<no subject>

[Totege]

Good evening,

I haven't had much time for posting but yesterday I took some time to practice the coffee exercise and writing it down,
I have some time off work so I should have some more time in the coming weeks

Here it is :
Seeing my meal, simply = colour (seeing)
Smelling the egg, simply = smell (smelling)
Feeling endorphin release from relaxing post exercise, simply = sensation (feeling)
Tasting the meal, simply = taste (tasting)
Hearing the silent buzz of plugged electrical equipment, simply = sound (hearing)
Thought about the podcast I was listening to, simply = thoughts (thinking)
Seeing my glass of sparkly water, simply = colors (sight)
Feeling my heartbeat, simply = sensation (feeling)
Thought about noting sensations, simply = thoughts (thinking)
Thinking about taking a nap, simply = thoughts (thinking)
Feeling the pressure of the screen when typing, simply = sensation (feeling)

Please let me know if it's right now that I've tried adjusting to your way of writing it down.

That's just a small update today,
Best,
Tom

[poppyseed]

Hi Tom

Seeing my meal, simply = colour (seeing)
Smelling the egg, simply = smell (smelling)
Feeling endorphin release from relaxing post exercise, simply = sensation (feeling)
...

Great!

I'm still waiting for the answers of the previous post (Fri Apr 26th) before we can continue further

Love
Rali

[Totege]

Good evening,

I'll do my best to answer then.

Focus on the feeling of am-ness/being, aliveness.
Can you tell if there is a being or just being?

I don't think there is a being, there are thoughts about the experience, identifying experiences with a being, but in the feeling of amness there is only sense experience, some sensations in the head, a few thoughts and everything else also at the same time

Is life happening to a being or as being?

Isn't this the same question of where is the witness ? I didn't find any witness or thinker, I don't find a being as separate entity from the rest.

Is that “aliveness” any kind of object or subject? Is it even a human?
Is it what you've taken as "you"?

I guess it's what I've been taking as me yes, the sum total of these experiences with labels and thoughts upon label and thoughts identifying them to one another, linking experiences with concepts far removed from experience. Now it seems a bit silly, a lot of what I used to do it still do seems quite strange in a sense

1. Take something cold from the fridge – like a can of cooldrink. When you touch the can, what does more accurately describe your experience:
a. Your fingers feeling cold because of touching a cold can; or
b. Coldness - sensation labelled “cold”? With eyes closed, where does the cold appear? Observe the order in which the details appear
2. Sit comfortably on a chair. Close your eyes and relax. Pay attention only to the feeling of your body. Just notice the pure sensations, without relying on thoughts or mental images. Keep your eyes closed and look:
Can it be known how tall the body is?
Does the body have a weight or volume?
In the actual experience does the body have a shape or a form?

Tall is a concept of height, derived from experience but not native to it, same for weight, I feel some kind of feeling of gravity pushing me into the chair, but with all those concepts I can infer I have a weight, but in just the experience I don't think height or weight exist as that ?
There is a shape in some sense, the sum total of sensations are happening in a specific space, but it's all deducted, I'm not sure the shape in itself is in the experience. It's as weight and height deduced, it's a concept a label. Thoughts about the experience but not really in the experience of the body feelings.

Is there a boundary between the body and the chair? At the point where your body contacts the chair, are there two things there, a body and chair, or one, sensation?
Is it "my" body, or is it just a body?
Is there an inside or an outside? If there is an inside - the inside of what exactly? If there is an outside - the outside of what exactly?
What does the word/label ‘body’ ACTUALLY refer to? What is the ACTUAL experience of the body?
Can the 'body' do things?
Look very carefully, especially with the last question. You can look several times during the day while doing other things (like washing hands, showering, walking, lying down, etc) before replying.

There is one sensation, but my hand try to separate both there will be a body and a chair séparés. Somewhere in reality there is a difference, but in sensation, there is only one sensation of the contact between the two. When the body isn't in contact anymore with the chair I don't feel the chair, so there is some kind of boundary ?
There is no "my body", it's a body In which I can feel the experience, I don't sense in other body what I do in the one I feel, so yes in a sense it's a specific body from the point of view of my experience, it is the center of my sphere of sensations.
The actual experience of the body is the sum of feelings and sensations that can be perceived. If you sleep on your arm and wake up numb, you can see an arm but you don't feel any arm and it's really disturbing because outside from sight nothing indicate that the arm is "yours" anymore, you can't feel it at all.
The body is a label for the zone in which experience come into being, so in a sense yes it's doing things, sensations arise. All the time
But saying that it's the body doing things I don't think, it is not one thing it is many thing working together, the result of these inner working are felt. That's all

I did my best to answer from direct experience. I feel like you're always asking the same question, are you waiting for a specific answer, is there something you want me to see that I haven't seen yet ?

Have a good evening,
Tom

[poppyseed]

Hi Tom

I don't think there is a being, there are thoughts about the experience, identifying experiences with a being, but in the feeling of amness there is only sense experience, some sensations in the head, a few thoughts and everything else also at the same time

Good!!
Where exactly is the “head” ? How is the "head" experienced? Do sensations have a location? Or location is a label for sensations?

I feel some kind of feeling of gravity pushing me into the chair, but with all those concepts I can infer I have a weight, but in just the experience I don't think height or weight exist as that ?
There is a shape in some sense, the sum total of sensations are happening in a specific space, but it's all deducted, I'm not sure the shape in itself is in the experience. It's as weight and height deduced, it's a concept a label. Thoughts about the experience but not really in the experience of the body feelings.

There is some truth here. Now dig deeper. Is there such a shape, outline, space? If there is, there should be characteristics describing it.
Also, what is “feeling of gravity pushing me into the chair”? Think of the cup of coffee example…
NB!!! Please do not answer in bulk! All these questions are pointers and answering them gives me idea what is seen and what is not. Answer them individually, using the quote function, please.

There is one sensation, but my hand try to separate both there will be a body and a chair séparés. Somewhere in reality there is a difference, but in sensation, there is only one sensation of the contact between the two.

Where exactly is “somewhere in reality”? Thought?

When the body isn't in contact anymore with the chair I don't feel the chair, so there is some kind of boundary ?

Where? If it’s there it should be observable. Otherwise it is imaginary/assumption. You are talking about the body as it is a unit of something, but the body is just a label pointing to sensations (as you stated), colours, smells, and tastes :). So can one sensation get in contact with another? Isn’t that what the actual sensation is (without the thought content)? Can a sensation get in contact with colour (seeing) labelled “chair”?

There is no "my body", it's a body In which I can feel the experience, I don't sense in other body what I do in the one I feel, so yes in a sense it's a specific body from the point of view of my experience, it is the center of my sphere of sensations.

How is it known that there are others (experiencers) who experience bodies/sensations (or is assumed)? All that you can experience is see, feel, hear, taste, smell, and think. Whatever is not in the first 5 is a thought. How are others/their bodies experienced (cup of coffee example)?
Also, is there experiencer of the “body”? Are there separate experiencer/feeler experiencing/feeling sensations? Or to put it in your words, is there anything in the experience but the experienced?

The body is a label for the zone in which experience come into being, so in a sense yes it's doing things, sensations arise. All the time

By doing, I mean can the body lift up a ball?
So what you are saying is that sensations do sensations? Can sensations do anything – see, hear, feel…? Does this "zone" have limits - outside, inside, etc

But saying that it's the body doing things I don't think, it is not one thing it is many thing working together, the result of these inner working are felt. That's all

What causes what to appear? How is it seen? Or is it assumed?

Here is an even deeper investigation of the body. Please follow each step, don't leave out any. Take your time. Don't move to the next step until the previous one is clearly seen. Repeat the exercise several times.

Stand in front of a bigger mirror.
1. First, close the eyes and feel the sensations labelled ‘body’.

2. Then open the eyes and look into the mirror while still paying attention to the sensations. Is there any connection between the felt sensations and the image in the mirror? Or just thoughts (and/or mental images) suggest that there is?

3. While still paying attention to the sensations move one hand and observe the movement from the mirror. Is there any connection between the felt sensations (labelled ‘hand’) and image of movement in the mirror?

4. Now do the same movement with the hand, but this time look at the hand directly, not from the mirror. Is there any connection between the felt sensations (labelled ‘hand’) and the image ‘of movement’? Or only thoughts suggest it?

5. Now, pay attention only to the image in the mirror. Does the image by itself suggest in any way that is ‘you’ or ‘your body’? Does the image itself suggest in any way that it is a ‘body’ at all? Or are there only colours and shapes?

6. Where the mirror ends, some parts of the body (probably legs) cannot be seen. Just by the image in the mirror, is there any ‘knowledge’ that there must be legs, or only thoughts and mental images suggest so?

7. Now turn away from the mirror and look forward (don’t look directly to any body parts). Is there a ‘body’ anywhere when all thoughts and images are ignored, or are there only sensations?

8. Start to walk slowly.
Is there a ‘body walking’, or are there only sensations?
Is there actual experience of ‘walking’ at all?
Or just THOUGHTS ABOUT ‘walking’?
Can such a thing as ‘body’ be found OR just THOUGHTS ABOUT a ‘body’?
Can such a thing as ‘walking’ be found?

9. Are the sensations localized in space, like ‘going through the room’; OR is there only an image that is labelled ‘room’ and appearing sensations without any location?

Please don’t forget your daily activities examples – at least one should be included in each answer

Love
Rali

[Totege]

Good evening Rali,

It seems that the notification mail was hidden by too many subsequent mails, I am just now taking note of your answer, these questions are pushing my understanding, I'll ponder them and do the exercise you described.

Until then I'll leave you with my DE exercise of the day :

Hearing the traffic, simply = sound (hearing)
Seeing the cars, simply = colors (sight)
Smelling cigarette from somewhere, simply = odor (smell)
Sensation of contact with bench, simply = sensation (feeling)
Itchy forehead, simply = sensation (feeling)
Tramway passing nearby, simply = sound (hearing)
Tramway passing nearby, simply = vibrations (feeling)
Thoughts about discussion overheard, simply (thoughts)

Best,
Tom

[poppyseed]

Hi Tom

No worries! As long as you are looking and keeping the momentum going, all is good!
Thank you for doing such a wonderful job with that! :)

Tramway passing nearby, simply = vibrations (feeling)
Smelling cigarette from somewhere, simply = odor (smell)

Tramway passing nearby, simply = sensations (feeling)
Smelling cigarette from somewhere, simply = smell (smelling)
Let's keep the DE labels as neutral as possible
Love
Rali

[poppyseed]

Hi Tom

No worries! As long as you are looking and keeping the momentum going, all is good!
Thank you for doing such a wonderful job with that! :)

Tramway passing nearby, simply = vibrations (feeling)
Smelling cigarette from somewhere, simply = odor (smell)

Tramway passing nearby, simply = sensations (feeling)
Smelling cigarette from somewhere, simply = smell (smelling)
Let's keep the DE labels as neutral as possible
Love
Rali

[Totege]

Hello Rali,

That’s quite the bundle of question, excuse me I took some time to be sure that i thoroughly answer them, this is a lenghty message. I aplogize for the delay I needed quite some time to be able to ponder and write a proper response

**NB!!! Please do not answer in bulk! All these questions are pointers and answering them gives me idea what is seen and what is not. Answer them individually, using the quote function, please.**

Noted. I’ll be sure to answer separately.

Where exactly is the “head” ? How is the "head" experienced? Do sensations have a location? Or location is a label for sensations?

Since we are talking about the body you seems to be asking a lot about the notion of space. when you ask “where” I look and I don’t find a definite answer in direct experience.

The only certainty is that there are sensations, mostly subtle ones, there is also the feeling of the head being the center of attention. When the focus stays on those for quite some time there can be a feeling as if it was big or small ? well as if I was small in a big space or if I myself was big in a small space ? But that’s when trying to label the sensations, the sensations itself just is.

The other way of speaking about space and location is in the regular sense of the term, the head relative to the hand, but once again it’s just a label put onto the sensation relative on the the other. Nothing in the primal level of sensation do have a location. Space is for me, mostly either a label, a dimension of the sensation used to describe it or also a label used to differentiate between multiple sensations in direct experience ?

but it brings the fact that the separation of different sensations is in itself not trivial. It is mostly just as space is, emergent label put onto sensations in a reflexive manner after the sensation arising ?

But isn’t this question about space also true for every single word that differrentiate sensations ?

Either you use a bunch of words and try to differentiate sensations using space, colors, movement, time and different words to bring some nuance or you just use one word, sensation or wathever. A sensation in itself is just a sensation, we’re just trying to bring meaning to all the sensation-space, both in a conscious or unconscious manner ? But i think were coming back to the fact that aside from the experience just is’ing all else is labelling ? labelling being a tought, the word “thought” being a label in itself. Language is just labelling given form

I’m not sure about that tho because when I see a tree I see a tree i don’t really see it for what it is, maybe when I was a child I saw it the first time without any label.

i’m sorry I digress, i’ll try to be more succint in the next questions.

I feel some kind of feeling of gravity pushing me into the chair, but with all those concepts I can infer I have a weight, but in just the experience I don't think height or weight exist as that ?There is a shape in some sense, the sum total of sensations are happening in a specific space, but it's all deducted, I'm not sure the shape in itself is in the experience. It's as weight and height deduced, it's a concept a label. Thoughts about the experience but not really in the experience of the body feelings.

There is some truth here. Now dig deeper. Is there such a shape, outline, space? If there is, there should be characteristics describing it.

When I pause and look at sensations they arise in a successive manner one after the other, the dynamic nature of these sensations create the illusion of space from my labelled point of view but in fact the sensation changing is what give a sense of space or even time, if sensation was just static then this would be the absence of sensations, but also the absence of space and also time (or more accurately the presence of only one static sensation ?).

Maybe that’s why our sense of time vary depending on situations, maybe it varies depending on the unified/nonunified nature of sensations ?

Also, what is “feeling of gravity pushing me into the chair”? Think of the cup of coffee example…

feeling of pressure on the bottom, simply = sensations (feeling)

feeling of tension to support the body upright = sensations (feeling)

as for other senses they are not that noticeable, maybe if I was to experience the absence of gravity I would be able to accurately tell something something, simply = smell (smelling), but as of now, all sights, all smells, all sounds are applicable, I just don’t have toughts to accurately pinpoint what is gravity to these senses.

Where exactly is “somewhere in reality”? Thought?

There is a suble sense of space that is infered subconsciously, or it must be ? I am not able to perceive any other justification for space than the varied and dynamic nature of direct experience. Maybe it’s an automatic learned mechanism of the brain ? There is the sense of space but it’s just a very subtle labelling and maybe if I was born in a culture where we have more words to describe sensations in this manner I would have a totally different labelling experience moment to moment ?

A bit like the innuit that have a very rich language of colors, texture, smell, feelings etc. around snow.
Maybe it’s tought, but i’m not conscious or it’s too fast, like the tree is seen then space is infered relative to all the trees I ever saw, the other objects that are labelled and identified in the sight, etc.

Do you call that a tought ? I don’t know what to call it as I’m posturing, nothing in direct experience is brought in with a space component, it’s a reflexive labelling done by the brain or wathever is hapenning to sensations as they are processed ?

When the body isn't in contact anymore with the chair I don't feel the chair, so there is some kind of boundary ?


Where? If it’s there it should be observable. Otherwise it is imaginary/assumption. You are talking about the body as it is a unit of something, but the body is just a label pointing to sensations (as you stated), colours, smells, and tastes :). So can one sensation get in contact with another? Isn’t that what the actual sensation is (without the thought content)?

The only thing that can be found in direct experience is sensations, as i understand it, i might still be wrong. but i only see sensations. That’s all there is, so what is the body ? A label put onto a cluster of sensations, but as I said before, I think space and time are also labels to try and differentiate sensations, emergent labels arising from the dynamic and varied nature of sensations.

So how is that there is a ‘I’ currently investigating sensations right now ?
even senses are label, we put sensations in box, it’s a label less removed from direct experience than some other but still a label. So there is/are only a sea of sensation and all recursive toughts about sensations are just labelling, part of sensation trying to categorize itself ?

How is that ‘I’ am able to sense the chair at all, or any other sensation, and why the chair on specific circumstances ? So maybe it’s not a sea (labelling once again) of sensation but something with some kind of order. It must be or else we wouldn’t be able to build a whole world of labelling on top of direct experience, the foundation must have some form of order for it creation to have some order too, as labels are following some kind of order, they rest upon sensation then sensation must be somehow ordered.

It is a mystery..

As for sensation getting in contact with one another I guess that’s the only answer, my bottom is in itself just a concept to some sensation present in the body that is in itself just sensations so yes sensation get in contact with one another. In fact the only truth in direct experience is that sensation, all else is labelling ? truth being a label but well all the word i’m using are labels, it’s just that I can’t convey sensations directly so i’m using these words.

Can a sensation get in contact with colour (seeing) labelled “chair”?

I am not sure I understand the question, if the body is only sensations, then sight is only a sensation, and coming into contact with light from different objects (label, no objects as object to be found in DE). So i’m redoing my sentence : there is a sensation, of seeing that give rise to sight upon coming into contact with another sensation (I assume could be labelled light ?)

> There is no "my body", it's a body In which I can feel the experience, I don't sense in other body what I do in the one I feel, so yes in a sense it's a specific body from the point of view of my experience, it is the center of my sphere of sensations.


How is it known that there are others (experiencers) who experience bodies/sensations (or is assumed)? All that you can experience is see, feel, hear, taste, smell, and think. Whatever is not in the first 5 is a thought. How are others/their bodies experienced (cup of coffee example)?

I see a human, simply = colors ( seeing)

I smell the passenger of the train, simply) = smell (smelling)

I taste the coffee of this morning mixed with the freshness of the toothpaste, simply = taste (tasting)

Through the music in my headphones, I’m hearing the gentle hum of the train moving, simply = sound (hearing)

I was quite distracted by the exercise and forgot to make it relative to other/ their body, but it’s just that in terms of sensation there is a very strong similarity between sensations like that :

I touch my arm, feel the texture and the heartbeat, simply = sensation (feeling)

I hear my voice speaking, simply = sound (hearing)

I smell under my armpit, simply = smell (smelling)

And those :

I touch someone else arm, feel the texture and the heartbeat, simply = sensation (feeling)

a voice speaking, simply = sound (hearing)

I smell under someone’s armpit, simply = smell (smelling)

From DE I saw that my body is only a cluster of sensations, with some pattern that get labelled with the static ‘body’ label, but in fact even though there is some form of order and patterns (labels) to the sensation cluster known as body, it can change massively over time and sensations will change completely but the label is the same.

Anyway From what I can perceive through senses mostly see, hear, smell, feel the sensations give the clue that there are other sensations clusters in the wide sensation space around me, of course it’s all labelling due to the relative similarity of smells, sights, sounds, sensations. For taste and toughts I’ll have to admit that I don’t do mind reading and don’t taste my fellow sensation cluster so i’m not really sure their experience would be similar in that sense. Maybe but that’s just posturing based on what is sensed with the other senses.

Also, is there experiencer of the “body”? Are there separate experiencer/feeler experiencing/feeling sensations? Or to put it in your words, is there anything in the experience but the experienced?

There is nothing to be found aside from the experienced, but why is that The chair is only experienced when specific conditions are met (in label space : when I sit on it or see it or smell it, think about it, not sure about the veracity of thoughts in this context.)

Maybe the experiencer is just a very stabe and subtle sensation cluster giving nuance to all sensations that it comes into contact with, creating the illusion of experiencer when In fact it’s just one or multiple subtle sensations coming into contact with others ? Honestly that is a guess i’m venturing into because I can’t find anything to experience beside the experienced

> The body is a label for the zone in which experience come into being, so in a sense yes it's doing things, sensations arise. All the time


By doing, I mean can the body lift up a ball?

If you label it that way yes but the ball is just many coherent sensations, there is the sight, the smell (maybe ? ), the feeling when touching the ball, the sound made by the lifting, and somehow all these sensations are giving rise to the sense of space and time because they change overt time. So, i don’t know what give rise to the lifting of a ball. I wouldn’t say it’s the body (cluster of sensations) doing. More like many other sensations, toughts etc coming together to lift the ball ?

When I said doing things, i meant sensations such as Itching, pains, pleasure etc. arise in this “space” on their own (own = own causality, not solely because of the experiencer observation or anything) but if experiencer (whatever it means) try to lift the arm then sensation of arm lifted are experienced and in human labelled space we could say that yes, the arm was lifted.

i’m confused I feel like language had been abstracted to describe sensations, or maybe i’m doing this but in reverse, there is the feeling that language is limiting and very inacurate so i’m creating some really twisted sentences. but i don’t really have an alternative to the moment ?

So what you are saying is that sensations do sensations? Can sensations do anything – see, hear, feel…? Does this "zone" have limits - outside, inside, etc

The only limit is the sensations sensed. But it’s an abstract limit because whennever I look I only see sensations morphing into some other sensation (just changing over time). In deep sleep as far as I’m aware there are no sensations. But i could just be wrong and not perceiving very suble sensations.

> But saying that it's the body doing things I don't think, it is not one thing it is many thing working together, the result of these inner working are felt. That's all
>

What causes what to appear? How is it seen? Or is it assumed?

It is assumed, what I meant is, if I drink very cold water there is a feeling of cold water, it’s easy to link the sensations together, but it’s also the case that sometimes the body yawn, it’s not conscious and must be the result of some inner workings, sensations chain leading to yawning I am not sure I can feel entirely ?

Here is an even deeper investigation of the body. Please follow each step, don't leave out any. Take your time. Don't move to the next step until the previous one is clearly seen. Repeat the exercise several times.

Stand in front of a bigger mirror.

1. First, close the eyes and feel the sensations labelled ‘body’.

2. Then open the eyes and look into the mirror while still paying attention to the sensations. Is there any connection between the felt sensations and the image in the mirror? Or just thoughts (and/or mental images) suggest that there is?

3. While still paying attention to the sensations move one hand and observe the movement from the mirror. Is there any connection between the felt sensations (labelled ‘hand’) and image of movement in the mirror?

4. Now do the same movement with the hand, but this time look at the hand directly, not from the mirror. Is there any connection between the felt sensations (labelled ‘hand’) and the image ‘of movement’? Or only thoughts suggest it?

5. Now, pay attention only to the image in the mirror. Does the image by itself suggest in any way that is ‘you’ or ‘your body’? Does the image itself suggest in any way that it is a ‘body’ at all? Or are there only colours and shapes?

6. Where the mirror ends, some parts of the body (probably legs) cannot be seen. Just by the image in the mirror, is there any ‘knowledge’ that there must be legs, or only thoughts and mental images suggest so?

7. Now turn away from the mirror and look forward (don’t look directly to any body parts). Is there a ‘body’ anywhere when all thoughts and images are ignored, or are there only sensations?

8. Start to walk slowly.

Is there a ‘body walking’, or are there only sensations?

Is there actual experience of ‘walking’ at all?

Or just THOUGHTS ABOUT ‘walking’?

Can such a thing as ‘body’ be found OR just THOUGHTS ABOUT a ‘body’?

Can such a thing as ‘walking’ be found?

9. Are the sensations localized in space, like ‘going through the room’; OR is there only an image that is labelled ‘room’ and appearing sensations without any location?

2 : Wihtout movement nothing is linking them together beside the toughts that this is the reflection of my body

3 :The only connections is that they simultaneously arise, both the sight and sensation of movement, giving rise to the feeling that this is indeed my hand, but maybe that’s just a subtle thought. I can’t find Time in DE so it might be a subtle thought ?

4 : I don’t see any changes between the movement in the mirror and in the hand, aside from the fact that the sight is different (reversed, colours and shapes reversed)

5: only colours and shapes

6: Isn’t it true for the head too ? I could ran the hand along the entirety of the body and feel both the hand and the body, in doing so I would know that there is maybe mroe to the sensation cluster than i’m seeing but yes this is at the tought level (mental images aren’t in the tought category ?)

7: only sensations, that’s why i’m referring to the body as sensation cluster

8 : only evershifting sensations and the toughts and mental images related to this sensation-cluster pattern

9 : Space is a tought or subtle mental construct (subtle sensation) reflexively arising in order to caracterize the sensation due to the dynamic and varied nature of all sensations, if there only was one flavour of sensation at a time morphing into another contually then there only would be the concept of time : example with sight with the color hue evershifting. But there are multiple colors so they are organized in space (colors and shapes). If i’m in a train and the train is moving the there will be a shifting dynamic nature to the sight giving a sense of space ?

**Please don’t forget your daily activities examples – at least one should be included in each answer**

Finally here is the daily activity :

I see a herd of cows, mountains in the back and a flock of bird circling above in the sky, simply = color (seeing)

I feel the train movements throught my feets and body, simply = sensations (feeling)

I smell the rotting odor of the lake, simply = smell (smelling)

I think about closing the windows, simply = thinking (toughts)

I hear the train moving throught the headphones and the music, simply = sound (hearing)

I have a sweet taste, simply = taste, (tasting)

I feel a slight pain in my tooth, simply = sensation (feeling)

Thinking about taking an appointment with the dentist office, simply = thought (thinking)

That was very long, but I felt like I should write a proper answer to all those questions, my process is I read the post when I receive the notification and let the content sink into the mind, after pondering it lightly throught the day I sit and take the time to contemplate the question more deeply and write a direct, honest and quite raw answer.

Best,
Tom

[poppyseed]

Hi Tom

I apologize for that lengthy message. It’s all so difficult to look at things from different angles without pointing to whole picture. I’ll try and limit the length :)

The other way of speaking about space and location is in the regular sense of the term, the head relative to the hand, but once again it’s just a label put onto the sensation relative on the the other. Nothing in the primal level of sensation do have a location. Space is for me, mostly either a label, a dimension of the sensation used to describe it or also a label used to differentiate between multiple sensations in direct experience ?

Very good! I loved your observations with respect to time, space and sensations in general. Let’s me reiterate that we do have different DE labels for sensations (feeling), colours (seeing), etc. Sensations in this context is only the experience of feeling and not of experience in general. It’s just a bit clearer to what we are referring to. Yes, you are right the separation between seeing, feeling, hearing, thinking, tasting, smelling is artificial (only in the context of our inquiry) and there is only what IS or just THIS. Language is useful for communicating so let’s please stick to the DE labels. Yes, you are also right that there are no separate “solid” sensations (with actual outlines) there is just feeling (verb as in flux), no colours but seeing, no separate sounds but dynamic hearing etc.

There is a subtle sense of space that is inferred subconsciously, or it must be ? I am not able to perceive any other justification for space than the varied and dynamic nature of direct experience. Maybe it’s an automatic learned mechanism of the brain ? There is the sense of space but it’s just a very subtle labelling and maybe if I was born in a culture where we have more words to describe sensations in this manner I would have a totally different labelling experience moment to moment ?

How is “subconsciously” experienced in DE? Are unknown thoughts possible? How is it known or is it assumed? What is “brain” in DE? Can it be known how thoughts are formed and why or is it assumed (within the pyramid of concepts)? Yes, we can talk about conditioning but that includes “time”. So is there an explanation to why things are happening that can be directly observed in DE, or only assumptions/stories/fiction? In DE thoughts just appear with their content, do they not?

Maybe it’s tought, but i’m not conscious or it’s too fast, like the tree is seen then space is infered relative to all the trees I ever saw, the other objects that are labelled and identified in the sight, etc.

Do you call that a tought ? I don’t know what to call it as I’m posturing, nothing in direct experience is brought in with a space component, it’s a reflexive labelling done by the brain or wathever is hapenning to sensations as they are processed ?

LOOK in DE! What is there? There are seeing, feeling, hearing, smelling, tasting and thinking providing the labels/story. Whatever is not in the first 5 is thinking content. Thought is self-organised around the experience but at some point becomes organised around itself. Language is basically the relationship between concepts – how they are organised. That carries meaning on top of the meaning of the actual concepts. That is why different concepts mean different things to different people and in different situations. One very good example of how words and language are just pointers to but not the actual DE, and how meaning is formed, is AI. GPT (Generative pre-trained transformers) are large language models that are based on the semantic relationships between words in sentences (natural language processing). GPT models are trained on a large amount of text. The training consists in predicting the next token (a token being usually a word, sub-word, or punctuation). Throughout this training, GPT models accumulate knowledge about the world, and can then generate “human-like” text by repeatedly predicting the next token. But does AI have any direct experience of what it’s talking about? That is why I always use the analogy with the desktop icons – they give meaning to 0’s and 1’s. There are no actual eraser or pen there, nor a mailbox :)

Is there any entity that is conscious of what is happening, or there is only what is happening? You ask later about sleep with no experience. What is “sleep” in DE? How is it experienced right now? How is it known that sleep has a duration (time) in which there is no experience? What is in DE?

So how is that there is a ‘I’ currently investigating sensations right now ?
even senses are label, we put sensations in box, it’s a label less removed from direct experience than some other but still a label. So there is/are only a sea of sensation and all recursive toughts about sensations are just labelling, part of sensation trying to categorize itself ?

Does the investigation need a “I” to happen? Look what is here. There is supposed guide (in DE?) , passing a virus thought “LOOK” after which thoughts start reorganising around the DE instead of around their own content. All I can see is the exchange of thought patterns. Do you see any entities involved here?

I am not sure I understand the question, if the body is only sensations, then sight is only a sensation, and coming into contact with light from different objects (label, no objects as object to be found in DE). So i’m redoing my sentence : there is a sensation, of seeing that give rise to sight upon coming into contact with another sensation (I assume could be labelled light ?)

Please stick to the DE labels for clarity of communication. Perfect example of how the meaning of labels/concepts is not universal :)

The story in this example is of a body sitting on a chair. In DE there is only seeing (colours labelled “body and “chair”), feeling (sensation labelled “body on chair”), and thinking (providing all the labels and descriptions), or if you ignore all labels (including DE labels) just THIS (which is still a label). I like “THIS” as it just points with no additional meaning. We can go blue in the face arguing about words and concepts, but what the important thing is what is underneath all the concepts – indescribable yet experienceable.

If you label it that way yes but the ball is just many coherent sensations, there is the sight, the smell (maybe ? ), the feeling when touching the ball, the sound made by the lifting, and somehow all these sensations are giving rise to the sense of space and time because they change overt time. So, i don’t know what give rise to the lifting of a ball. I wouldn’t say it’s the body (cluster of sensations) doing. More like many other sensations, toughts etc coming together to lift the ball ?

So basically there are feeling, smelling, hearing, seeing and thinking about “a body lifting a ball”, right? No doer (like a body) doing anything. Also no ball to be lifted (think “apple” example). Altogether no doing in general. Yes?

It is assumed, what I meant is, if I drink very cold water there is a feeling of cold water, it’s easy to link the sensations together, but it’s also the case that sometimes the body yawn, it’s not conscious and must be the result of some inner workings, sensations chain leading to yawning I am not sure I can feel entirely ?

…and this is how the story making goes…Is there time where all of these things/events appear in a sequence?
There is a general assumption that there is linear time that started (if started at all) somewhere very far in the past and advances to the distant future. The present moment (now) is considered to be a very small fragment of time, or an event that is moving forward on a linear line, coming from the past and advancing to the future.

But is there an experience of the ’now’ moving along the line of time?
Any experience of one ‘moment’ giving way to the next?
Is there any actual or direct experience of one event following another?
How fast is the ‘present moment’ actually moving?
Just look at 'this moment', can you find a point where it began?
How long does the ‘now’ last?
Where does the ‘now’ start, and where does it end?
When does the ‘now’ exactly become the 'past'?
What is the ‘past’ in actual experience?
So is there actual experience of ‘time’ or thoughts about ‘time’?

Well I tried to write a short reply :))
Love
Rali

[Totege]

Greetings Rali,

I apologize for that lengthy message. It’s all so difficult to look at things from different angles without pointing to whole picture. I’ll try and limit the length :)

No issue, I understand, feel free to write as much as needed,

Sensations in this context is only the experience of feeling and not of experience in general

Yes I apologise for the lack of calrity, previsouly I used sensations as in the inputs perceived from the 6 senses.

Code: Select all

How is “subconsciously” experienced in DE? Are unknown thoughts possible?

As conditionings, under the toughts, if what is conscious is what is recognized and noted by thoughts then subconsciously are patterns of sensations (actions) that manifested as experience through the 6 senses. I think those are actions, done by the "experience cluster" identifying as a "I" but not seen but the "I" toughts.

So I guess it's a pattern of experience not identified by the self, that in itself is an agglomeration of suble sensations and toughts patterns linking experiences to itself ?

How is it known or is it assumed?

It is not known, it's a tought, if there is something that the "self' did not notice about something it consider his then it's subconscious ? but due to the fact that everything is in relative to the self, it's considered still his ? it's quite confusing to explain these thoughts on the subject

What is “brain” in DE?

the image of a word, in pure DE ? no such thing as brain is to be found in DE. In everyday experience the concept brain is linked to the seemingly center of toughts and many suble sensations.

Can it be known how thoughts are formed and why or is it assumed (within the pyramid of concepts)?

I don't think that whithin the pyramid of concept there exist a definite answer. Maybe upon looking really long in DE there could be some sort of understanding, a subtle knowledge of the sensation associated with a thought arising bringing understanding as to it's inner workings ? but i'm posturing there, I can see no such thing.

So is there an explanation to why things are happening that can be directly observed in DE, or only assumptions/stories/fiction?

No there is only THIS, and in THIS there are toughts about THIS, recursively trying to make assumptions/stories/fictions. Maybe it is possible to explain, but I don't think it's possible using these. As you said "It’s all so difficult to look at things from different angles without pointing to whole picture". How can a part of THIS fully describe what is in it ? Maybe if your experience was a fractal but still you'd only approximate a full explanation. I think that in theory it's not possible. but still that's just again a thought, without any weight outside of my relative views (which are also just toughts patterns)

In DE thoughts just appear with their content, do they not?

I guess they do appear with their content, outside of time just by taking a snapshot of DE then yes. But i think that if there was nothing then there would be no toughts. Toughts are about something, so they don't just appear if you take time into account. Of course that is quite outside of DE because I don't think time exist in DE, when you LOOK there just is what IS. But maybe there are thoughts about other part of experience relating to it then it's like time in DE can only be found in tought contents.

Time is very confusing

LOOK in DE! What is there? There are seeing, feeling, hearing, smelling, tasting and thinking providing the labels/story. Whatever is not in the first 5 is thinking content.X Thought is self-organised around the experience but at some point becomes organised around itself. Language is basically the relationship between concepts – how they are organised. That carries meaning on top of the meaning of the actual concepts. That is why different concepts mean different things to different people and in different situations.

literraly just a sea of experience ? all the 5 senses and also toughts yes, am I supposed to see something ? I don't understand what I'm supposed to see, I

But does AI have any direct experience of what it’s talking about?

Depends on your definition of direct experience, I couldn't know either way and only would be able to guess. I mean yes it seems quite farfetched to think that machine know what they're talking about, after all it's just a big matrix of weights having learned the probability of speech. But who am I to say that it's different from the mechanism behind human speech ? It is a question without definite answer for sure. Highly depends on your definition of direct experience. ans seeing that we don't really seems to know why it's working so well in the machines or exactly how it's done in a human this would be a guess and an opinion.

Is there any entity that is conscious of what is happening, or there is only what is happening?

Depends what you mean by entity relative to DE, if an entity is a thought pattern then yes you could say there is an entity. Is it conscious of what is hapenning ? I don't know, can toughts be conscious of other parts of experience ?
What i can say for sure is that yes there is what IS, outside from that i don't know. Maybe there is some ordering principle or a hierarchy of some sort, you can't just say that everything is hapenning at full random, this whole inquiry thing is mostly disturbing me because you ask questions removing foundations principles upon which the mind rest, the self paradigm etc. And yes i agree that i can only SEE that the self as perceived before isn't real in DE. But still i don't understand what you want me to see ? this is the 15th time you ask this and 15th time that i'm telling you I don't find any entity in DE nothing beside the 5 senses and toughts. Am i supposed to find some entity ? why are you always asking the same question ?

You ask later about sleep with no experience. What is “sleep” in DE? How is it experienced right now? How is it known that sleep has a duration (time) in which there is no experience? What is in DE?

it is sensations of drowsiness or fatigue, then maybe a few toughts about falling asleep then a very subtle period in which you have thoughts, or maybe not, then the sensations of waking up and all the rest of the sensations that come back very strongly ( which is called being awake). So sleep is a period of very subtle and little experience intensity ?

So how is that there is a ‘I’ currently investigating sensations right now ?

There is no I as separate from DE, but inside DE there are sensations giving the false impression that there is a I, so in a sense there is but it's just not what it was thinking it was because there was no it thinking it ?
By feeling my hand i get the tought i'm going to feel my hand, then the tought i'm feeling my hand, but there is also the feeling of the hand, why is all of a sudden the feeling of the hand amplified ? was it always there or somehow something made it more marked. Can this be attributed to a "self", a driver somewhere ? I don't think so.

Maybe it's just that toughts can influence sensations and vice versa. Everything is connected in this experience space. Then a tought like one with a self component could be very convincing. But it's just a thought with a self component isn't it ?

Does the investigation need a “I” to happen

I don't think it need to, experience is experienced anyway, it is inescapable as the only thing that IS is THERE now
the I is just content in the experience trying to always give it some meaning or sense. but ultimately it's just a part of experience not separate not special.

Look what is here. There is supposed guide (in DE?) , passing a virus thought “LOOK” after which thoughts start reorganising around the DE instead of around their own content. All I can see is the exchange of thought patterns. Do you see any entities involved here?

I think this was a miscommunication, what is the MOST problematic for me is that we removed all concept hierarchy from the experience moment to moment. Removed the self paradigm that was seemingly quite innacurate, but we left a big void. And i have a lot of toughts asking questions about what is that experience they are part of ? I can't help but just come back to this.

Prior there was just all back to the self, but acknowledging that there is a DE, that there is not definite self separate from DE and that everything is just part of DE just create thoughts questioning the ordering principle of DE. why do thoughts arise then ? what of free will and causality ? if you are following some kind of question map, which i think you are. Are we going to talk about causality or free will ? this is very important for me as i have trouble just answering your questions, you ask me to tell you in what is perceived from DE but in fact I can only answer from the WHAT, the WHAT is just looking and seeing the sea of experience that we arbitrarily split in 5 senses and thoughts. but it just leave a big big blank on the WHY or HOW, or the implications of this we have been talking about. so my question is Are we going to talk about causality or free will ?

I don't know if i explained well what I said. But when i said one or two weeks ago that I was profoundly disturbed, it was mostly by these questions, and seeing we haven't really touched on the subject 'I' think it's best to ask directly.

So basically there are feeling, smelling, hearing, seeing and thinking about “a body lifting a ball”, right? No doer (like a body) doing anything. Also no ball to be lifted (think “apple” example). Altogether no doing in general. Yes?

yes, relative to human terms we could say there is a doing, but it's just concept not really reflecting DE, in DE it's as you just said, just senses sensing what IS, the only question is what is feeling the feels what is smelling the smells, they just are but they didn't spawn into existence from nothing ?

Is there time where all of these things/events appear in a sequence?
There is a general assumption that there is linear time that started (if started at all) somewhere very far in the past and advances to the distant future. The present moment (now) is considered to be a very small fragment of time, or an event that is moving forward on a linear line, coming from the past and advancing to the future.

But is there an experience of the ’now’ moving along the line of time?

No

Any experience of one ‘moment’ giving way to the next?

No

Is there any actual or direct experience of one event following another?

No

How fast is the ‘present moment’ actually moving?

Any answer would only involve concepts

Just look at 'this moment', can you find a point where it began?

No

How long does the ‘now’ last?

Infinitely or not at all ? i mean time is only meaningfull when there is past and future but those are just concepts, thought content in experience but not outside of it, no in the absolute point of view, there is no time. or just a thought of it

Where does the ‘now’ start, and where does it end?

When does the ‘now’ exactly become the 'past'?

What is the ‘past’ in actual experience?

Toughts about other part of experience, in relative to other part of experience (identified as present and future respectively)

So is there actual experience of ‘time’ or thoughts about ‘time’?

just thoughts ?

i'm sorry if this was a bit confused. For some reason writing all those replies made me very frustrated, there is the distinct feeling that I could just scrape all my answers and say "I don't know", not much information would be lost. Worst of all is you're telling my to look and i'm looking, but I don't see what I'm missing it's quite frustrating.

I wish you a good evening,
Tom

[Totege]

All your questions I'm tempted to stop writing and just write There is only THIS.
That is the only true thing I am able to say about anything.
All these questions and only this I can answer.
All else would be thought content, so if you want thought content, I can do that, but if you want me to look there is only This

see, simply = sight seeing
hear, simply = sound hearing
taste, simply = taste tasting
smell, simply = smell smelling
feel, simply = sensation, feeling
Thoughts, "I", just simply = thoughts, thinking

[poppyseed]

Hi Tom

It’s good to hear from you!

Depends on your definition of direct experience, I couldn't know either way and only would be able to guess. I mean yes it seems quite farfetched to think that machine know what they're talking about, after all it's just a big matrix of weights having learned the probability of speech. But who am I to say that it's different from the mechanism behind human speech ? It is a question without definite answer for sure. Highly depends on your definition of direct experience. ans seeing that we don't really seems to know why it's working so well in the machines or exactly how it's done in a human this would be a guess and an opinion.

Well my definition of DE is written in the apple example. It consists of seeing, feeling, tasting, smelling, hearing and thinking (just arising of thoughts not their content). The analogy here was AI as self-organising thinking content, based on predictive algorithm of concepts. Can a thought experience seeing? Can a thought think? AI is not actually the machine that contains it but the actual mechanism of self-organising “thoughts”. The same way a human cannot experience (that’s what we are looking at here), a machine cannot either – experiencing is self-emerging :). Anyway, this was just an analogy to illustrate what thinking is. The meaning is self-organised, it’s not that a thinker/witness/experiencer understand it and formulates it . Clear?

Depends what you mean by entity relative to DE, if an entity is a thought pattern then yes you could say there is an entity. Is it conscious of what is hapenning ? I don't know, can toughts be conscious of other parts of experience ?

Well… According to the dictionary "an entity is a thing with distinct and independent existence". Are thoughts independently existing? Do you see solid thoughts with proper outlines (without content/what thoughts are about)? Can thinking do anything but just appear as thinking? LOOK! What can you see?
Also can you separate thinking from seeing, or seeing from hearing, etc. without the labels? Are they happening in a different “place”? Are there outlines of thinking, seeing,etc?

But still i don't understand what you want me to see ? this is the 15th time you ask this and 15th time that i'm telling you I don't find any entity in DE nothing beside the 5 senses and toughts. Am i supposed to find some entity ? why are you always asking the same question ?

If you need to look 15 times to see there are no entities responsible for anything, that is what you should do. I only base my questions on your replies. If I see a suspicious “entity” “sneaking in“ in your replies I ask for description. If you can’t provide a description obviously there are no entities and that is what this inquiry is about – but you need to verify this for yourself. Just to make it clear why I asked the question…
You said:

Maybe it’s tought, but i’m not conscious of or it’s too fast, like the tree is seen then space is infered relative to all the trees I ever saw, the other objects that are labelled and identified in the sight, etc.

My question:

Is there any entity that is conscious of what is happening, or there is only what is happening?

I can also say, if you resisting the word “entity”, what is that, which is conscious of thoughts or whatever is happening?

i'm sorry if this was a bit confused. For some reason writing all those replies made me very frustrated, there is the distinct feeling that I could just scrape all my answers and say "I don't know", not much information would be lost. Worst of all is you're telling my to look and i'm looking, but I don't see what I'm missing it's quite frustrating.

Frustration is quite normal at this stage. Thought is trying to figure out things and it can’t :). However, it presents a good opportunity for looking. In spite of all appearances... Is there someone who is frustrated, or there is only frustration just happening, but without an entity (ups!), a person, Tom, being frustrated?
Emotion = sensation + thought

Is the sensation frustrated? Just stay with the raw sensation and see if it knows anything about frustration?

By feeling my hand i get the tought i'm going to feel my hand, then the tought i'm feeling my hand, but there is also the feeling of the hand, why is all of a sudden the feeling of the hand amplified ? was it always there or somehow something made it more marked. Can this be attributed to a "self", a driver somewhere ? I don't think so.

Prior there was just all back to the self, but acknowledging that there is a DE, that there is not definite self separate from DE and that everything is just part of DE just create thoughts questioning the ordering principle of DE. why do thoughts arise then ? what of free will and causality ? if you are following some kind of question map, which i think you are. Are we going to talk about causality or free will ? this is very important for me as i have trouble just answering your questions, you ask me to tell you in what is perceived from DE but in fact I can only answer from the WHAT, the WHAT is just looking and seeing the sea of experience that we arbitrarily split in 5 senses and thoughts. but it just leave a big big blank on the WHY or HOW, or the implications of this we have been talking about. so my question is Are we going to talk about causality or free will ?

Here we go …
Let’s have a look at the idea of control, choice and decisions. Please explore the exercises below and report your findings! Remember that we’re looking for some kind of entity, a something, an ‘I’ which is doing the ‘choosing’. Sometimes we describe this sense of choosing as a ‘feeling’: It feels like ‘I’ did the ‘choosing’, but remember we are not interested in “seems like” and “feels like” entities, but ones that could be described.
"seems like" , "feels like" = thought content
1. Hold a hand in front of you; palm turned down. Now turn the palm up. And down...and up and so on.

How is the movement controlled?
Does a thought control it?
Can a ‘controller’ or and entity that is choosing be located?
How is the decision made to turn the hand over? Track any decision point when a thought MADE THE DECISION to turn the hand over.

2. Put two objects that you like in front of you (e.g. a cup of coffee and a glass of juice)

Step1. Look at drink A and at drink B. Think about their respective qualities, the things you like about them, compare and weigh the pros and cons of each. See if a preference is manifesting for one or the other.
Step2. Count to 5.
Step3. Choose one of the drinks. Pick it up and take a sip.

In step 1 when thinking about their respective qualities, did you ‘choose’ the qualities? Or did they kind of appear by themselves? If some preferences manifested, did you ‘choose’ these preferences? Or did they just pop up by themselves?

In step 2 when you counted to 5, if the preferences took the back seat while the numbers took the front seat, did you ‘choose’ this sequence of event? Did you ‘choose’ to shut down the preferences to give way to the counting? Did you directly experience an entity doing the ‘choosing’?

In step 3 where you made a choice, did anything arise that announced, ‘I am the chooser’? If so, what does it look like?
Remember no “feels like” or “seems like” ‘I’ did the ‘choosing’.
Can feeling choose? Can seeing choose?

3. Please take me through a biggish decision that you made recently - not something very personal so you are able to share more details about your decision making...

How did it come to be? Consider all of the conditions that were necessary for it to happen. If any one of those conditions were different, would the outcome have been the same? How many of these conditions were outside of your influence? What was in your control (according to thought)?

Please take your time with each exercise! Repeat as many times as you need and then write the answers for all of them. Watch like a hawk. Don't go to thoughts, examine the actual experience. Do this as many times as you like, and each time inquire with the questions.

Love
Rali

[Totege]

Good evening Rali,

Can a thought experience seeing? Can a thought think?

relative to the AI analogy, what you were trying to convey is that question ? Thoughts are thoughts, a indefinite part of experience, they co create other thoughts, or at least it seems so but I don't think we can say that they think. This would be anthropomorphising something, maybe because we lack the concepts or perspective to properly understand, and therefore project our own view and belief onto it.

I studied AI during my master so I thought you were making another point, not an analogy. And therefore missed your point entirely.

Clear?

Not quite, I understand your point, the meaning is self organised, but is it possible to witness the self organization or SEEING must always be devoid of inherent meaning, beside the fact that what IS, just IS ?

Are thoughts independently existing? Do you see solid thoughts with proper outlines (without content/what thoughts are about)?

They are relative to experience or other thoughts, I have yet to witness a thought that just IS, unrelated to another one or some other part of experience.

Can thinking do anything but just appear as thinking? LOOK! What can you see?
All thought are inherently mental impressions mimicking other senses. Most thoughts are verbal, but singing in my head is a thought too and is mimicking sound, I can think of an image, think of a taste etc. I'm using the word "I" just because there is no obvious way of constructing well sounding sentences without it. But I'm not implying that there is a I with the power of creating thoughts.

Also can you separate thinking from seeing, or seeing from hearing, etc. without the labels? Are they happening in a different “place”? Are there outlines of thinking, seeing,etc?

It feels like it's happening in the head, there is a definite sensation in the head and that's where thoughts seems to arise. But they don't really have outline or anything. When the sensations are sensed broadly there is just a sense of a churning mass everything is mixing, sometimes a strong sensation or sound or smell arise and the rest is diminished, still there in the background. But can you distinguish a drop of water from the glass ? That's what it seems to be.

You said:
Maybe it’s tought, but i’m not conscious of or it’s too fast, like the tree is seen then space is infered relative to all the trees I ever saw, the other objects that are labelled and identified in the sight, etc.
My question:
Is there any entity that is conscious of what is happening, or there is only what is happening?

This is very confusing, Is it wrong to write with the particle "I" ? Because ultimately what was meant is "I could be wrong and it could be a thought " I saw something but there don't have any idea as to what it is thought or anything else.

There are many occurrences of the word I in the answers, it's hard to write without it. Or maybe you dont think that the words "not conscious of" do have a valid usage in a self-less paradigm ?

what is that, which is conscious of thoughts or whatever is happening?

Obviously no entity. At least none were found. But still, there is a continuity to experience, even if there is nothing to experience beside experience there could be something that create a sense of self. Maybe it's the continuous and seemingly organized nature of experience that prompt this ?
Even after looking and finding nothing I have trouble with a few things, there is the very definite sense of being aware of experience, but I cant find the I of awareness. It is nowhere to be found. or everywhere I'm aware of depending on how you want to frame it. Also the 5 senses input give the very strong sense that there are other and what is experienced is only a part of what is. There is a very definite sense of separation. Which In fact is brought to the foreground with this message and the inquiry in general. Maybe that's what was so frustrating yesterday. I cant find a me in THIS, but also the sense of separation is terrible. The distinct frontier between external and internal experience is for some reason the saddest thing at times.

Is there someone who is frustrated, or there is only frustration just happening, but without an entity (ups!), a person, Tom, being frustrated?
Emotion = sensation + thought

There is no one, the sensation is still felt, and removing the label only remove the suffering added by the "weight of the thought" but there is still some distinct qualities associated to the sensations part of emotions and some are still very unpleasant, in their texture, and thoughts about the unpleasantness of this sensation still arise. In the same way that some sensation are "pleasant" even when just looked at and no thought arise linked to it

How is the movement controlled?

No idea, it is a mystery. Without the thought saying I'm moving my hand there is nothing to indicate a choice is made or anything like that. One moment the hand is felt there, the other the hand is felt moving.

Does a thought control it?

Even with thoughts saying no no no no the hand still moved..

Can a ‘controller’ or and entity that is choosing be located?

no

How is the decision made to turn the hand over?

There is no such thing as a decision that was experienced
What is the future of people going throught these conversations? I'm asking because there is a strong feeling of not having any free will, when I look every day following your pointing I sometimes get the feeling that this is just like a film, I have no control or anything just witnessing what's happening.
I'm sure there are some brain tricks at play because sometimes when I'm walking and I shift In this "observer mode" there is the feeling that "I" am not doing anything even that it's not me moving forward but the world coming toward me.
Observing the hand moving gave the same feeling. It is so alien, a bit frightening too.

In step 1 when thinking about their respective qualities, did you ‘choose’ the qualities? Or did they kind of appear by themselves? If some preferences manifested, did you ‘choose’ these preferences? Or did they just pop up by themselves?

They did pop by themselves, there were thoughts about the choices, justifying etc.

In step 2 when you counted to 5, if the preferences took the back seat while the numbers took the front seat, did you ‘choose’ this sequence of event? Did you ‘choose’ to shut down the preferences to give way to the counting? Did you directly experience an entity doing the ‘choosing’?

I did not, the counting just was at the front while it lasted.

In step 3 where you made a choice, did anything arise that announced, ‘I am the chooser’? If so, what does it look like?

There was a thought with the choice and the why this one over the other

Remember no “feels like” or “seems like” ‘I’ did the ‘choosing’.
Can feeling choose? Can seeing choose?

No, but a choice was made.
Or maybe there was never a choice to begin with. Is a choice still a choice without a chooser ?
I wonder, what could have made this choice different and what made it such as it is. Is this all just prior impressions of thoughts, feelings, tastes, sights, sounds and smells ? We then are living in a deterministic world whose meaning escape us, and the narrow perspective offered by the self, with constant justification and thoughts bombardments give rise the the illusion of free will. That is what this "feels like" : :')

Best,
Tom

[poppyseed]

Hi Tom

Not quite, I understand your point, the meaning is self organised, but is it possible to witness the self organization or SEEING must always be devoid of inherent meaning, beside the fact that what IS, just IS ?

What was meant is that the meaning and understanding is not to/of someone. It just looks like there is a thinker in a similar manner to AI not being a thing but just the logic/the software that the machine can take. The AI is the algorithm (analogous to conditioning) that processes words and predicts the next. It does not think it or understand it, it just spits it out. "This would be anthropomorphising something" like you said. Anyway... an analogy can take you only that far before you start getting lost in it.
My point was there is no thinker or a witness who understands the meaning, listens to the thoughts and interprets them. Meaning is an emergent phenomenon.

I have yet to witness a thought that just IS, unrelated to another one or some other part of experience.

This is very confusing, Is it wrong to write with the particle "I" ? Because ultimately what was meant is "I could be wrong and it could be a thought " I saw something but there don't have any idea as to what it is thought or anything else.

Even after looking and finding nothing I have trouble with a few things, there is the very definite sense of being aware of experience, but I cant find the I of awareness. It is nowhere to be found. or everywhere I'm aware of depending on how you want to frame it. Also the 5 senses input give the very strong sense that there are other and what is experienced is only a part of what is. There is a very definite sense of separation. Which In fact is brought to the foreground with this message and the inquiry in general. Maybe that's what was so frustrating yesterday. I cant find a me in THIS, but also the sense of separation is terrible. The distinct frontier between external and internal experience is for some reason the saddest thing at times.

Of course you have to use pronouns and there is nothing wrong with that, as long as it is understood that this concept is empty and points to nothing existing. However, this is not the case here and this is what I was pointing to (for the 16th time). So let’s look again at this awareness/witness that is not an entity, but there is still a sense of it…

Here is the idea that there is an awareness, which is a something that is experiencing thoughts! Where can this awareness be found exactly? Describe this awareness to me in detail and tell me where it is located? LOOK and see if you can find anyone or anything that can be defined as awareness? Awaring is happening...but can you find anything that is actually awaring? Also witout the labels designating this to the experience and that to be the knowing of it, is there really separation?

I want you to look very carefully at the following pointer

Where does a thought end, and the knowing of it (being aware of) begin? Is there a border between a thought and the knowing of it?
Is there a distance between a thought and the knowing of it or is that just an imaginary distance? You say that “there is a very definite sense of separation”. How exactly do you observe it? Yes there is the seen (seeing), the heard (hearing) … but where exactly is this line/separation that shows two distinct things – experience and experiencer/witness/awareness? Is awareness a container for experiences? How is this really observed?

Is there any substance present in thinking other than the knowing of it?
Go to the experience of thinking and go to the experience of being aware of thinking. Are they two different experiences or is it the same experience?

Calling yourself Awareness, "I" or "not I" , SELF or self, or Tom....changes nothing. There is still a someone/something that is seeking and that life is happening to. Why would awareness be where the head would be? That is still the idea that experience/awareness is ‘here’ and seeing things ‘out there’.

Is "knowing" (awareness), separate from what is “known", or are they one and the same?

Now, I’d like to ask you to explore this SENSE of self/witness/SELF very-very thoroughly. Not by thinking about it, but by FEELING it. Keep the focus of attention on the sense of self and inquire:

Does the sense of self have a location?
Does the sense of self have a shape or a size?
Does the sense of self say or communicate anything?
If the answer is yes, how does the sense do this exactly?
Does the sense of self have any characteristics or attributes?
What is the sense of self ‘made of’? An image? Sound? Taste? Smell? Sensation? Thought?
What is found?

If you say that the sense of self is located in the head:

It feels like it's happening in the head, there is a definite sensation in the head and that's where thoughts seems to arise. But they don't really have outline or anything. When the sensations are sensed broadly there is just a sense of a churning mass everything is mixing, sometimes a strong sensation or sound or smell arise and the rest is diminished, still there in the background. But can you distinguish a drop of water from the glass ? That's what it seems to be.

Yes, there is a sensation, labelled “head” but does it have a location without the mental images (mental mapping on the body which is still a label)?
Press a finger down onto the top of the ‘head’.
Notice what is actually present.
Is it a head, or is it just a sensation (labelled ‘pressure’) and thoughts ABOUT a head? And is there anything between the pressure points, or are there just thoughts about something being in between them

Without thought, how big is your head?
Without thought, does it have an inside or an outside?
Without thought, does it have a location?

You are saying that “thoughts seem to arise in the head”…
So, in DE, a “head” is a sensation + a mental image (of a head) + thoughts about a head, right?

So, can a thought come from a sensation, or from inside a sensation?
Can a thought come from a mental image (i.e. “head”)?
Does the mental image suggest in any that it is a ‘head’?
Does the sensation itself suggest in any way that it is a ‘head’?
Does the sensation itself suggest in any way that it is a ‘me’?
Other than thought, can you find anything that suggests the sensation labelled as ‘head’ is a head or a me?

No, but a choice was made.
Or maybe there was never a choice to begin with. Is a choice still a choice without a chooser

Good observations about choice but you didn’t do the third exercise. Please answer it.

Love
Rali

[Totege]

Greetings,

Where can this awareness be found exactly?

In thoughts

Describe this awareness to me in detail and tell me where it is located? LOOK and see if you can find anyone or anything that can be defined as awareness?

Thoughts related to other thoughts or sensations, smells, sights.

Awaring is happening...but can you find anything that is actually awaring?

The fact that every sensation is felt ? For me this is proof of awareness, if no awaring entity or something is to be found, maybe each sensation is aware of itself. There is a sense of awareness because sights are seen, sound are heard, thoughts are thoughts.

Also witout the labels designating this to the experience and that to be the knowing of it, is there really separation?

But if you remove the labels then there is just THIS, maybe the sense of separation is only created by the labels, if you split experience into artificial categories of sound, sight, thoughts you create a separation and a false view of what IS. Relatively speaking because ultimately false and truth are also devoid of meaning in the context of only THIS, which is also true (haha) for all words and concepts.

Where does a thought end, and the knowing of it (being aware of) begin? Is there a border between a thought and the knowing of it?

It is known as it is. Thought arise and are known. From THIS there is nothing Indicating a border.

Is there a distance between a thought and the knowing of it or is that just an imaginary distance?

In THIS all thoughts just are, and because it is, then it is known.

How exactly do you observe it?

The separation of senses create a distinct thought that there is a world outside that there is a body because thoughts label sensations as of the body or outside the body depending on their characteristics. Creating the sense that there is more than what is experienced, that there is more than what is experience. An illusorily clear demarcation between inside and outside. Experience of the outside being less clear than the inside.

but where exactly is this line/separation that shows two distinct things – experience and experiencer/witness/awareness? Is awareness a container for experiences? How is this really observed?

There is no line separating the two. It's just that when there is an experience there is also the experience of the mind reacting the the experience. Or maybe not reacting but following this experience thoughts arise relating to it. So there is the definite sense of awareness, created by the thoughts maybe awareness end where experience end.

Is there any substance present in thinking other than the knowing of it?

substance, the content ?

Are they two different experiences or is it the same experience?

It's quite the same, only the content change but the context of the thought is the same, maybe upon focusing there is a sensation of contraction is the space where the sensations making up the head are sensed.

Why would awareness be where the head would be?

There is a very stable ever present sensation that make the top of the head. It give rise to the sense that this is the center of experience. And that therefore thinking arise close to this sensation. Because all else is much more dynamic than this stable sensation is felt like an epicenter.

This doesn't mean that awareness is in the head. Just that this sensation is centering for experience.

Is "knowing" (awareness), separate from what is “known", or are they one and the same?

How could knowing be separate from what is known, this make no sense

Does the sense of self have a location?

Yes there is a location used to label the sensation, "top of the head"

Does the sense of self have a shape or a size?

No

Does the sense of self say or communicate anything?

there is just the sensation

Does the sense of self have any characteristics or attributes?

Very stable, like a contraction but very stable compared To most of experience. But for some reason it is always felt as much. When you cut the hair of a leg or arm or even shave the head you notice how accustomed to the sensation you were and didn't notice the hairs on the head anymore. But this sensation whilst being very stable it does not lessen

What is the sense of self ‘made of’? An image? Sound? Taste? Smell? Sensation? Thought?
What is found?

The sensation and then thoughts organized around this sensation as the center of experience. But I fact there is no center as there is no space. It's just very stable that's why it seems so centered.

does it have a location without the mental images (mental mapping on the body which is still a label)?

No

Is it a head, or is it just a sensation (labelled ‘pressure’) and thoughts ABOUT a head?

just a sensation, or many, with thoughts referring to these as head. didn't we already talk about the body and the fact that it's only sensation ?

And is there anything between the pressure points, or are there just thoughts about something being in between them

space outside of the thoughts and label is illusory and do not exist. Thoughts map the characteristics of experience in space and time but that's not an intrinsic characteristic of THIS, just an emergent content of thoughts labelling experience

Without thought, how big is your head?
Without thought, does it have an inside or an outside?
Without thought, does it have a location?

N/A, no, no. For reasons stated above

right?

Yes

So, can a thought come from a sensation, or from inside a sensation?

No idea about either, thoughts can be about the sound of the rooster and you have this mental sound of rooster. So there is a link of some sort, but "from" and "inside" would need a space component which cannot be found IN sensations

Can a thought come from a mental image (i.e. “head”)?

It's all a description, how could I know. Mental images and thoughts are illusory separations, how do you split them arbitrarily, to then ask if one come from the other. in THIS there is no distinct separation, or at least none that is seen.

Where do you draw the line between mental images and thoughts ? Aren't mental images visual thoughts ? it's all just words with different sense in different context for different people.

If there is the 5 senses and the thoughts relating to them
Then isn't the mental images also a thoughts as it is relating to the 5 senses to label it.

Does the mental image suggest in any that it is a ‘head’?
Does the sensation itself suggest in any way that it is a ‘head’?
Does the sensation itself suggest in any way that it is a ‘me’?
Other than thought, can you find anything that suggests the sensation labelled as ‘head’ is a head or a me?

How could a sensation suggest anything ? suggest a label ?
It's just in the concept ontology of thought that this is created not in the sensation.

It's all thoughts and 5 senses Inputs, here we are concerto of thoughts talking about thoughts and label that themselves are thoughts linked to experiences. It's just that all the way up to the most removed thought from sense input and down at the bottom the original link between specific characteristic of the sense input being labelled as a mental impression to describe something. It's just that were so used to speech that we can't realize it's just a pyramid of concept relating to direct experience. It's just sounds that have label, used to label other sense Inputs.

As for the third exercise I apologize but no decision come to mind. In fact there is no feeling of making major decision or anything like that. Event seamlessly seems to follow each other, you ask for a decision that "I" took, I don't think "I" take any decision, it's just the mind is polite enough to narrate it in the first person in an attempt to explain, most likely because that's what was learned in the past

I wish you a good day.
Tom