Trackless Bird

[s-p-a-c-e]

Indeed. Meet "me".

Yes, I can feel/sense it.

It reminds me of The Wizard of Oz. So much is spoken of the Wizard, wondrous tales, and then, after a long journey of trials and tribulations, they pull back the curtain, and its, "Oh, really?" The reality didn't match up to the fantasy.

So, "me".

Observe closely. Observe and sense and feel. Set aside everything you had assumed you knew, and come at it completely afresh. As if a new creature had crossed the path, and you are wide-open and alert.

At the same time, you might poke and prod it. See what happens.
Imagine touching it. What happens.

Imagine a breeze blowing through it.

Imagine light shining directly through it.

Explore, and share any discoveries.

Thank you!
John

[Periwinkle]

Observe closely. Observe and sense and feel. Set aside everything you had assumed you knew, and come at it completely afresh. As if a new creature had crossed the path, and you are wide-open and alert.

At the same time, you might poke and prod it. See what happens.
Imagine touching it. What happens.

Imagine a breeze blowing through it.

Imagine light shining directly through it.

Explore, and share any discoveries.

I looked, but I can only experience it as a mental activity; there is no tangible "it" for my touch, a breeze or light to come into contact with, yet it strangely seems to desire on its own, as if it were a person separate from this mind/body.

Not coming up with more than that.

[s-p-a-c-e]

I looked, but I can only experience it as a mental activity; there is no tangible "it" for my touch, a breeze or light to come into contact with, yet it strangely seems to desire on its own, as if it were a person separate from this mind/body.

Ok, good.

Let's give 'me' a task.

If this 'me' behind the eyes is a real being, request that it speak with you in such a way to make this perfectly clear. And to do so within the next minute or so.

See what happens,
John

[Periwinkle]

If this 'me' behind the eyes is a real being, request that it speak with you in such a way to make this perfectly clear. And to do so within the next minute or so.

I asked, but no one replied.

[s-p-a-c-e]

If this 'me' behind the eyes is a real being, request that it speak with you in such a way to make this perfectly clear. And to do so within the next minute or so.

I asked, but no one replied.

Have another go, maybe 'me' was out.

[Periwinkle]

Have another go, maybe 'me' was out.

Nada.

Nada peep.

(And John, I want you to know I really appreciate this, all your patience with me and your humor, your time, and especially your ability to come up with endless ways for me to investigate. It is greatly valued.)

[s-p-a-c-e]

Have another go, maybe 'me' was out.

Nada.

Nada peep.

Interesting isn't it. If "me" can't speak or lift a hand, is there any simple task that it is capable of?

(And John, I want you to know I really appreciate this, all your patience with me and your humor, your time, and especially your ability to come up with endless ways for me to investigate. It is greatly valued.)

Thank you - it is a pleasure.

[Periwinkle]

Interesting isn't it. If "me" can't speak or lift a hand, is there any simple task that it is capable of?

Task, no. No evidence of it doing anything.

Then it exists only on that piece of thinking it seems to own, which could be distilled down to fear.

And this seems somehow distinct, yet related to the "behind the eyes" sense.

[s-p-a-c-e]

Interesting isn't it. If "me" can't speak or lift a hand, is there any simple task that it is capable of?

Task, no. No evidence of it doing anything.

Then it exists only on that piece of thinking it seems to own, which could be distilled down to fear.

And this takes some swallowing. Because the implications are indeed far-reaching.

It comes down to this: that the sensations felt behind the eyes are sensations felt behind the eyes.
No more, no less.

We can call them "me", or "I", or "Bob" or "being", but the fact remains:
There are sensations.
And we have lived with the assumption-as-true that such sensations are, effectively, the seat of "me".

So, there is a crack of light in accepting the possibility that sensations are sensations. That "me" is a folly.

Ponder on this deeply.

Best wishes,
John

[Periwinkle]

Ponder on this deeply.

When I look closely I can see that while thoughts are happening, they come on their own. I have no control over when they come or how often they come or if they come at all. They are appropriate to the concerns of the sphere that this particular body/mind operates in, but before they arise I have no clue of what their content will be.

It is also seen that decisions are being considered and made, but the points of the debate are not chosen; they just appear, as does the final decision itself. The body moves without thought directing it; the head turns so that the eyes can look at something the ear hears, but there was no decision to do so. The hand wields a hammer that drives a nail, but the thought that hitting it at a specific angle will improve the result is not chosen, it just appears, or not.

So even though when it is discovered that thoughts and actions are not generated by a "me," a thinker and a doer are still assumed to exist. This assumption, when married to the vague sensation behind the eyes of a Central Command, is the shaky ground that "me" stands on.

When I stop and think, these things are clear. I'll come back to them throughout my day to review again. It's morning and I'm sitting on our covered porch writing this and there's a hard summer rain falling. As I ponder these things I'm getting that slight dream-like sensation again.

[s-p-a-c-e]

When I look closely I can see that while thoughts are happening, they come on their own. I have no control over when they come or how often they come or if they come at all. They are appropriate to the concerns of the sphere that this particular body/mind operates in, but before they arise I have no clue of what their content will be.

We tend to lend objects the gift of agency. Computers don't want to work, and the fire is playing up. :) Do thoughts come on their own? Observe and pay attention to precisely what is noticed.

You say "I have no control over when they come..." etc, but the point is: What is the nature of this "I"? Is it in any position to control anything? - what with being completely fictional n'all!

It doesn't matter that you have no clue beforehand. Who gives a monkey's about that. How can "I" control anything?

It is also seen that decisions are being considered and made, but the points of the debate are not chosen; they just appear, as does the final decision itself. The body moves without thought directing it; the head turns so that the eyes can look at something the ear hears, but there was no decision to do so. The hand wields a hammer that drives a nail, but the thought that hitting it at a specific angle will improve the result is not chosen, it just appears, or not.

Ok, stuff moves. :)

So even though when it is discovered that thoughts and actions are not generated by a "me," a thinker and a doer are still assumed to exist. This assumption, when married to the vague sensation behind the eyes of a Central Command, is the shaky ground that "me" stands on.

When you are ready: wander into the possibility that a thinker and doer do indeed exist, and you were wrong to ever think they were fictional.

When I stop and think, these things are clear. I'll come back to them throughout my day to review again. It's morning and I'm sitting on our covered porch writing this and there's a hard summer rain falling. As I ponder these things I'm getting that slight dream-like sensation again.

You exist.

"me".

...is the mask you have worn for decades.

An un-necessary burden.

Keep the mask on for a bit, but at least fully see it as the mask that it is.

With warmest wishes,
John

[Periwinkle]

We tend to lend objects the gift of agency. Computers don't want to work, and the fire is playing up. :) Do thoughts come on their own? Observe and pay attention to precisely what is noticed.

There are many ways in which thoughts seem to arise, sometimes seemingly in response to memory or other triggers, and sometimes at random, but I don't know where the specific thoughts come from.

In discussing with my wife a film we watched last night, I recalled different scenes that stood out for me, then shared my observations. I don't know why I recalled those particular scenes nor why my particular thought/observations arose, but they seem to fit within the parameters of what this particular body/mind finds fascinating.

When there are goals that I desire, (projects, friendships, etc.,) I notice that thoughts come up which seem to move me closer to those goals

Sometimes in a work environment, I’ll surround myself with the components/obstacles of the goal at hand - designs, data, timelines, people - and marinate in them, and after some time, solutions will present themselves. But, sometimes solutions pop up without the preliminarily work, like in the shower, and worry seems to have no bearing on the availability of in-the-moment thought/solutions either.

Or, I will unintentionally see, hear or smell something when I’m not involved in specific problem-solving that seem to trigger a thought related to one of those goals that then moves the game piece forward. But the fact that a particular thought is triggered seems to have no relation to any intention on my part. There is desire, though.

Another category are thoughts that randomly arise - ideas about something completely new - that seem to be unrelated to anything I’m working towards or were exposed to, but that do seem to stay within the orbit of the world of this body/mind.

So, I can't say that thoughts arise on their own, under their own power, but only that I don't seem to have much to do with it, nor know how or why they arise.

You say "I have no control over when they come..." etc, but the point is: What is the nature of this "I"? Is it in any position to control anything? - what with being completely fictional n'all!

You got me there. “I” can’t control anything, any more than the Easter bunny can bring eggs.

But here it’s easy to see how the “I” is believed in. When this body/mind flowers in a unique way, through thought or other manifestations, that uniqueness is taken to be a “me.”

When you are ready: wander into the possibility that a thinker and doer do indeed exist, and you were wrong to ever think they were fictional.

Not sure what you mean here. If a thinker and doer do exist, but the “I” is fictional, then that thinker/doer would be this body/mind, but absent the ownership, the claiming?

[s-p-a-c-e]

So, I can't say that thoughts arise on their own, under their own power, but only that I don't seem to have much to do with it, nor know how or why they arise.

To keep it simple, "I" am the one who thinks, makes thoughts.
That's what 99.9% of folk would say.
But you look - not at the thoughts - but at "I".
What is "I"?
Oh shit, it's made up of thought?
Well I never.

You say "I have no control over when they come..." etc, but the point is: What is the nature of this "I"? Is it in any position to control anything? - what with being completely fictional n'all!

You got me there. “I” can’t control anything, any more than the Easter bunny can bring eggs.

Now, dig deep into this. We use the word "control" to mean "my control", the kind of control that "I" have. It's part of the story.

Let's say you're driving along, and it lands that "I" cannot possibly have control.
Does the car veer off the road?
No, because "I" is a fallacy.
The control that could be had by "I" is a fallacy.
The control required to keep the car ticking along on the road will do what it has always done, pretty much effortlessly.

We've added a character "me" that is supposed to do all this stuff. It never has, never did, never will.

But here it’s easy to see how the “I” is believed in. When this body/mind flowers in a unique way, through thought or other manifestations, that uniqueness is taken to be a “me.”

When you are ready: wander into the possibility that a thinker and doer do indeed exist, and you were wrong to ever think they were fictional.

Not sure what you mean here. If a thinker and doer do exist, but the “I” is fictional, then that thinker/doer would be this body/mind, but absent the ownership, the claiming?

Well, if we are so attached to "me", then maybe we could stay with it, and continue to believe in "me", you know, remind ourselves every morning to adopt the fallacy.

It could work. :)

/john

[Periwinkle]

But you look - not at the thoughts - but at "I".
What is "I"?
Oh shit, it's made up of thought?

Of course. But I'm getting frustrated that I have to keep dragging my mind back here as if this is the first time I've ever run across this. One bad day at work and I'm back in the game, snapping at those I love over stupid shit. "Me" is becoming more and more painful to be around.

The control that could be had by "I" is a fallacy.
The control required to keep the car ticking along on the road will do what it has always done, pretty much effortlessly.
We've added a character "me" that is supposed to do all this stuff. It never has, never did, never will.

Can we just do a brain swap and be done with it?

Well, if we are so attached to "me", then maybe we could stay with it, and continue to believe in "me", you know, remind ourselves every morning to adopt the fallacy.

I guess the good news is that I'm too far gone for that.

I suddenly spent an hour last night for no reason researching emergency preparedness kits. Maybe my "I" is getting ready for the worst.

[Periwinkle]

Good morning John,

Lately, my feeling is that my hammering away at this is reinforcing the idea of a separate self instead of loosening it up. I feel that I have a pretty good intellectual understanding, but then I have the thought that there is something that I am not getting, and there "I" am again. If desire counts for anything then maybe it will all work out, as I have buckets of desire. When I'm not engaged in some task that requires my mental attention this is pretty much all I can think about. Maybe we should give it a rest? What are your thoughts?

Thanks,
Skye