Know Thyself?

[Pathfinder]

Originally Posted by Subjectivity9

Hey Leonard,

Welcome to our little gathering.

I am also a “Big Lover” of integrity.

I am not sure however how you could possibly “Know Your Self “ without also “Being True to Your Self?

Or is it, I don’t know how you could “Be True to Your Self” without “Knowing Your Self?”

Or is it “Knowing Your Self” is “Being True to Your Self?” They are circular like night follows day, and day follows night, etc.

But that is only my NOT so humble opinion.

Perhaps you could elucidate further for all of our edification?

Subjectivity9

If we are truly on a path to truth and intelligence, then it is at the "source" that our paths should end. The question is, on that journey, does how we walk that path really matter when there seems to be no moral authority in this world. If all of the world's religion is merely traditional wishful thinking, than its directives are not authoritative. And if the governments are mostly corrupt than their laws are useless as guidance. So if we are left to find our own path to the source, and there seems to be no laws or authority to lead us, than are we free to disregard authority from other places?

It is this walk through the fog of mystery that is the true test of a man.

There is a house about three blocks from mine where the owners leave a small childs motorized jeep out in the yard everynight. My three year old son would love to have it. I would love for him to have it myself. I cannot afford to buy one, but I could easily have that one. What is to stop me from going there late one night and throwing it in the back of the car?

Well, there it is! This one dilemma can be asked with so many references to life's various situations. Religion easily addresses the dilemma by claiming the laws of their god as authoritative. But it is not so easily answered if you cannot assign a supreme directive. If I do not adhere to any authority, than why can't I have that little car for my son? I could force them to at least share it with me.

If man learns anything in this life at all it should be that the path he walks is the path he places before him, and the one he leaves behind him. This path can only be made as he places one foot ahead of the other and moves forward, and he can only do so by choosing which direction he will take. Without direction from another source he is forced to make these decisions himself, using only what knowledge and wisdom he has attained in life.Where this path leads to will be the 'person' that he will become. At the end of that path will be the person that he created.

When I declare that I am a thought of the creator, moving forward and evolving myself as I move, I acknowledge the fact that I am creating who and what I am, by the empowernent of the original thought of this mystery we call the First Cause. Without the original I could not exist to become anything, and by the deliberate empowering design of the original I freely design what I will become at the end of this path I am travelling. So the reason why I would not steal that child's bike has nothing to do with the moral laws of some archaic religion, or even the laws of society. The reason I would not take it is simply because I want to become the type of person who would not want his own child to have something that it loves stolen from it.

An ancient wise counsel once said that we should do unto others as we would have done to ourselves. I suppose that counsel is agreeable as long as the person following it is not a sadist.To steal from others, or to do any harm to others, would make me a thief and an abuser, and that is not what I want to create. We also have to consider here that if we make abusers of ourselves, we are also making the same of mankind as a whole, because if everyone follows the same path, we end up with a race of beings that have no regard for each other, and have absolutley no ability to live with each other. Always at war, they would soon exterminate their entire species. Is that something we should strive to create for our future? If not, than we have the responsibility to make sure that we do nothing to create that in ourselves.

So, as we walk that foggy path to the source of knowledge, we are faced with choices that result in who, and what, we will become based on the decisions we make around those choices. And there are qualities of character and personality that consist of moral and immoral aspects that cannot be designated by the laws of man's philosophies and beliefs. These are qualities that are more akin to the laws of natural physics and dynamics than they are to righteousness, which is more of a religious nature.It is simply a matter of what a man wants to add to his character and identity as he walks this path. It is what he collects as supplies with which to build his character that will create the building he becomes, so to collect qualities like courage, compassion, sensitivity, loyalty, and integrity will provide supplies for a character that is the opposite of one built by using deceit, insensitivity,hate and moral corruption. The supplies we choose along the way depend entirely on what we deliberately pick up and add to our warehouse.

In my warehouse there will be nothing that does not add to the morality and integrity of my character simply because I firmly believe that this is the goal for the entire human race, and the only way that we will ever live in harmony with each other, which is what I also believe is the ultimate goal for us as humans. Love and harmony should not be cast aside as weaknesses of wishful thinking pacifists only. These should be seen as building blocks that will construct the type of buildings suitable for a place where many like it will commune together in harmony, benefiting from each other in many ways. Whereas building blocks of the antitypes of these will result in a place where war and havoc will always rule over their lives. The decision is ours; the path we will create and leave behind us.


Sorry about the lengthy post but, as you can see, I think integrity and moral character will be the building blocks that saves mankind from its natural tendencies.

[richrf]

Originally Posted by Subjectivity9

Hey Leonard,

Welcome to our little gathering.

I am also a “Big Lover” of integrity.

I am not sure however how you could possibly “Know Your Self “ without also “Being True to Your Self?

Or is it, I don’t know how you could “Be True to Your Self” without “Knowing Your Self?”

Or is it “Knowing Your Self” is “Being True to Your Self?” They are circular like night follows day, and day follows night, etc.

But that is only my NOT so humble opinion.

Perhaps you could elucidate further for all of our edification?

Subjectivity9

Hi Leonard and Subjectivity9,

Yes, it would be an interesting question. How can one not be true to one's own self. One is what one is no matter what one does, isn't it?

But maybe it can be understood to mean, that one should accept oneself no matter what one does. That is, do not deny all aspects of oneself. So be true to oneself about oneself.

Rich

[Pathfinder]

Originally Posted by richrf

Hi Leonard and Subjectivity9,

Yes, it would be an interesting question. How can one not be true to one's own self. One is what one is no matter what one does, isn't it?

But maybe it can be understood to mean, that one should accept oneself no matter what one does. That is, do not deny all aspects of oneself. So be true to oneself about oneself.

Rich

I understand what you are saying Rich, but can we designate a difference between being 'aware of' what may be in us and yet also striving to 'overcome' that which may not beneficial to us. In other words we do not have to experiment with the darker sides of our humanity just because we are aware they are there. I am sure that is not what you are suggesting, I just wanted to clarify that.

[richrf]

Originally Posted by Pathfinder

I understand what you are saying Rich, but can we designate a difference between being 'aware of' what may be in us and yet also striving to 'overcome' that which may not beneficial to us. In other words we do not have to experiment with the darker sides of our humanity just because we are aware they are there. I am sure that is not what you are suggesting, I just wanted to clarify that.

Yes, I most definitely agree that we do not have to experiment with all sides of ourselves. Some of the stuff can really lead to some unwanted results. My guess is that for lots of the stuff, I already have experimented in former lives and have concluded it is best to stay away from it!

But, in this life, I am making mistakes and learning from them, and hopefully this information will be useful as I continue to evolve.

Rich

[kennethamy]

Originally Posted by richrf

It is a matter of probabilities. Some are so bad (and I am not just talking about Chicago), that they aren't used.



Normal and abnormal change daily in my neck of the woods. One they I might go this way and the next day that way. It all depends upon what is happening around me. I live in a very dynamic society.



People adjust.

Rich

Apparently so dynamic that none of your replies have anything to do with any of my comments. Philosophy is not free-association.

[richrf]

Originally Posted by kennethamy

Apparently so dynamic that none of your replies have anything to do with any of my comments. Philosophy is not free-association.

Yes, there are all kinds of unexpected things in life. It is a matter of adjusting.

Rich

[Subjectivity9]

Rich,

A correction:

It was Edward Carpenter who wrote ‘Towards Democracy.” (Sorry, I had said Joseph.)

Guess I was having a senior moment. ; ^ )

Subjectivity9

[Subjectivity9]

Rich,

I am not trying to live in such a way that my body/mind AKA ego self does nothing. I fully understand that would be impossible if not foolish. My thinking is that we are talking by each other on this particular issue.

It is my thinking that you have spirit sitting inside your body at the drivers seat having the time of His life playing. On the other hand I have the body/mind and Spirit completely separate from each other. This is a little like a man and his shadow. They are not really the same thing.

So I can allow the body/mind to play tennis and at the very same time know that my true identity is Spirit only. I am, as my ego, self hardly ever bored. My plate is so full with fun things to do, that I can hardly get to them. Yet I know that this doing is not my doing, “I am not the doer,” ultimately.

A close approximation might be like Lucid Dreaming.

The reason that I see us all as being equal may be a little different from your reasoning, in that I see us essentially as the Ultimate One, every single one of us. Every living being is Atman/Brahman. Enlightenment or Self Realization is when you know this. We know this not as a concept, but as an actual experience.

(For those unfamiliar with Atman/Brahman: A close approximation would be if Brahman were God, Atman would be how each person witnesses God at his very center. Obviously it is more complex than this.)

Being part of the audience is a mind capacity called self-reflection. This takes place in the frontal lobe of our brain, science says, but I cannot remember which side. When we step back even further, we become the audience of the audience if you will. Finally we come to see that Spirit steps right out of mind completely. This dream world is completely automatic or goes on without need of us helping.

Some say that our knowledge of the Spirit comes to us through the Third Eye, or through the pineal gland, also calling it Spiritual Sight. I am not sure how all of this works, but I am sure there is some truth in this.

I do believe that we must remember that this ‘Third Eye’ is just an interface or perhaps like a radio receiver. So we have two dimensions in correspondence, Spirit and body/mind. To me the Soul is simply Mind with a capital ‘M’ because it is not brain dependent and seems to travel through multiple lives.

Of course some of this I must admit is metaphysics or is worked out by my mind on what I think I know. Spirit is actually the only thing I experience directly without mind’s intervention.

I believe that I was a bit more frantic then you seem to be about getting enlightened. This has changed as I have tapped into Spirit becoming more satisfied.

I was trying to save and/or perfect the body/mind to make it deserving of Enlightenment. Know I realize I was Spirit all along. I don’t however include the body/mind as a part of who I am or Spirit.

I too assimilate most of what I come in contact with as an idea to look at. It was only the ideas that I held onto tightly, held on for dear life, that made me uncomfortable to give up. I however was fortunate enough to have a Spiritual friend who was traveling just ahead of me at times, and who I trusted enough to question even these ideas if he asked me to.


Yes living more simply here in the country is certainly different than I would have imagined. Multi-tasking in to “smell the roses” isn’t quite the same. : ^ )

Subjectivity9

[Absolution]

Wow there is a lot of metaphysics on what knowing thyself is and what it means. I don't think I could even begin to comment on that. But if it isn't too obnoxious and regress to the original question, on how to know thyself, then I will put my thoughts in.

So assuming that knowing thyself is understanding the knowledge one already has we can look at some history on the topic. I believe it was Plato, that said all knowledge is pre-existing in one's mind. This akin to Immanuel Kant's a priori knowledge, the assumption that we have knowledge before hand. So at first glance we already have this knowledge so we already know all that we can know and thus already know thyself. But the catch is, we may have this knowledge but we may not understand it nor are able to filter it from fallacious knowledge.

I think here Socrates provides the key to this, and this is self doubt or an admission of unknowing. One must question oneself in a Socratic style. Now Socratic questioning and answering sessions typically often involve two people but one person might be able to do this on their own by viewing what they already know from a 3rd person stance. This 3rd person stance won't be honestly possible until that person has an honest doubt for what they know. In essence Socrates asks you to give up what you know, so you can look at what knowledge there may be from an unbiased stand point. There is heavy debate if people are able to do this, and I don't think there has been a well accepted conclusion on it. And it may be that one cannot exercise enough doubt to know thyself completely. But its a start and a noble effort, even if its endless, I believe.

[richrf]

Originally Posted by Subjectivity9

Rich,

It is my thinking that you have spirit sitting inside your body at the drivers seat having the time of His life playing. I on the other hand have the body/mind and Spirit completely separate from each other. This is a little like a man and his shadow. They are not really the same thing.

Thanks for explaining to me your perspective of life.

Yes, I agree. I see the physical body as a manifestation of the soul that is using the physical to explore, learn, and share. The physical is simply a dense aspect of the soul. They are two sides of the same coin and not separate.

My overall point of view is always unity. So the physical is the same as the soul, but denser. And the souls are connected at the higher layer of spirit. Everything is connected like the waves in an ocean.

Thanks again.

Rich