The Gate

Hi Paul.

On reconsideration, as I went on to suggest in my last post, it is, rather, the sense of Paul (thought, physical and awareness, you could say) that is different at each point. A sense of Paul, but a different sense of Paul, like water, but different water.

Well phrased, and spot on. In my experience there is no stable reality/actuality, the moment only consists of cycles of growth and decay, all bound together in to a story or model by thought.

Similarly, if that Paul is not the pinpoint-present Paul, then that Paul is also no longer here.

Great, now you're getting it. In my experience nothing exists outside the present moment, as you so wonderfully put it - the pinpoint present.

No, but previously were discussing a river rather than water

Any observable flow of change will do.

... but when DE exhibits the first thoughts that come to mind, the content of these thoughts can be incorrect as with the matter of what a river or a Paul actually is or would be in DE. I'm not being that clear. Do you see what I mean?

Yes, I understand now, thanks for clarifying Paul.

Really? You saw a picture of a car in the picture of the car? I thought I was adhering to the precise wording of your question.

OK, that gave me a chuckle :) The learning point here was that many people, when you show them a picture of a car and ask them what they see in the picture will respond - 'a car', whereas as you see, it's just a picture of a car. It shows how the mind can sometimes take cognitive short cuts and see things which aren't actually there in actuality - but you knew that already :)

Paul, thanks for posting regularly and for engaging so wholeheartedly in this dialogue, it's that engagement that will make all the difference,

I'll leave you to look at the pointers in my last posting for now, Paulo.

Hi Paulo

Paul, thanks for posting regularly and for engaging so wholeheartedly in this dialogue, it's that engagement that will make all the difference,

And thank you for this wonderful service that you are providing. It's terrific having you guide this inquiry and the quality and frequency of your posting is helping so much to maintain a good level of momentum and intensity.

this brings more sharply into focus the matter of whether by 'Paul' we mean a temporally persistent and spatially consistent phenomenon, like a conventionally understood 'river', or a momentary phenomenon, like the zen river.


That's a great point, and I think it could be of value to examine it in more detail.

Which of the above 'Pauls' actually exist - the persistent and consistent experience, or the momentary experience?

Let's see. There seems to be something like an assumption somewhere in the present Paul that the consistent and persistent Paul also presently exists along with or as a feature of the present Paul or even that the present Paul is a part of the consistently and persistently experienced Paul. Do actual past Pauls exist in or as a feature of the present Paul? Yes, in that all Pauls share in relatively consistent and persistent physical and mental qualities. What about the consistent and persistent awareness/experience aspect of what we are calling Paul? Does that exist presently? Yes, in that the present sense of Paul does not seem to differ too radically from previous Paul's sense of Paul. The sense of Paul persists. But the question is whether the consistent and persistent experience of Paul actually exists. There can only be one experience of Paul per moment. But that one experience could consist of or include the thought or the assumption that the present experience is in many significant ways a continuation of older Pauls rather than a wholly new Paul.

Mmm - not much clarity of answer emerging here. Let's consider the exercise with the plant:

Here's an exercise to help you in your consideration of the above question -

Find a plant with leaves on it, any size will do, indoors or outdoors, doesn't matter. Look at a number of different leaves in the plant in turn. Notice that each of them is slightly different - different coloring, shaped slightly different, different sizes, etc. We call each of them leaves, instead of 'leaf no.1', 'leaf no.2', 'leaf no.3', etc. even though there is not one of them that is alike.

Okay - I notice these differences between the leaves which I hadn't consciously focused on before. I'm not sure, though, that we call each of them 'leaves', as you say. Rather, I think we say 'leaves' to refer to the collection of individual leaves. I would agree that we might commonly point to each one and say something like 'that's a leaf', that's another leaf' and so on, when in actual fact the leaves are not all the same. We would use the same word for what were actually distinct and differing things, albeit sharing a relatively high degree of similarity. And I assume that this is what you are getting at with this example.

Consider if the word 'leaf' is a cognitive shortcut, which means we overlook the ACTUAL leaves? (Not seeing the wood for the trees, so to speak - sorry, couldn't resist that one!)

Yes, I think we do overlook the actual leaves. We typically just see a bunch of similar leaves and move on. Is it because the word 'leaf' is a cognitive shortcut that we overlook the actual leaves? I'm not sure if that is exactly what you are suggesting. I'm not sure if that as an explanation matters right now.

In the case of not seeing the wood for the trees, I thought that this typically meant that we don't see the whole because we are focused on the particulars. The way you are using the expression here as an analogy for not seeing each leaf because we are focused on the whole, seems to be an inversion of the typical meaning, ie. we don't see the particulars for the whole. Perhaps, you mean we don't see the actual details of wood as a material (rather than wood as 'forest') because we just see trees consisting of similar but distinct manifestations of wood. Anyway, not sure that exactly what you mean matters right now either. Perhaps using this inverted meaning will be useful later on because sometimes maybe we don't see what, in another sense, actually exists as a whole because we are focused on particulars. Anyway ...

Consider also if the label/concept/convention 'Paul' is similarly a cognitive shortcut, describing something that is ACTUALLY different (albeit similar) from moment to moment.

Yes, there is typically not really a seeing of the details of present experience. There is an assumption that is not usually conscious that the present Paul is largely an instance of the consistent and persistent Paul. The points of difference are noticed to some extent but it does not occur to Paul that these are significant or sufficient to undermine the 'operating assumption', and thereby 'sense', that the present Paul is essentially a continuation of previous Pauls which together form a singular consistent and persistent Paul that actually exists. The reality being suggested, though, is that the present Paul is essentially a distinct object (in physical, mental and awareness apsects) from previous Pauls. This in the same way that each leaf of a plant is a distinct object or expression or manifesation from other leaves, albeit sharing a common source.

If we want an analogy that works more clearly to illustrate the disctinctiveness of each Paul, it might be better to choose that of trees and a forest. For the plant/leaves analogy leaves open the possibility that the leaves are all fundamentally connected and part of a whole, whereas the forest/tree analogy is less susceptible because physical connection is far more tenuous. But perhaps the different senses of Paul are actually somehow joined and so plant/leaf could be more appropriate depending on what is actually the case.

Okay, I'm pretty happy that in theory there's a good analogy here. Let's see if it unfolds in actual experience!

Paul

Hi Paul,

Yikes, it seems you're back into 'thinking ABOUT actuality' mode. Let's get you out of there, pronto!

The analogy of the leaves, the river, the past and present Pauls were all pointing towards one thing, I hope it hasn't passed you by.

What did these exercises/analogies point to?
(One sentence response please).

Thanks, Paulo.

Yikes, it seems you're back into 'thinking ABOUT actuality' mode. Let's get you out of there, pronto!

Well, you did ask me to consider some ideas such as these analogies and I thought I was also looking in the present to some extent to see what was going on.

The analogy of the leaves, the river, the past and present Pauls were all pointing towards one thing, I hope it hasn't passed you by.

What did these exercises/analogies point to?
(One sentence response please).

They pointed toward the absence of a singular continuous Paul and to the newness of each moment.

Thanks Paul,

Well, you did ask me to consider some ideas such as these analogies and I thought I was also looking in the present to some extent to see what was going on.

Maybe I should have clarified. 'Consider' here means comparing a proposition/statement/theory to your own lived experience in the moment - putting it to the test so to speak.

What I'm encouraging you to do is to BE in the moment in Direct Experience, that's all. When we drift into 'thinking about' actuality we can very easily get lost in a labyrinth of virtual constructs, especially if Direct Experience is a new way of looking at the world. The virtual world of thought can sometimes be all too tempting.

They pointed toward the absence of a singular continuous Paul and to the newness of each moment.

Perfect, and I liked your previous phrasing of this also, about the 'pinpoint' in the moment.

I know Deezer had posed this question for you before, but from your current position, and looking at your own lived experience in the moment -

Is there anything that exists outside the present moment?

Cheers, Paulo.

Hi Paulo

Well, you did ask me to consider some ideas such as these analogies and I thought I was also looking in the present to some extent to see what was going on.


Maybe I should have clarified. 'Consider' here means comparing a proposition/statement/theory to your own lived experience in the moment - putting it to the test so to speak.

What I'm encouraging you to do is to BE in the moment in Direct Experience, that's all. When we drift into 'thinking about' actuality we can very easily get lost in a labyrinth of virtual constructs, especially if Direct Experience is a new way of looking at the world. The virtual world of thought can sometimes be all too tempting.

That's a helpful clarification of how you are using 'consider' - kind of toggling between the idea and the actual?

I know Deezer had posed this question for you before, but from your current position, and looking at your own lived experience in the moment -

Is there anything that exists outside the present moment?

Not that I can see.

And just to get clearer on this for myself: Thought in the present moment can be about other times and/or other places but such thoughts are happening now in this place. The other times/places that are thought about can not be seen to exist now and here. The other times/places thought about in the present are not the actual other times and places but mental representations of them.

Paul

Hi Paul,

That's a helpful clarification of how you are using 'consider' - kind of toggling between the idea and the actual?

Apologies, would have been helpful if I'd made that clearer sooner perhaps :)

Not that I can see.

And just to get clearer on this for myself: Thought in the present moment can be about other times and/or other places but such thoughts are happening now in this place. The other times/places that are thought about can not be seen to exist now and here. The other times/places thought about in the present are not the actual other times and places but mental representations of them.

Perfect - clear, and focused in the moment! In my experience too, we can have thoughts ABOUT the past, present or future, but all those thoughts happen in the present. As you say, they are only representations of various scenarios, not the actual scenarios themselves.

What exactly IS found in the moment?

Paulo.

What exactly IS found in the moment?

Whatever's happening.

Whatever's happening.

What exactly IS happening?

Paulo

Hi Paulo

Whatever's happening.

What exactly IS happening?

I take it you mean in the moment generally, rather than just in this particular moment.

If it is the latter, then I could describe various features of current experience, but this would remain an account of what is happening in the moment and would not convey the exact happenings.

If it is the former, which I suspect is what you mean, I am not sure of an answer. The question suggests reducing an answer to the essential and precise rather than the elaborate and vague.

I could say:

the actual,
what is,
I am,
awareness.

As labels, none of these convey the actuality to which they point.

What is happening in the moment is always unique. Unique to me as I am unique to it.

Paul

Hi Paul,

I take it you mean in the moment generally, rather than just in this particular moment.

What distinguishes 'the moment generally' from 'this particular moment' in your experience?

the actual, what is, I am, awareness.

A little too abstract, take another look in the moment, and share what is experienced.

What is happening in the moment is always unique. Unique to me as I am unique to it.

What do you mean by 'me' in that context?

What is happening in the moment is always unique. Unique to me as I am unique to it.

Well said.

Paulo.

Hi Paulo,

I take it you mean in the moment generally, rather than just in this particular moment.


What distinguishes 'the moment generally' from 'this particular moment' in your experience?

In this particular moment I am doing particular things such as typing. To say 'particular moment' in this sense is an abstraction in that it really takes several particular moments for happenings to play out, eg. I can distinguish a moment where the fingers move and another where the keys are struck.

The 'particular moment'' is an abstraction in another sense in that there is no actual experience of a sequence of moments, rather, there is experience of a continuous flow of happenings.

It is possible, in thought, to recall a particular happening and say that it happened at such and such a moment, but that way of speaking only seems to be a convenience.

'The moment generally' is an abstraction in the sense that each moment is unique in that something different, albeit very similar, from what happened or will happen in other moments, is happening.

But in another sense, 'the moment generally' describes actual experience in that, in the idea, there is no artificial breaking up of the experience of continuous flow.

The expression also might point to the common denominator or essence of 'each point' in experience by suggesting that there is a persistent and consistent quality that is happening continually.

the actual, what is, I am, awareness.


A little too abstract, take another look in the moment, and share what is experienced.

Nothing, silence or stillness.

There are happenings that come and go such as sounds, sights and sensations. Even breathing can be momentarily stopped. But underlying all that, there is a consistent something. A presence, a nature, of which all things partake, in which all things consist.

But I wonder if that is too abstract a description for what you are getting at. And maybe that is only experienced when the environment and mind are relatively quiet. I am also aware that I am drawing on concepts I have heard elsewhere, although perhaps in looking in the moment, I also see something of what they are pointing to.

What is happening in the moment is always unique. Unique to me as I am unique to it.


What do you mean by 'me' in that context?

As the one experiencing the moment, I am new in each moment, as we suggested with the previous exercises with the leaves of the plant, the trees and the Pauls.

I am using 'me' as a convenience, then, because a 'new me' is not really a 'me' if by 'me' we mean a consistent and persistent entity to which new things occur. For something that is persistent and consistent is something that is the same, unchanging, or old, whereas something that is unique is something that is different, that has and sets no precendent, and is new.

But when I used 'me' I was speaking conventionally in that I was taking a consistent and persistent me to be an actual reality, and the unique me to be a new/different version of the old/same thing. Different in some ways but essentially the same.

Paul

Hi Paul,

In this particular moment I am doing particular things such as typing. To say 'particular moment' in this sense is an abstraction in that it really takes several particular moments for happenings to play out, eg. I can distinguish a moment where the fingers move and another where the keys are struck.

The 'particular moment'' is an abstraction in another sense in that there is no actual experience of a sequence of moments, rather, there is experience of a continuous flow of happenings.

Very well articulated, it seems you can see that what we call the moment (conventionally) is actually a series of moments, an abstraction, an illusion.

'The moment generally' is an abstraction in the sense that each moment is unique in that something different, albeit very similar, from what happened or will happen in other moments, is happening.

Great, I understand, it's that pinpoint moment we discussed previously.

In your investigations of either type of moment, did you find an entity called self anywhere?

Nothing, silence or stillness.

I'm not buying it, sounds a little twee.

There are happenings that come and go such as sounds, sights and sensations.

Now we're getting there.

Even breathing can be momentarily stopped

Why? Isn't breathing what's happening in the moment if breathing is taking place?

But underlying all that, there is a consistent something. A presence, a nature, of which all things partake, in which all things consist.

Is there really a 'something', and actual 'thing', or is there simply awareness of what's happening?

But when I used 'me' I was speaking conventionally in that I was taking a consistent and persistent me to be an actual reality,

And is a consistent and persistent me an actual reality?

Paulo.

Hi Paulo,

In your investigations of either type of moment, did you find an entity called self anywhere?

I take the experiencing subject to be self. I do not find self but there is an assumption that there is someone doing the investigating of the moment and that that someone is me.

Even breathing can be momentarily stopped

Why? Isn't breathing what's happening in the moment if breathing is taking place?

Breathing was/is happening in the moment. My point was that I could hold my breath for a short while and therefore that breathing is not essential to, or necessarily happening in, the moment. It had occurred to me prior to that apparent insight that breathing was actually something of a constant in the moment. Considering it now, I suppose that breathing is still happening even when the breath is being held, in that to hold the breath is just an extension of one part of the movement of the breath, and if it is being held then breathing being held is happening. So it seems there is no escape from some aspect of breathing happening in the moment, every moment.

But underlying all that, there is a consistent something. A presence, a nature, of which all things partake, in which all things consist.

Is there really a 'something', and actual 'thing', or is there simply awareness of what's happening?

Not a limited 'thing', no. Yes, just awareness, as you say.

But when I used 'me' I was speaking conventionally in that I was taking a consistent and persistent me to be an actual reality,

And is a consistent and persistent me an actual reality?

'Something' is consistent and persistent and we seem to be saying that it's not an actual thing but awareness of what's happening. I take or assume that awareness to be essential to who or what I am - to me. Without an awareness of what's happening, I can't see how I would continue to be any more than an observable entity to others with awareness. Having no awareness of my own would be the end of me as an experiencing subject.

I can't see how to get away from the apparent fact that awareness is a constant and one that always seems to be found in conjunction with this particular body.

I can see that sensations, thoughts and happenings in experience come and go but I can't see that this body comes and goes. It changes, yes, but it retains a high degree of persistence and consistency. Thoughts and feelings seem to reoccur and develop along very much non-random lines as well. All of this packaged together with awareness is what I assume to be me.

Maybe in DE such a me is not found but DE is not always happening.

Paul

Hi Paul,

I take the experiencing subject to be self

And what is experiencing the experiencing subject to know it exists?

I can't see how to get away from the apparent fact that awareness is a constant and one that always seems to be found in conjunction with this particular body.

Indeed, look at a time when there is no awareness - such as in deep sleep at night, or under aesthetic on the operating table. In my experience, the body and awareness are intimately connected.

I can see that sensations, thoughts and happenings in experience come and go but I can't see that this body comes and goes. It changes, yes, but it retains a high degree of persistence and consistency. Thoughts and feelings seem to reoccur and develop along very much non-random lines as well. All of this packaged together with awareness is what I assume to be me.

The question of a separate self is that there is an entity/soul/spirit separate from the body, controlling it, shaping thought. Look at Decartes famous cogito ergo sum - 'I think therefore I am'. Let's rephrase that without the 'I' in place - 'think therefore am'.

Does Descarte's statement need an 'I' in there to be valid?

Does awareness need a subject to be aware, or is the subject itself part of awareness/experience?

Take a closer look at those thoughts and feelings in the moment -

Are they automatic reactions to what's happening in the moment (physical sensations, other thoughts, feelings, interactions with others), or are they being orchestrated by an entity separate from it all?

To look at that more closely - think of a pink elephant - Was there an 'I' there choosing the exact shade of pink, size, species of elephant? (remember to look at the first elephant that appears).

Maybe in DE such a me is not found but DE is not always happening.

Take a look at that statement more closely - does direct experience turn on and off, or does awareness simply shift to thought (indirect experience)?


I've given you a lot to look at there, as I will be away on business for the next day or two with limited internet access. Keep looking and inquiring (and posting) for yourself until I return, and remember to always look in the moment at what's happening in your own direct experience.

Thanks, Paulo.