Still looking...

[Kalama2305]

Okay, so if the sense of an I, can be more or less prevalent at times, would you agree that this isn't a real entity?

Because, if it was then I would be aware of it all the time...?

Possibly. It certainly undermines the idea that the I is real. But it might be that if my life is relatively stress free then there's less scuttlin' around my head and in that sense the I is just increasingly redundant. But absent?

If you close your eyes and don't refer to any memories or other thoughts, does anything suggest that there is such an I? Or perhaps is only a certain space of aliveness experienced/there?

Yes. I'd say that was true.

J

[Florisness]

Yes. I'd say that was true.

And is there any entity (found) in this space that is/can be separated from it? I'm asking if you are separated from/something different than this space

Because, if it was then I would be aware of it all the time...?

Possibly. It certainly undermines the idea that the I is real. But it might be that if my life is relatively stress free then there's less scuttlin' around my head and in that sense the I is just increasingly redundant. But absent?

Just because if something is coming and going, it can't be you, right? If the sense of I is less at a certain point, are you less at that point, or are you as much 'you' as before?
Maybe there will always be some identity, but you can know that even while a sense of identity is present, that it is just that, i.e. identity and not really what you are.

Be well,
Floris

[Kalama2305]

And is there any entity (found) in this space that is/can be separated from it? I'm asking if you are separated from/something different than this space

To be able to see a view one needs separation, distance from it no? But trying to not answer with an analogy... what construct (for want of a better word) is appreciating this sense of "oneness", of being? Perhaps that sense of an experiencer (let's not say observer) is, actually, what is meant by a sense of I.

It might not be the pinched, appropriating ego that most come to counselling/religion to get beyond. It might be a more expansive and integrated experience of self but still, could be labelled, a self. An I.

Just because if something is coming and going, it can't be you, right?

Sure, I can see that and I think we agree. If it comes and goes it's no more substantial than my occasional musings about whether I should go for a bike ride or not.

a sense of identity is present,

. Yes. I've heard this called simply 'habit energy'. Implying that it has it's own momentum but it's an habitual thought nonetheless and, no more....

[Florisness]

To be able to see a view one needs separation, distance from it no? But trying to not answer with an analogy... what construct (for want of a better word) is appreciating this sense of "oneness", of being? Perhaps that sense of an experiencer (let's not say observer) is, actually, what is meant by a sense of I.

Well, that's a logical deduction that there is an experiencer that experiences the experienced. A very common belief is this subject object split 'I see a car', 'I hear a sound', etc. But if you check this with your experience then what is found? The only thing you can say is 'there is the experienced', or 'there is experience', or perhaps even better, because it takes out the need for a subject: 'there is experiencing'. Or you could say something like 'there is a field of experiencing/knowing/awareing'. Can you find more than experiencing?
Maybe there is a sense of being an observer, an observer identity so to speak, but isn't this identity/thoughts/feelings just part of the field of experiencing?

Sure, I can see that and I think we agree. If it comes and goes it's no more substantial than my occasional musings about whether I should go for a bike ride or not.

And what brings up this sense of self most strongly? Is it a specific thought, or multiple specific thoughts, something else? Perhaps you can pull up different thoughts and see what happens, like what thoughts bring up this sense of self most strongly?


Be well,
Floris

[Kalama2305]

And what brings up this sense of self most strongly? Is it a specific thought, or multiple specific thoughts, something else? Perhaps you can pull up different thoughts and see what happens, like what thoughts bring up this sense of self most strongly?

That's a good idea. I have a few ideas already but let's go for the actual experience 😂

On the first part of your last reply - and I'll admit this is not based experientially but is rather a question that at least intellectually works against my accepting the notion that there is no experiencer... Feel free to ignore if want. (BTW yes, I agree that I can't find a persistent, substantive I in my experience)

Imagine a self-driving car. It can also be said to be hyper-aware of it's surroundings using a range of sensory data and clearly even makes decisions on where to go and when to stop etc. it certainly appears to experience things and make decisions but humans think of themselves as apart from machines like this and - to put a point on it - would try their utmost to rescue a human from the crusher in a way they would not for a Tesla - at least the kind of people I'd like to be associated with. If you accept - because you have to based on your experience - that there is only experiencing and decision making without a core "I" then what makes you in a separate category from a smart car?

[Kalama2305]

That's a good idea. I have a few ideas already but let's go for the actual experience

By which I mean, I'll try this over the next few hours and see what I experience...

[Florisness]

That's a good idea. I have a few ideas already but let's go for the actual experience 😂

Haha, amusing to see you added the second part of that last sentence ;-)

On the first part of your last reply - and I'll admit this is not based experientially but is rather a question that at least intellectually works against my accepting the notion that there is no experiencer... Feel free to ignore if want. (BTW yes, I agree that I can't find a persistent, substantive I in my experience)

Oh no I wouldn't want to ignore that. I can understand that sometimes it seems really hard to wrap your mind around something, but I would say that sometimes that's the case because the 'trying to wrap your mind around something' happens on top of an assumption that makes that so challenging.

Imagine a self-driving car. It can also be said to be hyper-aware of it's surroundings using a range of sensory data and clearly even makes decisions on where to go and when to stop etc. it certainly appears to experience things and make decisions but humans think of themselves as apart from machines like this and - to put a point on it - would try their utmost to rescue a human from the crusher in a way they would not for a Tesla - at least the kind of people I'd like to be associated with. If you accept - because you have to based on your experience - that there is only experiencing and decision making without a core "I" then what makes you in a separate category from a smart car?

And I would say that that assumption, just pops out right here poking me in the eye. So I'll address it. Because this story you just wrote to me suggest that you see yourself as a body, correct? Otherwise, why make the association with the smart car.

Please take a look at the body you call yours or you. Or maybe, you could even stand in front of the mirror if you wish. Please don't do this just in your mind, but really try to do this more experiential. And to be clear, I wouldn't even say it's a body, but rather an experience/perception/appearance, but I'll just keep using conventional language here. Now if you're looking at that body, also notice other objects and acknowledge (if this feels true for you) that you're or have been associating or attributing a notion of awareness/ability to be aware/ability to perceive/perception faculty/etc to that body, to that bodyappearance. Is that what has been happening? Have you been association the notion of being alive to the body? Or better said, to this perception/experience/appearance? Would you then agree that ideas of being aware and being alive have been attributed to a part from the whole field of experiencing that we could call the bodyappearance? But if you look at the experience you call body and look at other appearences/objects, isn't all experience on the same foot? Is an experience, an appearance, experiencing, living and being aware?

I'll give you how I see it, but please don't just decide to believe me or take it as true, but perhaps you can see if you can find a resonance with the words. There is a field of experiencing here. Or there is a field of knowing, a field of awareness/awaring. Or even get rid of the word field there. There isn't a notion of something being alive here, not a belief of something that is living and being aware. Not a notion of an entity here. Not the notion of an I here, at least not as that word is commenly used. Rather, if you would want to use the concept of entity, or I, self, being or such, I don't exclude anything that is found here as being separate from those concepts. This whole thing could be called I/self/being/myself/awareness/consciousness/life. But what most 'people' do is they draw a line, a boundary and say, this 'thing' here is not me, that is outside me, and this here is me or this is in me. But when really looking, then is such a boundary really found?

at least the kind of people I'd like to be associated with.

That had me smile


Looking forward to you response,
Floris

[Locutus1452]

Floris

Hi. Just a holding message. Had a busy few days with an impromptu visitor. Will likely reply tomorrow.

J x

[Florisness]

All good, thank you for your reply.

[Kalama2305]

Now if you're looking at that body, also notice other objects and acknowledge (if this feels true for you) that you're or have been associating or attributing a notion of awareness/ability to be aware/ability to perceive/perception faculty/etc to that body, to that bodyappearance.

So. I stood in front of a mirror and tried to think or should I say experience myself and my surroundings with a more 'loose' perception (words here are so clumsy).

Yes. I do experience my image as me. I'm aware of my surroundings and feel more or less 'tight' about this depending on how pre-occupied I might be by the usual comings and goings in my head. But when I raise a hand it does appear to be because I decide to. I can't make the mirror move by deciding to. There's someone in the kitchen right now and although they are conscious like me I've no idea what they're thinking about. So my 'agency' over my body and the otherness of other people's thinking both create the basis for my identifying with this body. This is necessarily more pronounced in this experiment because I'm determinedly thinking about it, or playing with the edges of my experience. So, to be sure, if I was, say, sitting in a chair maybe reading or listening to something and casually, quickly brought to mind my sense of self and surroundings then the edges or identification with self would be a lot looser.

It's like the inspection or focus of attention - like making decisions - that seems to collapse a more diffuse sense of self and makes it edges and boundaries more distinct....

J

[Florisness]

Hi there infinite no-thing,

Okay, my attempt was to get you aware of your belief in being a body. With the intent that it would bring you naturally to question that assumption. I’m going to continue this. I’m not having anything against conventional language use, but before I’m going to let you away with such language I first like to get you to see that it isn’t very truthful.

So. I stood in front of a mirror and tried to think or should I say experience myself and my surroundings with a more 'loose' perception (words here are so clumsy).

so, [YOU stood before a mirror] and noticed [YOUR surroundings]. Is it correct that you thought these two parts that I ‘bracketed’ were true because you think you’re a body and associate yourself with the bodyappearance?

Yes. I do experience my image as me

If you hold a belief, experience will appear in such a way that it is aligned with such a belief. You think of that appearance/image as you, and the experience looks convincing to you hence you say that you experience it as you. However you also say it is YOUR image, and thereby say that it is not you, so then what is that I (can it be found?) that the image would belong to?

But when I raise a hand it does appear to be because I decide to.

uhu. If you describe that experience of the hand raising including the choice/decision as good as you can by describing experience only, then what would your description be?

I can't make the mirror move by deciding to

sure, I understand. but that doesn’t prove much, the mirror is just as much you as any other appearance either way

There's someone in the kitchen right now and although they are conscious like me I've no idea what they're thinking about.

okay, pay close attention to this one. If you would look at that other, you could perhaps agree to that that what you’re looking at could also be called experience/perception. Is that perception, that experience really another? If you close the eyes that experience is gone, I’d that experience would be another, another would have died. Is it true that you have been, probably for quite a while now, been cutting parts out from the wholeness of your very ‘own’ experience (although it’s more accurate to label it ‘yourself’) and have associated things like it being another or other objects, and have been throwing concepts such as ‘this is a alive/aware being’ onto your experience, while all the while it has been ’just’ experience and nothing more?

or playing with the edges of my experience

okay the last thing I’m going to respond to, was curious to your reaction to the following. If you sit and close your eyes, and try to find an edge of the experience, can it be found/is it there?

Wishing you well,
Floris

[Kalama2305]

so, [YOU stood before a mirror] and noticed [YOUR surroundings]. Is it correct that you thought these two parts that I ‘bracketed’ were true because you think you’re a body and associate yourself with the bodyappearance?

Well... you did ask for my experience 😄
I'm not going to going to use borrowed language that doesn't reflect what I experience - that would be inauthentic.

If you hold a belief, experience will appear in such a way that it is aligned with such a belief.

As a general point I do get this. What passes for contemporary political debate tells me that! But clearly there are limits. No amount of belief is going to make me look like Brad Pitt, unfortunately. So I'm thinking you have something more subtle in mind and I get that too - at least theoretically. I say 'theoretically because otherwise, I would be in here as a guide and not a "seeker".

as good as you can by describing experience only, then what would your description be?

I decide to raise my hand and up it goes. One follows the other. I have no proof or experience that one caused the other but notwithstanding philosophers from David Hume onwards - yes, it's an assumption that "I did it"!

the mirror is just as much you as any other appearance either way

Well, that begs the, as yet, unproven insight that there's no essential difference between me and the mirror as simple objects of experience. It's certainly not my current experience. In fact it's so far from it that I struggle to see what it means. I experience - even if it's in a deluded way - agency over my body in a way I do not over the mirror.

If you would look at that other, you could perhaps agree to that that what you’re looking at could also be called experience/perception. Is that perception, that experience really another?

I'm not sure what you're getting at here and I'd rather not guess and give a misleading answer to the question at the end...can you expand or clarify?

If you close the eyes that experience is gone, I’d that experience would be another, another would have died.

Are you suggesting that people "die" or drop out of existence when I'm not aware of them?

Is it true that you have been, probably for quite a while now, been cutting parts out from the wholeness of your very ‘own’ experience (although it’s more accurate to label it ‘yourself’) and have associated things like it being another or other objects, and have been throwing concepts such as ‘this is a alive/aware being’ onto your experience, while all the while it has been ’just’ experience and nothing more?

I guess you think this is so but without some change on my behalf, I'm not sure how to bridge the apparent gap.

If you sit and close your eyes, and try to find an edge of the experience, can it be found/is it there?

If I reflect on it, yes. I'm able to say "I can see this/that but no further". I can hear things - clatter of a knife on a plate in the kitchen some yards away as I write - but not, say, the radio probably still playing in an upstairs room that was on around 10 minutes ago.

BTW apologies for the delay in replying. My daughter got into a serious scrape the other night and it needed a lot of attention.

All the best

J

[Florisness]

Good day to you,

Well... you did ask for my experience 😄
I'm not going to going to use borrowed language that doesn't reflect what I experience - that would be inauthentic.

Yes I did. I would suggest that you felt it was true for you that you are the body. This is what you believe

As a general point I do get this. What passes for contemporary political debate tells me that! But clearly there are limits. No amount of belief is going to make me look like Brad Pitt, unfortunately. So I'm thinking you have something more subtle in mind and I get that too - at least theoretically. I say 'theoretically because otherwise, I would be in here as a guide and not a "seeker".

Yes, I would say there are some limits, but they may be less than you think. However, I did mean it more that the thought you choose has a certain energy or awareness and it will therefore express in your experience. With the example of being Brad Pitt, the energy that that thought would have for you would become part of you(r consciousness), and doesn't have to do so much in the way I meant with the body changing form. For example, if you look at your hand you may belief that first and foremost it is a hand, but that also it is yours. True? But it also creates an experience that reflects that, the experience you call hand may have a certain quality of 'meness' to it, true? But could the hand (and the whole body for that matter) also be seen as just a hand, without there having to be a notion of it belonging to something? If you would change your thought about that, you might see a shift in your experience, where what you call the body is experienced more depersonal. Would you agree that ownership is a concept (and at times a useful one) that we have agreed on, but it's not a thing that really exists? How about thoughts, probably you will say 'these are mine thoughts', however, could they also be seen as just thoughts, not belonging to something? And can you find anything it could possibly belong to?

I decide to raise my hand and up it goes. One follows the other. I have no proof or experience that one caused the other but notwithstanding philosophers from David Hume onwards - yes, it's an assumption that "I did it"!

Well yes thank you. If you believe that one follows the other, it might create for you a feeling that that is so. I'm not saying that feelings shouldn't be listened to, but perhaps we could say that some feelings can be trusted, and some feelings are caused by thoughts/beliefs. Now, if you think of watching a movie and see on it someone throwing a ball and it breaks a glass. Perhaps someone sees you watching this movie and asks 'why did the glass break', 'well' you say 'this guy threw a ball'. Okay that's useful language, but perhaps you agree that your experience of that movie you may call 'the glass breaking' wasn't really caused by the ball that was thrown. Right? It would be more accurate to say, there was this frame of the movie, then this, then this, etc, and none of these frames caused the other frame. None of the frames really being connected to another frame even though we may think of the movie as a continuity of moving and evolving characters and things, but that is actually not really so, right? If you compare this movie analogy to your experience, isn't this just the same? Isn't experience just whatever it is, and you're adding the idea of this caused this and continuity to it? Perhaps you may find it easier to come to some sense of acceptability of that idea by seeing experiencing as a series of frames. Maybe you're having a thought that the text you're reading is caused by someone writing it and pressing on the 'submit' button, but perhaps you can recognize that's just a story and not actually true? Is the experience you call 'this text' really caused by anything outside your experience? Or perhaps these are all just stories without any evidence that this is actually so at all?

Well, that begs the, as yet, unproven insight that there's no essential difference between me and the mirror as simple objects of experience. It's certainly not my current experience. In fact it's so far from it that I struggle to see what it means. I experience - even if it's in a deluded way - agency over my body in a way I do not over the mirror.

I understand. And I understand that you say 'It's certainly not my current experience'. However, I would suggest that actually IT IS your current experience even though your experience might not appear and feel in a way that are reflective or representative of the truth of the matter, because your beliefs result in you experiencing a experience/reflection/representation that expresses the beliefs in hereness and thereness, a meness and otherness, etc. I say that so you might appreciate more the notion that the sense of your whole reality, that you're a individual in a physical world, is like a sort of mentally/thought resulted experience.

I'm not sure what you're getting at here and I'd rather not guess and give a misleading answer to the question at the end...can you expand or clarify?

I mean that the experience you might call another/your spouse/dog/etc isn't actually another. To make it simpler, what you're experience in the field of seeing could be called colors, yes? And so if 'another' appears in the visual field, can we call that other (for now) a bunch of colors? It could be called different than colors, but it serves the job here. Now, are those colors really another being? Being if the eyes close, those colors are 'gone'/'died', did another being die? Of course not, because you're not experiencing others. Agreed?

I guess you think this is so but without some change on my behalf, I'm not sure how to bridge the apparent gap.

Sorry, didn't understand this. Could you try again?

If I reflect on it, yes. I'm able to say "I can see this/that but no further". I can hear things - clatter of a knife on a plate in the kitchen some yards away as I write - but not, say, the radio probably still playing in an upstairs room that was on around 10 minutes ago.

Okay I understand. But then you're a bit focused on the content of your experience, and not so much experience itself. Can you close your eyes and move your attention to an edge, to where attention can't reach anymore, to a border of experience itself? Is such a boundary (found) there? And if it's not there, could your experiencing be called boundless?

BTW apologies for the delay in replying. My daughter got into a serious scrape the other night and it needed a lot of attention.

All good.

Wishing you well,

[Kalama2305]

There are quite a lot of questions there ... some possibly that are rhetorical i.e. that you were not particularly expecting an answer. Which is fine.

I guess you think this is so but without some change on my behalf, I'm not sure how to bridge the apparent gap.

I'll try and explain. There's some points I could debate , focussing mostly on how reductionism ("so if 'another' appears in the visual field, can we call that other (for now) a bunch of colors") - IMHO - has its limits. Morally and intellectually.

I think I sense - you'll correct me if I'm wrong - some degree of frustration on your part on my not seeing things as you describe them. Whilst I started debating some of these points in early exchanges I'm not sure that what we're engaged in is - ultimately - an intellectual endeavour. Perhaps I've progressed 😅

I would propose that we focus more on practical exercises that can lead to the insight you describe rather than descriptions of 'how it really is' that can be debated or misunderstood. Can you see what I'm getting at?

J

[Florisness]

There are quite a lot of questions there ... some possibly that are rhetorical i.e. that you were not particularly expecting an answer.

Actually, I often do want your responses on a lot of these, so I can see where you're at.

I'll try and explain. There's some points I could debate , focussing mostly on how reductionism ("so if 'another' appears in the visual field, can we call that other (for now) a bunch of colors") - IMHO - has its limits. Morally and intellectually.

Okay. My intention wasn't quite for you to think, debate or agree that 'the other is a bunch of color'. The word choice of 'a bunch of color' was just meant to get you to look at experience in a way that is different than looking at experience 'through the thought' that objects/things are seen, as to loosen that old belief/old way of seeing up. When trying/doing seeing 'through the thought' of looking at colors, you might come to the sense that this is actually a bit more of a truthful way of looking/thinking/experiencing, because fewer concepts of things get overlain onto the experience.

I think I sense - you'll correct me if I'm wrong - some degree of frustration on your part on my not seeing things as you describe them. Whilst I started debating some of these points in early exchanges I'm not sure that what we're engaged in is - ultimately - an intellectual endeavour. Perhaps I've progressed 😅

Maybe what didn't communicate well is that I don't really intent you to debate or agree with what I'm saying, but often rather to use what I'm saying as a pointer to look at experience in a new (less conceptual resulted) way, so certain concepts/ideas/assumptions will be undone. The pointing isn't really meant as a truth or so (because I can only communicate with concepts), but more of a temporary tool (such as the 'bunch of color' thingy). Yes, sometimes indeed I felt some frustration when I saw an answer that to me appeared more mind-based than I was intending for.

I would propose that we focus more on practical exercises that can lead to the insight you describe rather than descriptions of 'how it really is' that can be debated or misunderstood. Can you see what I'm getting at?

I understand and hear you. Let me see what I can cook up:-)

If you look for something (an experience thus) which you stick the label a you/person/self on, then do you find such a thing/experience? In all that's experienced/found here, is such a thing here/found?
Pretty much the same question, but delivered a bit differently: can you find any place or thing where a separate you/self lives?
If not -and I know the answer is no- then that is the same as saying no separate self/person/I is actually experienced, yes? Maybe thoughts of one, perhaps feelings aligned with the thoughts of there being one, but not actually one, right? Has it ever been?

Wishing you well