In need of direct pointing-out instruction

[Aphorism8]

I think that is THE question (do I know how to look?).

My answer is........maybe???

Should I describe it to you as best I can?

[Canfora]

YES! Please do. Describe what you do when you are trying to look.

For instance... if I ask you to see if there is a you making the hands move right now, what do you do?

[Aphorism8]

Directly observing the hands moving (typing), all that can be seen is that the hands are moving. From the observing perspective, the movement just happens; there is no detectable 'internal' initiation of the movement, or felt impulse that precedes the movement of the hands. They just type. There is awareness of the hands typing. That is all.

[Canfora]

Yes, that is looking. Looking is noticing and describing what can be perceived.
So you didn't found a separate you? What does that tell you about the existence of a subject?

[Aphorism8]

Trying to stick with just what is observed, which you know I still struggle with! Wherever there's 'subjectivity,' there are also objects. The typing hands and the computer are seen right now, and there is no perceivable "typer" doing the typing. But I’m not sure it's accurate to say there is awareness/subjectivity on the one hand, and the objects of aware ness on the other; they always seem to go together, so it doesn’t seem to actually mean anything to speak of subject vs. object.

[Canfora]

Trying to stick with just what is observed, which you know I still struggle with!

If I ask you to pick a book and describe the cover, will you struggle with my request?
If you think about it and try to do it using memory, sure, you will struggle.
But if you look and simply describe, will you struggle?

The typing hands and the computer are seen right now, and there is no perceivable "typer" doing the typing.

Okay.

But I’m not sure it's accurate to say there is awareness/subjectivity on the one hand, and the objects of aware ness on the other; they always seem to go together, so it doesn’t seem to actually mean anything to speak of subject vs. object.

You are trying to understand. Trying to understand makes you shift into thinking, instead of seeing things as they are.

Try this exercise and let me know how it goes:

Go to a comfortable place, sit or lie down, relax, close your eyes and think about you, like if you were in a cinema, seeing your favorite movie.
Make the story of you as real as possible: you are you, living life and existing without a doubt!
The past story, the present story, the future story of your life - feel being this you, doing this and that.
Take the time to make this you as real as it can be.

Then open your eyes and answer the questions below from what you can sense, when you notice what is here, as it is.

Where is this I that seems so real in thoughts?
Can you see this I?
Can this I be touched?
Can you hear it?
Can you smell it?
Can you find any evidence that this I is here right now?

Is the I that was so real in thinking more than a imaginary entity?

[Aphorism8]

No to all of those. That means it is only a thought, a concept, and nothing beyond that

[Canfora]

My friend, guiding you feels like pulling teeth. You don't write much! Why??

No to all of those.

What did you do to arrive at this answer? Did you look?

That means it is only a thought, a concept, and nothing beyond that

"That means" points to a logic conclusion. Would you agree?

Hug,
C

[Aphorism8]

Fair enough. I was trying to keep answers succinct to try to avoid straying into thinking!

[Aphorism8]

At the moment, there is also the fact that my laptop died on Wednesday, while I was on site with a client 3000 miles from home! So only having my phone available, they couldn’t do as thorough a job. I have a new machine coming tomorrow and I plan to get it set up by the end of the day.

[Aphorism8]

I did the exercise Wednesday, Thursday, and Friday, And everything about “me” was just thoughts and images. Rather random and disconnected, I might add. Like all thoughts.

[Aphorism8]

Yes, I would agree. My use of the phrase “that means” indicates that I was expressing merely a logical conclusion, which is not the same as expressing any sort of certainty arising directly out of the looking.

[Aphorism8]

So I am still too heavily oriented toward conceptual understanding, and weighted down by the baggage of spiritual concepts.

[Aphorism8]

But when I look, there is nothing that can be found that is I. There are things that get labeled as “mine,“ but nothing that can be said to be I.

Calling things mine or thinking of things as mine, such as physical sensations that arise while doing the looking, reinforces some sort of clinging to a notion of an I. But that’s just an assumption, a convention of language. Whatever it is that is meant by the term I is never directly found.

[Aphorism8]

But when I look, there is nothing that can be found that is I. There are things that get labeled as “mine,“ but nothing that can be said to be I.

Calling things mine or thinking of things as mine, such as physical sensations that arise while doing the looking, reinforces some sort of clinging to a notion of an I. But that’s just an assumption, a convention of language. Whatever it is that is meant by the term I is never directly found.