conceptual understanding into experience

[perrym]

Hi Valentine,

I noticed that my anxiety / fear is experienced a strong physical sensation, which actually seems to be prior to the thoughts - the opposite way round to what you might imagine - as if the sensation generates the thought. This fear sensation seems to be a main umbilical root of the holding on.

Very interesting! Do keep on investigating - fear is often a sign that self-view is really starting to be challenged, so it is a great place to be working. Patiently look, listen and question - what is this really about? What is the fear seeking to protect?

I am suggesting that you suspend belief in these free will / fatalism stories for a while.

How, practically?
I mean what is a method to do that?

Good question.

Your focus has shifted towards the bodily (rather than thought) manifestations of the resistance and fear, so this might not be so relevant right now, but since you ask....

Remember what it is like when watching a film that you have been engrossed in, and for whatever reason, you start to lose the 'suspension of disbelief' - you are no longer able to fully 'buy into' what is going on, you cannot quite take the plot or characters seriously any more... what exactly is going on during this process? Well it is exactly the same process that goes on when 'suspending belief' in one of your own inner stories.

I could elaborate more, from my own experience, but it would be better if you could recall the process for yourself first, then maybe we can compare notes.

best wishes,

Perry

[valentine]

Hi Valentine,

Remember what it is like when watching a film that you have been engrossed in, and for whatever reason, you start to lose the 'suspension of disbelief' - you are no longer able to fully 'buy into' what is going on, you cannot quite take the plot or characters seriously any more... what exactly is going on during this process? Well it is exactly the same process that goes on when 'suspending belief' in one of your own inner stories.

I could elaborate more, from my own experience, but it would be better if you could recall the process for yourself first, then maybe we can compare notes.

best wishes,

Perry

Perry

I am going to spend some time with this ver the next days and report back

Thanks!

[perrym]

OK, I am standing by!

[valentine]

Hi Valentine,

Remember what it is like when watching a film that you have been engrossed in, and for whatever reason, you start to lose the 'suspension of disbelief' - you are no longer able to fully 'buy into' what is going on, you cannot quite take the plot or characters seriously any more... what exactly is going on during this process? Well it is exactly the same process that goes on when 'suspending belief' in one of your own inner stories.

I could elaborate more, from my own experience, but it would be better if you could recall the process for yourself first, then maybe we can compare notes.

best wishes,

Perry

Hi Perry!

So. I have been looking and looking again.
I can't find an 'i', a 'me'. an 'intendor', a director.
In fact, sometimes, the closer I look, the less there seems to be beyond sensation.
Then when thoughts drop away, what actually IS sensation?
This is quite mysterious in an expansive, spacious way.

But within, I sense there still seems some lingering resistance or holding on
This seems to distill down to two things: a belief and a feeling.
The feeling is a sort of fear / anxiety and is based in the gut.
When I look at it, what actually is that? A sensation I label 'fear'. Why? I don't know but it is there.
Sometimes it seems it has always been there.

The belief is connected with your suggestion above.
I can suspend my disbelief that choice needs a chooser. I have been seeing even that intention can be just 'intentional thoughts' arising.
I can suspend my disbelief in free will and see that there is a vast (infinite?) myriad of interactions that result in actions, thoughts, sensations.
What I am finding tricky to suspend belief in is that if the above is the case, then there must be some fatalistic / deterministic system - and although I don't believe the latter, I am finding it difficult hover in that space of unknowing
In other words the story that it must be either one or the other is difficult to dislodge.

AND outside the time spent intently looking, things seems to be going on as usual!

I know we have been round some of this before

Thanks for your patience!

[perrym]

Hi Valentine,

Busy weekend, sorry not to get back to you sooner.

Thanks for the great description of where you are up to.

I can suspend my disbelief in free will and see that there is a vast (infinite?) myriad of interactions that result in actions, thoughts, sensations.
What I am finding tricky to suspend belief in is that if the above is the case, then there must be some fatalistic / deterministic system - and although I don't believe the latter, I am finding it difficult hover in that space of unknowing
In other words the story that it must be either one or the other is difficult to dislodge.

OK, let's zoom in here then.

Can you elaborate the view for me? What is the "fatalistic / deterministic system", and how does it necessary follow from volition arising in dependence upon conditions?

Please don't feel the need to construct a watertight philosophical proposition, or even to make rational sense at all - let's just look at the raw views/feelings linked up with these questions, even if they don't seem logically sound when you write them out.

best wishes,

Perry

[valentine]

Can you elaborate the view for me? What is the "fatalistic / deterministic system", and how does it necessary follow from volition arising in dependence upon conditions?

Hi Perry

Ok, you asked for it, this is just what is going on - not a coherent argument:

There is a feeling of being cornered here - by a contradiction, by a dilemma, by something that is difficult to get past.

On the one hand, I 'see' there is just things arising and passing, and I cannot 'see' a self controlling it.
On the other, there is a stubborn non - rational, feeling that is difficult to shake (despite a willingness to do so) that there is some participation, some creative intervention, something else going on. The fact I cannot see it, that is some willingness to let it go does not make it disappear. Perhaps it shouldn't but that seems to coagulate into the idea of self

There is this gut-feeling that if it is let go, what is left is entropy. I suppose that is what the fear is - that it will all be out of control - as you said in an earlier post, with consciousness like a ping pong ball floating a river.

Letting go of the idea of free will seems surprisingly easy. But the vision of experience without the participation I describe above seems immediately to be replaced by one which is 'deterministic',' fatalistisc' - that everything is just happening, like it or not, that intention counts for nothing (or is just another self arising factor), that there is no participation - which something in me is in revolt against because it just doesn't seem to be the way things are!

Phew. I am struggling with this

Thanks!

[perrym]

Hi Valentine,

Thanks for filling that out. Let's look some more into 'participation' vs 'ping pong ball'....

Does awareness make a difference to anything?

For instance, at the start of a meditation, you might take awareness to parts of the body where there is tension.

Or after thinking about something difficult for a while, you might notice that you've been clenching your jaw - does the dawning of awareness make any difference?

Perry

[valentine]

Hi Valentine,

Thanks for filling that out. Let's look some more into 'participation' vs 'ping pong ball'....

Does awareness make a difference to anything?

For instance, at the start of a meditation, you might take awareness to parts of the body where there is tension.

Or after thinking about something difficult for a while, you might notice that you've been clenching your jaw - does the dawning of awareness make any difference?

Perry

Consciousness changes everything.
If I take or intend awareness somewhere it immediately makes a difference, it activates physical sensation, brings it to the foreground, opens it. It dissolves th boundaries between things. With thought there is a time when it remains separate but usually becomes absorbed, becomes unconscious.

Your question promptness something today. I sort of relaxed. I didn't feel the need to tell a story to replace the one about free -will. It sort of didn't matter. Not knowing didn't matter

thanks

[perrym]

Hi Valentine,

I didn't feel the need to tell a story to replace the one about free -will. It sort of didn't matter. Not knowing didn't matter

From what you wrote, I think you might have picked up where I was going with this ... but for completeness:

If awareness changes what happens, then can 'ping pong ball' fatalism be how things really are?

If you have concluded that neither free will nor fatalism describe experience, and you don't even feel a strong need to pin down an alternative theory, then are you free to live fully with the knowledge that no self can be found?

[valentine]

If you have concluded that neither free will nor fatalism describe experience, and you don't even feel a strong need to pin down an alternative theory, then are you free to live fully with the knowledge that no self can be found?

Yes, I am free to - though I don't know what that means yet.

Now there is just the gut level tension of holding on - an instinct or something associated with fear.

There is this conglomeration of phenomena - memory, identity, imagination, habit, sense of continuity, instinct, emotional tone - all the stuff which seems to have been called 'self' -partly for the convenience of shorthand, partly because it is not possible to know where or what it is, how it is held and maintains. It's ok to leave that as just unknown with calling it 'self'?

thanks for keeping pointing and asking

[perrym]

Hi Valentine,

Now there is just the gut level tension of holding on - an instinct or something associated with fear.

OK, it is good to be working at a less conceptual level again.

We've been here before, of course, though it is perhaps a little different each time.... Looking into and gently quizzing this fear, this holding on: what is being protected? what is being held onto?

It's ok to leave that as just unknown with calling it 'self'?

I'm not quite sure I follow what you mean... I'll answer based on what I think you mean....

Is there any need to have a notion of 'self', even an 'unknown self'? Of course, the word will continue to crop up as an element in conventional speech, but in terms of your 'mental universe', what purpose is served by the notion of an 'unknown self'?

I am reminded of what Laplace is supposed to have said to Napolean, when Napolean asked him where, in his great book about the workings of the cosmos, God appeared... "I have no need for that hypothesis", Laplace is said to have replied. Do you really need the hypothesis of 'self' at all?

Instead of replacing a known self with an unknown self, what about, just ... no self?

When you discovered that there was not really a fat bearded man called Santa Claus, did you assume instead that there was some unknown entity called Santa Claus?

very best wishes,

perry

[valentine]

Looking into and gently quizzing this fear, this holding on: what is being protected? what is being held onto?

This fear / tension in the gut goes back way beyond the start of this inquiry. I think it may go right back to the beginning. In one sense, it is the physical correlate of my sense of self. It seems to be a defensive response. Probably, and that is the realm of psychology so not for here, it was created out of a sense there was something to be defended - the outer wall of a fort. Now it appears there is no fort to defend - but the wall remains.

It's ok to leave that as just unknown with calling it 'self'?

Oops, this was major - perhaps a significant - mistake on the writing. The intention was to say WITHOUT calling it self..

I will write it again, as intended here because it is what I am still working with:
There is this conglomeration of phenomena - memory, identity, imagination, habit, sense of continuity, instinct, emotional tone - all the stuff which seems to have been called 'self' -partly for the convenience of shorthand, partly because it is not possible to know where or what it is, how it is held and maintains.
Is it ok to leave that as just unknown without calling it 'self'?

But I think you already answered this: YES ?

When you discovered that there was not really a fat bearded man called Santa Claus, did you assume instead that there was some unknown entity called Santa Claus?

No. But I left that story with some regret. And seeing my daughter about to stop believing it is rather poignant.
It is a rather beautiful story. Perhaps one still wishes it were true.
I cannot really call when I stopped believing. Perhaps like this it was a dawning gradual realisation.

So far, anyway, there has not been an 'aha' moment about SELF - it's more like the sea eroding that outer wall.

Thank you

[perrym]

Hi Valentine,

Now it appears there is no fort to defend - but the wall remains.

What a lovely expression!

That is probably as much as we need to go into it for now (unless you feel otherwise). As we've discussed before, habits do tend to persist, what is important is that the engine of belief is knocked out of them, which seems to be what you're reporting here.

The intention was to say WITHOUT calling it self..

Oh! well that does somewhat affect the meaning!

Is it ok to leave that as just unknown without calling it 'self'?

I'd say so, how do you feel about it?

Perhaps one still wishes it were true.

What, I wonder, has been given up or lost?

With Santa, there was magic and wonder, something to be nostalgic for ...

Seeing through the illusion of 'self', what is lost, I wonder? Perhaps some of what is 'lost' is actually better gone?

So far, anyway, there has not been an 'aha' moment about SELF - it's more like the sea eroding that outer wall.

So are there any remaining doubts or questions, or is it just a question of allowing the rest of the psyche to catch up, for the sea to wear down the remaining walls?

best wishes,

Perry

[valentine]

Is it ok to leave that as just unknown without calling it 'self'?

I'd say so, how do you feel about it?

I feel ok about it. I mean, it's a mystery but then it always a was a mystery , Using the word Self is a convenience that means you don't have to look into it further and live with the unknowing.

Seeing through the illusion of 'self', what is lost, I wonder? Perhaps some of what is 'lost' is actually better gone?

Right now, I cannot see any advantage to maintaining that illusion. Though rather then having arrived somewhere to stop, I feel that the work has begun and that there is some practice or further reflection to establish the non-belief as it were.

So are there any remaining doubts or questions, or is it just a question of allowing the rest of the psyche to catch up, for the sea to wear down the remaining walls?

No more questions!, Just one request.
A few posts ago you asked (with regard to the story of fatalism) : "Does awareness make a difference to anything?"
I Iooked and that seemed like a sort of turning point.
How would you describe the process that went on in that interaction with regard to intention'

Thanks so much!

[perrym]

Hi Valentine,

I feel that the work has begun and that there is some practice or further reflection to establish the non-belief as it were.

I would completely agree with this. This is a beginning not an end.

Self-view blinds us to what is really happening in experience, and we have a lifetime of less-than-helpful habits built up on the basis of this distorted perception. Having seen through self-view, it is possible at last to really see what is going on, and a much deeper, more permanent kind of transformation becomes possible. But that transformation has only just begun. Welcome to rest of the journey :-)

How would you describe the process that went on in that interaction with regard to intention

Implicit in 'ping pong ball' fatalism is the idea that awareness is just an observer, not a participant. Once you recall that awareness changes things, then it becomes clear that, even though 'free will' is an illusion, there is some dynamic process within which awareness is an integral part .... awareness is a participant, not a separate and impotent observer.

From the point of view of ideas of free will vs fatalism, this is rather mysterious, but it is fairly obvious in experience.

I wonder now how you'd tackle that 'standard question' that we looked at before?

Describe decision, intention, free will, choice and control. What makes things happen? How does it work? What are you responsible for? Give examples from experience.

best wishes,

perry