DeTales

This is a read-only part of the forum. All threads where seeing happens are stored here and come from this forum, the Facebook guiding area and various LU blogs. The complete list, sorted by guide, contains all links. The archives include threads of those that came to LU already seeing as well.
User avatar
vinceschubert
Posts: 3557
Joined: Fri Nov 04, 2011 11:02 am
Location: Australia
Contact:

DeTales

Postby vinceschubert » Sat Mar 16, 2013 8:32 am

Anton, let's start with you describing what you see as your 'self'. What you call I, or Me.
Then finish the post with a paragraph or two on your expectation for 'liberation' or what you can expect being "done" is.

love

vince

User avatar
DeTales
Posts: 34
Joined: Fri Mar 15, 2013 10:56 pm
Location: California Foothills, Diamond Springs
Contact:

Re: DeTales

Postby DeTales » Sat Mar 16, 2013 6:50 pm

There is a distinction between "I" and "me" in the way my considerations go. You might say that "I" refers to what is the substrate of "i" or "me," as the timeless emptiness that was totally satisfying when that thing happened to me at about 17. As a result, when "i" woke up, there was the distinct sense of being trapped in what "i" had thought was me before the incident.

In fact "i" "came to" drumming my hands on my chest asking repeatedly "What is this!? What is this!?" There was a total sense that what was total was now stuck in a person and a point perspective in a 3D world. Instead of just nothing/all there was this and that and motion stuck over/around it. I was riding in a thing that was doing its own thing according to what came to its head as action parameters. It was associated with its surroundings by particular kinds of links. It had memories, sensations, emotions, but right then, though I/i was lucid enough to know I had dropped my wallet and knew exactly where it was without thinking about it, the overall thing was: "WTF!!!!!?????" I(it's easier to use convention here) tried to tell friends and clergy (I was in a Catholic boys school, and a prize winner in knowledge of Catholic theology) and received many assessments form being recommended to a psychiatrist or doctor for my hormones, or simply to just have faith and pray. BS all, none of it addressed what was my experience and this feeling of being stuck in a bad carnival ride, however exquisitely detailed the accouterments. In the mean time my grades, etc, improved because, it seems, I was watching me do things and had a bit of critical edge therefor.

But it's likely for purposes here that that is relegated to story land and you are more interested in "what's happening now." But that event turned my life, so now it's off my chest. "Self?" in the common usage, that appears for me to be a point of reactivity to circumstance. It seems to be an interface dynamic between what is perceived and the desire to feel as best I can about outcomes real or imagined, even if the reaction is avoidance. Maybe what I mean is that the personal self, when looked for, is an activity of fulfilling need in order to feel good, even if for the moment at the expense of something really more important in the larger scheme of things. Much of its activity is around getting recognition and validation. It seems random in that it just reacts to what comes up, and what comes up is uncalled for in the sense of my evoking it. Unless I'm doing my art or poetry. Then the most successful tactic is to pose a question in words or form and after thorough examination, go as blank as I can and "listen." That area of creativity is the only notable source of feeling competent that I have. Everything else feels, well, needy and awkward, with my sense of desiring just to be at peace with myself and the astonishing idiocy of the public world and the infinite wonder of the creative people I wish to be with or be like.

In short, if that is possible to say after all that rambling, the sense of "me" is more of an activity relative to stimulus than someone who is indefinably "in here." or a definable person. The mystery is, I guess, how it is all associated with a point of body/mind perspective that I call "me." There is no "me" that I can definitively pull out of a hat, put on a plater, or type into a sentence litanizing associations. No one is home, yet I'm here watching, knowing that even if I "do" or "choose," what that means is only slightly related to what it looks like according to my personal perspective. So "me" and "mine are reference labels useful for defining a sort of locus of perception/action that has truck with what is incomprehensibly beyond its grasp as a totality, and even as a moment. I will cease my ramble with that.

As for what I expect? I expect intelligent response from you, Vince, as evidence leads me to believe you are very good at. I expect to be challenged, because I'm kind of stodgy in what I think is "so." My tendency is to be touchy and snobbish when it comes to art, literature, and especially philosophy. I expect that my desire to change and be competent will be strong enough to go with what you propose as a line of inquiry, even if I squirm a bit or a lot. I expect that with honest work my perspective or understanding will change in a way I can't assess from this side.

As to outcome? I just want to stop struggling with, what? the sense that there is some part of me I have to acquire a mental hold on to be whole, that, being on the face of it, a ridiculous proposition. And I would like some sense of competency with dealing with what feels so out of reach for me as pre-verbal, pre-cognitive stuff that seems to be in charge of what and how I do. I want to respond to the exigencies of life as being present and artistic, as distinct from being reactionary due to programing that is opaque to me. Or maybe I want to stop arguing with what is and deal, or stop being bitchy about what is going on and use my resources to move instead of complain. I want to accept Reality as it is, not as I think i want it to be for my convenience. I want not to be Anton in story land.

Thanks for being here,

Love,

Anton

User avatar
vinceschubert
Posts: 3557
Joined: Fri Nov 04, 2011 11:02 am
Location: Australia
Contact:

Re: DeTales

Postby vinceschubert » Sat Mar 16, 2013 9:06 pm

Morning Anton.
Let's burrow down a bit and clarify some of the things you said;
I was riding in a thing that was doing its own thing...
This implies that you had no control. Was there an acceptance or a resistance to this ?
I was watching me do things
Would it be more accurate to say "there was watching the organism doing things" ?
Much of its activity is around getting recognition and validation.
Is there awareness of this happening, either before it happens or during, or after it occurs ?
I would like some sense of competency with dealing with
Could you expand a bit on what you see as a "sense of competency". Are you referring to a sense of control ?
I want to respond to the exigencies of life as being present and artistic, as distinct from being reactionary due to programing that is opaque to me.
Obviously, programing that is being reinforced will continue. De-conditioning is a twofold process where the old programing atrophies from non use and isn't reinforced, and a new programing is established to replace it. Thankfully the brain has plasticity and we can do this. (more on this later)
I want to accept Reality as it is, not as I think i want it to be for my convenience.
Being critical of 'Reality' is habit too. Do you think that changing this is a matter of control ?
When choice occurs, what part does Anton play in it ?

love

vince

User avatar
DeTales
Posts: 34
Joined: Fri Mar 15, 2013 10:56 pm
Location: California Foothills, Diamond Springs
Contact:

Re: DeTales

Postby DeTales » Sun Mar 17, 2013 6:34 am

Hi Vince,
This implies that you had no control. Was there an acceptance or a resistance to this ?
Primarily it was bafflement. It wasn't a matter of choice, it was what was at hand. There was no concept of going back to the "nothingness," but my perceptions were all lost at sea about what this condition was. So research happened, reading and interviews. Ended up leaving the church, and after getting used to it, only began to even think about it when I heard the likes of Alan Watts, and later when I took up TM, and then much later when invited to a lecture by the man who became my Mentor. Seems it wasn't complete, because it still seemed like something that happened to "me," even though it very radically changed what "me" meant. And there was no language at hand to express accurately what transpired.
Would it be more accurate to say "there was watching the organism doing things" ?
Of course, yes, but the discursive process hadn't accommodated the event, and people don't talk that way. At least that idea didn't come up until about 20 years later, and apparently there wasn't intelligence or perceptive enough to figure it out accurately on my own.
Is there awareness of this happening, either before it happens or during, or after it occurs ?
It's kind of in the moment, and seems to have duration in retrospect. The seeking of validation and recognition is the activity of the sense of being on my own and responsible, maybe with an overtone of being abandoned or neglected.
Could you expand a bit on what you see as a "sense of competency". Are you referring to a sense of control ?


In a sense, yes, as the "sense of competency" would be result oriented in that there would be no discovery of "Damn, that happened again!" that being a moment when the sense of an "I" is often strongest. It might be described as a moment of comprehending the completion of another act of self sabotage that was seen to be happening all along, with the complicity of not deciding to act differently. The classic manifestation I think, of an addiction. Except it most often has to do with not doing something, and it feels sort of like defiance, or f you, and the pain of the ommison almost feels like a reward, like it was what the point of the exercise was about to start with. Nuts! Like that stupid Brittney Spears line, "oops, I did it again.: Yeah right. Ooops. So a sense of competency would be the discovery of having chosen to break the cycle.
Obviously, programing that is being reinforced will continue. De-conditioning is a twofold process where the old programing atrophies from non use and isn't reinforced, and a new programing is established to replace it. Thankfully the brain has plasticity and we can do this. (more on this later)
Yes, There is no doubt about that. Whew! Vamos a ver. (Spanish for "Let's go see.")
Being critical of 'Reality' is habit too. Do you think that changing this is a matter of control ?
When choice occurs, what part does Anton play in it ?
It is not possible to be critical of Reality. It just IS. Oh. Do you mean that my being this way is not different from reality???!!!Hmmmmm..... Interesting. That brings up the paradox of having two things in awareness: a hypothetical interpretation of what's going on, and a hypothetical individual reacting to it. But those are taking place in the same space, so must be the same thing: Reality already just being what it is. Holy cow! Alrighty then. :) We'll keep that one.

Please let me know, since this is new for me, if it's being coded in a way that is useful for you to work with? Thanks.

Love,

Anton

User avatar
vinceschubert
Posts: 3557
Joined: Fri Nov 04, 2011 11:02 am
Location: Australia
Contact:

Re: DeTales

Postby vinceschubert » Mon Mar 18, 2013 2:01 am

but my perceptions were all lost at sea about what this condition was.
Can you see the mind has an obsession to explain things ?
What is mind Anton ?
the activity of the sense of being on my own and responsible, maybe with an overtone of being abandoned or neglected.
To who or what is this happening ?
in that there would be no discovery of "Damn, that happened again!" that being a moment when the sense of an "I" is often strongest.
Two things here; 1. there is a judgment occurring. ie That shouldn't be happening.
& 2. This discovery, this recognition will be of pivotal usefulness with the de-conditioning that we will get to soon.
It might be described as a moment of comprehending the completion of another act of self sabotage that was seen to be happening all along,
Yes, and for this to be the case, it is implied that there is a self to be sabotaged, and of course includes the inevitable judgement that it shouldn't be happening.
oops, I did it again.
There's that judgement again.
Hmm, a tricky one here, as it appears that i'm judging the judgement. ..and i am doing that but with a difference to a moral judgement. i am implying that this will stop and i recognize that these judgements are going to be useful as triggers to recognise when the mind heads off into storyland. This recognition being a key to the de-conditioning that will occur.
So a sense of competency would be the discovery of having chosen to break the cycle.
Anton, how does choice work ?
With no I to choose, where does choosing happen ?
It is not possible to be critical of Reality.
If criticism of Reality happens, then that is Reality. Is there any part of Anton Experiencing that is not Reality ?
That brings up the paradox of...
Ha, do you see, can you accept that (seeming) paradoxes abound in Reality and that they don't need resolution (that is the minds obsession again)
Please let me know,... if it's being coded in a way that is useful for you to work with? Thanks.
Yes, it's fine, although, i do need to thank you as your way of expressing (and the content of it) is taking me into wonder-full depths of inspiration. Thank you Anton !

love love

vince

User avatar
DeTales
Posts: 34
Joined: Fri Mar 15, 2013 10:56 pm
Location: California Foothills, Diamond Springs
Contact:

Re: DeTales

Postby DeTales » Mon Mar 18, 2013 6:02 am

Can you see the mind has an obsession to explain things ?
What is mind Anton ?
Yes, I do see that. There is always "more" and the "unknown" is unacceptable. There is a desire to know, to see in fullness, which is kind of a joke, because all that happens is that the horizon recedes. There is always the need to know "why?" or "how?" For me, that is where the creativity is, as well, though ultimately all seems to come out of nowhere and nothing. It is as if attention held on anything brings with it all the possibilities of directional/dimensional possibilities. As if a room opens up when you give it a door by looking. But it is in a sense all always already there.

As for mind, again, in my linguistic adaptations, there is "mind," or what could be called personal mind, or the contents of awareness and the infinite it poses within the limits of the human spectrum of apprehension, and "Mind," which is synonymous with the intelligence of Totality. Whatever that is. Maybe a place holder for the incomprehensible.

"My" mind is the collective gestalt of information, sensation, emotion, beliefs, etc., which in aggregate constitute my version of the world and the delusion both to accept and to see through, both as a filter and a scrim. It is what me and my world, together, constitute. I've also said "my mind is my play pen." It constantly turns, moves, and presents serving suggestions for approval, rejection, or modification. Lack of involvement by means of dispassionate observation of its presentations seems to constitute calm. Being sensational with it and feeling something is at stake constitutes drama and turmoil. Mind, sometimes called mine, is what runs unscheduled thought trains into nowhere often with "me" as a passenger, if there is inadvertence. It is what can't be stopped and what "I" was free of after that incident, not knowing till reflection on that that that "me" is a modulation of a carrier wave which unmodulated is simply presence, and is silence.

Re-reading the paragraph above the last one, especially, it's clear that there's a distinction, an artificial distinction, being made between "me" and "mind." In fact, those can't be separate. It can't be said, in evaluating that paragraph, coming back to it after signing this post, that there is a discoverable possessor of a mind. That whole terminology and perspective is more and more coming off to me as a habitual regurgitation. Just want to clean up the mess.

To who or what is this happening ?
Can't say. Default is to say "It's happening to me" as trained. There is some sort of assumption to be made by seeing that "others" are random pattern generators, especially in groups, even if somewhat predictable statistically or by rote of acquaintance. Ken Wilbur's Four Quadrants postulates that the interior of the individual, (I/we) where meaning resides, is unquantifiable, distinct from the commonality (it/they.) The difference between quantifiability and meaning is the difference between measurement and interpretation. That is why it is so difficult to express a realization in language and so easy to put a ruler or calipers on something "material."

So by observation and experience, the who or what of me is an undefinable activity referred to by name as it appears to have reference to this physicality and its awareness, or lack of it. Yet it, that activity, is what I would more call "me" than the body it uses. But the mechanistic and linguistic assumptions don't bear up under scrutiny. Ultimately, all that can honestly be said, despite tripping on lines or trains, is that awareness is present. It is already there when "I" wake up in the morning, or there would be no witness to the happening. As someone said, "I and my world arise spontaneously together." So it is necessary to say that the "thought-I" is a convention of convenience invented to account for the ariseal in humans of the subject-object mode of redundant observation. (IMHO, that is what the Eden story is ultimately about, not a literal expulsion, and even less a "fall") So is it that the "I" I constantly refer to is a convention of convenience? As I said before, it ain't quantifiably there; it's the ghost in the machine, a machine which for most of us is what our habituations are, however we mask them with airs of freedom and choice. B and S.
Two things here; 1. there is a judgment occurring. ie That shouldn't be happening.
& 2. This discovery, this recognition will be of pivotal usefulness with the de-conditioning that we will get to soon.
Lovely :)
Yes, and for this to be the case, it is implied that there is a self to be sabotaged, and of course includes the inevitable judgement that it shouldn't be happening.
So I'm two thirds of the way to the Three Faces of Eve. Wonderful! rotfl. See?!!! It is SO damned unconscious!!! (patient looks at keyboard, muttering and uttering unprintables.) Ahem. Yes. But the sabotage and judgment are one, designed, it is suspected, precisely to give the feeling of there being a me. I just remembered a line: "Suffering is personally induced in order to lend verification to a suppositicious esistence." ~KG Mills. But so is everything that makes one think or or entertain that there is a personal "I." Especially language. RA Heinlein said that "In English, only the first person singular of the verb 'to be' is accurate." That is to say only awareness is. All else is conjecture, save the principles derived form what is measurable in commonality. And that is grandly incomplete and very misleading. And I have to laugh when the story Gangaji tells of meeting some of the "I-less" cult comes to mind. It seems she was at a gathering were some of them were present. When she accidentally stepped on the foot of one of them he declares, in much pain, "The foot! The foot hurts!" Seems they refused to use the word "I." And thereby drew attention to that very word and idea. Got a few stories like that myself. Boy, it feels like a quotes library in here.... But knowing all that about the hypotheticality of a personal I as an intellectual proposition doesn't put the brakes on, it seems. Even after there is the conviction it is so, that there isn't one.
There's that judgement again.
Wonderful. It is supposed to be the most grevious of sins, meriting thousands of incarnations. And I'm not even wearing a black robe and periwig. But then my take on incarnations is radically different from the usual. There isn't anyone to re-incarnate. I've been telling them for years. And yet, it may seem to happen. Life is wondrous.
Hmm, a tricky one here, as it appears that i'm judging the judgement. ..and i am doing that but with a difference to a moral judgement. i am implying that this will stop and i recognize that these judgements are going to be useful as triggers to recognise when the mind heads off into storyland. This recognition being a key to the de-conditioning that will occur.
I kind of sense that coming, as my frustration might hopefully indicate.
Anton, how does choice work ?
With no I to choose, where does choosing happen ?
Hmmm... Good question. Very good. It brings up the question of agency. Assuming no I appears to make it mechanistic, that begging the question of awareness. It can be said that subject/object (s/o) are one. That was to some degree inherent in the last paragraph of my previous post. Is it just an automatic averaging-out of predilections that looks like thinking? But who's thinking? Thoughts just happen as a bundle with perceptions, or like train cars, one pulling the other, and no locomotive in sight. Choice appears to be a function of directing attention, like how you pull your fingers apart on an ipad image to enlarge it. Still doesn't clarify who's doing it. Some things just seem more attractive than others, regardless of known or unknown outcome. The mind just seems to go there. The body and actions follow, as long as the attention is sustained and newness appears that draws it farther. It is just a happening, and it is not possible even to say whose attention it is. But somehow there is an identification with the process which is labeled and filed. But that is files along side things that happen by the same path which are filed under "not me." How often have I heard "Wow; that wasn't like me at all!" And yet they did it. Could say the same has happed in my experience.

"Whodunit? Hmmm? Umdidja? :)" as my Mentor used to ask. Shrugs all around. It happened. It is just that somehow this I reference seems indefatigable. There always seems to be the need to blame or credit someone who, from the inside here, anyway, isn't found. I fell like I keep calling an empty house where the phone rings. Either no one answers, or its me wanting to know what I want.
If criticism of Reality happens, then that is Reality. Is there any part of Anton Experiencing that is not Reality ?


No. There is just often attention to the thought ......(pause and a shudder) Huh? Laughing. What the f am I trying to say???? This can be devilishly and surprisingly koan-ish. That the two aren't one is itself a thought. Separation is artificial; the mind divides so it can label and evaluate. And yet there isn't two, but one. Arrrrrgggggghhhh..... Shit and smiles. If the thought is labled "I", or a series of them "me," they are no more or less I or me than any other thought!
Ha, do you see, can you accept that (seeming) paradoxes abound in Reality and that they don't need resolution (that is the minds obsession again)
I have heard that one cannot be a student of Reality if one is not comfortable living on the edge of paradox. Intuitively that is known to me, and is why I said what I did about the optical that is your icon. The reality is better described as both/and.
Yes, it's fine, although, i do need to thank you as your way of expressing (and the content of it) is taking me into wonder-full depths of inspiration. Thank you Anton !
Excellent. Having some value to offer is very satisfying. I am very grateful to you for doing this with me!


Love,

Anton

User avatar
vinceschubert
Posts: 3557
Joined: Fri Nov 04, 2011 11:02 am
Location: Australia
Contact:

Re: DeTales

Postby vinceschubert » Mon Mar 18, 2013 10:13 am

Just want to clean up the mess.
Ok, let's simplify for a moment. Please dispute anything that doesn't resonate.
Simplistically, i would say that mind is like a railway station or bus terminal for thoughts. It can't actually be a collection of thoughts as there is only one at a time.
The content of thoughts are always about something. There is the fact of a thought, and there is the content or subject of the thought, which always points to something. It is never the thing.
Then there is Experiencing. What is happening to the organism. Direct experiencing via the senses. This includes thoughts and the responses to them.
Here's the big one; Reality (for the organism) consists entirely of what is current experiencing. Everything else is story. It is conceptual. There is no such thing as objective Reality.
Thoughts can be seen to be of two main kinds.
There is the thoughts that 'come to you'. The thoughts that describe direct experiencing.
Then there are the thoughts that are the response to other thoughts. These are always conceptual.
Anton, this is not a teaching. Do NOT accept any of this without testing it with your own experiencing.
It is an attempt to narrow the beam of our focus, so that we are not 'drowning' in a lifetime of concepts.
With that in mind let's avoid quoting others ideas. Keep it to your experiencing. If someones ideas have resonated with you in the 'past' and your behavior reflects that, then fine. It is your experiencing.
it's the ghost in the machine,
Yes, i accept that 'you' see that the "I" is purely a linguistic convenience, so we don't need to put them in quotes or apologize for using them. There are no Advaita cops here. i will ask if i need clarity.
Ahem. Yes. But the sabotage and judgment are one, designed, it is suspected, precisely to give the feeling of there being a me.
Ok, let's just reduce the sabotage and judgement to 'a habitual response' and recognise that the speculation about the why of it, is story. Maybe correct or not - doesn't matter.
I have heard that one cannot be a student of Reality if...
Can the eyeball see itself ?
The reality is better described as both/and.
Story here is, that is somewhat limiting. How about "Reality IS."

Reality IS.
There is nothing more to say.
Wordless, Wonder Full.


love
vince

User avatar
DeTales
Posts: 34
Joined: Fri Mar 15, 2013 10:56 pm
Location: California Foothills, Diamond Springs
Contact:

Re: DeTales

Postby DeTales » Mon Mar 18, 2013 5:57 pm

Ok, let's simplify for a moment. Please dispute anything that doesn't resonate.
Simplistically, i would say that mind is like a railway station or bus terminal for thoughts. It can't actually be a collection of thoughts as there is only one at a time.


That works, as the "collection" is simply a thought noting that there is recognition of the repetition of thoughts and trains that are similar but are nevertheless uniquely now.
The content of thoughts are always about something. There is the fact of a thought, and there is the content or subject of the thought, which always points to something. It is never the thing.
Thoughts are never their referents, as the referent is unknowable except as an arbitrary distinction made by labeling. Mind works by symbology, some conscious, some not. Maybe most not, and pre-cognative, yet even more influential.
Then there is Experiencing. What is happening to the organism. Direct experiencing via the senses. This includes thoughts and the responses to them.
That's interesting. You don't, it seems, capitalize your Vince referential I or even your name, but you capitalize "Experience." (your name is and interesting topic in itself.) That is a point of interest.

Yes, awareness of what is happening to the organism is a category of experience called sensation, and is distinct, imho, from feeling, which is affective. Sensation is the mysterious interface of commonality with the vehicle of individuality. I don't see light or the objects which it reveals. I don't literally see "out there." What I see is seeing, or better, on analysis, seeing as a sensation is seen as a phenomenon in awareness.

As for "includ(ing) thoughts and the responses to them, that bears examination on my part. Hadn't thought of that as sensation. (pauses to reflect.) I see that thoughts come as a reaction to sensation, in a manner of speaking. That's not very refined, but there is a dialectic of stimulus/reaction(psychic)/action(physical). It is mostly automatic, but there seems as well to be a cognitive process to some extent depending on, I'd guess, the newness of the stimulus. That could be either pot stirring or actual consideration. I guess further that that is where the sensation of me comes in, as an alleged object of experiencing consequence. But that me is a thought as well. It is hypothetical in that it is as well an unknown in a series of hypothetical calculations about not the present. So I guess that thoughts bear relation to sensation as ripples bear relation to the rock thrown into water. The contact and consequence are part and parcel of the event, inseparable. There is no me doing it, it is just the dynamic of energy movement already in motion by its own nature. Is that sort of what you mean?
Here's the big one; Reality (for the organism) consists entirely of what is current experiencing. Everything else is story. It is conceptual. There is no such thing as objective Reality.
Of course not. No one sees the world as it is, only their paradigm of what they think it is by inculcation and experience evaluated by that inculcation, and rarely is that original, accurate, or open to significant change. Each is his own world. That is further obvious from reading the news, if not more immediately from one's personal contacts. It is like random software plugged into the same but many 'puters in different environments, and then the loaded programs arguing about themselves as if they were hardware. Ridiculous, and baffling that that is not on the table as the foundation of any negotiation between factions or individuals. Attempts to deal with each other at nearly any level way most often start at an already mixed and non congruent set of premises, never referring back to the original nature of the entity which accepted the download necessary for survival in the setting it found itself in as receiving input. The impression is always taken for reality and commonality, while in fact an agreement is being attempted from maps that have not nearly the same features depicted in any terms of significance. It is a fail from the start. Very few question that the map is not the actual territory and may in fact have no bearing on other than itself. Yet that in fact arbitrary map is worshiped as self, world, and reality in most cases. It takes a shock, or grace, whatever that is, to initiate the doubt that can lead to questioning or clarity to whatever degree.
Thoughts can be seen to be of two main kinds.
There is the thoughts that 'come to you'. The thoughts that describe direct experiencing.
Then there are the thoughts that are the response to other thoughts. These are always conceptual.
Conceptual literally means "seized together." And that is how most concepts are formed, like the Santa/Bunny/Jesus complex. Concepts are rarely in line with a lucid examination of experience or of the sub-concept and hidden assumptions they embody. Few open the (I guess there you call it the) bonnet and see what's choking the carburetor or making the belts squeak. Sometimes it is fine, it seems, to sit there and rev the engine to high rpms in neutral and pretend one is going to Adelaide. (thats a horrible pun)(not sorry. I'm that way.) :)
Anton, this is not a teaching. Do NOT accept any of this without testing it with your own experiencing.
It is an attempt to narrow the beam of our focus, so that we are not 'drowning' in a lifetime of concepts.
With that in mind let's avoid quoting others ideas. Keep it to your experiencing. If someones ideas have resonated with you in the 'past' and your behavior reflects that, then fine. It is your experiencing.
That's great. My storehouse of triggerable associations is vast. I don't feel that you are teaching me. You are leading me to considerations, and what is written above is from my own looking at how things work and pretty much how I see it. I know comparisons are odious, and sometimes it seems that someone else said it better, but this exchange ought to respect that it is pertinent to the present to the best of my ability. Some have accused me of being verbose, but my screen name is quite deliberate, and sort of like your icon.

As for focus, my understanding of that is less a matter of exclusion than an activity of bringing all to bear relative to a single point. It is a matter of discovering newness through integrity, seeing what fits or not relative to the whole of things. The above is a distillation, in many respects, of decades of consideration. Is it accurate relative to Reality as a working paradigm? I guess that is what teleology is about, lol! It is an expanding Universe.
Yes, i accept that 'you' see that the "I" is purely a linguistic convenience, so we don't need to put them in quotes or apologize for using them. There are no Advaita cops here. i will ask if i need clarity.
Cool. I've had my fill of those sorts of "cops". Thanks.
Ok, let's just reduce the sabotage and judgement to 'a habitual response' and recognise that the speculation about the why of it, is story. Maybe correct or not - doesn't matter.
What? don't like my expanded verbositites? :) Good, neither do I on reflection, and I understand that simplicity obtains. Will watch for that.
Can the eyeball see itself ?
Good point. No. What sees doesn't see itself. Yet seeing is seen. There is something reflexive in all that. Similarly to the eye not seeing itself, I wish I could show you the hand gesture denoting the futility of the search of enlightenment. It is a crack-up!
Story here is, that is somewhat limiting. How about "Reality IS."
Works for me, suits increasingly well. Hope that shows a bit.
Reality IS.
There is nothing more to say.
Wordless, Wonder Full.
I hold up my hands.


Love,

Anton

User avatar
vinceschubert
Posts: 3557
Joined: Fri Nov 04, 2011 11:02 am
Location: Australia
Contact:

Re: DeTales

Postby vinceschubert » Mon Mar 18, 2013 9:04 pm

That's interesting. You don't, it seems, capitalize your Vince referential I or even your name, but you capitalize "Experience.
Ha, Well noticed. It is not accidental.
and is distinct, imho, from feeling, which is affective.
Yes. Story here is that emotion is the physical component of thought. While it may seem that the emotion evokes thought, i have a story that thought (or the result of it) always comes first. Like mistaking the rope for a snake.
Ok, here's where we dive into the de-conditioning process...
Now it's all story, so it may or may not be correct. That doesn't matter as the results will be very real.
A story about the unconscious is that it is the firing of synaptic connections in the brain. Neuronal pathways that have established through repetition. Like what happens when belief is established. When some thoughts say that other thoughts can be enacted without conscious consideration, they become an instant and automatic response.
Have a look at this video; https://www.dropbox.com/s/mskv8uxmnmf2f ... _Being.mp4
In order to 'retrain' the brain, to establish new neuronal pathways to replace the habits, to allow the atrophy of neuronal pathways that are the expression of and the reinforcement of the habits, we are looking for triggers. Triggers that will herald the recognition that a habitual response is either about to, or has, or is, taking place.
The trigger for this awareness is set by intention. If it reaches the point where emotion occurs, then that is the fall back trigger. In the beginning it doesn't matter if it occurs well after the event, but whenever it occurs we will 'anchor' it to a chuckle. A good humored belly rumble of a chuckle. A reward for the recognition that has happened.
Then watch what happens.
So when you 'catch' yourself being critical, ("Damn that happened again."), you chuckle in appreciation that it was seen. No judgements or opinions. Just witnessing.


ok, i'm off for a round of golf.
finish this later...

love

vince

User avatar
vinceschubert
Posts: 3557
Joined: Fri Nov 04, 2011 11:02 am
Location: Australia
Contact:

Re: DeTales

Postby vinceschubert » Tue Mar 19, 2013 10:06 am

but my screen name is quite deliberate,
Ha, i did take De Tales to mean 'the stories'
on analysis, seeing as a sensation is seen as a phenomenon in awareness.
"on analysis.."
is this another way of saying "after thinking about it." ?
Coming back to a description of direct experiencing, would you say "there is awareness (of) seeing" ?
Can you say where seeing happens ? Is it at the Seen or is it in the See-er ? or something else ? (from experience not thought..) and if you say "in awareness", i 'know' that you don't mean that awareness is a thing, so is "in awareness" just conceptual ? (you can describe Seeing as a happening, but you can only describe awareness as about a happening - maybe ?)
thoughts come as a reaction to sensation
Certainly thoughts will attempt to explain sensation. To give it meaning. But emotion (which also results in sensation) comes as a result of thoughts. This is also the portal into suffering...
that is where the sensation of me comes in
Hmm, there is no sensation of me. There may be sensation that the mind(thoughts) explain as me. This can be manipulated. Check these out; http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn1 ... usion.html
This article ties it into how the organism creates the self image. http://www.bettermovement.org/2011/the- ... -illusion/

love

vince

User avatar
vinceschubert
Posts: 3557
Joined: Fri Nov 04, 2011 11:02 am
Location: Australia
Contact:

Re: DeTales

Postby vinceschubert » Tue Mar 19, 2013 10:20 am

oops, looks like New Scientist have pulled their link.
Here's another one; https://www.dropbox.com/s/l5l95ekxxmaog ... lusion.mp4

v

User avatar
DeTales
Posts: 34
Joined: Fri Mar 15, 2013 10:56 pm
Location: California Foothills, Diamond Springs
Contact:

Re: DeTales

Postby DeTales » Tue Mar 19, 2013 5:10 pm

Hi Vince,

Did you get through in 18 strokes? :) Would that not be AWESOME???!

You have made a movie goer out of me. OK, you presented viewing options that were of interest to the point of watching them a few times. The "you made me..." dynamic is a ridiculous cop out implying action at a distance in an untenable way. It amazes me what stuff comes up as serving suggestions. But what sticks out for me from the TEDx talk (love those! Watch them often.) is the idea of observation as distinct from participation. Suddenly there is a lot on the plate to look at, new or newly.

I will write more soon, just there's a demand to get things organized as I'm getting ready for a studio tour, and my new studio is far from set up. Other things are in the mix as well. Just want to let you know what's happening.

Love,

Anton

User avatar
vinceschubert
Posts: 3557
Joined: Fri Nov 04, 2011 11:02 am
Location: Australia
Contact:

Re: DeTales

Postby vinceschubert » Wed Mar 20, 2013 5:23 am

Did you get through in 18 strokes? :)
Ha, liberation brought with it the total acceptance of both the potential and the conditioned limits of the organism. i am currently recovering from an operation (4 weeks since a hiatus hernia repair)and haven't been able to play for nearly a month, so was repeatedly overwhelmed with appreciation of how 'lucky' and privileged i was to be able to even be there. Wonderful company, great weather, beautiful landscape with kangaroos everywhere. Terrific...
observation as distinct from participation.
If something 'rings your bell' while watching, is it just observation. Hmm, maybe back to Seeing and Seen/See-er. Is it possible to just observe, or rather is it possible not to participate ?
I will write more soon,
When it happens. There is no sense of time here. When you do it will still be NOW.

love

vince

User avatar
DeTales
Posts: 34
Joined: Fri Mar 15, 2013 10:56 pm
Location: California Foothills, Diamond Springs
Contact:

Re: DeTales

Postby DeTales » Wed Mar 20, 2013 7:18 am

Ha, i did take De Tales to mean 'the stories
Yes, I figured you to be rather perspicacious.
"on analysis.."
is this another way of saying "after thinking about it." ?
Yep. Got beau coup ways of saying the same thing....
Coming back to a description of direct experiencing, would you say "there is awareness (of) seeing" ?
Yes, after watching that video three times, and integrating the beginning implications of the arm video, it seems that much of the habituation of the thought I is built into the language structure and has to be de-constructed. There's a memory of the period where it was my job to co-manage an estate. After testing the pool for chemical balance, it was indicated that there was a deficiency of chlorine. Immediately the thought came, "I have to add chlorine to the pool." Heading into the house it occurred to me that I didn't know what would happen by the time I got into the house, passed through it to the garage where the chlorine was, and headed back out, if my plans got that far. Suddenly the statement "the pool needs chlorine" independent of me adding, it or someone else, seemed a more appropriate statement. It freed me as the necessary doer, described the condition, and allowed for other options. My co-manager might then have picked up the task if the phone rang for me, or whatever. The "...needs chlorine" option of description allowed for a greater range of freedom and removed me from the picture as the necessary doer, which the first one had me as.

If It's clearer where this is going, maybe that sort of attitude is much more advantageous and practical as a way of simply being present without tying a doer self to happenings. That is going to be a demanding shift, but it is apparent that the chuckling thing is going to be a very useful tool in promoting observational distance.
Can you say where seeing happens ? Is it at the Seen or is it in the See-er ? or something else ? (from experience not thought..) and if you say "in awareness", i 'know' that you don't mean that awareness is a thing, so is "in awareness" just conceptual ? (you can describe Seeing as a happening, but you can only describe awareness as about a happening - maybe ?)
Looking at it, seeing, that is, the seer and the seen are one. The trick, as it said in the video, is to be observant as distinct from participating. With participation, there is the strong necessity of a participator very easily called me or I. With the dispassion of observation, it goes into the realm of phenomenology as distinct from personal drama. So a training, primarily linguistic, it seems, has to take place that tips the weight of identification away from participation into observation.
Certainly thoughts will attempt to explain sensation. To give it meaning. But emotion (which also results in sensation) comes as a result of thoughts. This is also the portal into suffering...
Yes, back to the "suffering is personally induced" idea. It seems to me that the stories about pain are what cause suffering, pain and suffering then being different things. Pain is a sensation which can bring thoughts about it, and those thoughts about it are the suffering. In fact, most of the suffering I've heard or experienced has to do with investing in a story about the pain or the event that caused it, making one not present to what the simplicity of the experience might be, devoid of a commentary.
Hmm, there is no sensation of me. There may be sensation that the mind(thoughts) explain as me. This can be manipulated. Check these out; http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn1 ... usion.html
This article ties it into how the organism creates the self image. http://www.bettermovement.org/2011/the- ... -illusion/
Ooops. didn't see the link to the print article till now. Will check it out.

Glad you are back on the links. That must feel good. Gratitude is an elevated state. I hear that "kangaroo" means "what are you saying?" because that's what the whites heard when the aborigines didn't understand what they were asking when pointing at the animal. Another story. And it is always great to have good company. You are the first one I've been able to talk with consistently like this in ages. Feel like my language synch with reality is in the toilet. But then, that's Reality. lol (Chuckles.)
If something 'rings your bell' while watching, is it just observation. Hmm, maybe back to Seeing and Seen/See-er. Is it possible to just observe, or rather is it possible not to participate ?
It is interesting that we both have a way of using capitalization to make distinctions. Being unfamiliar with yours and trying to figure from context is intriguing. Might be a good chat at some point. Having had periods of simple "being there" and not feeling doing, yet acting happening, I'd say yes, it is possible to just observe. Seems rare.

Love,

Anton

User avatar
DeTales
Posts: 34
Joined: Fri Mar 15, 2013 10:56 pm
Location: California Foothills, Diamond Springs
Contact:

Re: DeTales

Postby DeTales » Wed Mar 20, 2013 3:39 pm

Hi Vince,

So, the print article about the rubber hand experiment is revealing. Two things come to mind on reading it. One is the passage in Gina Cerminara's book on G.S. as applied to religion,* in which she describes how the same lecture resulted in completely different sets of notes listing significant points when she compared hers with a fellow listener's. In fact, points were present and absent from each, some of them clearly significant. Each claimed that the missing points included in the other's notes weren't spoken of at all. Second, Penn and Teller did the 3 cups illusion at a dinner with clear water glasses. You know, the old shell game, where the object is to guess which one has the pea under it. A significant number of trials demonstrated that even with the clear glasses as "shells," and the "pea" visible, the guesses were still wrong. (!!!)

OK, so the point is: how is there assurance of congruency between what you are putting forth as significant to me, and me picking up and actually using that in the way intended in order to get Clarity. I mean, it isn't reasonable to expect instant and complete transmittal, and yet one wishes to assure efficiency. But maybe that is the point of the chuckling exercise, similar to a physical anchor in NLP. I like the chuckling exercise.

Love,

Anton

* Insights for the Age of Aquarius: a handbook for religious sanity Gina Cerminara, January 1st 1973 by Quest Books

** http://www.insidescience.org/content/an ... ealize/935


Return to “ARCHIVES”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest