Looking for a guide

[Paulo]

Hi Paul,

It's wonderful to write things out in order to make sense of them, but it's much more important that you look at what actually IS in the moment. This is not a site to hypothesise or theorise, simply to look at what IS right in the moment.

Paulo, I don't know if the above paragraph represents what you mean by focusing on the moment. I see it as a description of the chain of thoughts and reasoning arising in relation to the question of what a 'Paul' is. Are you looking for a description of a different order of phenomena that occur when the question of a Paul arises for me?

Focusing on the moment means exactly that - for example, when asked to think of a car it's the first car that arises that is the focus. A description of a chain of thoughts happens after the moment has passed, it's thinking ABOUT the moment, it's one step removed from reality.

Perhaps it would be useful for you to focus on the next aspect of DE - PHYSICAL

Observe your movement in the moment.

The body moves, but is there a Paul here making this movement occur?

How is it that all those muscles and joints work so perfectly to enable you to type on a keyboard with such precision?

If you tried to grow your hair longer by sheer force of will, could you? What are the implications of this?

That last one is just for fun, but consider it, and let me know if you needed an emergency haircut :-)

Paulo.

[jupiter7]

Hi Paulo

Thank you.

Observe your movement in the moment.

The body moves, but is there a Paul here making this movement occur?

Movement is happening. Much of it seems to require little in the way of thought. Movements that are happening now eg. typing, reaching for cup, blinking, face touching, feet rubbing together, are very familiar and well practiced movements and so they are kind of automatic.

Is there a Paul making this movement occur? Paul is taken to be the one who is presently sitting and carrying out these movements. Paul is taken to have learned these movements to the point that he no longer has to think about them in order to do them. But these are assumptions or thoughts rather than direct experience. There is something here that is aware of the movements, that knows they are taking place, that can offer up in writing a description of current experience.

Is that thing that is aware of movement the thing that is making movement occur? The automatic movements don't really need to be made to occur. There is an awareness in which a question on the screen is read, then there is some thought about the question and some turning of attention to the sense of physical presence and movement. There is some thought about what is happening in direct experience and then there is a kind of moment of capture where what is experienced to be physically happening and a way of describing that meet, and there is an impetus translated into further typing movement which proceeds following a familiar pattern of moving the fingers across the keyboard to the particular sequence of letters that appear on the screeen as a legible description of response to the question.

If you took Paul away, would the movement occur? Who or what is Paul? That has not yet been established, so we can't yet say whether there is a Paul here that is making movement occur. What is here? There is the movement of the hands across the keyboard, the sensation of the fingers moving and any unusual feelings within the hands show up also eg. some muscle tightness or stiffness below the thumb of the right hand. There is a sense of the body when attention is directed to the body and attention can move around the body exploring the sensation in different parts of it in more detail. Attention and movement are not just happening randomly. There is a cohesive and co-ordinated set of mental and physical activities taking place.

What is here that makes this co-ordination? Is there a co-ordinator? Co-ordination is happening. Co-ordination is arising and renewing constantly. Co-ordinated activity is arising constantly. Is the whole of co-ordinated activity of thoughts and movements taking place through the present separate from the the co-ordination of that activity? In other words, is there anything doing the co-ordinating? Such a one does not seem to appear in physical experience. Rather, physical experience seems to be the expression of co-ordination or co-ordinated activity happening. Such a one does seem to appear in thought and in reference to internal bodily sensations.

How is it that all those muscles and joints work so perfectly to enable you to type on a keyboard with such precision?

My first answer is the one comprising what I have learned and taken to understand about how this sort of thing works, ie. that such motor skills have been acquired through years of repittion, that such movements were not so precise at first, that some function of the brain-body stores such abiliities or knowledge and that this runs in the background from conscious thought or awareness.

What do I find in direct experience, though? I'm not sure there is a 'how' in DE. I find movement happening rather freely with thought about it manifesting as something of an interruption to the free flow. How is it? What is 'how'? Is there a how in DE? There is an awareness of the present moment when attention is directed to it. Typing is happening as I type. There does seem to be a connection between mind and body. There is an awareness of thought and of attention and of physical sensation and movement. This body just seems to know stuff about how to move. What does it know about how to move? It is a knowing in the sense that it doesn't have to be thought about or worked out - it already functions. The how is expressed in the activity itself.

Is it that there is a wanting? Movements are for some purpose. There is an imagined outcome that is desired, eg. the production of a written account of direct experience of the sense of movement. Thus, there is a context within which a particular series of movements and thoughts are co-ordinated. Is it that this context is somehow the thing doing the movement or an explanation on some level of how such movement is able to occur? Do I find such a context in direct experience? Only a small part of it, I would say, ie. I feel an urge in the body to reach into DE and to reach words that would describe what I find.

If you tried to grow your hair longer by sheer force of will, could you? What are the implications of this?

I have no experience of being able to do this and it sounds highly unlikely. The implications of the absence of experience or belief in the likelihood of self-initiated hair growing are that I don't really know what is possible and what is not. The implications of the answer to the question being a definite 'no' are perhaps a different matter.

Implications are that there are things that this body does that I have no control over. If this body is mine and if I direct its activities then why can't I direct the rate of hair growth? I take there to be some things that I can control and some things that I can't. Hair growth does seem to be a movement albeit one unobservable in DE due to it's relative slowness. When attention is turned to my hair, can I feel it growing? I can feel something up there. Maybe it is microscopic levels of growth that I am feeling. I can send imaginary urges and thoughts about it growing more quickly but I don't notice any instant results.

Where is the difference between those bodily functions and movements that I believe I can control and those which I believe I can't? I think it is in muscles. I have no hair growing muscles. Then again, the heart is said to be a muscle and I don't seem to direct that. It could be in muscles that are connected to the parts of the brain that deal with volitional rather than automatic movements. One could continue to speculate along these lines. Perhaps scientists have made some discoveries about this.

There is the thought that Paulo is pointing to the similarity between absence of control over hair growing and absence of control over all bodily movements. That may be so, but I don't really see it for myself. I do see that all things happen, that typing and hair growing are both apparent happenings (although hair growing isn't really showing up in momentary DE, rather, it is noticed periodically in comparison with an image of a previous appearance in the mirror). Breathing is a curious case as it is automatic and yet volitional to a limited extent also. Breathing, as automatic, can be observed in momentary DE. Breathing is happening and typing is happening. Typing is happening in the context of a desired outcome whereas breathing is happening without any conscious desire. There is no urge to breath in the same way that there is an urge to type. Actually, there is not so much an urge to type when typing is happening, rather, the urge is there when typing is not happening and thought is being given to what to type.

Well, I'm going to stop there for now. I do see how much of a tendency I have to refer always to thought rather than DE when considering this stuff. Even when I write about what I say is DE, I have a sense that I am actually reproducing concepts. I don't know if there is a 'correct' way to do direct experience and the sorts of things that would be described following such an endeavour. I find it hard to find words for just what's happenning.

Paul

[Paulo]

Hi Paul,

I do see how much of a tendency I have to refer always to thought rather than DE when considering this stuff.

You said it! :) There's absolutely no chance of getting through this process by thinking about it, easier to drive a camel through the eye of a needle, and all that.

So how do we get you away from the chattering of the monkey mind? Here are a few exercises to try -

Pick up an object that's close to hand. Hit yourself on the head with it - hard!
Share what happened in one sentence only.

What do you see in front of you now?
Respond in one sentence only.

Where is the snow that fell last winter?
Respond in one sentence only.

If you were hungry, and imagined eating a delicious meal, would the hunger be satiated?
Respond in one sentence only.

Take five minutes out of your day and sit or lie somewhere comfortable when you know you will not be disturbed. Close your eyes and simply be aware of the rise and fall of your chest as you breathe. Just watch any thoughts or sensations that might arise during this time, allow them arise in awareness, stay awhile, and then drift away as they will.
Share what happened in one sentence only.

Being aware of the breath is an excellent way of shifting out of thought and into Direct Experience (DE). The breath is the one noise/movement that is constant in DE from birth to death, and is a very useful tool to reorient when lost in the labyrinth of thought.

Paulo.

[jupiter7]

Thank you, Paulo.

Pick up an object that's close to hand. Hit yourself on the head with it - hard!
Share what happened in one sentence only.

I picked up a cup mat and hit myself on the top-back of my head with it and there was a sensation of being struck at the top-back of my head, which quickly and then gradually diminished, and the sound of the strike taking place.

What do you see in front of you now?
Respond in one sentence only.

In front of me now I see my laptop, my hands, and, as I look around a little, the clothing on the top-half of my body, the sofa, the all, the rug, the mirror and the lamp.

Where is the snow that fell last winter?
Respond in one sentence only.

I cannot see the snow that fell last winter but I imagine snow on the hills that I can see from my window and I think that it has melted away.

If you were hungry, and imagined eating a delicious meal, would the hunger be satiated?
Respond in one sentence only.

No, I strongly do not think so.

Take five minutes out of your day and sit or lie somewhere comfortable when you know you will not be disturbed. Close your eyes and simply be aware of the rise and fall of your chest as you breathe. Just watch any thoughts or sensations that might arise during this time, allow them arise in awareness, stay awhile, and then drift away as they will.
Share what happened in one sentence only.

There was sitting with awareness directed to the breath and attention wandering to some of the sounds appearing from outside and to thoughts which attention would follow and then leave as it came back to the breath.

Paul

[Paulo]

Hi Paul,

Great, now you're getting in to the swing of things. Those last exercises were again designed to shift awareness to the moment, still drifting a bit, but so much better, and hopefully the feedback below will give you some additional guidance to work with.

I picked up a cup mat and hit myself on the top-back of my head with it and there was a sensation of being struck at the top-back of my head,

Lovely, stop there, that's what's happening in the moment.

...which quickly and then gradually diminished, and the sound of the strike taking place.

These are events and thoughts AFTER the 'impact' had occurred - what we're looking at here is the very moment, the pinpoint of experience.

In front of me now I see my laptop, my hands,

Great, that's where to trim the sentence.

and, as I look around a little, the clothing on the top-half of my body, the sofa, the all, the rug, the mirror and the lamp.

This all happened some time AFTER the now, I hope you can see the difference. The now is like a firework exploding, bang, it's gone.

I cannot see the snow that fell last winter

That's it - lovely and succinct.

...but I imagine snow on the hills that I can see from my window and I think that it has melted away.

Remember you can imagine or think just about anything, it's not reflected in DE though.

No, I strongly do not think so.

Great, you can see that the content of thought is not real, imagining snow on the hills (as above) doesn't mean you can go skiing.

There was sitting with awareness directed to the breath and attention wandering to some of the sounds appearing from outside and to thoughts which attention would follow and then leave as it came back to the breath.

Nicely put, and you can use that method for a greater of lesser time in order to bring awareness back to Direct Experience.

I hope you can see what I'm pointing at with the above, and that you can use it in your own inquiries.


What EXACTLY are you referring to when you say 'I' or 'me'?
Keep the answer as focused as possible - one sentence again would be great.

Thanks, Paulo.

[jupiter7]

Thank you, Paulo.

I cannot see the snow that fell last winter


That's it - lovely and succinct.

...but I imagine snow on the hills that I can see from my window and I think that it has melted away.


Remember you can imagine or think just about anything, it's not reflected in DE though.

The imagining of the snow on the hills was an image that arose, I think from memory, rather immediately, in response to the question, and that is why I included it in my account of direct experience. The snow that fell last winter is an idea which I was being asked to find the actuality of in the present. Could it not be that the imagining of the snow and the seeing that it was not actual presently, were both part of DE? How can I see there is not snow without having an idea in mind of what it is I'm looking for?

So, I'm a little confused about the sense in which thought or imagining is or is not part of direct experience.

What EXACTLY are you referring to when you say 'I' or 'me'?
Keep the answer as focused as possible - one sentence again would be great.

I am referring to this thing that is here: this life, body and mind, as distinct from other lives, bodies and minds.

^That is my one sentence response. I'm not sure exactly where you are suggesting that I look for my response to the question. This is a question that seems to be asking for some thought about the matter along with attention to sensations as the question is thought about and the core (the exactness) of the matter is examined. It is a question that I would like to explore in such a manner.

Again, a little confused about the place of thought in DE.

Paul

[jupiter7]

A further little question that is on mind, if I may:

In this process, am I primarily trying to spend more time in direct experience or trying to see through the illusion of a separate self?

[Paulo]

Hi Paul,

The imagining of the snow on the hills was an image that arose

Sure, I get it. Is the image of the snow the same as the actual snow that fell last winter? Is a map the territory it represents?

The snow that fell last winter is an idea which I was being asked to find the actuality of in the present.

Not quite - the snow that fell last winter is something that actually existed. In the present it is an idea, yes, but the actual snow, well ... that's no more. Here's another way of phrasing the same idea -
Where is the five year old Paul?

How can I see there is not snow without having an idea in mind of what it is I'm looking for?

Indeed, you can have all manner of ideas in mind, that's not a problem at all. But is the idea the same as the thing it represents?

So, I'm a little confused about the sense in which thought or imagining is or is not part of direct experience.

In my own experience, thoughts are real (i.e. present in direct experience), they are actually experienced, but the content of thought is not. maybe some examples will help to illustrate -

There's a well known TV show called Star Trek: The Next Generation. In the story there is a room called the Holodeck which creates a simulated reality of any scenario the characters of the show wish to participate in. While in the room the characters are totally immersed in the virtual reality, and believe it to be real. They could believe they're exploring far off worlds, meeting historical characters, or eating any food that ever existed. But a character standing outside the room would only see a room and none of the above occurring.

------------------------------------------------------------------------

Look at someone lying on a bed sleeping at night. When they awake they may recount that they had been chased by horrible monsters and do appear to be physically shaken. But having stood beside them all the time, you know that they haven't actually moved an inch, and no such monsters ever existed.

------------------------------------------------------------------------

A ship’s captain goes before an interview panel of admirals, hoping to get a job captaining a cruise ship in the South Seas.
During the interview process the first admiral asks him – If you were captaining a cruise liner and came upon a storm at sea, what would you do to protect the ship and passengers?
The captain answered – well I would face the ship into the storm, drop an anchor from the bow, and wait until the storm blew out.
Excellent answer said the first admiral, that’s exactly the right thing to do.

The second admiral asked – if you were captaining a cruise ship and a cyclone blew up at sea, what would you do to protect the ship and passengers?
The captain answered – well I would face the ship into the cyclone and drop an anchor from the bow, and another from the stern, and wait until the cyclone had passed.
Excellent answer said the second admiral, that’s exactly the right thing to do.

The last admiral then asked – if you were captaining a cruise ship and came across a tsunami at sea, what would you do to protect the ship and passengers?
The captain answered – I would face the ship into the tsunami, drop anchors from the bow and stern, three more over the port side and another five anchors over the starboard side.
The third admiral responded – that sounds like a prudent approach, but where are you getting all these anchors from?

The captain replied quick as a flash – the same place your getting those storms!

------------------------------------------------------------------------

I am referring to this thing that is here: this life, body and mind

Great, take a look at that description in light of the elements of direct experience. To me, 'Life' sounds like 'Awareness', 'body' sounds like 'physical' and 'mind' sounds like 'thought'.
Can you see a similar parallel? Share your own experience of the above (in one sentence only, thanks).

In this process, am I primarily trying to spend more time in direct experience or trying to see through the illusion of a separate self?

What we do here is point to the fact that there is no separate entity/soul/spirit called self controlling or choosing what happens in the world. Reorienting to Direct Experience allows us to step out of the virtual reality called thought/imagination/fantasy and test the belief in a separate entity called self in light of what is real.

I hope that addresses your query,

Paulo.

[jupiter7]

Thank you, Paulo.

Sure, I get it. Is the image of the snow the same as the actual snow that fell last winter? Is a map the territory it represents?

No, the image of something in the mind is not the actual thing it represents.

The snow that fell last winter is an idea which I was being asked to find the actuality of in the present.

Not quite - the snow that fell last winter is something that actually existed. In the present it is an idea, yes, but the actual snow, well ... that's no more.

In this case, the actual thing (snow) is something that is no longer actual and so it has to be imagined or conceptualized for the sake of answering the question. Whether it was actual or conceptual, it only appears as conceptual in present DE.

There is perhaps a slight technical risk that the actual snow, taken to have existed last year, is remembered innaccurately, eg. if there was no snow last winter. In such a case the snow from last year would be imagined, although there would presumably have been some actual snow at some point in the past to be the basis of imagination of an actual thing.

I would agree that the imagined snow, or imagining of the snow, appears in DE but that the snow has no actual counterpart in DE.

Anyhow, I'm not sure that anything other than semantics is at stake in such hair splitting but you did say something about devil and detail so maybe it is a worthwhile point.

Here's another way of phrasing the same idea -
Where is the five year old Paul?

This is only the same idea if we agree that 'Paul' is a label for an actual thing and the same sort of actual thing as snow.

Since in this process we are questioning the existence of any actual Paul in a way that we are not questioning the existence of any actual snow, there seems to be scope for confusion about the meaning you intend to communicate in this question.

Furthermore, Paul, as an experiencing subject that is taken to have existed in the past and that, though evolved, still exists in the present, is a rather different sort of thing from a snow that is taken to be a more simple sort of natural object, and one that, in UK climate at least, is transient.

This is taking longer than I thought to tease apart so I will have to revisit later to complete.

Paul

[Paulo]

Hi Paul,

No, the image of something in the mind is not the actual thing it represents.

Great, and here we focus on the actual - what some might call Direct Experience.

In this case, the actual thing (snow) is something that is no longer actual ...

Wonderful, stop there - in my experience too the snow that fell last Winter is no where, it no longer exists. That's all you have to say, the rest is just ... well, superfluous to requirements.

This is only the same idea if we agree that 'Paul' is a label for an actual thing and the same sort of actual thing as snow.

Rather, the commonality here is - that which was labelled 'Paul' and that which is labelled 'snow' once existed, but do not now. Here's another way of expressing the same concept, from the Zen tradition this time -

You cannot step in the same river twice.

Consider that statement in light of your own experience and share what you find.

This is taking longer than I thought to tease apart so I will have to revisit later to complete.

Teasing apart, or thinking through will not help you in this process, simply looking at what IS will do the trick nicely. Here's a practical example -

What do you see in the picture below?




Thanks, Paulo.

[jupiter7]

Thanks, Paulo.

Okay. Continuing on but keeping it simple ...

Where is the five year old Paul?

He is no longer here.

I am referring to this thing that is here: this life, body and mind


Great, take a look at that description in light of the elements of direct experience. To me, 'Life' sounds like 'Awareness', 'body' sounds like 'physical' and 'mind' sounds like 'thought'.
Can you see a similar parallel? Share your own experience of the above (in one sentence only, thanks).

Life = sense of awareness
Body = physical stuff I am made of
Mind = non-physical occurrences that are part of me

In this process, am I primarily trying to spend more time in direct experience or trying to see through the illusion of a separate self?


What we do here is point to the fact that there is no separate entity/soul/spirit called self controlling or choosing what happens in the world. Reorienting to Direct Experience allows us to step out of the virtual reality called thought/imagination/fantasy and test the belief in a separate entity called self in light of what is real.

That is fine - thank you for clarifying.

And thanks also for your examples illustrating the distinction between thought and the content of thought in terms of reality.

In this case, the actual thing (snow) is something that is no longer actual ...


Wonderful, stop there - in my experience too the snow that fell last Winter is no where, it no longer exists. That's all you have to say, the rest is just ... well, superfluous to requirements.

I agree.

This is only the same idea if we agree that 'Paul' is a label for an actual thing and the same sort of actual thing as snow.


Rather, the commonality here is - that which was labelled 'Paul' and that which is labelled 'snow' once existed, but do not now.

The exact same 5 year old Paul is not here now but my sense is that the Paul that existed then does exist now but in a different form, 'Paul' being the bodily and mental unit and sense of identity that has persisted through time and physical and mental changes. We do not think of the same snow that fell last year as existing now (if we were assuming there is snow now) in the same way. However, I would be happy to say, unreflectively, that that snow and that Paul are no longer here.

Here's another way of expressing the same concept, from the Zen tradition this time -

You cannot step in the same river twice.

Consider that statement in light of your own experience and share what you find.

I take it you mean 'in my experience of stepping in a river'. It's been a while since I stepped in a river. Actually, I think it was only last year.

Anyway, when stepping in a river twice there would be different water being stepped in each time. There would still be water and the location of the water would be the same but it would be different water.

But does 'river' refer to the flow of any water in a given location or does it refer to the particular water flowing through a given location at a given point in time? We would conventionally think and speak of a river as the former, but the river in the zen statement suggests the latter definition.

This has odd implications because I would have thought that the zen statement was pointing to direct experience of river stepping but it seems that a certain amount of reflective thought is required to imagine what we conventionally take to be a river as the zen river. In this case it seems that the simple and unreflective answer to the question, ie. yes you can step in the same river twice, which you are encouraging, is incorrect, and that the matter properly considered is closer to DE.

Eg. If you showed me a picture of a river taken in the morning and a picture of the same river taken in the evening, and asked me if it was the same river, I would say 'yes' and I imagine you would say something like ' that's it - keep it simple'.

So it seems to me that the zen statement is provoking examination of what it is to step in a river twice rather than simple understanding or instant response.

Perhaps you could clarify!

What do you see in the picture below?

A car.

Paul

[Paulo]

Hi Paul,

Where is the five year old Paul?

He is no longer here.

Indeed, well observed. Now let's float the boat out and shorten that timeline -

Where is the 10 year old Paul?
Where is the Paul from yesterday?
Where is the Paul from 1 minute ago?
Where is the Paul that was just now?
(This pointer ties in with the one about the river below, so perhaps read the whole post before responding)

But does 'river' refer to the flow of any water in a given location or does it refer to the particular water flowing through a given location at a given point in time? We would conventionally think and speak of a river as the former, but the river in the zen statement suggests the latter definition.

This is a really excellent point you make here, and the key word is 'conventionally'. We conventionally call an ever changing and shifting body of water that flows through central London 'The Thames' - this is what we might call a cognitive short cut, there's no such thing as 'The Thames' in actuality (or indeed central London) - it's just a conceptual convenience. Take a look at the questions above and see if you can relate the metaphor of the river to what we conventionally call 'Paul'.

Perhaps you could clarify!

No problem. Go to a sink and turn on the tap. Take a photo of the water coming out of the tap. Walk away and come back 30 seconds later. Take a picture of the water coming out of the tap.

Is the water in the first photo the same as the second?

What do you see in the picture below?

A car.

In my experience I saw a 'picture of a car'.

[jupiter7]

Good morning Paulo,

Where is the 10 year old Paul?

If we are saying that the 5 year old Paul is no longer here then we are saying that the 10 year old old Paul is similarly no longer here.

Where is the Paul from yesterday?

Likewise, he is no longer here, but this brings more sharply into focus the matter of whether by 'Paul' we mean a temporally persistent and spatially consistent phenomenon, like a conventionally understood 'river', or a momentary phenomenon, like the zen river.

In other words, is Paul a river that changes through time, but essentially remains the same river, or is Paul the water that at a given point in time is flowing through a river bed that does persist through time?

It is easier to think of the Paul of yesterday than it is of the 5/10 year old Paul as being still here, because the bodily and mental qualities and sense of identity of yesterday's Paul are taken to be highly similar to those appearing presently, in comparison with those of the 5/10 year old Paul which are taken to be much less similar.

However, the water that flowed through the river bed of the Thames yesterday seems not much more similar to the water that flowed through the Thames 30 years ago.

The difference, then, between the similarity of Paul of then and of now, and of the water of the Thames of then and now, seems to be due to the fact that in Paul there is taken to be a sense of continuing identity whereas in water there is taken to be no such sense of identity.

Paul could be thought of in the same way as water if we say that there is a constant renewal of Paul: new Paul but more Paul, like new water but more water.

We could say that one cannot step into the same river twice and similarly that the same Paul cannot exist twice, if river means particular temporally and spatially located water, and Paul means similarly lcated ... what?

If we can think of a river as having an everchanging identity, as in the zen river, can we think of Paul as having an everchanging identity? A different river each moment and a different Paul each moment?

Yes. I would be happy to say that, just as a point in a river is a different river each moment in that it consists of different water, a point in the life of Paul is a different Paul each moment because it consists of different physical and mental qualities.

In both cases we are applying a sense of continuing identity: river and Paul, and we conventionally might think of both phenomena persisting in that identity through time. On examination, however, we can see that at each point in time, there is different water and a different sense of Paul.

Okay. I'm out of time for now. It seems worthwhile to figure this out or come to see what you are pointing at for myself so I hope it is not a problem to go through my working by writing it in this post.

TBC.

Paul

[Paulo]

Hi Paul,

On examination, however, we can see that at each point in time, there is different water and a different sense of Paul.

Nicely observed, that's the way to proceed with your inquiry - look directly in the moment.

this brings more sharply into focus the matter of whether by 'Paul' we mean a temporally persistent and spatially consistent phenomenon, like a conventionally understood 'river', or a momentary phenomenon, like the zen river.

That's a great point, and I think it could be of value to examine it in more detail.

Which of the above 'Pauls' actually exist - the persistent and consistent experience, or the momentary experience?

Here's an exercise to help you in your consideration of the above question -

Find a plant with leaves on it, any size will do, indoors or outdoors, doesn't matter. Look at a number of different leaves in the plant in turn. Notice that each of them is slightly different - different coloring, shaped slightly different, different sizes, etc. We call each of them leaves, instead of 'leaf no.1', 'leaf no.2', 'leaf no.3', etc. even though there is not one of them that is alike.

Consider if the word 'leaf' is a cognitive shortcut, which means we overlook the ACTUAL leaves? (Not seeing the wood for the trees, so to speak - sorry, couldn't resist that one!)

Consider also if the label/concept/convention 'Paul' is similarly a cognitive shortcut, describing something that is ACTUALLY different (albeit similar) from moment to moment.

Paulo.

[jupiter7]

Hi Paulo,

I wrote:

Yes. I would be happy to say that, just as a point in a river is a different river each moment in that it consists of different water, a point in the life of Paul is a different Paul each moment because it consists of different physical and mental qualities.

On reconsideration, as I went on to suggest in my last post, it is, rather, the sense of Paul (thought, physical and awareness, you could say) that is different at each point. A sense of Paul, but a different sense of Paul, like water, but different water.

Picking up on unanswered parts of your second-from-last post:

Where is the Paul from 1 minute ago?

Having established a definition of Paul that I am happy with and that fits with the river/water analogy, and is also consistent with previous responses as to the spatio-temporal location of other historical Pauls, we can say that that Paul is also no longer here.

Where is the Paul that was just now?

Similarly, if that Paul is not the pinpoint-present Paul, then that Paul is also no longer here.

Perhaps you could clarify!


No problem. Go to a sink and turn on the tap. Take a photo of the water coming out of the tap. Walk away and come back 30 seconds later. Take a picture of the water coming out of the tap.

Is the water in the first photo the same as the second?

No, but previously were discussing a river rather than water. I think my point of confusion was to do with DE versus thought about DE. You had suggested that thinking about DE is not DE, but when DE exhibits the first thoughts that come to mind, the content of these thoughts can be incorrect as with the matter of what a river or a Paul actually is or would be in DE. I'm not being that clear. Do you see what I mean?

What do you see in the picture below?


A car.


In my experience I saw a 'picture of a car'.

Really? You saw a picture of a car in the picture of the car? I thought I was adhering to the precise wording of your question.

Out of time again, so until next time ...

Paul