Know Thyself?

[Subjectivity9]

Hey TT Man,

I wonder if I could get you to share with us some of what your OWN personal thinking is in this area? Are you into metaphysics yourself in any way? Are you rather more scientific in your approach?

My dreaming mind thinks all kinds of things. But that is not the Ultimate me however. And I understand this.

Perhaps you and I are coming from two separate paradigms on this. We will have to be very careful to speak with each other in a respectful manner, or we will get nowhere on understanding each other. This is sometimes hard to do.

Spirit isn’t a part of the mind. Spirit is simultaneous to the mind on another dimension altogether. What some have called “superimposition.” That is why it is possible for it to be both eminent and transcendent at the same time. (Eminent meaning found within the mind/world but not of the mind/world.)

Egoism or ego itself is the belief that you are the story /personality that you have been writing since birth. These are concepts developed by the mind. They are woven out of air and just as substantial as air.

I base that I am Spirit on raw and direct experience of Spirit, experience that happens Immediately. Thinking comes along slowly only after a processing period. I look right at Spirit all of the time, ("Spirit knows Spirit as Spirit"). Mind only ‘knows of’ Spirit. This is like an echo.

You cannot figure out Spirit with the same tools that you have been using to figure out your mind.

Subjectivity9

[richrf]

Originally Posted by TickTockMan

This seems like an excellent strategy for absolving oneself of responsibility for one's actions.

One only wishes. The universe is the final judge and trust me, if I fall out of line, KAPOW! I don't need to judge myself. There are plenty of other people and things to do that for me. You should see what happens to me if I walk out in a hurricane without first observing what I am doing.

Originally Posted by TickTockMan

I may have to try this sometime at work when my boss tries to tell me I screwed something up, or better yet when I am driving, drunk of course, backwards down a one-way street in a residential area and firing my .357 magnum randomly out the window.

Exactly. There are many, many people and things waiting to judge whether you are doing what is correct. However, your problem is that everyone sees right and wrong differently. Makes life interesting trying to satisfy everyone's version of correctness.

Originally Posted by TickTockMan

My concern though is that I would be marginalizing myself somehow by adopting this philosophy. Thoughts?

Actually, you end up having fairly good relations by not trying to teach people about right and wrong - particularly your children. Of course, at a job you have to play whatever role you have to play.

Rich

[Subjectivity9]

Ken,

Yes, how much of our life actually remains a magical "mystery" tour to us?

The psychologists tell us about our subconscious, and even our collected unconscious. Are we in fact the driver of many of these seats? I think not.

Not only that but, a good deal of how we know (what we know) takes place much quicker than thinking, within a fraction of a second, like many of our facial expressions. It is not just if we smile but how many fractions of a seconds do we smile, and does it include a change in our eyes, etc.

We may decide if we are safe with another, or if we trust another by use of these clues. In other words some part of us notices what is taking place very subtly, but we do not notice that we notice?

Social outcomes seem to flow naturally from these, these parts of our consciousness unprocessed by thoughts.

Subjectivity9

---------- Post added 09-25-2009 at 08:34 AM ----------

Rich,

Ah yes, I find (Zhi) “intention” fascinating. I do question however if intention is within our personal power as individuals or actually flows through us like a river. The choice and/or intention to move and act may in fact simply be a natural outcome much like a tree grows from a seed. Does the tree intend to become a tree?

So it is not merely the surrounding influences that shape our capacity for choice or how our intentions manifests themselves, but there are intrinsic factors as well. (Factors far beyond just being physical and mental) Some have said that we are more like holograms, outcomes that manifest the whole, rather than we are originators.

If by "free" (free will) we mean that we are free to act in a way that seems predestined by a multitude of influence, like a river is free to travel between her banks, I wonder if we shouldn’t rethink what free (free will) means?

On the finite level, we seem to be an orchestra rather than one single band member. How we play, what music we play, is pretty much determined by the piece of music that we as members of that orchestra take part in.

Subjectivity9

[richrf]

Originally Posted by Subjectivity9

If by "free" (free will) we mean that we are free to act in a way that seems predestined by a multitude of influence, like a river is free to travel between her banks, I wonder if we shouldn’t rethink what free (free will) means?

On the finite level, we seem to be an orchestra rather than one single band member. How we play, what music we play, is pretty much determined by the piece of music that we as members of that orchestra take part in.

Subjectivity9

It could be, but I see universal manifestation beginning with the intention (Zhi) of creating (Yi - creative mind) and observing the creation (Yi - awareness). This is what I see as the premise of our existence. I doubt we are here simply to flow, because I observe us all creating.

Rich

[kennethamy]

Originally Posted by Subjectivity9

Ken,

Yes, how much of our life actually remains a magical "mystery" tour to us?


Subjectivity9

But not, I hope, I am in a bus trying to get home after a long day. I do hope the driver knows where he is going, and will get me there. Don't you? Maybe not.

[Subjectivity9]

Ken,

Ah Ken, if life were only that simple, wouldn’t life be grand. I guess we all like to believe that we can depend on some things.

Know the scientific types are telling us that chaos, (Chaos Theory), is not only built into our universe, but that chaos is entirely necessary.

What next!

Surprisingly one of the things that the elderly have the most psychological trouble with is, that they can often see (all to clearly) where their physical self is going. Sickness, old age, and death are a given.

We as a species seem to do better when there is a certain amount of surprise or mystery build into our lives. We find it stimulating.

Subjectivity9

[richrf]

Originally Posted by Subjectivity9

We as a species seem to do better when there is a certain amount of surprise or mystery build into our lives. We find it stimulating.

Subjectivity9

Yes!

One can go even further. We can say we created the mystery in order to break the boredom. To have fun! It is like playing a game of Where's Waldo or Hide-and Seek.

Rich

[TickTockMan]

Originally Posted by Subjectivity9

Hey TT Man,

I wonder if I could get you to share with us some of what your OWN personal thinking is in this area? Are you into metaphysics yourself in any way? Are you rather more scientific in your approach?

I could, but then I'd have to kill you. Much like the Buddha I met on the road many years ago. I'm kidding, of course.

I did my time in the metaphysical ring starting some 30 years ago or so when someone loaned me Casteneda's "Teachings of Don Juan." Since then I've read many volumes of quaint and curious lore and found most of them to be somewhat lacking in physical usefulness, as far as my actual day-to-day activities are concerned. Some notable exceptions might be some of Suzuki's thoughts on Zen, some of the writings of Thich Nhat Hanh, and the late Chogyam Trungpa. Certain aspects of Taoism also interest me.

As far as my interest in things metaphysical, I think this passage sums up my feelings most accurately:

Before I studied Zen, mountains were mountains,
and water was water.
After studying Zen for some time,
mountains were no longer mountains,
and water was no longer water.
But now, after studying Zen longer, mountains
are just mountains, and water is just water.

Depending on your definition of scientific, yes, I guess you'd have to say that's how I tend to approach things.
If I've got my definitions correct, I tend toward pragmatism and rationalism. I like evidence. I find it useful. When someone is trying to sell me snake oil, I like to be able to identify it as what it is.

Philosophically, I find myself drawn to studies such as linguistic philosophy (language and semantics fascinate me), logic, existentialism and the like. Once in awhile, I explore determinism, indeterminism and probabilism to provide a jarring counterpoint to my existentialist leanings. Also, I'm a bit of a Redneck.

As far as metaphysics goes, I don't really have any issues with it per se . . . at least up until the point where it turns into New Age gibberish or worse, outright paranormal nonsense. Then I have a problem.

Originally Posted by Subjectivity9

Perhaps you and I are coming from two separate paradigms on this.

This seems to go without saying.

Originally Posted by Subjectivity9

We will have to be very careful to speak with each other in a respectful manner, or we will get nowhere on understanding each other. This is sometimes hard to do.

I'm not sure I'm capable of this. How about this as a compromise: I won't take myself too seriously if you don't take yourself to seriously? That way, I can poke fun at you and you can poke fun at me and no one will get their feelings hurt. If our intentions are not mean-spirited, then I think we should have no problems and learning something from one another becomes a nice little bonus along the way. The path is the goal, right?

That being said . . .

Originally Posted by Subjectivity9

Spirit isn’t a part of the mind. Spirit is simultaneous to the mind on another dimension altogether. What some have called “superimposition.” That is why it is possible for it to be both eminent and transcendent at the same time. (Eminent meaning found within the mind/world but not of the mind/world.)

I base that I am Spirit on raw and direct experience of Spirit, experience that happens Immediately. Thinking comes along slowly only after a processing period. I look right at Spirit all of the time, ("Spirit knows Spirit as Spirit"). Mind only ‘knows of’ Spirit. This is like an echo.

. . . I have no idea what most of this means. My Redneck mind is recoiling in horror.

Originally Posted by richrf

One only wishes.

I hope you are speaking for yourself. I insist on taking responsibility for my actions. Why wouldn't you want to be responsible for your actions?

Originally Posted by richrf

Exactly. There are many, many people and things waiting to judge whether you are doing what is correct. However, your problem is that everyone sees right and wrong differently.

Should we be seeing them as the same?

Originally Posted by richrf

Actually, you end up having fairly good relations by not trying to teach people about right and wrong - particularly your children.

Are you advocating that children not be taught the difference between right and wrong?

Originally Posted by kennethamy

But not, I hope, I am in a bus trying to get home after a long day. I do hope the driver knows where he is going, and will get me there. Don't you? Maybe not.

Clearly you are not properly grokking the scene, man. The idea of "home" is an illusion in and of itself, so what does it matter where
you go, it's all the same. Your home, my home, what's the dif, baby? Groovy.

[Subjectivity9]

Rich,

I fully realize that you probably know more about this, in most details, than I do. I have divided myself between multiple religions and philosophies. But Taoism is an all time favorite of mine.

Another Chinese masterpiece is Chan, also a favorite. Consequently I have a great appreciation and respect for Zen, the ingenious child of these two.

I believe it would be an underestimation of the “flow” to think of it simply as passive. The flow IMO would be as complex as the universe herself. (I won’t get into the Spiritual aspects of Tao, and her flow at this time.)

I believe that even creativity or Yi (creative mind) is a part of the flow. The Tao is always flowing and everywhere center.

No one would suggest, I don’t believe, that the Tao was lacking in creativity. So if the Tao were to flow through us, and it does, one of the ways that the Tao would flow through us is through our own creativity.

What do you think?

Subjectivity9

---------- Post added 09-25-2009 at 01:33 PM ----------

Rich,

There are many paradigms to explain the “Why” of the universe and her various ways.

Saying that “we created Mystery in order to break the boredom” is very similar to the Hindu’s idea that all of this, the universe and us included, is God’s playing or a dance that He is doing.

When we say that this earth and her children are just having fun, we have to go even further and figure out why so much suffering in this world would be fun, don’t we?

I am not saying that you are wrong by any means. Only questioning how this is possible. I have answers to this. Do you?

Subjectivity9

[Subjectivity9]

TT Man,

Thank you for taking the trouble to answer me at such length. It was very interesting.

I’ll tell you a secret. I killed Buddha approaching me on the road, too. This will have to be our little secret.

; ^ )

Philosophically speaking, I live closest (in this finite world/finite expression) to being a phenomenologist. This is not because I am an expert on Edmund Husserl “by any stretch of the imagination,” but rather because this seems to be who I am at this finite level, naturally. I look directly, and put together what I believe I am seeing.

More recently some have called this ‘Mindfulness,’ which is very Tibetan. (This is only a close match however.)

Ah yes, Casteneda, I love that guy. Well I really like Don Juan the best. Don’t tell Carlos. I read all the books more than once, a guilty pleasure. I enjoy shamans, and witch doctors, etc. (So much truth in so many flavors.) Why cut our selves off from anything?

Suzuki, Thigh Nat Hahn, Chogyam Trungpa, Yes/yes/yes. And Taoism, you certainly have a full plate.

Yes first there were mountains, not really mountain, and back to mountains…and yet, not really the same.

Scientific as evidence, that is as good as any definition. Scientist’s do tend towards materialistic evidence though, generally speaking. Some have said that they (scientists) thinking themselves to be dealing only with hard evidence are overlooking/cutting themselves off from many other forms of evidence. (We can speak later about pragmatism and rationalism I hope. I love to learn.)

Ya, snake oil! Must not be too quick though, new doors are always opening.

Yes language is fascinating. I particularly enjoy Sanskrit. Words can be magic and teach us a lot.

Great minds in Existentialism, but I feel they stop short of the mark. Most of them couldn’t make the “Leap of Faith.” (I don’t mean this religiously.)

I am educated Blue-collar, is that city for Redneck? : - }

Depends on what you include in New Age. Much of New Age is psychology really. (Spiritual Psychology, perhaps.) There is lots of wisdom here and there in this too. Don’t throw the baby out with the bath water.

For those who are gifted in this area of the paranormal there is some good to be had. For those who are not gifted, it seems like gibberish or out right craziness. Not to say that it doesn’t get a bit over the top sometimes.

People, who are advanced spiritually, often have some of these paranormal gifts. These gifts do end up as distractions sometimes if you aren’t careful, and they feed the ego.

Seriously, I don’t think I take myself too seriously. I do also have a sense of humor, without it I would probably be dead by now. Is that too serious? : + )

If my feelings get hurt, just shoot me!

I may have misjudged you. I feared that you were here JUST to poke fun. I apologize for that quick judgment on my part.

The path isn’t my goal. But we can get into that later. Learning and growing is fun.

No, no, horrified grasshopper let me say it better:

I do not see mind and Spirit as being one thing. They are both here and now, but they can never be united into one thing. They abide in two different dimensions. Spirit is fundamental. Mind is Spirit seen incorrectly. So in essence, mind is a mistake.

Some have tried to depict this idea like, (Story) on seeing a pole in the dark you might mistakenly think it to be a man. When the light go on however you see your error. You see that it was always a pole. Seeing a man there was merely a mistake. Spirit is represented by the pole in this story, the man mistakenly seen represent the mind or physical/mental existence. The mistaken idea was mind. It was Spirit all along.

So the mistake is superimposed upon the truth. Truth is, and the mistake really isn’t substantial.

So:

There are mistakes granted. But we drop these mistakes as soon as we see correctly.

Does that help?

Do you want me to explain the Immediate and why mind is slow?

Subjectivity9