Hi. I'm looking for a guide

[biisuto]

Hi Lawrence,

I greatly appreciate your patience over the past few weeks. I finished my exams yesterday.

Yes, I love that Magritte. When I first saw it as a teen it seemed like a zen koan, but it came back during a semiotics unit in college. Jed McKenna also mentions it in one of his books. It seems so obvious when your perspective has gained a bit of altitude. It’s not a koan at all, just a simple reminder that the symbol isn’t the thing itself.

So, how’s the altitude?

Flicking back through this exchange, I’ve noticed a distinct shift in the tone of your posts. Can you offer any observations about any shifts you’ve noticed since we began our dialogue?

I’d also like to ask if you have anything to add here? You’ve had a chance to be with this for a while. If you could ask any question/s about what we are doing here and the process you are undergoing, what would that/they be?

[Lawrence]

Hello Michael.
I am unfamiliar with zen koans and semiotics so have just spent a few minutes grazing at a couple of sites. I am familar with some of the writings of Wang Wei. I am still fascinated with the book 19 Ways of Looking at Wang Wei, which translates one poem 19 different ways.
I think this highlights the problem of language and studying "truth". For example, how can any monotheistic religious grouping, who study "the word of god" not be able to read "god`s original text", but relying on only a translation of a translation. Likewise without studying Eastern tongues there is limitation to any understanding, but maybe that is the point of semiotics , which Iget a slight flavour of and reminded me of the book The Meaning of Meaning which I read so long ago ( or so I think), I remember not a word.
However, I digress. There is a shift in my thoughts and ideas. At the beginning, I was looking at a solution to the way I looked at the world and to come to some sort of truth, however subtle.. I have found some sort of understanding of truth even though I cannot " live" it. That seems to be sufficient, though if I have the time and inclination I will look further into zen koans. At the very least they are smart little amusing stories.
At the beginning of this process I said that I was not looking to find answers but only to stop looking for questions. Within the context of "liberation" with your guidance, I have no questions, but if you can enlighten me on what semitics mean I would be grateful.

[Lawrence]

I mean semiotics !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[Lawrence]

I meant to ask if your exams were anything to do with our discussions. Whatever they are, I hope it went wellfor you

[biisuto]

Hi Lawrence,

“Semitics" :) As you would have seen via Google, semiotics is the study of meaning. My original field looked at semiotic analysis in the context of the construction and deconstruction of meaning, in the media in particular. I've always been partial to linguistics, though and spent a decade and a half simultaneously teaching English and studying Japanese and fascinated by the distinct differences in not just language but the way the mind works as well when communicating in each. I feel that being bilingual has been a distinct advantage in seeing past the edge of

I meant to ask if your exams were anything to do with our discussions. Whatever they are, I hope it went well for you

Thanks, the exam went well. This was my first semester of a grad course in counselling. I've taken it up not as any kind of adjunct to this work on the LU site but as an extension of my work as a facilitator and instructional designer. Having written that, however, I won’t say that there’s not a lot of crossover in the role of counsellor and the work here at LU…both roles help people see through undesirable, delusory mental constructs in the interests of better mental hygiene. :)

My work here is not intended as “counselling", per se, but to help others in the quite pointed task of experiencing a real revelation in response to a sincere search for a separate self. This is something I agree with Ilona et al to be of great benefit to us all…so here I am.

But let’s leave all that and put aside our koans for a moment (or for..ever) and return to our work here. If you have nothing further to ask or add, I’m going to ask for a couple of others to give us the benefit of a cold-eyes view of our conversation, to see if there are further things for us to explore here.

[Lawrence]

I am completely understand what you say about language as opposed to culture. Even our nearest neighbours here ( the French) view the world differently. I only understand that having lived and worked there. Actually across the pond there are mighty cultural differences between Brits and Americans. This can be seen on watching something so simple to compare as The Chase and the Chase USA. The attitude and style are like two different worlds.

Yes I would like others to view our conversation and again thank you for your time and imput. It is very bizarre by the way. I keep going on Meetup walks (I believe Meetup is in the USA) and I seem to end up chatting to counsellors !

[biisuto]

Hi Lawrence,

We've had some feedback and the feel is that the dialogue might benefit from some consolidation, to wrap this up more neatly. This is as much to do with my wordy posts as anything you've posted, so please think nothing of it.

To that end, I'll ask you a bundled set of questions herein, none you've not seen here before, so no pressure, (ie., nothing like your O Levels at all!)

Please respond to each as briefly or as in depth as you feel it necessary to explain what you mean:

1. How does it feel to see through the illusion of a separate self?
2. What’s the difference from before you started this investigation?
3. Please explain in full what this illusion is and how it works from your own experience.
4. How does it feel to see this?
5. What pushed you across the line?
6. Do you decide, intend, choose or control events in Life? Do you make anything happen? Give examples from your own experience.
7. Do you have anything to add?

Warm regards,
Michael

[Lawrence]

1. It feel`s good to understand that I am simply part of an ebb and flow
2. That the ego is an illusion
3. The illusion is ego and has created the concept of self and history of self and the concept of world community
4. It explains why the concept does not add up or make sense, though what does not add up or make sense may also be illusionary and being aware of this is feels important.
5. To an extent I was always over the line, but Iona and yourself pushed away the contradictions which fell away easily as it made sense, particularly when I realised I was making "ego some sort of mythical being rather than what I believe to be a processing.
6. To make anything happen would involve believing that I had a "me" to make things happen or that anything is "happening" other than what the "ego" controls. My experience tells me that I can never know when or what the ego controls because the ego is always in control. Other than that I can only believe I have sense of knowing oneness which is a sort of control.
7. Nothing other than to say my wife returned home yesterday, sleeps a lot and is mad as a box of frogs, which confirms to me that there is really nothing out there but what you believe there is-or not.
Regards and Amitie

Lawrence

Quote : " Ho-hum" Kurt Vonneget "Breakfast of Champions"

[biisuto]

Hi Lawrence,

I'm sure your hands are full with your box of frogs. When you get a chance, there's a query from someone:

"Lawrence, in Q2, you say: "That the ego is an illusion"
Then in Q3 you say: "The illusion is ego ... and has created the concept of self..."
And again in Q6: "My experience tells me that I can never know when or what the ego controls because the ego is always in control."
Lawrence, what is this 'ego', and if it is an illusion, how can it create, how can it control?"

Warm regards,
Michael

[Lawrence]

Yes. I can see I am being unclear here. The term ego is thrown about in different ways.
When I say ego is an illusion, I mean ego as a "thing" is illusion. To me the the actuality of the ego is a process that is going on and has no form or substance. The nearest comparison could be the actual beating of the heart , but not the heart itself ( though with this comparison there is a heart to beat).
This process is the only process that makes us aware that we "are". Without it we would not conceive that awareness that gives a past or future or self. We can believe that we can think "through it" and can know the truth, but as it is our only awareness, we can never know whether we are thinking "through it" or whether it is the function of the process that I call ego. That is what I mean by it is always in control, because we can never know whether it is not in control because we can never be certain that process is deceiving every function.

[biisuto]

Hi Lawrence,

One of the comments made was that I introduced ‘ego' into the discussion as a synonym for 'self’, then we both started using it without ever defining it, hence the request to clarify. To make sure here: are you using the two terms interchangeably? If so, I will stop using ‘ego’ from now and revert to ‘self’ to see if we are talking apples and apples. If not, how do they differ in your usage?

...The term ego is thrown about in different ways.

Yes, but I think that’s ok, as long as we’re not playing a shell game and harbouring any hidden identity among it….a ’self’ lurking as something else.

When I say ego is an illusion, I mean ego as a "thing" is illusion. To me the the actuality of the ego is a process that is going on and has no form or substance. The nearest comparison could be the actual beating of the heart , but not the heart itself (though with this comparison there is a heart to beat).

So, what you are saying here is that, while there is no self, processes occur as if there were? …and this is what leads to an unquestioned assumption of self as an actual entity?

This process is the only process that makes us aware that we "are". Without it we would not conceive that awareness that gives a past or future or self. We can believe that we can think "through it" and can know the truth, but as it is our only awareness, we can never know whether we are thinking "through it" or whether it is the function of the process that I call ego. That is what I mean by it is always in control, because we can never know whether it is not in control because we can never be certain that process is deceiving every function.

Well, to my understanding, the contention of this community is that awareness isn’t fooled by thoughts and direct, focused observation will reveal the underlying truth that, beyond these thoughts about it, self does not exist. “Illusion recognised must disappear,” so following recognition of its illusory nature (and it’s an ongoing process of continuing to observe, at least until ideation habits of ‘selfing’ are broken) that idea of control and inability to differentiate should likewise dissipate.

But that’s not the focus of this process, which is just to see through it and recognise that something most of us take for granted in thought and speech has no substantive counterpart.

What I think might draw further comment if we don’t nail it down here is, please tell me a little more about who is it who “…can never know whether it (ego/self) is not in control because we can never be certain that process is deceiving every function.”

Is the idea of self contained now within some kind of larger or higher self? And if so, please tell me where I can find that in direct experience.

[Lawrence]

Hi Michael
Firstly I am using “self” and “ego” to mean the same thing.( so I will use ”self” also)
Processing occurs as if it were “self”.
I do have problems with a “community that believes it can think through self” because the very statement has so many inconsistencies in wording and in any “actuality” that it is impossible to theorise around the statement, which is why I stated about never truly “knowing” that one can think through anything, only a belief that one can and that belief is an inconsistency in itself, as there is no “self” to have such a belief.
Though I have been brief in my response, it is the only response I can honestly make. Direct experience may in itself be just another trap, because there is nothing to measure it by and of course the inherent inconsistencies in this statement apply.

[biisuto]

Thanks for your considered response, Lawrence. I've asked to see if there's any more input for you.

Warm regards,
Michael

[biisuto]

Hi Lawrence,

A little more input:

(from Ilona) What differences do you notice in normal ordinary everyday life, since the start of conversation? What has changed and what hasn't? Is seeking still there or it's dropped?

and

(from another guide) "In the light of your reassessment of the use of "ego" and "self", could you please answer Q2 and Q3, from the perspective of "self' rather than "ego"?"

So,

Q2. What’s the difference from before you started this investigation?
Q3. Please explain in full what this illusion is and how it works from your own experience.

Regards,
Michael

[Lawrence]

Hi Michael

Thank you first of all to Ilona , yourself the other guides. Rather than just put down my response, I need time to relax and come back to everyone in the most considered way I can. It has been an exhausting week and am emotionally drained, even though I am not fooled by what is going on. I will reply within three or four days, when I can go down to the Sea Lane Cafe, which sits by sea, ( Ilona will understand) reflect for a couple of hours and fully respond.
Regards
Lawrence