Still looking...

[vinceschubert]

Good evening Jim,

What are the ramifications of realizing that you create your own world

- well, it depends in which sense you mean it: the psychological sense or the more literal sense

We are not looking for meaning here. To philosophize get's us nowhere. We are looking to 'wake up'. That is to recognize what is actual.
Anything that seems to be said about it (anything) is a misinterpretation. Language is inadequate, so the use of metaphor is necessary, but don't look at the finger. Look at where it is pointing.

That is well put. I don't - I believe - create the "world", just my own "interpretation" of it.

Ok, just to be clear. i don't mean the physical objects or the physical people. That is (they are) a mystery. For practical purposes we just need to recognize that what they seem to be is our interpretation. A result of our conditioned perceptions.
Indulge me here. If you were to see this clearly, what would be the practical (not philosophic) ramifications for your daily life-ing?

sorry about the names confusion. I shall try and sort out later

Don't worry about it. Now that I know that it's you, it's fine.

vince

[Locutus1452]

We are not looking for meaning here. To philosophize get's us nowhere. We are looking to 'wake up'. That is to recognize what is actual.

I couldn't agree more. But you did bring up the tree in the forest and that's pretty philosophical 😉
In truth I was beginning to wonder about the direction here hence my earlier query about LU possibly requiring some phenomenological stance. It was my understanding that it did not. That it was based on looking. On experience and not speculation about the real nature of things - whatever that is 🤣

i don't mean the physical objects or the physical people. That is (they are) a mystery. For practical purposes we just need to recognize that what they seem to be is our interpretation. A result of our conditioned perceptions.

That is a clear answer to my question. I was am keen not to answer your questions based on a possible misunderstanding of them.
I now understand that you are pointing to deep cognitive biases that misrepresent "us", to ourselves. Note the quotes.

If you were to see this clearly, what would be the practical (not philosophic) ramifications for your daily life-ing?

I came to LU (to answer your previous question) through a long-standing connection to Buddhism. I understand that seeing through the delusion of self is only a preliminary to breaking other more deep-rooted "fetters" like ill-will for example.

So I would expect, practically, to feel a lighter burden of self. Something less clingy and distorting. Something like getting a joke. How's that for experience-based speculation...🤔?

J

[vinceschubert]

Good evening Jim,

But you did bring up the tree in the forest and that's pretty philosophical

Yes, although I would say conceptual for the purpose of cementing the actuality of the experience of sound being created by the brain then projected outwards to a position that is calculated by more brain activity. The science of biology confirms this, so I guess that can be considered phenomenological.

I understand that seeing through the delusion of self is only a preliminary to breaking other more deep-rooted "fetters" like ill-will for example.

Ha, yes. All of the fetters are rooted in delusions. The existence of an inherently separate self is just one of them.
What they all have in common is that they are thought creations. Stories. Stories that we respond to as if they were actual.

So I would expect, practically, to feel a lighter burden of self. Something less clingy and distorting.

How about we swap the burden of self for a diminishing burden of conditioning?
..and we can start this process by recognizing all of the delusions for what they really are. We change the delusions into illusions that we happily live with because we are, after all, human.
The sound of the tree falling will always seem to come from a distance, but we now know that it's a unique perspective that we experience.
We will continue to use personal pronouns and it will continue to seem as if there is a self when we relate to the world, but we now know that it is an illusion that we are experiencing.
It will still seem as if we are making decisions or choosing between possibilities, but we now know that it is an illusion and that these things for all practical purposes, just happen.
So how do we start this process of converting delusions into illusions? (rhetorical question)
We start by recognizing that (almost) every emotion, every behavior is a response to a story. A belief.
We begin to recognize when we are responding to thought patterns.
What is your response to all of this Jim?

vince

[Locutus1452]

How about we swap the burden of self for a diminishing burden of conditioning?

I'll take either thanks 😉 Unless you think the latter is a bigger better prize...

we now know that it is an illusion and that these things for all practical purposes, just happen.

Well, this site would not have a raison d'etre if that were easy to see. I'm looking for a practical, non-mystical route to a direct experience of this - should (not wanting to beg the question) this experience exist.

o how do we start this process of converting delusions into illusions?

That is where I'd like to start.

We start by recognizing that (almost) every emotion, every behaviour is a response to a story. A belief.

I'm intrigued by the "almost" was this a habitual cautious proviso (nothing wrong with that) or did you have some emotions in particular in mind?
But beliefs are important aren't they? If I have an obviously enraged 6ft guy threatening me in pub car park with a wrench then my brain will likely pop up a story ending with the word "run". It's a story I should ignore at my peril. We are obviously hard-wired to act first on the basis of a guess and correct later if necessary, rather than wait for all the facts to be present before acting. Even sober reflection as a basis for better choices has its limits.

I TOTALLY agree that there are many. many stories I should ignore because they are based on a narrative not based in fact (e.g. from "she hasn't called back ... she hates me... I'm unlovable" to "she's probably very busy) ... Such things are the staple of self-help books. I suspect you are aiming for something more profound.

Do you have examples? Practical exercises or guided reflections that will reveal rather than assert the truth?

J

[vinceschubert]

'evening J,

Unless you think the latter is a bigger better prize...

Ha, in fact they are one and the same.

if that were easy to see. I'm looking for a practical, non-mystical route to a direct experience of this

Once seen, you will laugh at how easy it was to see.
As far as "practical", I don't expect you to believe anything that I say. i do expect that you will measure it against your experiencing. i see that you have the theory and that you keep that resident at an intellectual level. To be practical you only have to look at what the words point to in your experiencing.
i will give you an exercise after I respond to the rest of your queries.

I'm intrigued by the "almost" was this a habitual cautious proviso (nothing wrong with that) or did you have some emotions in particular in mind?

Two things. There are certain emotional responses that DNA based. Such as disgust at the taste of certain foods. ..and secondly, I don't pretend to know everything (or anything for that matter) so I don't like to talk in absolutes.
..but to put this into context, for practical purposes (ha) you should examine if every response (emotional or behavioral) is story based.

I TOTALLY agree that there are many. many stories I should ignore

It's not binary. (either sucked in or ignore) Some are clearly fiction yet they are useful, even necessary to navigate daily existence.

because they are based on a narrative not based in fact

Hmm, we should investigate the concept of fact.

Do you have examples? Practical exercises or guided reflections that will reveal rather than assert the truth?

Yes. ..and we should also investigate the concept of truth.
Ok, do this exercise then get back to me. We might need to refine it depending on your experiencing.
Take a cup and place it in front of you.
Start looking at it and notice thoughts labelling what you see.
Consider the process of looking.
Consider the process of seeing.
Watch thoughts as you consider who is seeing. Notice what happens to seeing as you consider a this. Did the seeing stop?
Go back to simply watching thoughts as you look at the cup.
After a while of watching, thoughts will get bored and slow down. Now look for spaces between thoughts.
Focus on seeing in the spaces. They may be milliseconds, but notice them.
There will be no labelling. ..and anyway, the colours, the textures, the shapes, etc will be too subtle, too complex to be accurately described.
As this seeing is happening, ask yourself can there be a seer or a seen without the seeing stopping.
Is there only seeing?
When you finish seeing, do you then see the cup as a story. A cup that has uses and takes up space, and need washing after use, etc?
..but we aren't actually seeing it anymore. We look at it but recognize a vessel to contain something. The details have vanished leaving an impression. We are back to relating to a concept (called cup)

with love

vince

[Locutus1452]

Vince

Somehow, I’ve missed the auto update from the site. That is embarrassing for me.
I thought I’d drop in and send you a message today whilst I’m waiting for someone and found your latest. Mortifying!
I shall read and reply later today.

Jim

[Locutus1452]

Vince

So… I tried the exercise with a large lit candle in glass jar in front of me.

Consider the process of looking.
Consider the process of seeing.

Looking and seeing to me are very similar words. But your 2 requests here seem ton hinge on a difference between the two. Rather than me guess could you briefly say what you meant by each. E.g is one more “objective” than the other?

Did the seeing stop?

I’m beginning to think that like some people who just can’t hold a tune or get a joke I’m impervious to getting this thing… the seeing did not stop: whatever I was reflecting on the candle was still in my view and I knew what it was.

Is there only seeing?

I would say, no. There is seeing (a candle) and and noises off and maybe a dog walking along the back and my clocking each of these things alongside reflections on who is doing the seeing.
Basically,I can see and reflect at the same time. At least that’s how it seems …

J

[vinceschubert]

Good day Jim,

I’m beginning to think that like some people who just can’t hold a tune or get a joke I’m impervious to getting this thing…

You, and everybody that ever followed an intention to 'get it'.
Without doubt, having accompanied (probably) over a hundred seekers though the gate, the only ones that fail are the ones that quit.

whatever I was reflecting on the candle was still in my view and I knew what it was.

When you say that you "knew what it was", I presume that you knew that it was a candle. Is this accurate?

Looking and seeing to me are very similar words.

Yes, they are words that can be conflated.
When you look, you are seeking to see something. When you see it, there is no further seeking.
When you see a candle, you are seeing something that exists only as concept.
To illustrate this, let's take your body as an example.
When you look in a mirror and see your body, what are you seeing? (rhetorical question)
You see only what you look at. It might be your face or your legs or your hand, but you can't see all of it at once. Even if you positioned two mirrors to see that back of your head, you couldn't see everything at once. ..but body is a label we use to depict the collective or all the parts. Even those inside us. We can't experience our brain. There are no nerves there.
The collective is a story. A concept. Just as candle is a concept for the shape and substance and imagined use of this thing.
So, you didn't follow the instructions in the exercise and notice what happened without thought interfering with the seeing.
i know that this is difficult, especially with an active mind, but have a go to notice thoughts slowing and see if you can get the momentary space between them. Describe for me what you see then.

vince

[Locutus1452]

Vince

When you say that you "knew what it was", I presume that you knew that it was a candle. Is this accurate?

Yes. I mean it didn't change its nature - at least as far as I can perceive it! I knew it was a candle and any reflections I may have had did not "dissolve" this settled conclusion.

So, your comments are useful in that I can better understand that you are talking about a familiar - dare I say - concept of "in the seen only the seen. In the heard only the heard". It's not easy but of course, I shall persist.

However, like a lot of optical illusions, once something is "seen" it's difficult to unsee it. You're asking me to try and so I will.

I'm certainly aware of how my senses cooperate with my brain to throw up a story and see if it is accurate. For instance, I was riding my bike the other day and in the distance was something unfamiliar: a load of very narrow rowing boats used for racing. Each had a partial red stripe and I was seeing them end on stacked onto a carrier. I "saw" it and could almost feel my brain flicking around options like a rubik's cube until I got closer and it settled on the correct answer. In that 5 seconds was just a bunch of shapes and colours.... Clearly, it does a lot better with the familiar and there's the problem....🤨

J

[vinceschubert]

Good evening J,

did not "dissolve" this settled conclusion.

Exactly. A "settled conclusion" is a mind creation.

have a go to notice thoughts slowing and see if you can get the momentary space between them. Describe for me what you see then.

You don't appear to have done this one...

Clearly, it does a lot better with the familiar and there's the problem....🤨

Yes, great effort to remain in the familiar is the usual response to anything unfamiliar.
..and I'm certainly asking you to step outside of the familiar when I ask what you see when you look without the interference of thoughts.

with love

vince

[Locutus1452]

Vince

I'm still alive! (you might have wondered).

I hope you enjoyed the break - if you had one - and that 2022 is being nice to you.

So. I have faithfully tried

have a go to notice thoughts slowing and see if you can get the momentary space between them. Describe for me what you see then.

. multiple times. Not always with a cup.

I'm afraid there is only recognition of.. whatever is in front of me. After, that... boredom. I'm used to allowing that sort of reaction to simply be there and fade away. After which, there is just the impression of - centrally - whatever is the object of my attention. Nothing else significant happens.

I've deliberately kept this report back plain and simple with no speculation on my part as to what's happening off stage or "should" be happening.

Best,

Jim

[vinceschubert]

Good evening Jim,

I'm afraid there is only recognition of.. whatever is in front of me.

If I ask you what is this "whatever is in front of you", you will say cup. That is because language demands that we use concepts to communicate. Of course I know what you are telling me. It's a container that you drink from.
What I don't know is the color, there texture, the shape etc.
If you could only see a cup then what you are seeing is an image created by your brain and not the actual details that are being presented to your eyes.
If you are able to describe what you are seeing, then you are not seeing what is actual. i say this because if you are seeing what is actual the colors and the textures will be far to subtle to describe accurately.
Answer me this; if a tree falls in the forest and there is nobody there when it happens, will there be a sound?

vince

[Locutus1452]

Answer me this; if a tree falls in the forest and there is nobody there when it happens, will there be a sound?

I can never know.

[vinceschubert]

'evening Jim, So, what was in front of you?

if a tree falls in the forest and there is nobody there when it happens, will there be a sound?

I can never know.

Good answer. The only accurate one. However, I was wanting a segue to this; When the tree falls, it vibrates the air. These vibrations hit the ear and cause (eventually) nerve signals to arrive in the brain. It is the brain that translates them into an experience we call sound.
Likewise for all of the senses. The brain has has an experience and projects it onto something that we call the objective world. Our entire experience of the world including other people happens in our brain.

with love

vince

[Locutus1452]

So, what was in front of you?

A cup. Obviously, it's just a label. If I turned it upside on top of a spider it could be called a spider trap. My labelling it this or that or even not labelling at all will not bother the cup. It is what it is, ultimately unknowable.

I think though that we've been here before. I'm interested in dissolving an illusion of self or seeing thru something that was never there to begin with. Phenomenology (the philosophy of mind, perception and 'things in themselves vs appearance' ) though interesting in general is not to my understanding of what LU is about.

I certainly get the idea of 'trusting the process' whether it's guiding or therapy but I think we do need to agree on where we're going and how the path leads there, but not so tangentially that I wonder if we're engaged in a common project or even, the shortest path.

Jim