your proper point like the Supreme Reality that you really are ) and not the ego, these question about the real space and virtual space? > > Why do I say it? > 1 - Because the Self stands beyond mind, and you are the Self always, > 2 - Because the mind/body and universe are automatic they work with input and out put from one to another, " cause and effect between them " > 3 - The universe is not permanent, is a illusion that modify itself from instant to instant > 4 - When the space is open the forms appear up > 5 - When the space is closed there are no forms. > > Lets see the concept about real space: > If the universe are not real, where can we find the real space? > In what moment " in the now " ? > If like the Self that we are, we have no pass no future, " we were no born " what is " now " ?, because the now can only be if has the pass and future, then the passed, now and future are time of the mind, ok? > For we, that were no born neither can die, there are no space, no time, and yes to the mind, ok? We must remember that we are no mind no body, but the Self that is beyond. > > Lets see the concept about virtual space: > I see that the concept of virtual space is the same to the real space, because we are speaking about the mind only. > > The mind " our mind " explain about itself and make confusion in relation with the Self that we are. > > If we speake from what we are, the Supreme Reality " the Self " I believe that is better to understand, see: > For we understand what really we are is very simple: say I AM only, that automatically we become ourselves in the witness that observe only, this witness is the I AM, and " I am that or I am this " is the mind. > We are I AM when ther are objets in the mind only. > We can do it by the auto observation, that is observe the mind only. > After some time that we have observed the mind like the witness, we can know that we are the Self, beyond the proper witness, because the witness see if do the auto observation, if has something to observe in the mind, if not we stay in our conscious, not in the conscious of the objets of the mind, but in the conscious of " BEING " that is awareness, or rather in ourselves " in the Self " , in silence, immobility and plenitude. > " That " is what we are, the no manifested beyond mind and mind is the reflex scarcely. > > Thank you > and > Thing about > > Namastê > > Swami Nirgunananda > When we know we are the Self, I suppose we know our own creative power, not as a single entity, but as creative power itself, emanating from our unmanifested Self. /AL Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted December 25, 2004 Nisargadatta , Lewis Burgess <lbb10@c...> wrote: > > > anders_lindman wrote: > > > > Nisargadatta , Lewis Burgess <lbb10@c...> wrote: > > > > > > > > > anders_lindman wrote: > > > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " Lewis Burgess " <lbb10@c...> > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > ... > > > > > > > > > > Yes, ego mediated experience can be depressing. However, the > > creation > > > > > of virtual landscapes need not be depressing. In fact such > > landscapes > > > > > and others like it, scientific, architectural, philosohpical, > > > > > economic, ecological, technological, anthropological, historical, > > > > > literary, artistic, etc. can be formed to live, to create, to > > enjoy, > > > > > to flourish as human beings. Human beings are the only > > organisms " out > > > > > of touch with reality. " The " natural world " is a marvel living > > without > > > > > thought of itself. What if human beings did the same? Virtual > > > > > landscapes are useful. With their creation and use without ego > > > > > mediation, human life can also be a living marvel. > > > > > > > > > > The problem has been that ego's creation of distorted landscapes, > > > > > material expressions of the same, the following self-created and > > > > > self-centered purposes, and the ignorant use of and selfish > > attachment > > > > > to it all has made things messy, ego directed thought and action > > > > > creates sensations flows that are, to say the least, unpleasant. > > > > > > > > > > Back to the scenario. When something needs to be done can it > > be done > > > > > without creating " virtual landscapes " that interrupt the flow of > > > > > sensations? In the planning and waiting scenario what would be > > > > > different in an ego-less experience? > > > > > > > > > > Lewis > > > > > > > > Without creating virtual landscapes we could, I believe, enter the > > > > real landscape of the present moment which is vibrant, creative and > > > > alive when not covered by these blankets of virtual landscapes. In > > > > present-moment awareness there would not be any need for waiting in > > > > the normal meaning of the word. Planning can be done as a > > creative act > > > > in the moment when needed, and waiting for things in the future could > > > > be a part of the plans. Waiting in present-moment awareness need not > > > > be unpleasant. For example, sitting in a car waiting for the green > > > > traffic light for a long time need _not_ be accompanied by > > irritation, > > > > stress or boredom. > > > > > > > > Let's assume we have a plan for taking us from A to B by driving a > > > > car. Maybe the plan includes a limited time span, so that we need to > > > > reach point B (for example a meeting) at a certain time. If we then > > > > are caught in a traffic jam, this plan can be spoiled (we will not > > > > reach point B in time), and that causes unpleasant emotions such as > > > > stress, fear and anger. This kind of plan is a very rigid constuct. > > > > And our whole life is filled with such rigid plans and ideas how > > > > things ought to be. Present-moment awareness could 'soften up' this > > > > discreteness and rigidity so that instead of a few crude plans > > held in > > > > the mind, the contiuous flow of life itself could become the > > guide for > > > > how to live, wich could include and embrace plans, but be much vaster > > > > and flexible than just the mechanical slavery to rigid plans and > > > > virtual landscapes. > > > > > > > > /AL > > > ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ > > > > > > Yes. Agreed. > > > > > > Does entrance to the " present moment awareness, " the " real landscape of > > > the present moment which is vibrant, creative and alive, " require the > > > end of the " mechanical slavery to rigid plans and virtual landscapes? " > > > > > > If yes, the circle closes again. How does liberation from mechanical > > > slavery occur? Who put " me " into mechanical slavery? Did " I " put " my > > > self " into slavery? Can " I " liberate " my self, " throw off the chains? " > > > Or does someone liberate " me? " Is it a cooperative venture between " me " > > > and another " I " or is it " me " and a " no me " ? Is " someone " being > > > liberated or is it change in interior states? Is it possible to be > > > liberated? Is liberation necessary? What is liberation? Is it a concept, > > > a goal, a state, an experience? Is liberation non-sense? If not, how > > > does it occur? Is it by " biological mutation, " " chemical, " > > " meditation, " > > > " self-inquiry, " " Jesus Christ, " " God, " " grace " , infused contemplation, > > > sunyatta, , fana' fi Allah, baqa' bi Allah,.... etc. > > > > > > If no, what is.....? > > > > > > > > > Lewis > > > > I think liberation comes with falling away of the idea of time as > > something a separate entity can manipulate. > > > > /AL > ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ > > A search using Google > ( http://www.google.com/search?hl=en & lr= & oi=defmore & q=define:time ) > returns these definitions, among others, of time. > > 1. fourth dimension: the fourth coordinate that is required (along with > three spatial dimensions) to specify a physical event > > 2. the continuum of experience in which events pass from the future > through the present to the past > > 3. measurement of how long it takes events to happen; an instance or > single occasion for some event > > 4. an instance or single occasion for some event; " this time he > succeeded " ; " he called four times " ; " he could do ten at a clip " > > 5. an indefinite period (usually marked by specific attributes or > activities); " he waited a long time " ; " the time of year for planting " ; > " he was a great actor is his time " > > 6. a period of time considered as a resource under your control and > sufficient to accomplish something > > Concept number six is similar to what was referred to above. > > All are concepts. They may partially or totally disappear leaving a > sense of " timelessness and oneness. " This can occur in all sorts of ways. > > # Intense and near total mental and physical immersion in an activity as > discussed previously naturally or artificially; sports, an engrossing > movie, an exciting novel, conversing, posting, meditating, playing video > and computer games, drinking alcohol, smoking marijuana, taking > hallucinogenic drugs; > > # A degree of stupidity or brain dysfunction making it impossible to > reckon time and to not experience the sense of controlling it since > neuronal dysfunction precludes it. > > # " Ego immaturity " or " conceptual weakness " so that conceptual > development of time is incomplete, is soft and flexible, attention is > weak in general and not on time and all the ways it measured and kept > track of are unknown or unattractive, there is little importance or need > to pay attention to time, and there are no or few rewards or punishments > associated with time and time management. Experience toddlers and others > at play. > > # Brain disease such as Alzheimer's, dementia, schizophrenia and other > physiological disorientations relate to the collapse of conceptual > worlds and distorted sensation that may arise in experience. > > These are all effort full and/or physiological based. The simple common > factor is that attention is removed by ego from the concept and > reckoning of time due to effortful attention to and immersion in > sensations and other concepts or to the inability of the brain to > function and then to cause conceptual collapses. > > This however is not time " falling away. " All of the are matters of > attention to time concept and to the attachment to the time concept and > all of the concepts associated with it (methods of measurement, duties, > rewards and punishments, demands and expectations of others, etc.,) > and normal brain function. > > There is no direct " means " for ego to escape time, to be liberated. Ego > is based in time, especially as it is described in Number 2. Ego's > " existence, " the sense of continuity, requires this concept of time. If > time concept and the attendant goes ego has gone. If time goes , ego > remains to recreate it. Time cannot " fall away " completely until ego does. > > But below is some trickery to add to all the other tricks that can be > used to short circuit ego's operative control over mind at least for a > time or until there is absolute futility and dissolution which may or > may not occur. > > No one is no one and no one says there is no ego and no one says there > is an ego. > > Take when ego is present, Let it mull it over until..... Live. Repeat > until there is " no awareness of awareness. " > > or > > Realize there is no essential difference between a squirrel and a > natural human being, Both live without thought and make " characteristic > utterances " and perform " characteristic behavior " that communicates and > creates each as they are. However, human beings are capable of turning > sensations into concepts and living in and by concepts, dominated and > confused by concepts, rather than being in sensations as they are and > using concepts to create " things " not to live by. Realize and live. > > If this trickery does not help, try the trickery below literally. > > Give up all questions except one: 'Who am I?' > > :-) > > Anders, as it may be experienced, this not " personal. " If there is an > ego reading this, it is for it. Otherwise it is for the exchange of > experience and concepts for learning and communicating various forms of > " skullduggery. " > > Lewis The idea that we cannot do anything as separate individuals makes us feel helpless, completely powerless - we cannot change time, therefore we are 100% puppets. But that's a false view. We _are_ time itself. We are creation itself in action. When I write something, then I have to be a bit surprised myself, or else it would only be a boring repetition of my old knowledge. Nothing wrong with old knowledge, but the newness of the now is where creativity happens. When I feel that new stuff is flowing into what I write, then I know myself to be a part of that fresh flow and not merely a static heap of memories called the " me " . So my definition of time would be a dynamic definition. What I mean by dynamic definition (or dynamic concept) is that it can change at any moment! :-) /AL Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted December 25, 2004 anders_lindman wrote: > > Nisargadatta , " Nirgunananda " > <nirgunananda@t...> wrote: > > > > Hi Lewis and Anders, > > > > Have you thought from the point of view of the SELF, ( from your > proper point like the Supreme Reality that you really are ) and not > the ego, these question about the real space and virtual space? > > > > Why do I say it? > > 1 - Because the Self stands beyond mind, and you are the Self always, > > 2 - Because the mind/body and universe are automatic they work with > input and out put from one to another, " cause and effect between them " > > 3 - The universe is not permanent, is a illusion that modify itself > from instant to instant > > 4 - When the space is open the forms appear up > > 5 - When the space is closed there are no forms. > > > > Lets see the concept about real space: > > If the universe are not real, where can we find the real space? > > In what moment " in the now " ? > > If like the Self that we are, we have no pass no future, " we were > no born " what is " now " ?, because the now can only be if has the pass > and future, then the passed, now and future are time of the mind, ok? > > For we, that were no born neither can die, there are no space, no > time, and yes to the mind, ok? We must remember that we are no mind no > body, but the Self that is beyond. > > > > Lets see the concept about virtual space: > > I see that the concept of virtual space is the same to the real > space, because we are speaking about the mind only. > > > > The mind " our mind " explain about itself and make confusion in > relation with the Self that we are. > > > > If we speake from what we are, the Supreme Reality " the Self " I > believe that is better to understand, see: > > For we understand what really we are is very simple: say I AM only, > that automatically we become ourselves in the witness that observe > only, this witness is the I AM, and " I am that or I am this " is the mind. > > We are I AM when ther are objets in the mind only. > > We can do it by the auto observation, that is observe the mind only. > > After some time that we have observed the mind like the witness, we > can know that we are the Self, beyond the proper witness, because the > witness see if do the auto observation, if has something to observe > in the mind, if not we stay in our conscious, not in the conscious of > the objets of the mind, but in the conscious of " BEING " that is > awareness, or rather in ourselves " in the Self " , in silence, > immobility and plenitude. > > " That " is what we are, the no manifested beyond mind and mind is the > reflex scarcely. > > > > Thank you > > and > > Thing about > > > > Namastê > > > > Swami Nirgunananda > > > > When we know we are the Self, I suppose we know our own creative > power, not as a single entity, but as creative power itself, emanating > from our unmanifested Self. > > /AL ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ " When " we " know " we " are the " Self, " it is a somewhat " denuded " " ego " that says " I Am the Self. " When " we " know " our " own creative power as power itself emanating from our " unmanifested Self, " it is a somewhat " denuded " " ego " that thinks or imagines that it is " THAT which is beyond. " " spiritual experience and spiritual powers are experienced. When " we " " conclusively experience " the " utter finality " that " awareness of awareness " results in " infinite regression " " infinite meaninglessness " " infinite darkness, " infinite uncertainty " ..... an almost disintegrated ego almost becomes " blank " " an empty shell " with all thoughts, concepts, feelings, imaginings, dissolving as they occur. The ego becomes " empty, " " dry, " so very dry and numb. A bone dry dispassion sets in. But the dispassion is one that is removed, distant, non-engaging, watching, alone, separated, an emotionless ego with only a single concept left that is rooted only in a completely denuded " I. " In this state the ego totters on the brink of annihilation. But this " I " is often mistaken for what is and the process of disintegration, almost complete, is halted. Some of these almost disintegrated egos become God, messiahs, gurus, enlightened ones, etc. self help people, business persons, recluses, hermits, misanthropes, prophets and so on. The freedom from identification with conceptual baggage and the clarity attained through their practices give them great advantage over minds clouded with concepts and self-centeredness. These are some of the most wonderful and the most dangerous people. They become the warden and jailers of the prisoners but they are in prison as well. The ego that totters and falls and like humpty dumpty can never be put together again is " annihilated, " " dead, " " dissolved, " disintegrated, " " exploded.........., " Then there is ordinariness... Simple awareness - vibrant, alive, curious, emotion filled, responsive, creative, joyful, attachment free, intuitive. Behavior is like spontaneous speech production, no thought is involved. Feelings and sensations are heightened and these feelings and sensations which gradually accumulates, integrates, softens and removes the physical sense of separation in space and time. The body synchronizes gradually and physical habits, speech patterns, activities, interests, diet, created based on ego's concepts gradually or quickly change into something else. This is the most irritating of experiences after ego disintegration. This is especially so in meeting people and experiencing the sensations of ego-based human creations. This gradually passes but there is always something to do in this regard. Nature is delightful, wonderful. It is being a child again. There is no drudgery, even in the most repetitive of tasks and almost all is fun, even when an ego blows up and attacks. Ego based actions and ego less actions are different. The sensations generated feel different and are very disturbing since it impossible to be closed to them. All is experienced without shielding, reservation, dispassion. It is extremely painful to experience suffering as it is. So it is not peaceful and blissful as promised by the wise tricksters. It can be that way but it depends on the flow of sensations experienced. There is nothing special in any of this. It is ordinary, simple. Nothing to think about. Lewis Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted December 25, 2004 anders_lindman wrote: > > Nisargadatta , Lewis Burgess <lbb10@c...> wrote: > > > > > > anders_lindman wrote: > > > > > > Nisargadatta , Lewis Burgess <lbb10@c...> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > anders_lindman wrote: > > > > > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " Lewis Burgess " > <lbb10@c...> > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > ... > > > > > > > > > > > > Yes, ego mediated experience can be depressing. However, the > > > creation > > > > > > of virtual landscapes need not be depressing. In fact such > > > landscapes > > > > > > and others like it, scientific, architectural, philosohpical, > > > > > > economic, ecological, technological, anthropological, > historical, > > > > > > literary, artistic, etc. can be formed to live, to create, to > > > enjoy, > > > > > > to flourish as human beings. Human beings are the only > > > organisms " out > > > > > > of touch with reality. " The " natural world " is a marvel > living > > > without > > > > > > thought of itself. What if human beings did the same? > Virtual > > > > > > landscapes are useful. With their creation and use > without ego > > > > > > mediation, human life can also be a living marvel. > > > > > > > > > > > > The problem has been that ego's creation of distorted > landscapes, > > > > > > material expressions of the same, the following > self-created and > > > > > > self-centered purposes, and the ignorant use of and selfish > > > attachment > > > > > > to it all has made things messy, ego directed thought and > action > > > > > > creates sensations flows that are, to say the least, > unpleasant. > > > > > > > > > > > > Back to the scenario. When something needs to be done can it > > > be done > > > > > > without creating " virtual landscapes " that interrupt the > flow of > > > > > > sensations? In the planning and waiting scenario what > would be > > > > > > different in an ego-less experience? > > > > > > > > > > > > Lewis > > > > > > > > > > Without creating virtual landscapes we could, I believe, > enter the > > > > > real landscape of the present moment which is vibrant, > creative and > > > > > alive when not covered by these blankets of virtual > landscapes. In > > > > > present-moment awareness there would not be any need for > waiting in > > > > > the normal meaning of the word. Planning can be done as a > > > creative act > > > > > in the moment when needed, and waiting for things in the > future could > > > > > be a part of the plans. Waiting in present-moment awareness > need not > > > > > be unpleasant. For example, sitting in a car waiting for the > green > > > > > traffic light for a long time need _not_ be accompanied by > > > irritation, > > > > > stress or boredom. > > > > > > > > > > Let's assume we have a plan for taking us from A to B by > driving a > > > > > car. Maybe the plan includes a limited time span, so that we > need to > > > > > reach point B (for example a meeting) at a certain time. If > we then > > > > > are caught in a traffic jam, this plan can be spoiled (we > will not > > > > > reach point B in time), and that causes unpleasant emotions > such as > > > > > stress, fear and anger. This kind of plan is a very rigid > constuct. > > > > > And our whole life is filled with such rigid plans and ideas how > > > > > things ought to be. Present-moment awareness could 'soften > up' this > > > > > discreteness and rigidity so that instead of a few crude plans > > > held in > > > > > the mind, the contiuous flow of life itself could become the > > > guide for > > > > > how to live, wich could include and embrace plans, but be > much vaster > > > > > and flexible than just the mechanical slavery to rigid plans and > > > > > virtual landscapes. > > > > > > > > > > /AL > > > > ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ > > > > > > > > Yes. Agreed. > > > > > > > > Does entrance to the " present moment awareness, " the " real > landscape of > > > > the present moment which is vibrant, creative and alive, " > require the > > > > end of the " mechanical slavery to rigid plans and virtual > landscapes? " > > > > > > > > If yes, the circle closes again. How does liberation from > mechanical > > > > slavery occur? Who put " me " into mechanical slavery? Did " I " > put " my > > > > self " into slavery? Can " I " liberate " my self, " throw off the > chains? " > > > > Or does someone liberate " me? " Is it a cooperative venture > between " me " > > > > and another " I " or is it " me " and a " no me " ? Is " someone " being > > > > liberated or is it change in interior states? Is it possible to be > > > > liberated? Is liberation necessary? What is liberation? Is it a > concept, > > > > a goal, a state, an experience? Is liberation non-sense? If > not, how > > > > does it occur? Is it by " biological mutation, " " chemical, " > > > " meditation, " > > > > " self-inquiry, " " Jesus Christ, " " God, " " grace " , infused > contemplation, > > > > sunyatta, , fana' fi Allah, baqa' bi Allah,.... etc. > > > > > > > > If no, what is.....? > > > > > > > > > > > > Lewis > > > > > > I think liberation comes with falling away of the idea of time as > > > something a separate entity can manipulate. > > > > > > /AL > > ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ > > > > A search using Google > > ( http://www.google.com/search?hl=en & lr= & oi=defmore & q=define:time > <http://www.google.com/search?hl=en & lr= & oi=defmore & q=define:time> ) > > returns these definitions, among others, of time. > > > > 1. fourth dimension: the fourth coordinate that is required (along with > > three spatial dimensions) to specify a physical event > > > > 2. the continuum of experience in which events pass from the future > > through the present to the past > > > > 3. measurement of how long it takes events to happen; an instance or > > single occasion for some event > > > > 4. an instance or single occasion for some event; " this time he > > succeeded " ; " he called four times " ; " he could do ten at a clip " > > > > 5. an indefinite period (usually marked by specific attributes or > > activities); " he waited a long time " ; " the time of year for planting " ; > > " he was a great actor is his time " > > > > 6. a period of time considered as a resource under your control and > > sufficient to accomplish something > > > > Concept number six is similar to what was referred to above. > > > > All are concepts. They may partially or totally disappear leaving a > > sense of " timelessness and oneness. " This can occur in all sorts of > ways. > > > > # Intense and near total mental and physical immersion in an > activity as > > discussed previously naturally or artificially; sports, an engrossing > > movie, an exciting novel, conversing, posting, meditating, playing > video > > and computer games, drinking alcohol, smoking marijuana, taking > > hallucinogenic drugs; > > > > # A degree of stupidity or brain dysfunction making it impossible to > > reckon time and to not experience the sense of controlling it since > > neuronal dysfunction precludes it. > > > > # " Ego immaturity " or " conceptual weakness " so that conceptual > > development of time is incomplete, is soft and flexible, attention is > > weak in general and not on time and all the ways it measured and kept > > track of are unknown or unattractive, there is little importance or > need > > to pay attention to time, and there are no or few rewards or > punishments > > associated with time and time management. Experience toddlers and > others > > at play. > > > > # Brain disease such as Alzheimer's, dementia, schizophrenia and other > > physiological disorientations relate to the collapse of conceptual > > worlds and distorted sensation that may arise in experience. > > > > These are all effort full and/or physiological based. The simple common > > factor is that attention is removed by ego from the concept and > > reckoning of time due to effortful attention to and immersion in > > sensations and other concepts or to the inability of the brain to > > function and then to cause conceptual collapses. > > > > This however is not time " falling away. " All of the are matters of > > attention to time concept and to the attachment to the time concept and > > all of the concepts associated with it (methods of measurement, duties, > > rewards and punishments, demands and expectations of others, etc.,) > > and normal brain function. > > > > There is no direct " means " for ego to escape time, to be liberated. Ego > > is based in time, especially as it is described in Number 2. Ego's > > " existence, " the sense of continuity, requires this concept of time. If > > time concept and the attendant goes ego has gone. If time goes , ego > > remains to recreate it. Time cannot " fall away " completely until ego > does. > > > > But below is some trickery to add to all the other tricks that can be > > used to short circuit ego's operative control over mind at least for a > > time or until there is absolute futility and dissolution which may or > > may not occur. > > > > No one is no one and no one says there is no ego and no one says there > > is an ego. > > > > Take when ego is present, Let it mull it over until..... Live. Repeat > > until there is " no awareness of awareness. " > > > > or > > > > Realize there is no essential difference between a squirrel and a > > natural human being, Both live without thought and make " characteristic > > utterances " and perform " characteristic behavior " that communicates and > > creates each as they are. However, human beings are capable of turning > > sensations into concepts and living in and by concepts, dominated and > > confused by concepts, rather than being in sensations as they are and > > using concepts to create " things " not to live by. Realize and live. > > > > If this trickery does not help, try the trickery below literally. > > > > Give up all questions except one: 'Who am I?' > > > > :-) > > > > Anders, as it may be experienced, this not " personal. " If there is an > > ego reading this, it is for it. Otherwise it is for the exchange of > > experience and concepts for learning and communicating various forms of > > " skullduggery. " > > > > Lewis > > The idea that we cannot do anything as separate individuals makes us > feel helpless, completely powerless - we cannot change time, therefore > we are 100% puppets. But that's a false view. We _are_ time itself. We > are creation itself in action. > > When I write something, then I have to be a bit surprised myself, or > else it would only be a boring repetition of my old knowledge. Nothing > wrong with old knowledge, but the newness of the now is where > creativity happens. When I feel that new stuff is flowing into what I > write, then I know myself to be a part of that fresh flow and not > merely a static heap of memories called the " me " . So my definition of > time would be a dynamic definition. What I mean by dynamic definition > (or dynamic concept) is that it can change at any moment! :-) > > /AL ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ It may be boring to " you " but is what is written for " you. " or you alone? Your " boring repetitions " may be of effective use to an ego seeking. May it be asked how is the experience of what you describe versus when " you " are are reviewing and viewing " you " and " your " relation to a concept or concepts as thought objects ( " I know myself to be a part of that fresh flow and not merely a static heap of memories called the " me " .) There is " I " (the knower or ego concept?) " myself " (a concept object), in relation to " part of that fresh flow " (concept object) and " a static heap of memories called the " me " (concept object). How does the direct experience feel versus your analysis of it? Can you describe it? Are all of those concepts present in your experience? Can the experience be reviewed and undergone without these concepts and therefore described differently? Lewis Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted December 25, 2004 Hi Lewis, a refreshing post, thanks! An empty pointer is an expressive attempt to communicate to " ego " a " what is concept " with another concept. The pointer and what it points to, always a concept, are empty. Pointers and the pointed to are of interest to ego. Otherwise, these are " lures, " " trickery, " " deception, " " illusions, " " lies, " " temptations, " " steps " to ego futility and dissolution. K: Yes, almost. I continue not to see clearly in what the difference between a " pointer " and an " empty pointer " lies. " Ego futility " is an interesting term, again. Would you say " double-negations " are empty pointers? K: Yes, the ego is a tricky phenomenon. Is witnessing a spawn of the ego or viceversa? What do you think? Witnessing is ego effort if neti, neti is employed and certainly if there is a sense of " distance and " non-immersion, " or " watching. " K: Yes...if! There is no need for an ego even for conventional communication or carrying on in daily life. K: Do you know that by personal experience ) K: Are we talking about " apperception " , perhaps? This term coined by Leibniz and so often used by Wei Wu Wei? No. It is not the mind's self-reflective awareness of its own thoughts as Kant and Leibniz would say. Wei Wu Wei says something completely different then the former two. K: Yes, exactly! The supreme obstacle to such apperception, in our space-time context of consciousness, lies in attributing subjectivity to phenomenal objects, and objectivity to what is subjective. K: Correct, apperception is not witnessing. Mind cannot be reached by mind, as Huang Po stated. The attempt is itself an obstacle. Awareness is no thing of which we (who are This) can be aware. K: Awareness = Apperception in Wei u Wei's sense? K: Does apperception generate concepts? I don't think so. In Kant and Leibniz's sense - Yes In Wei Wu Wei's - No K: Agreed, again! K: Not even " I am " , Lewis, simply " I " . It is that what we lost entering language as infants and what we will lose again when we die. And in the " imagined in - between? " K: The concept I offer is that " I am " or " I " got lost during our development. We are born with the " I-sense " , the " I am-sense " . We will lose it, again and forever, when we die. Nobody is born with an ego and the development of itself, later on, is actually a transpersonal affair. Language and the development of an ego or identity are intrinsically intervowen. K: There is no ego, no subject, no object nor " truth " outside of language. Language is empty, it is a concept and is part an parcel with " Ego, " " subjects " and " objects, " " truth. " That statement is a koan for ego to dance in futility with and nothing more... K: Oh! I see no Koan in it! " That which is beyond the mind " is a koan and nothing more, something aiding ego to realize futility. K:.....and the futility of this realization and the futility of that realization and the futility of that realization and the futility of that realization....... Ego has infinite regression of thought. K: No! There is no " ego-an-sich " nor is there an " ego-futility " ! To apprehend this is actually enough. If " That " equals " in the conscious of " BEING " that is awareness, or rather in ourselves " in the Self " , in silence, immobility and plenitude " then it is a ego state based on conceptual creations. K: No, it is prior to language, to vocabulary, to grammar. Ego states and language co-arise and are co-dependent. I follow here Lacanian concepts, which I would like to recommend you as an interesting read. I would like to recommend you too reads on developmental psychology, such as writings of Melanie Klein, Winnicott or Kohut. K: http://faculty.smu.edu/nschwart/seminar/gurewich.htm Here a recommendable read, Lewis. Take your time reading it. No. THAT is not prior to language. THAT does not exist. THAT is an empty pointer. K: That's now another " THAT " , Lewis I answered to the above displayed conditional joining...if " That " equals... and so on. The " I am-sense " or " I-sense " , " I am " or " I " , is, and is not " THAT " . It is, simplified, the " doorless " , open gate to " THAT " . " I " and " I am " is prior to language. We have it in common with every living creature. We, as human beings, lose it entering language and residing later, above all, in the register of the symbolic and imaginary. SNIP Language is systematic linking of sound and thought so that communication occurs. K: No! Too short, Lewis! As every attentive Mommy experiences and some attentive Daddies, a baby's cries are language, as defined, and clearly communicative in obtaining food, removal of soiled diapers, alleviation of discomfort of some sort and so on even though the " words " are differential cries. K: Poorly conceived but fun! But it isn´t that simple. Be so kind and read the link I posted. It´s not that heavy and, actually, a nice read. The author´s display of Lacanian concepts is perhaps a tad rough, on account of the shortness, but correct. At least, better than I would be able to do it. This crudely demonstrates the formation of language. There is only an appearance that language is " prior. " It is good to realize that " that " that exists in " self-made made time and space " created the ideas offered. K: ??? " That " is indescribable and pointers to do little to.... K: Yes, to the first part of this sentence but, how did you come to the conclusion in the latter part......??? Pointers are empty and point to no thing, emptiness. K: How did you come to that conclusion? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted December 25, 2004 Nisargadatta , Lewis Burgess <lbb10@c...> wrote: > .... > > When we know we are the Self, I suppose we know our own creative > > power, not as a single entity, but as creative power itself, emanating > > from our unmanifested Self. > > > > /AL > > ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ > > " When " we " know " we " are the " Self, " it is a somewhat " denuded " " ego " > that says " I Am the Self. " > > When " we " know " our " own creative power as power itself emanating from > our " unmanifested Self, " it is a somewhat " denuded " " ego " that thinks or > imagines that it is " THAT which is beyond. " " spiritual experience and > spiritual powers are experienced. > > When " we " " conclusively experience " the " utter finality " that " awareness > of awareness " results in " infinite regression " " infinite > meaninglessness " " infinite darkness, " infinite uncertainty " ..... an > almost disintegrated ego almost becomes " blank " " an empty shell " with > all thoughts, concepts, feelings, imaginings, dissolving as they occur. > The ego becomes " empty, " " dry, " so very dry and numb. A bone dry > dispassion sets in. But the dispassion is one that is removed, distant, > non-engaging, watching, alone, separated, an emotionless ego with only a > single concept left that is rooted only in a completely denuded " I. " In > this state the ego totters on the brink of annihilation. > > But this " I " is often mistaken for what is and the process of > disintegration, almost complete, is halted. > > Some of these almost disintegrated egos become God, messiahs, gurus, > enlightened ones, etc. self help people, business persons, recluses, > hermits, misanthropes, prophets and so on. The freedom from > identification with conceptual baggage and the clarity attained through > their practices give them great advantage over minds clouded with > concepts and self-centeredness. These are some of the most wonderful and > the most dangerous people. They become the warden and jailers of the > prisoners but they are in prison as well. > > The ego that totters and falls and like humpty dumpty can never be put > together again is " annihilated, " " dead, " " dissolved, " disintegrated, " > " exploded.........., " > > Then there is ordinariness... Simple awareness - vibrant, alive, > curious, emotion filled, responsive, creative, joyful, attachment free, > intuitive. Behavior is like spontaneous speech production, no thought is > involved. Feelings and sensations are heightened and these feelings and > sensations which gradually accumulates, integrates, softens and removes > the physical sense of separation in space and time. The body > synchronizes gradually and physical habits, speech patterns, activities, > interests, diet, created based on ego's concepts gradually or quickly > change into something else. This is the most irritating of experiences > after ego disintegration. This is especially so in meeting people and > experiencing the sensations of ego-based human creations. This gradually > passes but there is always something to do in this regard. Nature is > delightful, wonderful. It is being a child again. There is no drudgery, > even in the most repetitive of tasks and almost all is fun, even when an > ego blows up and attacks. > > Ego based actions and ego less actions are different. The sensations > generated feel different and are very disturbing since it impossible to > be closed to them. All is experienced without shielding, reservation, > dispassion. It is extremely painful to experience suffering as it is. So > it is not peaceful and blissful as promised by the wise tricksters. It > can be that way but it depends on the flow of sensations experienced. > > There is nothing special in any of this. It is ordinary, simple. Nothing > to think about. > > Lewis I was thinking of " we " as in group mind, that there _actually_ will be a recognition that we are all one Force, called the Self or cosmic consciousness, the Field or whatever. When we say: " I have no power, the ego has no power " we are perhaps fooling ourselves. I believe the ego has the power of the universe, but no separate power. /AL Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted December 25, 2004 anders_lindman wrote: > > Nisargadatta , Lewis Burgess <lbb10@c...> wrote: > > > ... > > > > When we know we are the Self, I suppose we know our own creative > > > power, not as a single entity, but as creative power itself, emanating > > > from our unmanifested Self. > > > > > > /AL > > > > ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ > > > > " When " we " know " we " are the " Self, " it is a somewhat " denuded " " ego " > > that says " I Am the Self. " > > > > When " we " know " our " own creative power as power itself emanating from > > our " unmanifested Self, " it is a somewhat " denuded " " ego " that > thinks or > > imagines that it is " THAT which is beyond. " " spiritual experience and > > spiritual powers are experienced. > > > > When " we " " conclusively experience " the " utter finality " that > " awareness > > of awareness " results in " infinite regression " " infinite > > meaninglessness " " infinite darkness, " infinite uncertainty " ..... an > > almost disintegrated ego almost becomes " blank " " an empty shell " with > > all thoughts, concepts, feelings, imaginings, dissolving as they occur. > > The ego becomes " empty, " " dry, " so very dry and numb. A bone dry > > dispassion sets in. But the dispassion is one that is removed, distant, > > non-engaging, watching, alone, separated, an emotionless ego with > only a > > single concept left that is rooted only in a completely denuded " I. " In > > this state the ego totters on the brink of annihilation. > > > > But this " I " is often mistaken for what is and the process of > > disintegration, almost complete, is halted. > > > > Some of these almost disintegrated egos become God, messiahs, gurus, > > enlightened ones, etc. self help people, business persons, recluses, > > hermits, misanthropes, prophets and so on. The freedom from > > identification with conceptual baggage and the clarity attained through > > their practices give them great advantage over minds clouded with > > concepts and self-centeredness. These are some of the most wonderful > and > > the most dangerous people. They become the warden and jailers of the > > prisoners but they are in prison as well. > > > > The ego that totters and falls and like humpty dumpty can never be put > > together again is " annihilated, " " dead, " " dissolved, " disintegrated, " > > " exploded.........., " > > > > Then there is ordinariness... Simple awareness - vibrant, alive, > > curious, emotion filled, responsive, creative, joyful, attachment free, > > intuitive. Behavior is like spontaneous speech production, no > thought is > > involved. Feelings and sensations are heightened and these feelings and > > sensations which gradually accumulates, integrates, softens and removes > > the physical sense of separation in space and time. The body > > synchronizes gradually and physical habits, speech patterns, > activities, > > interests, diet, created based on ego's concepts gradually or quickly > > change into something else. This is the most irritating of experiences > > after ego disintegration. This is especially so in meeting people and > > experiencing the sensations of ego-based human creations. This > gradually > > passes but there is always something to do in this regard. Nature is > > delightful, wonderful. It is being a child again. There is no drudgery, > > even in the most repetitive of tasks and almost all is fun, even > when an > > ego blows up and attacks. > > > > Ego based actions and ego less actions are different. The sensations > > generated feel different and are very disturbing since it impossible to > > be closed to them. All is experienced without shielding, reservation, > > dispassion. It is extremely painful to experience suffering as it > is. So > > it is not peaceful and blissful as promised by the wise tricksters. It > > can be that way but it depends on the flow of sensations experienced. > > > > There is nothing special in any of this. It is ordinary, simple. > Nothing > > to think about. > > > > Lewis > > I was thinking of " we " as in group mind, that there _actually_ will be > a recognition that we are all one Force, called the Self or cosmic > consciousness, the Field or whatever. When we say: " I have no power, > the ego has no power " we are perhaps fooling ourselves. I believe the > ego has the power of the universe, but no separate power. > > /AL ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Understood. Lewis Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted December 25, 2004 Nisargadatta , Lewis Burgess <lbb10@c...> wrote: > > > anders_lindman wrote: > .... > > > > The idea that we cannot do anything as separate individuals makes us > > feel helpless, completely powerless - we cannot change time, therefore > > we are 100% puppets. But that's a false view. We _are_ time itself. We > > are creation itself in action. > > > > When I write something, then I have to be a bit surprised myself, or > > else it would only be a boring repetition of my old knowledge. Nothing > > wrong with old knowledge, but the newness of the now is where > > creativity happens. When I feel that new stuff is flowing into what I > > write, then I know myself to be a part of that fresh flow and not > > merely a static heap of memories called the " me " . So my definition of > > time would be a dynamic definition. What I mean by dynamic definition > > (or dynamic concept) is that it can change at any moment! :-) > > > > /AL > > ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ > It may be boring to " you " but is what is written for " you. " or you > alone? Your " boring repetitions " may be of effective use to an ego seeking. There are certainly times when we only use past knowledge to write something. However, there must be a spark, a joy, an interest from myself. I write for me _and_ for other people. > > May it be asked how is the experience of what you describe versus when > " you " are are reviewing and viewing " you " and " your " relation to a > concept or concepts as thought objects ( " I know myself to be a part of > that fresh flow and not merely a static heap of memories called the > " me " .) There is " I " (the knower or ego concept?) " myself " (a concept > object), in relation to " part of that fresh flow " (concept object) and > " a static heap of memories called the " me " (concept object). How does > the direct experience feel versus your analysis of it? Can you describe > it? Are all of those concepts present in your experience? Can the > experience be reviewed and undergone without these concepts and > therefore described differently? > > Lewis The flow in the now is not a concept, but concepts can be parts in that flow. The fresh flow is felt as being creative. As I write, I observe what I write, sometimes it may be an answer I have been thinking about for a long time how to write, sometimes it is just an outpouring, a spontaneous direct answer without thinking. Harmony comes when there is no (or only little) conflict between the newness in the moment and my intellectual ideas (past knowledge). /AL Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted December 25, 2004 anders_lindman wrote: > > Nisargadatta , Lewis Burgess <lbb10@c...> wrote: > > > > > > anders_lindman wrote: > > > ... > > > > > > The idea that we cannot do anything as separate individuals makes us > > > feel helpless, completely powerless - we cannot change time, therefore > > > we are 100% puppets. But that's a false view. We _are_ time itself. We > > > are creation itself in action. > > > > > > When I write something, then I have to be a bit surprised myself, or > > > else it would only be a boring repetition of my old knowledge. Nothing > > > wrong with old knowledge, but the newness of the now is where > > > creativity happens. When I feel that new stuff is flowing into what I > > > write, then I know myself to be a part of that fresh flow and not > > > merely a static heap of memories called the " me " . So my definition of > > > time would be a dynamic definition. What I mean by dynamic definition > > > (or dynamic concept) is that it can change at any moment! :-) > > > > > > /AL > > > > ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ > > It may be boring to " you " but is what is written for " you. " or you > > alone? Your " boring repetitions " may be of effective use to an ego > seeking. > > There are certainly times when we only use past knowledge to write > something. However, there must be a spark, a joy, an interest from > myself. I write for me _and_ for other people. > > > > > May it be asked how is the experience of what you describe versus when > > " you " are are reviewing and viewing " you " and " your " relation to a > > concept or concepts as thought objects ( " I know myself to be a part of > > that fresh flow and not merely a static heap of memories called the > > " me " .) There is " I " (the knower or ego concept?) " myself " (a concept > > object), in relation to " part of that fresh flow " (concept object) and > > " a static heap of memories called the " me " (concept object). How does > > the direct experience feel versus your analysis of it? Can you describe > > it? Are all of those concepts present in your experience? Can the > > experience be reviewed and undergone without these concepts and > > therefore described differently? > > > > Lewis > > The flow in the now is not a concept, but concepts can be parts in > that flow. > > The fresh flow is felt as being creative. As I write, I observe what I > write, sometimes it may be an answer I have been thinking about for a > long time how to write, sometimes it is just an outpouring, a > spontaneous direct answer without thinking. Harmony comes when there > is no (or only little) conflict between the newness in the moment and > my intellectual ideas (past knowledge). > > /AL ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Yes. Writing is the breath of being fashioned for inhaling. Lewis Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted December 25, 2004 Lewis, K: Not even " I am " , Lewis, simply " I " . It is that what we lost entering language as infants and what we will lose again when we die. And in the " imagined in - between? " K: dis-ease, suffering, dukkha, sickness....unless, we recover our original face.... " we " dissolves in what it came from.... " I am " . And, " I am " in " I " and perhaps " I " in, " THAT " . Kip Almazy Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted December 25, 2004 Nisargadatta , Lewis Burgess <lbb10@c...> wrote: > .... > > Yes. Writing is the breath of being fashioned for inhaling. > > Lewis I don't quite understand what you wrote here. Maybe that's ok. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted December 25, 2004 Nisargadatta , " kipalmazy " <kipalmazy> wrote: > > The Self > > > It is small and no more visible than a cricket > in August. It likes to dress up, to masquerade, > as all dwarfs do. It lodges between > granite blocks, between serviceable > truths. It even fits under > a bandage, under adhesive. Neither customs officers > nor their beautifull dogs will find it. Between > hymns, between alliances, it hides itself. > It camps in the Rocky Mountains of the skull. > An eternel refugee. It is I and I, > with the fearful hope that I have found at last > a friend, am it. But the self > is so lonely, so distrustful, it does not > accept anyone, even me. > It clings to historical events > not less tightly than water to a glass. > I could fill a Neolithic jar. > It is insatiable, it wants to flow > in aqueducts, it thirsts for newer and newer vessels. > It wants to taste space without walls, > diffuse itself, diffuse itself. Then it fades away > like desire, and in the silence of an August > night you hear only crickets patiently > conversing with the stars. > > > -- Adam Zagajewski you like that one :-) i like it too! niiiice! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted December 25, 2004 kipalmazy wrote: > > Hi Lewis, > > > a refreshing post, thanks! > > > An empty pointer is an expressive attempt to communicate to " ego " a > " what is concept " with another concept. The pointer and what it > points to, always a concept, are empty. Pointers and the pointed to > are of interest to ego. Otherwise, these > are " lures, " " trickery, " " deception, " > " illusions, " " lies, " " temptations, " " steps " to ego futility and > dissolution. > > > K: Yes, almost. I continue not to see clearly in what the difference > between a " pointer " and an " empty pointer " lies. " Ego futility " is > an interesting term, again. > Would you say " double-negations " are empty pointers? No. Empty pointers point for ego's sake. Otherwise, it doesn't point at all. It points (pointer) and doesn't point (empty) > K: Yes, the ego is a tricky phenomenon. Is witnessing a spawn of the > ego or viceversa? What do you think? > > > Witnessing is ego effort if neti, neti is employed and certainly if > there is a sense of " distance and " non-immersion, " or " watching. " > > K: Yes...if! > > > There is no need for an ego even for conventional communication or > carrying on in daily life. > > > > K: Do you know that by personal experience ) Not by personal experience but by experience. > > K: Are we talking about " apperception " , perhaps? This term coined by > Leibniz and so often used by Wei Wu Wei? > > > No. It is not the mind's self-reflective awareness of its own > thoughts as Kant and Leibniz would say. Wei Wu Wei says something > completely different then the former two. > > > K: Yes, exactly! > > > The supreme obstacle to such apperception, in our space-time context > of consciousness, lies in attributing subjectivity to phenomenal > objects, and objectivity to what is subjective. > These words are Kip's and it assumed Kip is agreeing with them or something below, as it seems or ? > K: Correct, apperception is not witnessing. > > > Mind cannot be reached by mind, as Huang Po stated. The attempt is > itself an obstacle. Awareness is no thing of which we (who are This) > can be aware. > > > K: Awareness = Apperception in Wei u Wei's sense? Those words above are Wei Wu Wei's words. For Wei Wu Wei, apperception is awareness without being aware of awareness. He says: " Any attempt to cognise what is cognising - and is thereby incognisable - forbids apperception of what-we-are. Such apperception is not a function of split-mind. It can only be an immediate apperception released by some sensorial stimulus - auditory, visual, tactile, or of an unrecognisable origin. " He also says (not that this ot that above is important. Direct experience is advised) " Mind cannot be reached by mind, as Huang Po stated. The attempt is itself an obstacle. Awareness is no thing of which we (who are This) can be aware. Knowing this, understanding this, is not awareness of Awareness. Awareness is no kind of knowledge. All knowledge is conceptual, all conceptuality inheres in the space-time continuum. There is a solution of continuity between knowledge and Awareness. If one were to say that auditory apprehension might reveal it - such might be an indication of what is implied, but quite certainly not in the sense of deliberately listening to music - nor of deliberately looking at any object, touching any 'thing', or seizing any thought. Why is that so? Because split-mind must be in abeyance, and 'we' must be absent for Awareness to be present. " > K: Does apperception generate concepts? I don't think so. > > > In Kant and Leibniz's sense - Yes > In Wei Wu Wei's - No > > > K: Agreed, again! > > > K: Not even " I am " , Lewis, simply " I " . It is that what we lost > entering language as infants and what we will lose again when we die. > > And in the " imagined in - between? " > > > K: The concept I offer is that " I am " or " I " got lost during our > development. We are born with the " I-sense " , the " I am-sense " . We > will lose it, again and forever, when we die. Nobody is born with an > ego and the development of itself, later on, is actually a > transpersonal affair. Language and the development of an ego or > identity are intrinsically intervowen. Agreed. The non-ego " I " (if allowed) is. Yet, there can be ego without spoken language. There need only be body desire and effort to take from others, to horde, to separate. Language is not necessary to accomplish this. Language and the development of an ego or identity do become interwoven. But the notion that it is intrinsically so is challenged. > > K: There is no ego, no subject, no object nor " truth " outside of > language. > > > Language is empty, it is a concept and is part an parcel with " Ego, " > " subjects " and " objects, " " truth. " That statement is a koan for ego > to dance in futility with and nothing more... > > > K: Oh! I see no Koan in it! Logic is faulty. Experience teaches best. When the concept of language is removed from the mind, (there is no language and so all words and associated concepts are not and must cease). At first it appears that all words and the concepts they contain cannot exist and so there is a dissolve. There is cognitive struggle as the thought is held without question. Thoughts come and go and then thoughts are stopped and the mouth is shut unable to make an utterance due to minds attention to the idea that language is words, and thoughts are made of words (concepts) and ego, subject, object, truth are words and these and all similar things appear to dissolve. This is especially the case with the non-visual types who think in words and concepts. There is cognitive interference as the mind tries to hold that no thing exists outside of language while at the same time " something " is holding this idea in attention?. Is this not the effect of a koan? Does this not force an intuitive leap which defies rational thought and opens a moment of transcendence? Intellectual thought is built on vapors. But lo! It is not over. The koan brings a sense of futility only briefly in the ego's struggle with How can there be " no thing " with the death of language when " something " is holding this idea in attention? Behold! With patience, clear perceptions, mental images and memories appear in consciousness and ego sees ego's doing silently this and that and knowing directly, intuitively, what is happening in the perceptions, images and memories without words or thoughts of any kind. Ego lives in and through its now wordless perceptions, images, memories, even though its mouth is shut and thoughts stopped. > > > > " That which is beyond the mind " is a koan and nothing more, something > aiding ego to realize futility. > > > K:.....and the futility of this realization > > > and the futility of that realization and the futility of that > realization and the futility of that realization....... > > Ego has infinite regression of thought. > > > K: No! There is no " ego-an-sich " nor is there an " ego-futility " ! To > apprehend this is actually enough. Ego is an aspect of mind and has no existence. The mind can be instructed to create characters and it does so. Voice, thought patterns, emotions, temperament, personality, behaviors, gestures, dress, all can be made to seem real. Actors do it all the time and so do all humans. We act every day. This face and voice for this one and that for another. When, to use your term, " I-sense " is lost, then mind an operative function for living creates an ego, an imitative I an actor. This actor takes on a certain ontology and epistemology, adds local cultural beliefs and builds up a repertoire of thoughts opinion, attitudes and behaviors, all a fiction, except for the actual behavior that emerges creating sensations. This ego and all its various manifestations, believes it is real. Ego disintegration is the dissolution of this character that thinks it is an independent being in time and space. When it is threatened inwardly or outwardly with harm of death it fights to continue in one way or another. Ego futility occurs when ego is faced with its own disintegration and desires to give up and is almost unable to reconstitute itself as it once was. There are many studies of external and internal event stimulated ego disintegration (war, death of spouse, endocrine disorders, severe stress, double binds, dementia, etc.) and the result is not pleasant in most cases. All the mystic traditions push for the end of the ego as it is seen as a stumbling block to those goals of enlightenment, liberation, Nirvana, Heaven, perfection, union with God, salvation and so on. The methods, intentional or not, work towards the dissolution of the ego, its " death. " These methods for the most part fail because of the resiliency and cleverness of ego survival. > > If " That " equals " in the conscious of " BEING " that is awareness, or > rather in ourselves " in the Self " , in silence, immobility and > plenitude " then it is a ego state based on conceptual creations. > > > K: No, it is prior to language, to vocabulary, to grammar. Ego states > and language co-arise and are co-dependent. I follow here Lacanian > concepts, which I would like to recommend you as an interesting > read. I would like to recommend you too reads on developmental > psychology, such as writings of Melanie Klein, Winnicott or Kohut. > > > K: http://faculty.smu.edu/nschwart/seminar/gurewich.htm > Here a recommendable read, Lewis. Take your time reading it. Ok. > > > No. THAT is not prior to language. THAT does not exist. THAT is an > empty pointer. > > > K: That's now another " THAT " , Lewis I answered to the above > displayed conditional joining...if " That " equals... and so on. > The " I am-sense " or " I-sense " , " I am " or " I " , is, and is not " THAT " . > It is, simplified, the " doorless " , open gate to " THAT " . > " I " and " I am " is prior to language. We have it in common with every > living creature. We, as human beings, lose it entering language and > residing later, above all, in the register of the symbolic and > imaginary. There is agreement with the first part. However, please answer the challenge that language is at best a tool used by ego and not a subject that directs ego. Language has no agency. > > SNIP > > Language is systematic linking of sound and thought so that > communication occurs. > > K: No! Too short, Lewis! Kip, this is de Saussaure's definition for you. There is no need to worry about language any more than any other concept. It is all that is needed. If you bet your ontology and epistemology on language then make it as long as you wish. > > As every attentive Mommy experiences and some attentive Daddies, a > baby's cries are language, as defined, and clearly communicative in > obtaining food, removal of soiled diapers, alleviation of discomfort > of some sort and so on even though the " words " are differential > cries. > > > K: Poorly conceived but fun! But it isn´t that simple. Be so kind > and read the link I posted. It´s not that heavy and, actually, a > nice read. The author´s display of Lacanian concepts is perhaps a > tad rough, on account of the shortness, but correct. At least, > better than I would be able to do it. It will be read and the babies will visit you again. K: ??? It should read: ......This crudely demonstrates the formation of language. There is only an appearance that language is " prior. " It is good to realize that that the mixed egos (I-sense plus ego of psychologists, linguists, anthropologists, philosophers, etc. who exist in " self-made made time and space " created the ideas offered and are limited in their views. > > > " That " is indescribable and pointers to do little to.... > > > K: Yes, to the first part of this sentence but, how did you come to > the conclusion in the latter part......??? > > > Pointers are empty and point to no thing, emptiness. > > > K: How did you come to that conclusion? All conceptual knowledge is empty in that it in no possible way represents fully or even partially what it points to and it always points to another representation that is no different. Conceptual knowledge is unreal and is used properly only for testing before doing, creating. In the main it is in the way of experience and lessens it and distorts it. Experience is and conceptual knowledge is built up from it. Playing with it is as good as it gets. It is only taken seriously by ego since it " life " depends on it. So, Have a little fun, Exchange some ideas, I-sense likes it I-sense likes it Lewis Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted December 25, 2004 anders_lindman wrote: > > Nisargadatta , Lewis Burgess <lbb10@c...> wrote: > > > ... > > > > Yes. Writing is the breath of being fashioned for inhaling. > > > > Lewis > > I don't quite understand what you wrote here. Maybe that's ok. ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Sorry. Translation. The experience of writing is da bomb and its double da bomb if another receives it! Lewis Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted December 25, 2004 kipalmazy wrote: > > Lewis, > > > > > K: Not even " I am " , Lewis, simply " I " . It is that what we lost > entering language as infants and what we will lose again when we die. > > And in the " imagined in - between? " > > > K: dis-ease, suffering, dukkha, sickness....unless, we recover our > original face.... " we " dissolves in what it came from.... " I am " . > And, " I am " in " I " and perhaps " I " in, " THAT " . > > > Kip Almazy Yes. :-) and " I " am " Thou " Lewis Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted December 25, 2004 Nisargadatta , Lewis Burgess <lbb10@c...> wrote: > > > anders_lindman wrote: > > > > > Nisargadatta , Lewis Burgess <lbb10@c...> wrote: > > > > > ... > > > > > > Yes. Writing is the breath of being fashioned for inhaling. > > > > > > Lewis > > > > I don't quite understand what you wrote here. Maybe that's ok. > ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ > > Sorry. Translation. The experience of writing is da bomb and its double > da bomb if another receives it! > > Lewis Yes, and we don't really know about eventual impact fully until it is reflected back to us. /AL Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted December 25, 2004 anders_lindman wrote: > > Nisargadatta , Lewis Burgess <lbb10@c...> wrote: > > > > > > anders_lindman wrote: > > > > > > > > Nisargadatta , Lewis Burgess <lbb10@c...> wrote: > > > > > > > ... > > > > > > > > Yes. Writing is the breath of being fashioned for inhaling. > > > > > > > > Lewis > > > > > > I don't quite understand what you wrote here. Maybe that's ok. > > ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ > > > > Sorry. Translation. The experience of writing is da bomb and its double > > da bomb if another receives it! > > > > Lewis > > Yes, and we don't really know about eventual impact fully until it is > reflected back to us. > > /AL ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ And so sometimes it is triple da bomb. Lewis Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted December 25, 2004 In a message dated 12/25/04 3:15:11 AM, ericparoissien writes: > >you like that one :-) > >i like it too! niiiice! > Eric. Yes, very nice! Adam is, was alright. Pete > > Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted December 25, 2004 kipalmazy wrote: > K: No, it is prior to language, to vocabulary, to grammar. Ego states > and language co-arise and are co-dependent. I follow here Lacanian > concepts, which I would like to recommend you as an interesting > read. I would like to recommend you too reads on developmental > psychology, such as writings of Melanie Klein, Winnicott or Kohut. > > > K: http://faculty.smu.edu/nschwart/seminar/gurewich.htm > Here a recommendable read, Lewis. Take your time reading it. ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Time to explore Lacanian concepts. The recommended article was read and if there is any point that you would like to bring up, please do so after the terms of discussion have been clearly defined ( " The Subject and the Self: Lacan and American Psychoanalysis. Judith Feher Gurewich, Michel Tort, and Susan Fairfield. New Jersey and London: Jason Aronson, Inc., 1998. " http://faculty.smu.edu/nschwart/seminar/gurewich.htm First, the paper read introduced Jacques Lacan's ideas concerning the formation of human subjectivity and the self. The paper described Lacanian notions as a cobble work of ideas and concepts reworked from the work and theories of Sigmund Freud (psychoanalysis, Claude Levi-Strauss (structural anthropology), Ferdinand deSaussare and Roman Jakobson (linguistics), analyst experience and patient discourse. One of the central concepts, the nature, structure, and operation of unconscious - the Other, heavily depends on the structural analysis of language in order to access the unconscious and to peer behind the ego. But this concept depends on a structural analysis of language. The model of subjectivity and self are formed in the main by the interaction of the unconscious, language, desires, ego, the external environment including the other, that is, mother, parents and so on. The formation the unconscious is admittedly a fiction made by analysts retrospectively understanding the content of the patient's discourse and the frame of beliefs held by the Lacanian psychoanalysts. As Gurewich notes: " This explains why language and the rules that organizes speech are so crucial in Lacanian theory: the discourse of the patient speaking to the analyst is what defines the field of analytic inquiry. Infant research therefore remains marginal. For Lacanians, it is more appropriate to speak of structural moments of psychic development instead of stages or developmental lines. From this perspective the preoedipal period is a more or less fictive construct retroactively understood by the analyst on the basis of the patient's discourse as it unfolds in the transference. " This is akin to any religious conception of God or creative forces made from scriptural text, testimony, anecdotal evidence, personal experiences and opinions, ecclesiastic authority, a priesthood and the like. What is added is beyond normal everyday experience. Roughly it is hearsay plus intellectual weave work with disparate theories. Besides the ego, there are few or no comparable pointers in everyday life to the unconscious; ego cannot know it nor understands what it says, but the analyst who holds the Lacanian frame for analysis is able to see what others less informed can. The concepts of ego point to similar to phenomena commonly encountered and worth mentioning at this stage. See the quotes below. ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~` " The ego is the barrier that needs to be broken through in order to have access to a desire that operates behind the subject's back. Coming to terms with this unconscious desire enables the patient to lessen the grip of his ego's defenses without having the latter become a focus of analytic treatment. " The fact that we believe we are the sole engineers of our thoughts and feelings, that we believe we are autonomous and cohesive individuals in control of our actions, that we think we know why we seek analytic treatment, that we imagine that the analyst knows something about us that we don't know, that we feel that the analyst is casting judgment upon us these aspects of experience are what Lacan calls méconnaissance or misrecognition. This méconnaissance-our usual way of being in the world-gives us access only to a realm of illusion in which our experience of " reality " is not layered but monolithic. But as the transference unfolds méconnaissance becomes more fragile. What we think, say, and see is less imbued with certitude: a dream, a slip of the tongue, a fantasy, a misplaced affect, an acting out makes us aware that another structure is operative, that an invisible puppeteer pulls the strings of our destiny. We realize that we not only speak but that we are also spoken by invisible laws that run through our discourse and our affects, shaping our conscious life, linking us to others in ways we cannot perceive or understand. " " The essential point thus far is that Lacan breaks the illusory envelope that surrounds our experience of subjectivity. He uses the model of the Möbius strip as a vivid metaphor to describe how what is exterior to human subjectivity becomes not only interior but central. Exterior and interior are, as it were, in a continuum: what is interior can become exterior and vice versa. " (see this link for Möbius strip http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/M%F6bius_strip) " The reader may recall that at the beginning of this Preface I introduced Lacan's concept of méconnaissance or misrecognition. This refers to our mistaken conviction that we know what we are saying when we speak--mistaken, since as a result of primal repression (the paternal metaphor) we are unaware of how we have come to believe that we are autonomous and fully conscious beings, perfectly capable of determining why the outside world seems repeatedly to disappoint our expectations. For Lacan méconnaissance is the fundamental characteristic of our ego. " " A consideration of Lacan's theory of the genesis of the ego will introduce the flip side of the symbolic, which Lacan calls the imaginary. This is the realm of conscious life, the realm of the signified, the realm of reality as the subject perceives and experiences it. It is through the imaginary that the subject's ego (le moi, " the me " ) comes into being. While the unconscious is formed as a result of the human being's submission to the Other in the symbolic, the ego is the effect of the encounter with the other in the imaginary. " " The ego is above all a construct, a defensive shield that has its origin in an image formed by the gaze of the other. The ego is thus not innate but produced. Its function is to ward off those unconscious strivings that attempt to undermine the subject's sense of wholeness and autonomy. The psychoanalyst, therefore, cannot form an alliance with the ego. On the contrary, he or she must discern in the discourse and affects of the subject certain leads that permit the tricking of the ego in such a way as to enable the subject's unconscious desire to emerge. " " Lacan regards the human capacity to become an object to oneself as an adaptive response of the organism to its environment. It is from that perspective that Lacan reworks the Freudian concept of the ego, casting it as the psychic representative not of the reality principle but of an " imaginary " reality. On the basis of the contrast between the baby's primordial jubilation when it encounters the mirror (or mirroring other) and the fantasies of dismemberment, Lacan explains how the human being constitutes his identity at the price of a fundamental split between a projected image of unity and an inner sense of fragmentation. " " The ego itself is genetically a defense, a cover-up of the split that constitutes us as subjects. While through the process of primal repression-the paternal metaphor-the individual is able to bring his or her ego into the realm of symbols and therefore to grant it consistency thanks to the support of language, the unity of the ego will nonetheless be challenged each time the image of the other conveys not a sense of gratifying wholeness but rather a sense of lack and powerlessness. " " For Lacan, as we have seen, the ego is not the agency that represents the reality principle. The ego is constituted as a lure, a defense, a refusal to recognize the precariousness and illusoriness of the sense of integration that the mirror conveys. In other words, the ego is a construct that denies the very alienation that has caused it to come into being. Paradoxically, then, the more subjects affirm themselves as ego the more they alienate themselves. The most fundamental function of the ego is therefore misrecognition, méconnaissance. Méconnaissance is not ignorance; it is rather a structure of affirmations and negations in which the subject invests. " " It is important to note that méconnaissance serves a necessary function for the subject's adaptation to the environment. The shield of the ego is for the human being what the instinct of survival is for the animal. " ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ If the formation of the pre-Oedipal stage unconscious is conceptually a fiction and that ego has no access to the unconscious directly, then understanding depends on someone well versed in Lacanian psychoanalysis. If that be you Kip, your input would be necessary to go beyond the relatively simple notion of ego to that mysterious and complicated unconscious that is assumed or designed by Lacanian to do all the work it does with language, desire, ego and so forth. So do you adhere Lacanian psychoanalysis? To what degree? What is the unconscious? A clear definition and some empty pointer would suffice. What is your conception and experience of the unconscious? Can the unconscious be explored by the members of the forum? If so how? After this we can examine language, the unconscious and language, the unconscious and ego, the interaction with the environment and solutions to living in imaginary realms versus the " real. " Turn it on. It is fascinating. Please correct any misunderstanding without reserve. Lewis Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted December 25, 2004 Nisargadatta , Lewis Burgess <lbb10@c...> wrote: > > > anders_lindman wrote: > > > > > Nisargadatta , Lewis Burgess <lbb10@c...> wrote: > > > > > ... > > > > > > When we know we are the Self, I suppose we know our own creative > > > > power, not as a single entity, but as creative power itself, emanating > > > > from our unmanifested Self. > > > > > > > > /AL > > > > > > ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ > > > > > > " When " we " know " we " are the " Self, " it is a somewhat " denuded " " ego " > > > that says " I Am the Self. " > > > > > > When " we " know " our " own creative power as power itself emanating from our " unmanifested Self, " it is a somewhat " denuded " " ego " Odysseus: Hi Lewis :0) There is no ego so how can it be denuded? :0) that thinks or imagines that it is " THAT which is beyond. " " spiritual experience and spiritual powers are experienced. > > > > > > When " we " " conclusively experience " the " utter finality " that > > " awareness of awareness " results in " infinite regression " " infinite meaninglessness " " infinite darkness, " infinite uncertainty " ..... an > > > almost disintegrated ego almost becomes " blank " " an empty shell " with > > > all thoughts, concepts, feelings, imaginings, dissolving as they occur. The ego becomes " empty, " " dry, " so very dry and numb. A bone dry dispassion sets in. But the dispassion is one that is removed, distant, > > > non-engaging, watching, alone, separated, an emotionless ego Odysseus: emotionless ego, ha ha ha! There are a bunch of those in this web site! :0) with only a single concept left that is rooted only in a completely denuded " I. " In > > > this state the ego totters on the brink of annihilation. > > > > > > But this " I " is often mistaken for what is and the process of > > > disintegration, almost complete, is halted. > > > > > > Some of these almost disintegrated egos become God, messiahs, gurus, enlightened ones, etc. self help people, business persons, recluses, hermits, misanthropes, prophets and so on. Odyseeus: One day a frog was watching the moon. not knowing what it is, said to himself, I must understand what it is! Never being able to explain it quit the effort to understand it. Then started to teach? After his death,One of the best pupil of the master teaches that the moon is not to understand nothing. A student asked, what are the clouds? The Master replyied I don't know? The buddha discovered what the moon is! I cannot answer your question that easely. I would need to be as great as the buddha! And I cannot, no one can! Until today no one knows what the clouds are. The freedom from > > > identification with conceptual baggage and the clarity attained through their practices give them great advantage over minds clouded with concepts and self-centeredness. These are some of the most wonderful and the most dangerous people. They become the warden and jailers of the prisoners but they are in prison as well. > > > Odysseus: No, they are not! > > > The ego that totters and falls and like humpty dumpty can never be put together again " annihilated, " " dead, " " dissolved, " disintegrated, " > > > " exploded.........., " > > > Odysseus: The Ego can never die. It is Eternal. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted December 25, 2004 Nisargadatta , " kipalmazy " <kipalmazy> wrote: > > The Self > > > It is small and no more visible than a cricket > in August. Odysseus: Not true, It likes to dress up, to masquerade, > as all dwarfs do. It lodges between > granite blocks, between serviceable > truths. It even fits under > a bandage, under adhesive. Neither customs officers > nor their beautifull dogs will find it. Between > hymns, between alliances, it hides itself. > It camps in the Rocky Mountains of the skull. > An eternel refugee. Odysseus: It is not a refuge. It is I and I, > with the fearful hope that I have found at last > a friend, am it. But the self > is so lonely, Odysseus: ha ha! Lonely you say!!! :0 so distrustful, it does not > accept anyone, even me. > It clings to historical events > not less tightly than water to a glass. > I could fill a Neolithic jar. > It is insatiable, it wants to flow > in aqueducts, it thirsts for newer and newer vessels. > It wants to taste space without walls, > diffuse itself, diffuse itself. Then it fades away > like desire, and in the silence of an August > night you hear only crickets patiently > conversing with the stars. Odysseus: Fades away hum? I don' " Think " . Yes, I tried to convers with those crickets patiently... I just can't, they talk all the time! Non stop talking, non stop, thinking, it is a dead end situation, but they don't die? damn crickets. So I tried to talk to the stars. Them, they don't speak, they don't think, they are dead! They are so far (space). What the " hell " is going on? Oh what a boring day! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
