I want to see this!

[ManicMonk]

LU is focused guiding for seeing there is no real, inherent 'self' - what do you understand by this?
As I understand it right now, it means that there isn't any mystical "soul" / observer / consciousness "driving" this chariot.

You know, the famous parable, about the elephant and the rider? Body and psyche / subconsciousness are the elephant... but there _is_ no rider, and never has been, actually?

What are you looking for at LU?
I'm hoping for some feedback on my observations and experience so far, as well as helpful guidance (pointers?) to make progress / continue and ultimately _see_ until there's nothing left to see. Until I'm done, as Jed would say.

I've been on a Jed McKenna binge since I've stumbled across him three month ago, basically... and it has turned my life upside down as if I'd be the fresh prince from Bel Air.

After I read like 6-7 books from Jed, I started with "Gateless Gatecrashers", and, at one point, after the reading of the book, one night, my mind was wandering and loosely playing with the questions in the book, I thought I had it - I thought I'd seen. And maybe I have - or maybe I have seen part of it?

I thought about my mind and my body doing basically everything on its own accord - that it did the thinking, and the planning, and the living, and the doing, and the seeing, and the hearing etc - and I felt, SAW that the center of my mind - something felt like it popped like a bubble. I just saw that I had felt / believed there was something in there, the me (?), myself, I, it, whoever, who was the center of mind, who was me, the elephant rider, trying to control and supervise everything - that that didn't really exist, and really was nothing. And it felt that in that moment, the whole thing disappeared.

And after that, for one or two weeks, I really thought I had it! At least partly (maybe)? And I (let's say "I"?) hoped that from then on other beliefs would start dissolving and a processes would start unravelling the rest of illusions, like, I thought, either I'd seen through it, through the whole charade, or that I at least would have seen the start, and the rest would start taking care of itself one way or another.

I really had a whole thing going - I was like, high - and all the things written by Ilona, and Jed McKenna, and other spiritual teachers suddenly made _sense_! No ego. Nothing. We are nothing. Yadda yadda.

BUUT intellectually I still had some doubts and reservations. I still thought there'd have to be a "watcher", or witness, or consciousness, and that that was me? Or I am part of it or something?

And then I was wondering if I really couldn't influence anything? Not even setting intentions and nothing? Logically it made sense that it was possible that I or "it" couldn't - if it's just the brain thinking and doing brainy planning things, then it can do all the intention setting it needs to by itself, thankyouverymuch! :D

And it felt like, can it be right, not being able to "influence" anything? Am I, like, _just_ a passive observer? Just along for the ride? I mean, am I even? Who am I? If there's no I? :D That didn't feel right.

Also it feels like an abdication of responsibility - if anything just is as it is, why do "I" have to do / control anything? Let me have that chocolate, let me take care of my own things, don't mind the world and other peoples business. Or is that just my meat body being a slob? What's his problem? :D

ANYWAYS so even if i'm just an imagination of my own psyche, it still FEELS like I (?) can make decisions and SHOULD make decisions. From "what's for dinner" to "what should be my next focus in life / what do I want & need to do" to "should I try to get a guide on this amazing cool forum and get this DONE"? :D (The last one isn't really a question after all though, or is it? :) )

So I still have wishes and dreams, even though they feel much more like "fun things i'd like to do" now than they did before I think.

In general I think I have become much less stressed and much more easy-going since my "popping". I feel more distanced from my immediate emotional reactions, also with and around others; and feel more quiet and calm and hopeful that things will work out one way or another.

But still - I feel that I haven't seen everything yet. I've seen _something_ I think? The illusion of the self, I think I've seen it. I'm pretty sure!

But there's more what is being talked about here what I can't figure / SEE clearly yet.

- the oneness of all things (i understand it intellectually, maybe, but it's not something I feel yet)
- The trinity: The percieved thing, the act of perception and the -> perciever - aren't we the percievers at last? I know some might say "perception happens by itself" - that might be true, but that's too "advanced" for myself, I can't grok that yet.
- The peace / persistent feeling / knowledge of "nothingness"
- HELPING OTHERS & IMPROVING THE WORLD - what about the physical world & the "others" in the world? I still feel a big responsiblity / unease to see a lot of suffering in the world, like, literal, pain and suffering, and also what I'd judge as aggression and ignorance etc. Where I think I'd like to wade in eventually in my life and at least _try_ to make an impact on certain things - while eg. Jed says "eh it doesn't matter - from where I stand you can see that if you try to fill in a hole with sand you'll make another hole next to it of the same size" or something towards that end. Anybody knows anything about that stuff? That could also be taken care of once we've got the other things figured out I suppose, but I think from a _practical_ perspective this is relevant to me.

So these are a few things i've seen which have been talked about or "pointed too" by others which I can't yet say I see.

So - where am I at? And how can I progress from here?

ALSO, last but not least: I have a hard time doing these kind of questionings & reflections all by myself, I think it's gonna help me to write these things out & feeling that I've made a commitment to write and work on these things here to make progress!

What do you expect from a guided conversation?
I hope to be guided, considerately, to further exploration and seeing and understanding of the truth.

It'd be great if they could help me out to understand my current position as well as helping me "bring this home" into a permanent state of seeing and being!

I'd like someone patient. I don't know how long I'll need, but I'll stick with it til i'm done. I'm a bit afraid I'm not "getting" it sometimes, because the instructions sometimes seem unclear to me - I'm a very logical and literal guy, but that can sometimes make me see and understand things differently than other people would understand things commonly.

So some patience and maybe a certain understanding of a logical, intellectual and "engineer-type" of analytical thinking and reasoning mind and my way of communicating could be advantageous :)

🚨 NERD ALARM!!! :D 🚨

Anyways! That's it. Help me to help myself, please! :)

What is your experience in terms of spiritual practices, seeking and inquiry?
Ok, i've been asking myself what all of this is about my whole life... or at least since I'm 5 years or someting?

With 20-ish I had a big drug- and emotional trauma - induced psychosis, where I already once basically tried to "stop my thoughts" and figured out that, in the end, there isn't a lot of control I have about my perception and reaction, and potentially none. It was pretty dark though.

After that I went into some esoterical things. My mom gave me the "Prophecies of Celestine" and after a year or two I went and did my first Vipassana 10-day retreat, with the goal being to "figure out what's real, what the world is really made out of". It came from a discussion online about the matrix movie, where someone asked, how did Morpheus find out he's in the matrix? And someone said, with meditation, like eg. Vipassana, it's possible to learn about the fundamental atoms of reality.

I didn't find out in the 10 days though, unfortunately! :D

It was still good though. I went again 10 years later for a second time.

All the while I was living life - working, drinking, partying, regular stuff. Buy I always was listening to Osho, Eckhart Tolle, and did some reading and had interest in the "spiritual" in general.

I read Daniel Ingram's "Mastering the core teachings of the Buddha", and I enjoyed it and it gave me hope, though in reality most of the advanced stuff is way over my head.

I've got a bit of an ADHD going, so for me things like routines and long term meditation have been a challenge.

Still! I enjoyed it.

Lately I (thought) I had some cool insights from different books... I enjoyed "The Presence Process" from Michael Brown as an interesting structured approach to meditation and as kind of a "more practical" "A course in miracles". I liked it.

And I also liked Frederick Dodsons' "Levels of Energy" where he's about different levels of energy people and environments and... stuff can be in, like eg. Books and movies and what have you.

From very low, 0 - 200, fear based, dog-eat-dog thining, to 200-500, working, getting more optimistic, more self reliant, more industrious, to 500+, the realm of the spiritual seeker and -finder, up to the 1000s for Jesus, buddhas, mystical spiritual beings etc.

I read a bit more from Dodson, but he can be a bit weird, sorry Dod if you're here! :D Also he has a lot of "reality creation" stuff, but which I couldn't really get into, it was a bit too rich for me, even though I'd like me a good side of reality creation!

ANYHOW that was mostly the last of it, before I slammed HEAD FIRST INTO JED MCKENNA! And I basically INHALED the first 7 or so of his books!

They _did_ get a bit repetative, that's why I went to troll the internet for further information, and came across Ilona and Elenas' books and youtube channel.

I read the "Gateless Gatecrashers" and had my moment at around 1/3rds of the book.

Now I'm hooked and need to go FURTHER!

On a scale from 1 to 10, how willing are you to question any currently held beliefs about 'self? 11

Admin note for ManicMonk: You can only see answers in your thread when you’re logged in. Please check your thread regularly while logged in, as email notifications don’t always work.

[graceabounds]

Hello dear.

Ready to go?

:)

-Becca

[ManicMonk]

Hello Becca (is that short for Rebecca?),

Ready to go?

Cheeky reply: How would I know? :D

And honestly:
Getting excited while typing here. Yes, I'm ready!

[graceabounds]

Yes, Rebecca’s on the passport.

Would you like to go by Manic or Monk or something else?

To begin, please read and say to yourself several times: *There is no separate self, there never was, there never will be*

After each time you read or say it, notice what happens, feelings, sensations, thoughts, movements... And write here what is noticed.

Don't try to get anything right, just share what is seen, unfiltered. Generally this process will be driven by seeing what is already happening, what is already the case. What is effortlessly seen while engaging questions and exercises is what is important. What you actually write me is secondary to that.

-Becca

[ManicMonk]

Hello Becca!

I'll call you Becca if that's fine. Please call me Daniel, "ManicMonk" is something I've used before somewhere, so it came to mind, and is maybe a bit too honest for comfort! :D

I'm not a monk and rarely manic these days, luckily.

So please, call me Daniel.

Thank you for asking.

I'll get to it then:

> To begin, please read and say to yourself several times: *There is no separate self, there never was, there never will be*

What I notice:

1st: There was a literal (re)focusing of my sight for a moment, a little bzzt moment
Then a softening of the body, upper body.
Listening.
Listening to family noises outside and feeling less separate; was tense before because I'm a bit in a rush and want to do this while I also know I'll be expected outside soon. This reminds me that these arent' two separate things, they are part and parcel of the same "now" experience.

Very calming.

*I'll take a break, go and spend time with the fam, and if I can get out of bed again after bringing the kid to sleep, i'll continue.*

One thought I had: There's an alternative reading / word-play in these words: "There" (like in "Over there") is no separate self, "over there" never was (because it's one with "me"), "over there" never will be.

---

Continuing.

Ok.

Coming back from having lunch, playing with my son and putting him to bed, the sentence repeated itself in my head and made me connect differently with my son and my environment, with what was going on.

It reminded me that he's part of the whole experience and I needn't get upset with him when we had some... communication issues.

Later when we had eaten and were playing, the situation also developed spontaneously into different fun expressions... without pushing, by letting go and feeling present and just as part of the whole process. Both "he", "me", and everything around us and the situation as well.

I actually kind of bit my tongue at one point... there's a song we both like, and it's a kind of philosophical hip-hop-song (German), where the guy asks about... basically, who are you? And at the end of the (long) song he keeps the answer open for the listener to reply on his own:

> In the zero as in the one in the shadow as in the light:
> in the end the answer to the riddle is...:

And the spontaneous rhyme would probably, in german, be: "I", "Ich"
-> But i've taken it to be "Nichts", nothing, in German...

So he asked me why I say nothing and what that would mean and tried to insist on me explaining it
And I kind of freaked out because I think this is kind of too heavy stuff for a six year old - to explain to him that he doesn't exist... :D

I think that might maybe not be good to draw him into this, at this point.. I told him we can revisit this once he's older, like, maybe 12 or 14 :)

So I hope to have figured it out when he gets to that age! :)

...yeah.

Soo... that happened... and then the rest of the evening happened.

And now i'm back and trying to wrap it up.

I'll do some more repeating...

*There is no separate self, there never was, there never will be*

Ok.

I feel like it makes me present. Maybe because of what it says. Maybe because it makes me listen (and watch) my environment without being busy at the same time. Makes me perceive reality clearly for a time.

That is it for now, I'll finish my things and go to bed. Thank you for the first pointer (or homework)!

[graceabounds]

Hello Daniel,

Very good.

When there is softening in the upper body, where does that take place?

I feel like it makes me present

What is present right now?

Sit quietly and relax, take your time just looking at what is in front of you for a while.

Observe how the mind is dividing and labeling every thing into objects and is embellishing them with stories about what they are.
Give it some time…
Then, stop watching the objects as labeled objects. Just look at the seeing itself. Observe the pure process of seeing. This is direct experience.

Here's an exercise that I would like you to try as many times throughout the day as you can. Label daily activities simply color/image, sound, smell, taste, sensation, thought.

So for example, when having breakfast, become aware of:
Seeing a cup, simply= image/color
Smelling coffee, simply = smell
Feeling the warmth of the coffee cup, simply = sensation
Tasting the coffee, simply = taste
Hearing the spoon stirring the coffee, simply = sound
Thought about drinking the coffee, simply = thought

Just break down daily activities into these categories (which are all direct experience) and report back how you go.

-Becca

[ManicMonk]

Hello Becca!

> When there is softening in the upper body, where does that take place?

Actually it was the whole upper torso, upper arms, shoulders, neck. If I catch it again I'll elaborate... it happened once, in the beginning of the "There is no seperate self. There never was. There never will be."

I did some sitting and watching right now - at first watching the labeling & then trying for "simple sensations".

I notice that it's not easy to stay with the simple awareness - there seems to be an undercurrent of mind chatter coming in regularly. I can make an effort to "start fresh" to look, but after some time the mind chatter appears and comes up with a label, a story about / connected to the object; or sometimes more general stories / beliefs, which can also trigger emotional reactions.

EG: what am I looking at - an CD disk drive on my desk - I can put that away - everything looks so messy - I could clean this up - but wouldntt that just papering over the messiness of life with attempts at cleaning, which is ultimately superfluous? It's just one part of a big mess... Everybody's avoiding the hard questions and pretending that cleanliness is possible while life is so messy! :D <- that was actually a train of thought I had, more or less.

Just an example, not 100% maybe.

I went around because my desk area is indeed a bit cluttered and i wanted to give my eyes a bit space to look into the distance too, and once i got use to the bright light of the outer world (been staring at the screens all morning) it worked.

Looking at stuff - seeing new things I haven't noticed before - woosh! That was a thought! Label label label -

One trick I need to practice is to labeling thoughts as thoughts instead of getting frustrated that they invaded my "pure precious perception" - remember to label them I will.

I remembered that I did a fun excercise for a coaching course I did a few months ago, where you'd progressively remove / cover your senses and would try to navigate the world / your living space. It was quite cool.

It went something like:
- Cover your ears tightly
- Cover your hands (thick gloves etc) (so there is no possibility to touch things)
- Cover your eyes
- And at the end: Cover everything! :D For an hour and see what happens.

It was quite interesting I remember and lead to some times of awareness and looking without being distracted with the usual in-out.

Very interesting was covering the hands, not being able to use them, and then walking around - the absence of a possibility to put things in order, or take notes, or do ANYTHING with anything - gave me a very new appreciation of our entire flat and everything inside. It was very cool.

ANYHOW!

I'll continue noticing stuff and come back tonight with a final report.

---

So during the day I tried to label my experiences - but it's not easy!

I did it, but it takes me out of - especially thinking, of course, which is something I do from time to time. The process of labeling it "thinking" interrupts the thinking itself, so I can't think anymore!

Which could be called cognitus interruptus or something? -> Anyhow, it feels like a bit contra-productive to the observing / watching the thinking to think "thinking" instead of continuing to think, if you know what I mean? Thinking is there, if I catch it I label it "thinking", but because that's a thought, the thinking is over and something else (or new thinking) will start again...? :D

Anyways - it sometimes works, but it feels like real effort - and its also not really obvious to me how fine-grained one should or could go here.

The buddhists and meditators with deep focus and awareness reportedly can identify more than a dozen sensations and "consciousness moments" per second I think - and for myself that's also kind of a point of confusion:

How fine-grained am I supposed to analyze - am i to flick back and forth between labeling eg. seeing, sensations flaring up, and thoughts arising - almost at the same time? It seems to become quite "messy" wanting to break that up.

ALSO part of the day I was in a I-don't-feel-so-great mood where I was kind of feeling... stuffy and... groggy and not really in "control" to observe - i was maybe too tired.

Also I spent the whole (work-)day in front of the computer in brain-land, so intellectually engaged in the fireworks of my job - which in general I tend to NOT watch and label as "watching"; "working".

Maybe that's something I could start - being more aware during engagement with "the machine"(tm) during my daily work?

(I'm a software developer and i'm like, soaking in the information into my brain what the computer is doing, and then react based on that).

All in all, i'd rate my performance a 2/10 here today - I think my reports are nice, but the amount of time spent being aware of being aware was quite low it feels.

Still, it was what it was today - thank you for subscribing to my newsletter and good night! :)

Looking forward to hear from you.

[graceabounds]

Hi!

I did it, but it takes me out of - especially thinking, of course, which is something I do from time to time. The process of labeling it "thinking" interrupts the thinking itself, so I can't think anymore!

Ok.

Have a look at an apple. If you have a ‘real’ apple, you can use it for this exercise, otherwise google for a photo of one.
When looking at an apple, there's color; a thought saying ‘apple’; and maybe another thought saying, "I'm looking at an apple."

What is known for sure? Color is known and thoughts are known.

What about the CONTENT of thoughts, what they describe?
Direct experience does not refer to thoughts ABOUT something…because that is only just more thought. Actual or direct experience is sound, thought, color, smell, taste, sensation.

Is there really an ‘apple’ here, or only color and a thought ABOUT ‘apple’?
Can ‘apple’ be found in direct experience?

…While these thoughts are known, what they talk ABOUT can't be found in direct experience.
This is what is meant by ‘looking in direct experience ‘. What you know for sure, and, is always here.

Taste labeled ‘apple’ is known
Color labeled ‘apple’ is known
Sensation labeled ‘apple’ is known (when apple is touched)
Smell labeled ‘apple’ is known
Thought about/of an ‘apple’ is known
However, is an apple actually known?

Anyhow, it feels like a bit contra-productive to the observing / watching the thinking to think "thinking" instead of continuing to think, if you know what I mean?

So, coming back to this… The purpose here is to notice that thought is not direct experience.

There is a big difference between knowing there is no separate self and seeing it.

Here is an example to illustrate the difference:
If I ask you what color socks you are wearing right now you have two ways to come up with an answer:
• You can have a think about it, you can think back to this morning and try to remember putting your socks on, and you can probably tell me what color you think they are.
• Alternatively, you can take a quick look at your socks and tell me what color they actually are!

Hopefully you would agree that you can only be 100% certain by looking.
For the purpose of our dialogue together, it is going to be very important that you are clear about this difference. Knowing is about knowledge which is all in the mind and we are not interested in that. We are only interested in looking at and seeing what is actually going on in your present moment to moment experience. We are only interested in your direct experience in the moment.

[ManicMonk]

Hello again!

This is a bit over and under, and a) probably repetetive and b) sometimes hard to parse? But maybe that also comes with the territory?

Here are my thoughts & observations (at least some labels for those!):

----

Ok!

I have an apple here. I'll spend ten minutes with it!

"To be or not to be" I feel like saying when taking it into my hand

I smell it and there is smell

There is color

There is a cold feeling in my fingers when I hold it

An aside:

I can feel... something... _almost_ like energy, resistance; mental resistance; almost like manifesting physically, turning me away, making me feel woozy - It's what I'd have called procrastination, normally, but now I can feel it like almost physical, like hot air in front of me, blurring my vision, wanting to confuse me, deflecting me from my job: Looking at your words. And then looking at the apple.

"Worming around" was what came to mind originally. Interesting. Feeling these psychic energies pulling and pushing on me.

/end aside.


Back to the apple.

Reality, purely seeing - bland, plain (my mind wants to take over - look around - be distracted - seemingly bored by the apple right now)

You said:

> What about the CONTENT of thoughts, what they describe?

The content of what they describe is not "real"; but - worming around - sensations + thoughts / emotions CAN feel thicker than looking at an apple!

The apple can _not_ be found in _direct_ experience.
Seeing the apple can be found. Perceiving color. Perceiving the apple through multiple senses - looking, smell, feeling, taste. The perception is really there.

Still - _IS_ there a fundamental difference between the perception of a physical apple and an imaginary apple? Like the socks on my feet without looking - and the perception of an imaginary apple in the corner of my mind / in my minds eye -

THOUGHT is not direct experience... although?

SEEING something in my minds eye - and SEEING something in reality - are both projections on / into my mind, no?

I can see where perceiving something like an apple is different from seeing something in my minds eye.

But still, i'm not clear here.

Perception - can be, like, almost pure. I can see color. An image.
The label isn't real - naming or labeling the color of the apple isn't the color itself.
BUT the color of an apple in my imagination - or, let's say, in a dream - _is_ perception too, no?

So i am not sure whether I'm making this too complicated or if i'm missing a point -

a) my mission here is to _see_ reality / clearly
b) I see the difference between seeing my sock and remembering my sock - one might be more direct? But that opens for me the question
c) I might "see" something in my minds eye; in my dreams; and I might think they'd be real in that moment. The colors for example would feel real, do you know what I mean? I remember dreams where I woke up JUUUUST before I finally got to eat something REEEALLLY tasty, and it felt like it felt pretty real in the dream and I was disappointed that I couldn't taste it because I woke up!

d) but back to the label: The LABEL "an apple" or "the apple in my imagination" isn't real, but the perception of an apple might be there...?

HOW FAR OFF TRACK AM I? :D

I sometimes feel like i'm _holding_ these questions slightly wrong, mentally, to really _get_ what you might be getting at.

If your point is - observe something, observer thoughts label it, one is pure perception, the other is mind stuff - i agree and "get it". But eg. with imagination the line between "thoughts" and "concepts" and "imagination" (where perception comes back into play?) becomes blurry to me.

Thank you for your patience and I'm ready to observer some more!

Daniel

[graceabounds]

Don’t worry about getting anything right, or being innor off track, just continue to look and answer honestly.

I see the difference between seeing my sock and remembering my sock - one might be more direct?

The difference you’re noticing is not “more direct vs less direct.”
That’s already a step too conceptual.

When the remembered sock appears, is there any evidence in experience that it is being “accessed by someone”?

Or does it simply arise, fully formed, on its own?

When seeing is happening, is there any memory involved at all?
And when remembering is happening, is there any seeing involved at all?

Or are these just different kinds of appearances, arising without permission?

*Think* of your foot right now.

What do you see?

Is it even your foot?

Is it attached to a body?

Here is an exercise which points out the difference between direct experience and content of thought.

There are two types of thoughts:
(1) Thoughts with words “Here is cup”
(2) Visual mental images of a ‘cup’

So I invite you to do this exercise:
Think of a cup. Get a very clear picture in your mind. See clearly the size, shape, color and volume of the cup. Notice whether it is decorated or plain. Notice whether it has a handle. Notice whether it is heavy or fragile. Do you have a clear picture in mind?
Now, can you physically grasp that image of a cup?
Can you pour tea into it?
Can you drink from it?
Is there a ‘real’ cup or just an image of a cup?
Is there an appearing mental image?
Is the content of the mental image (the cup) ‘real’?

The thoughts and mental images are real only as arising thoughts and mental images, their ‘presence’ cannot be denied. However their contents, what are they about are not ‘real’, they are just fantasies. Can you see this?

Over the course of the next day or so, I'd like you to notice the content of thoughts.
Whenever there is an arising thought or mental image, check whether its content (what it’s about) is really happening, or the content is just pure imagination. Let me know how it goes.

[ManicMonk]

Hello Becca.

I spent yesterday with this question, more or less.

Now I was looking at a cup, mentally. It was a nice (mental) cup! Very nice. Would like to drink something from it.

My subconscious (or who-ever) did a good job with a tasteful and warm cup.

ANYWAYS!

I ACKNOWLEDGE that there is a difference between THINGS THAT ARE OBSERVED IMMEDIATELY and THINGS THAT ARE OBSERVED MENTALLY (which means they don't share the same world as this one).

One thing which came to my mind was bounced off your suggestion / question whether there'd be memory involved...

Because I came at this at a slightly "perferctionist" and critical angle - the old solipsist "yes reality seems to be more real but how can I know it won't ever stop appearing" for example

And the other one I like because It's so neat and dry:

"Reality is merely an illusion, albeit a very persistent one" (Attributed to Albert Einstein, but we never know with these things).

ANYHOW the difference I can clearly see is that with imagined things, there is effort involved to focus on something and "imagine" it, while the real cups i have right here don't seem to disappear the moment I think about anything else.

So that's where I draw the line for now, imagination & thoughts - very ephimeral and - not - of the same substance as the "real world" we're interacting with (at least I am) on a regular basis (with all kinds of smallprint skipped, like, how can I know that I thought this and how can I now this moment isn't the only memory there is and whatever, i might be in a coma and dreaming all of this etc).

BUT I think for the purpose of clear seeing what is:

- Things are being percieved, sometimes more or less clearly, depending on how stressed / distracted I am, but still, perception is there
- I can percieve things occurring in my mind to - these also arise and occur, although the mechanism isn't 100% of my doing; I still think of myself as a kind of conductor of mind systems though maybe? Like, if I want to find a way through the city to the supermarket I can imagine the road i'd take in order to right in the right direction; and if I want to imagine a cup because Becca asked me to, "I" can make myself imagine one - or multipe - or different cups, one after the other.

Anyway, back to basics:

- I can percieve cups in reality. This could be called direct experience? I can drink from them.
- I can percieve imaginary cups but
- Imaginary cups aren't real, they won't fill my thirst for coffee.
- Imaginary cups take mental energy & effort to focus on in order to be seen - especially during daylight hours. At night my mind might create images and thoughts I don't choose to conduct.
- In the day there might still be thoughts and images. Mostly I am not involved in creating mental images, like cups, but probably a lot of other things. Some of them practical, some of them less so!

Still there's an argument to be made that although I can perceive a cup directly, i will never _know_ the cup as it is. I can see it, see its color, feel it etc.. I can taste its contents. I can hear it if i hit it with something.

And that's basically also true for the whole world, no? We can see hear feel. We also have a second system in ourselves, the mind, which I call the "holodeck", which can "simulate" stuff - imagine things, play with them, reason about them; but which is mostly used for abstracting over things perceived in brain 1 - where the world image is created.

Do you know the theory how our abstract thinking minds might have evolved, if that's still a level you're operating on? Because Ilone wrote in one of her books "you're not a monkey" - IDK, I haven't understood that comment yet...

ANYWAYS I like this theory of mind; because it fits the common world view I had so far:

Things in evolution often change and appear through a process of either mutation or duplication. If you think about it, it's much easier for a gene to create multiples of something which already exists than to create something entirely new from a little vestibule to something useful...

That's also why we're kind of symmetrical, right? Two Arms, two legs, eyes, ears, symmetrical face and body. Both sides are similar, just inverted - saves a lot of energy. Think about all these animals with dozens of legs or something - no need to reinvent the wheel, or leg, every time!

So the theory is - brains evolved at some point to be useful - to project & combine the inputs of the sense organs into an image of the outside world, in order to be able to react more intelligently. Think about reptiles, but also cats and dogs maybe.

Anywho! And at some magic point, this recipe for a brain was just cooked up twice, for some genetic mutation or another.

And suddenly - whow! A whole new world! A thing which basically evolved to keep & work off of an image of the world - and now we have a second copy of it! Great!

Now we can use THAT to imagine things _just_ like we could "see" the world around us previously! Abstract thought! Look at all this space for activities! :D

-> And this is just how I imagine that. We have two hemispheres, because at some point they just got mirrored together with the rest of the body. IDK. This is probably wrong.

BUT IT STILL MAKES SENSE TO ME! :D

So we have two half brains. Or full brains. One tries to keep up with the real world, and the other is basically doing simulations and abstract thinking and stuff.

Interestingly, and maybe it's just me who never notices these things? In a vipassana retreat I learned that you can at any moment _either_ be in your head / with a thought _or_ in reality, perceiving either one or the other. Like blinking! Literally! We don't notice it, but we're in a totally different world when we're thinking about something else while we're strolling down the street.

That's just so weird to me! And really, not really obvious, it all gets mushed together again into one experience so smoothly that people don't notice how this works. Or maybe it's only me :D

ANYWAYS!

SOOO THIS WAS MY TED TALK

One - perceiving this pretty stable environment outside "me", <- AAH CAUGHT MYSELF - THAT'S WEIRD! Yes, feels like outside "me", but "Me" is part of this persistent reality too! Head, shoulders, knees and toes; lungs, blood, everything, also brain - but brain is sometimes hard to see - SOOO

There's this stable environment INCLUDING ME!!!
And then there's the space in the holodeck of my brain (I guess, brain is hard to see, as I said)
And there's also a labeling machine somewhere.

But yes, to me - often it seems - for there to be an OUTSIDE world, and the daniel world - everything "behind my eyes", so to speak.

I'll stop now and continue observing the differences between direct observation of the "real world" and direct observation of mind stuff, which isn't real stuff in the same sense.

Thank you! And see you!

[graceabounds]

Hello. :)

Great. The “cup” in imagination flickers, requires effort, comes and goes. The “real” cup persists, whether you’re thinking about it or not. So you draw the line: direct perception vs. imagination.

But even this “line” is already a mental move. The whole discussion is happening one step removed, as a story about experience, about perception. Did you catch that? Noticing it is crucial.

Let’s drop all evolutionary theory, the mind as holodeck, split hemispheres etc. These are all elegant stories, but all more “mental cups.” The structure of explanation, not the raw data.

What is actually, undeniably present, right now, without relying on memory or explanation?

Stop. Don’t answer from your head. Look.

Pick up an actual cup. Look at it. As soon as a thought arises (“This is a cup,” “I like this cup,” etc.), note it, but don’t follow. Return to just the bare seeing, the color, the play of light, shadow. Stay here.
Now, see if you can find the “observer,” the “I” that is doing the seeing. Not as a concept or a position but actually, experientially. Where is it?

Don’t tell a story about what you find. Do it and report what’s immediately present. Not what you “think” is happening, just what is actually, sensorially present, right now.

Are you willing to sit in the “don’t know”? not filling the gap with theories?

What exactly is present before the mind labels, before the story, before any commentary… when attention is just here, without effort, without expectation, without naming?

[ManicMonk]

Hello Becca!

It's late and i'm tired, i'll go to bed soon, I just wanted to report in.

I did this now twice... really sitting down with this "experiment".

What I found - besides the minds tendency to be active and running commentary basically the entire time - is this what people mean or related to when they say "you" is just a story? :)

-> Anyway - one moment I had yesterday when I tried this was, sitting here, when phasing out the mind chatter and trying to be present with what is there in the moment, who might be watching - it felt like my surroundings got more present, including outside noises... it seemed _everything_ was present with the cup, including the cup, everything. Like, everything present was present? Does that make sense?

I can't really say I figured out the whole thing yet, but I do notice that I feel different when around and out in the world - i'm more chilled and letting the story write itself, so to speak. I'm taking myself out a bit from the "i'm the main character here" - expectation I think I had before, where I always wanted to make things happen or wanted them to happen to me, for example.

Basically what I want to say is, i'm feeling a bit less "inside" of me and the rest of the world a bit more, if that makes sense.

I'll go to bed now and will gladly continue the experiment again tomorrow when I have some time.

Thank you and sleeps ye well!

[graceabounds]

Hi Daniel,

Yes it very much makes sense.

I'm taking myself out a bit from the "i'm the main character here" - expectation I think I had before, where I always wanted to make things happen or wanted them to happen to me, for example.

When you stop trying to be the main character, what’s left?
Is there any actual loss? Does anything fall apart? Or does life simply continue, just as before, only lighter?

This very simple exercise may be supportive.

Here is an exercise which examines the way in which the mind labels experience - it takes about 20 minutes and you will need a pen a paper. This exercise is broken into 10 minute lots. For each 10 minute period pay attention to any bodily sensation ie is there any tightening, or any relaxing?

For the first ten minutes write down what you are experiencing right now using the word “I”.
For example: I am sitting on a chair, I am hearing a clock ticking, I am looking at a computer screen, I am feeling hungry. Get right to the point, no past or future fantasy, just a plain description of your experience right here and now.

Then for the next ten minutes continue writing down what you are experiencing but this time without using the word “I”. Just describe the experience as it is happening using verbs. For example: sitting on a chair, typing, breathing, blinking, hearing the clock. (Again, watch what is happening in the body.)

At the end of the twenty minutes compare the two ways in which the experience was labeled and answer the following four questions:
1. Is one truer than the other, and If so, which one?
2. What is here without labels?
3. Do labels affect the experience or just describe it?
4. Did you notice any differences in the body?

-Becca

[ManicMonk]

Hello Becca!

1. Is one truer than the other, and If so, which one?

I wouldn't really know right now whether one is truer than the other. Basically - as a reader who wasn't "in" it, I think the sentences / words themselves could be judged similar enough, if one would add the "I" perspective to the second one or remove it from the first one.

On the "factual" level of describing experience they seem similar. It looks more like grammar, like a school teacher could tell the class: "Now rewrite this short story from the first person to a form where things happen on their own accord".

BUT whether the second one may be truer than the first one - because of the I and it's beingness being contested on these forums somehow - I (who?) can't really tell. It feels like it's same difference, somehow; at least on an intellectual / language level if that makes sense.

Might be that the first one is absolutely untrue because there's no I, but I can't really say that it does make a _big_ difference when describing a random perception.

2. What is here without labels?

Everything (except the labels). There's the Coffee, the screens, the typing, my phone on the table.

Smell and sounds. It's all there.

3. Do labels affect the experience or just describe it?

Yes. Especially when writing them down - there's always a moment of "listening" - feels like a Meerkat looking around for sensory input - and then a focus on the writing, on the page; then; a moment of tension and/or relaxation; then the look for the next thing to write down.

In this sense, the labelling interrupts the experiencing, in order for the label to be formed + written out; then the next experience can be gathered. It makes the whole thing "stutter", so to say, and probably, especially when writing, it's actually more like, 10% perception, then 90% writing.

Of course I'm experiencing the writing then, too. But still! Just sayin' :)

4. Did you notice any differences in the body?

Yes.

With the first one I was more tense - more attentive. I was more worried about making mistakes - and whether I was doing this right.

I felt slightly more stressed / tense in between perception -> writing down - cycles.

But I also remember there being a thought of "this is more or less like regular workday feeling", when I'm sitting on the computer, doing my things.

With the _second_ one - it felt more like a _relaxation_ into the moments between writing and perceiving. "I" felt less tense and stressed - or should I say "there were less feelings of tension and stress"... Also at some point I was observing the writing itself, happening almost by itself... and thoughts happening in tandem... without my doing, I was mostly watching. That was fun :)

So yes! The "I" seems to be an habitual addition to almost every thing I think and argue about - and it feels a bit academic to make the difference on paper - but there's a difference in the perception / "digestion" of the perception and being in the world.

So that's it! :)

Thank you very much for your time and these exercises!

Best wishes and a cozy and relaxing Christmas time coming up, if you're into that :)