This conversation is closed. Start a new conversation
or join one »
Age old question: Who am I?
The question is simple. Who am I?
Science has proven every 7 years you have a totally new body. Not just your cells are replaced. It’s been shown you don’t have a single atom from your original body. So it's obvious your body has nothing to do with your sense of self.
Next consider your memories. These change over time too. Consider your emotions during a hard time. When it happened, you hated every moment but as time goes by, the pain lessens, and you may even see the good that came from the experience. So what changed? Surely the event didn’t change. Was it your perception?
How about your logic and your way of reasoning? Surely, that is unique! Unfortunately, it's not. Think of what you now know and how you see the world - then think back to your childhood. Your reasoning, goals and ambitions as a child do not remotely resemble your current state of mind. Yet that child is still you.
What if “who you are” is related to all the connections between all these aspects? What if you are the story that connects all these different moments together? This reasoning is flawed too. Consider a biography versus the autobiography of someone’s life. Sure, there are many common elements, yet even this is subject to a point of view. Who you consider you are and what others think of you might be very different.
This led me to look for the core that is "I". This further led me to the idea of using the Law of Projection. Simply put, projection is the act of taking away a level of complexity, while leaving the core image intact. For example: A photo is a 2D image of you. It's lost a lot of details about you but you can still identify yourself. If you concentrate the "I" even more you can look at your name. It's 1D yet still you.
Now the law states you can project again to 0D. Here "I" is both infinite and nothing. Is this the real me? I'm everything and nothing at the same time? A paradox, just like everything else? A fractal pattern. What are your thoughts?
Closing Statement from James van der Walt
After the long chat it became clear that we are just a choice. Each person has their own opinion of who they are and what their purpose might be. The only important thing here is was you choose well. If you decide on what "I" is then at least make sure it's something you are be happy with.
John Freestone 10+
But what about the centre, the real me? Well, in a sense, I don't exist. There is no real me separate from this functioning body-brain system. I'm like a car. A car has an engine, and when it runs it moves about and makes a noise. Modern ones even have rudimentary brains. I'm a bio-chemical machine, evoloved over about 4 billion years to fit Earth. I'm staggered and amazed by the mindboggling complexity and beauty of that evolutionary heritage.
I'm mortal. When a car stops, nobody asks where it's "run" went. I have a cultural heritage, though, as my species stood up to run about on African plains, freeing their hands to throw weapons, which led to the use of stone tools and fire, abstract language, culture, religion and philosophy, farming, technology and science, almost in the blink of a geological eye. Consciousness emerged in that ape I am.
As a kid I read the confident opinions of gurus and spent most of my adult life seeking what they said was there, spirit, Reality beyond Maya. Just a few years ago I rejected that as very improbable. Every day that goes by I see it more and more clearly for the illusion it was, how religion would arise naturally in a conscious, mortal ape, and gurus would be confidently wrong. Understanding all this is in its early stages, but I see myself now as matter, despite the persuasive self-delusion, the appearance of a separate subjective "I". Matter thinks and loves.
James van der Walt
So yes I'm a sum of my biology and my experiences interpreted by that biology yet there's more to me than that. Quantum physics has shown that we as observers have a very real effect on quantum states. Particles only exist when looked at. Until then they in a wave form and have no fix value. Go check out Bell's theorems for example... Our "biology" are having a quantum effect. This only points to the fact that biology alone can't define "I" since biology is on a different level all together. The rules of the physical (and chemical) universe and the quantum universe don't coincide. If it wasn't for quantum science I would have agreed with you. In fact that was my view for many years but it's no longer an adequate definition.
The mystics are like philosophers. They sometimes see a pattern in the universe but can't put it into scientific language as they don't have the expertise. This "Oneness" of the universe is very powerfully suggested in the current research. Something mystics has pointed at for ages.
Now religion turned into dogma. Some ideas are just rough ideas and need expanding. Religion is just arrogant enough to make it law. Science hates religion for that reason. You don't question law you just obey it. Unfortunately science sometimes falls into the same trap. Newtonian science has pointed to a very sterile universe all made up of cause and effect. Even though the last 100 years have been proving it wrong many still want to hold onto "Newtonian Law". There's no such thing as right and wrong in science. It's only the current best answer. It is this basic fact that many scientists forget. There are no "laws" of physics! They are theories always.
So who am I has to be reviewed as well. We always have to question who we are. Curiosity is the key.
Debra Smith 200+
John Freestone 10+
Since I'm very aware of how unreliable an individual's introspective judgement is, I find introspection and intuition poor sources of knowledge compared with more objective facts - ones that have been tested by hard, logical processes of science, and that fit together with other pieces of knowledge in sharply coherent ways (or, if there is dispute, at least we try to be clear about it and it stimulates attempts to solve the puzzle so formed).
A good approach would have three characteristics, I think. Firstly, it would at least acknowledge what science says about who a human being is, whether one agreed or not. Secondly, it would reflect on the process of forming the answer (as opposed to the substance of it) - by which I mean considering how much weight to put on feelings, intuition, the teachings of ancient religions, modern scientific discoveries, etc. as sources of information, and (crucially) why. Thirdly, it would have to be clear about how it is going to deal with discrepancies between ideas ( i.e. comfortable with paradox or desiring coherence).
Not only are our positions on these three points very different, it's amazing how apparently unaware you are of yours. Perhaps you just don't mention them because you share an understanding that reason, science and validation suck, while what you tune into inside your heads (hearts, I suppose) is trustworthy, especially as it's supported by what "spiritual teachers" say. Ancient question, ancient answer: I'm a bit of God. The gift of the Enlightenment was doubt. In the 17th Century, people indoctrinated to the ears dared to doubt, hence to think. It's an invitation to us all.
Comment deleted
James van der Walt
Well thought out reply. Thank you! Let me see if I can write a reasonable reply.
*
The 7 year cell regeneration I got from Waking Life but I remember reading the research years ago but now that you mentioned the research I agree with you. New research has shown that some cells life longer than others. The ones in your eyes never go. I'm sure this was in a TED talk but I can't remember which one. Do you remember? I need to watch that again. Anyway, I'll have to take that out of my argument as it's no longer scientifically correct. Just like the fact that your mind is pure bio is no longer 100%. Plus synapse connections change too...
*
Body and sense of self. We do associate VERY closely with our bodies. In fact western society obsess out their bodies. But if we get a new set of breasts or a new face does that mean you're a new person and a new "I"? I don't think so. My body changed since I was a kid and I still think of that kid as me. So I believe that your body plays an important role in your identity but it's the same as you name. It's just a label or database index. It is not who you are.
Then again maybe we can only see an abstraction of ourselves. If you want to include all your experiences and the effect you had on your environment and the effects your environment had on when you are defining yourself, introductions will get very cumbersome...
*
Memories might not change but the filters in our brain does. We can only experience memories through our ever changing brain so the memory details might not change but what you remember from that memory will change.
*
"I" Self and "I" Others. Subconsciously we know that we are connected to others and their opinion on us is very important to our identity. You might want to tell yourself you don't care what others think of you but you would be lying to yourself. You can never separate your identity from others. You can only choose how you deal with this. Brene Browns talk on this is brilliant!!
natasha nikulina 50+
I am glad you are here!
"Red blood cells live for about four months, while white blood cells live on average more than a year. Skin cells live about two or three weeks. Colon cells die off after about four days. Sperm cells have a life span of only about three days, while brain cells typically last an entire lifetime (neurons in the cerebral cortex, for example, are not replaced when they die)."
Theoretically, there is no reason why the living thing should not live ad infinitum or at least, as long as a suitable source is available.
But death does not come suddenly from "out"/ it happens, but it's not the point/ death inevitably comes slowly from within.
Where do we accumulate time, hence change? Brain cells? Why does a body grow old and die?
In the King James Bible God says to Adam and Eve:
"But of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil , thou shalt not eat of it, for on the day that thou eatest thereof thou shalt surely die."
There is a sense in which those words belong here . Why death is " the knowledge of good and evil"?
Our mind, brain cells?
And I am not asking why transition for something else we perceive as death, because we call it so,
but is there any connection between our perceiving and permanence of our brain cells?
Frans Kellner 100+
You still have a lot of questions.
Our perception isn't related to the amount of brain cells.
Some people don't have them.
http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn12301
A small bird like a hummingbird perceives as much or maybe more than we can.
Also memory we can roam undistorted yet not always accessible for our minds.
Our body is a vehicle and dies, it dies to sustain life. In its reproduction the body could be seen as the tree of life while the tree of “good and evil” points to our brain. The brain that developed the ability for discrimination and judgment. It is the seat of the Ego that separates itself from nature and exploit it for its own sake. It devours all resources until the world is a desert. The human species is driven out of paradise and still is, for almost three thousand years now.
Unless we start to unite and rediscover our natural link that is, if we do harmonize and dethrone the Ego to the servant of nature we install our heaven on earth.
natasha nikulina 50+
I do have a lot of questions still :)
I agree with everything you've said,I think even that i "know' this,/not the right word, but you understand/ but the idea "the above as the below" always seduce me to reconcile micro and macro. what is going on the level of subatomic particle or in the brain cell can be just mirror reflection of what we are trying to comprehend, searching above,in the realm of Universe, God , Eternity and vice versa.
Sometimes the idea can turn to be fruitful, sometimes deserves nothing /maybe, now it is the the case/
My question is: what did happen on physical level when the "shift of focus" occurred? Why did we lose immortality of our body at that precise moment? Why brain cells are not replaced, while everything in our body is?
Maybe my questions have no sense, maybe, I don't mind :)
Thanks a lot for the link, I'll go there tonight.
Thank you!
Comment deleted
natasha nikulina 50+
for the lack of a better word, Thank you!!!
The moments of recognition, "aha" moments are precious! It happens when you have a sensation that you've always known what you see for the first time.
Re-cognition, tiny bits of isolated information, experiences, thoughts, images, dim guesses start to fit together and the obscure outline of the picture start to emerge.
And no illusion that at last you "know", on the contrary the abyss of unknown extends exponentially!
I won't ask you questions, it's impossible in the frame of one conversation to hear everything I'd like to, but I hope to see much more of you on TED conversations.
Thank you/us!
Frans Kellner 100+
For your other question: why we die after that "shift of focus" isn’t too difficult.
This development to discern ourselves apart from nature and be self aware can be seen as the birth of the Ego. We identified with the body and acquired the ability to reckon in time. Because to see past and future, the fear of dead was established in our mind.
And indeed that part we call our Ego dies. It is the accumulation of all our thoughts about who we are, what we stand for and what we do. Yet this is mere the role we filled in for our part in the play of life. Our real being doesn’t die but evolves further without end. This lifespan is just part of a greater life, a flash in eternity.
natasha nikulina 50+
Sorry for the delay with my response,
The myth of the fall has many layers of meaning and in a number of surprising ways it foresees the insight that science has reached only recently. That's what I try to reconcile for myself...Maybe I wrongly put it "the above as the below"
And what is 'complexity" ? Is it always created out of an intimate relationship between spirit and matter? Don't you think that complexity has a will of it's own, "Mind","Ego" will? how much complexity is sustained by "E"? So, it's a long long talk.:) Hope you'll always be around! : )
Thank you very much!
Adriaan Braam 20+
Our take on that is a little different than what others have said but I hope you will have the time to read this short article. It is all about "Thought from the eye closes the understanding, but thought based on the understanding opens the eye." We should not only believe our senses (the serpent)!
It is an interpretation which gives life, and thus relevance to our source for truth. What do we accept as our source? How can we apply what our 'source' tell us, is it useful.. etc.
http://sites.google.com/site/liveitupspiritually/home/source/Par_AdamEve.pdf?attredirects=0&d=1
natasha nikulina 50+
Thank you for the link, I've read it, there are some differences in different interpretations, but I think to make a debate out of it is like to discuss:" how many Angeles can dance...."
Much more important that we start to recognise that the root of evil is "Ego" in any of its outfits Pride, Greed, ....you don't need to go too far to get the word "success " being involved.
So it's a along, long talk and nothing is off topic here.
Thank you very much for help !
John Freestone 10+
My frustration most often arises from religious people's apparent refusal or inability to make the transition that I believe is healthy and wise for humans, and which we made culturally with the dawn of science (probably in the Middle East) and then began to make globally with the Renaissance and the Enlightenment - to doubt words and their origins (even "the Word") and to test reality by experiment.
One central idea in that article brings it home to me - that to Taylor and his ilk (presumably including you), testing reality depends on using your senses, and that is the central error, evil or sin of humanity. To scientists, it is painful to witness the religous person's reluctance or refusal to question the source of their creation myths and moral parables like those of the Bible, and conversely their readiness to ignore their own sense data.
In the biblical view of fallen humanity, I guess we appear to keep falling further, while the scientist sees a beautiful human ascent from darkness. Sensory evidence tells us that we once suffered a beastly, ignorant life, ripping raw meat off bones before the lions get us, but your "parable" imagines a perfect Garden before we thought for ourselves and believed our eyes, after which it was all downhill. Archeology is part of Satan's lie, I suppose, to you. Thanks for reading.
Adriaan Braam 20+
The Creation Story has done the same. The literal text started many arguments and fights but the internal sense (the real meaning) has actually nothing to do with how this physical world started.
http://webhome.idirect.com/~abraam/studies/Parable_of_Creation.pdf
The human condition is such that NO ONE, not even God, can force anyone to believe what they do not want to believe. There are several reasons for that. One is that it is a process of love.
One example in particular was how Swedenborg grew up to become a famous scientist, inventor, anatomist, statesman, seer and religious writer, who was a member of the House of Nobles.
He is the most perfect and explicit example of the unity of Science and Religion.
Science can built a perfect house but it is the spirit that can make it a home. Our body is made up of material that exists in this physical world, which can be examined on a screen or in a test-tube. Our thoughts (WHAT we actually think) cannot be measured or read on a screen because they are one separate degree above the physical. Just like the internal or spiritual meaning of the Bible is one discrete level (and there are more) above its historical writings.
I very much prefer how my religion can tell me exactly what the meaning of this life is and the next one, while science says there isn't any.
But again, no one will ever take your freedom away to follow your own truth, because without our freedom, this would happen:
http://webhome.idirect.com/~abraam/studies/Freedom_No.pdf
"In the biblical view of fallen humanity," That is spiritually fallen humanity. A baby is the perfect example of how we 'progress' from this perfect innocence to 'well just listen to the news' person. Just because we can start our car from the living room, that doesn't make us a better person.
John Freestone 10+
You may be as subtle about this as you wish. For instance, I see in the first paragraph of the creation article the idea that creation happens in the moment, for a person: "But creation is not complete until the Lord has created a clean heart in a man, until a person is born anew of the Lord, and loves the Lord above all else, and his neighbor as himself." A non-linear, a-historical view of Creation, is very subtle, but it is abhorrent to a scientist because science demands objective evidence of things.
The Adam-and-Eve article, indeed, replaced one literal view with another - a scheme in which Adam represents a supposed clan of people rather than one, who lived in perfect love of and obedience to God. Taylor even mentoned that our genetic heritage might be considered that of Noah, since Adam's people were drowed in the flood! This is a DIFFERENT literal (and equally fanciful) interpretation of the story.
I understand that the fall relates to "spiritual" fall, but reject the idea of an adult growing from the perfect innocence of a baby as metaphor for human progress or regress. My point, in fact, is that Taylor's view involves the judgement that we are regressing. Science does not really see us as progressing: it tries to describe accurately what is. Perfection and "completion" don't come into it. Thanks for your reply.
natasha nikulina 50+
Thanks for the links, your attention and patience!
Adriaan Braam 20+
Well I can only quote: "But if we are ruled only by our sense experience, we do not believe in a spiritual world." and thus die spiritually. It is still a choice, an option, however difficult it seems for you.
In the next par.
"A non-linear, a-historical view of Creation, is very subtle, but it is abhorrent to a scientist because science demands objective evidence of things."
But all this Creation story is about is us, individually, in the here and now! It is a process we go through the moment we accept the fact there is another layer to being human. And yes, that is above what science can measure or detect.. And again that is to protect your freedom to not HAVE TO believe something. What is so "abhorrent" about that??
In par. 3 you seem to have missed it said "Another MISTAKEN idea that has prevailed for some time is that the disobedience of Adam and Eve was the original sin," "..If we stick to the literal sense only, and if we wish to be consistent, we would have to say that Noah and not Adam was the origin of our human nature."
"My point, in fact, is that Taylor's view involves the judgement that we are regressing." spiritually!! If you think we are not, then please tell me you are open to the idea of having a spiritual side to you.
Someone is knocking at your door, right now:) and also thank you for reading all the material.
Bless you!
------------
Please allow me to add the fact that there are twelve books that treat/explain the rest of Genesis and Exodus with the same amount of detail as the Creation Story was.
We just went through a 7 week 'journey program' applying every aspect of the Jacob and Esau story to our own life. Both can be regarded as spiritual aspects of ourselves going through the same 'motions'.
John Freestone 10+
I don't understand "it's still a choice, however difficult it seems for you" - it doesn't seem very difficult, although it has taken a lot of thinking and learning. I choose not to believe in things that may or may not be pure imagination. Your imaginings, I suppose, are Christian in nature. Perhaps you see Jesus' face. I may have seen the Buddha, or felt Kundalini in my spine. Which vision is real?
You say that "this Creation story is about us...in the here and now". I'm not sure if you mean the Adam and Eve article or another (I only read that one), but my view is that Taylor is not talking about us in the here and now: he tells us that there was a community, represented by Adam, who lived close to God, senseless and thoughtless (mischievous paraphrasing, I realise) - is that not meant historically?
Taylor seems to tell us that it is evil to value the sense data, (Eve's eating the 'apple'), and even worse when the intellect is brought to bear on the sense data (Adam's eating it). Am I right in thinking this means we are not to think about what we see, hear, touch, taste and smell, making science a terrible wrong? Have I misunderstood that? How can you or he or anyone profess knowledge, write an intellectual article on the meaning of a Bible story, without reading (seeing) and thinking about it?
I am open to every idea, including "the spiritual". I spent a lot of time seeking it. It is possible, but more likely to be fantasy. Can't a person imagine unreal things and think them real? How do we discriminate?
John Freestone 10+
I realised later that it's just possible Taylor meant that Adam is a metaphor for a community of men and women which is also a metaphor for what is happening inside an individual in the here and now. It's a bizarre thought, one level of metaphor explaining inconsistency in another, but that's all I can do to make your assertion fit with his words.
I hope you understand my take on the "other level". When we "accept the fact there is another layer to being human...above what science can measure or detect", a process begins, which you see as real and blessed. But look what this means: we accept a postulate (you describe it as a fact) that is not accessible to our senses and thinking. That's all science is, measurement via the senses, combined with rigorous, rational thought. So are you any closer to seeing why accepting that "fact" of "another (invisible) layer" is abhorrent to a scientist? We don't accept unsubstantiated ideas because we somehow feel able to assess their reality without any sensory evidence (which is the only kind). You do. Being "protected from having to believe" I just don't get. We need, if anything, protecting from the above "process", which is delusion according to lots of scientific evidence.
Of course I don't believe we are regressing spritually, since spirit is imaginary. The nearest translation would be that we are becoming shallow, immoral or intellectually lower, and I see a lot of evidence to the contrary. Sensing, measuring and thinking have educated us; we are more peace-loving, democratic, law-abiding, thoughtful and inclusive over time.
Adriaan Braam 20+
"Am I right in thinking this means we are not to think about what we see, hear, touch, taste and smell, making science a terrible wrong?"
Absolutely not as it is one (beginning) stage in our developing process. But as you know, our senses often don't tell us the truth either. And this is what a famous quote from Swedenborg applies to: "Thought from the eye closes the understanding while thought based on the understanding opens the eye"
"my view is that Taylor is not talking about us in the here and now: he tells us that there was a community, represented by Adam,"
Adam is not a group of people it is a first 'belief system". In fact the first stage (Eden) is a heavenly stage. When the belief arises that we don't need God we can do it all ourselves, this heavenly state disappears.
Also, Cain and Abel are not actual sons but derivatives or developments of that first believe system. Their fight or difference is based on one system believing in truth (faith) alone and the other in good deeds (charity, which is the one that looses the fight).
I have to go but will be back soon.
This BTW is what Taylor based his talk on
http://sites.google.com/site/liveitupspiritually/home/writings/Arcana%20Coelestia%2001.pdf?attredirects=0&d=1
And this is the short one on Creation
http://sites.google.com/site/liveitupspiritually/home/source/The%20Real%20Creation%20Story.pdf?attredirects=0&d=1
Adriaan Braam 20+
"spirit, I see as illusory."
Simply put, when we give a present, we say "it is the thought that counts" Can science measure that thought in any way? I'm not talking about brain waves or activity inside the brain because they don't tell what the actual thought (motive) is behind what we do.
It is that invisible part of us that makes up our character. Character is another, un-measurable concept. Although we can certainly perceive the difference between a good and bad character, agree?
The link to the book above is to show the internal sense of the Bible, which is just as hidden as our character or spirit. But it is that! 'spirit' which makes the Bible the word of God, not the literal text.
As an aside, what is even more hidden is that it applies not only to several of our spiritual levels but also to Jesus’ level as to what He went through in His life. So far, Christianity is totally ignorant of what He did and why. Want another link :)
"Being "protected from having to believe" I just don't get. We need, if anything, protecting from the above "process", which is delusion according to lots of scientific evidence."
What "scientific evidence" are you talking about?
John Freestone 10+
"Can science measure that thought in any way? I'm not talking about brain waves or activity inside the brain because they don't tell what the actual thought (motive) is behind what we do." They might with more research. Neurology is currently indexing a lot of different measurable brain states that appear to correlate directly with reported mental conditions. I find it interesting that you try to rule out the most pertinent area of evidence! If only we were having this discussion 100 years ago, you would not have mentioned it! You remind me of another discussion I'm having where someone asked atheists if they had any evidence for the non-existence of god, adding "And I'm not talking about evolution. This isn't about evolution."
"What "scientific evidence" are you talking about?"
I'll find some links for you, but we can do this philosophically ourselves: can you tell me how you know your spiritual intuition is real? You admit that sense data can be mistaken, right? I agree. That is why science involves very strict methods, testing things from different angles and repeating experiments, to rule out human error as far as possible. But if sense data can be mistaken, why not the internal sensing, the "invisible" thing you call spirit, or personal religoius experience? These are not accessible to objective testing. Was my genuine belief in kundalini a delusion, but if I see Jesus, it's the real deal? What if I think I'm an alien? How do you tell? If something is invisible, how do you know it's there?
We should probably stop. I'm staring into the chasm.
John Freestone 10+
http://www.ted.com/talks/vilayanur_ramachandran_on_your_mind.html
Frans Kellner 100+
Complexity as I used it is the way matter organizes in more complex structures: Energy, Hydrogen, Elements, Molecules, Amino acid, Cells, Organisms, Nervous system, Feelings, Thought, etc.
Spirit is the organizing force that like a painter fills his canvas, spirit fills the vacuum.
natasha nikulina 50+
I agree with you, spirit-organised complexity is a beautiful melody, I remember
" the symphony of Hydrogen" as a definition for universe, it's poetic and beautiful.
But we humans, like gods can create "complexity" ,but sometimes out of matter only, and it's a noise that leads to more noise.
How do you feel in a supermarket ? I am always wondering who eats, wears, uses all this stuff ?! I strongly believe that this kind of complexity is not sustained by "E" .
It makes the gap between spirit and matter even bigger.
I am almost sure you agree with me now :)
Adriaan Braam 20+
"Was my genuine belief in kundalini a delusion, but if I see Jesus, it's the real deal?"
No way! you are not talking to a fundamental Christian but a NEW Christian (Swedenborgian). We base our interpretation of the Bible on what we believe is the Second Coming as given through Emanuel Swedenborg.
The basic concept is (in my words) If whatever you believe makes you a better person, believe it!
Christians do not have a monopoly on truth.
It seems to me that kundalini gives things different names but also believes life is more than the physical.
"What I wonder is, if God makes us think and feel everything, why does he bother making it look like the brain is doing it?"
Because our humanness is based 100% on being spiritually free. To have freewill and so determine who we become (spiritually).
This booklet is based on what and who Jesus is (something Christianity is totally in the dark about) but I hope it helps,
http://sites.google.com/site/liveitupspiritually/home/writings/Doc_Lord.pdf?attredirects=0&d=1
++
That talk is really amazing and what Mr. Ramachandran said when starting it, there is an awsomeness about what 'it can do'. The brain is our receiver of spiritual input and change from the internal person, and a controler of our body through our external person. We are two in one. Please allow me to leave another link about our mind (which controles and uses our brain).
http://sites.google.com/site/liveitupspiritually/home/source/TheHumanMind.pdf?attredirects=0&d=1
Wishing you a great weekend
John Freestone 10+
No, just the will to live.
...Emanuel Swedenborg -
Ah, author of Life on Other Planets, in which he reports talking with spirits from the Moon, Jupiter, Saturn, Mars, Mercury and Venus, but not from Uranus or Neptune, which hadn't been discovered by the time he wrote?
If whatever you believe makes you a better person, believe it! -
And how do you know whether it does? Adriaan, this is very frustrating to me. We seem to be talking different languages. Your statement does not answer the question I asked, which is how you judge an idea for its relative truth or falsehood. You appear to choose not to take the opportunities available to assess ideas, and thus are open to believe falsehoods. You seem to run away from thinking and you seem to fear being made to believe anything you don't want to believe. You seem obsessed with this freedom to believe as you choose. To me "belief" isn't a free choice. I am humble before reality, whatever it is. If something is true, or false, I have no right to decide otherwise. I might not know, but that is different. Whether a belief makes you a better person is another idea, and you haven't a test for it. You can't assess it on whether believing it makes you a better person, can you? Do you ask other people how good you are, anything external to yourself like that? Or do you just assume you're better?
[why does God make it look like the brain is doing it?]...Because our humanness is based 100% on being spiritually free. To have freewill and so determine who we become (spiritually) -
So you're saying that God makes the universe a certain way, but then pretends it's another way to avoid forcing us to believe what is actually true? OK, that's "internally consistent", but highly arbitrary.
You failed to understand Ramachandran's talk entirely. We can prod the brain and make the person have ideas. You believe your prejudice over the evidence, for reasons I haven't the will to try to fathom any longer.
Adriaan Braam 20+
Are you talking about me or you ?? :)
"If whatever you believe makes you a better person, believe it!"
To me a better person is someone who focuses more on the happiness of others than his/her own. This is of course on the spiritual level, the level on which we decide to do good deeds or very selfish deeds. This is not meant to say, this belief is better than that one. This is completely the opposite!
After we die we are not asked what we believe or what religion we belong to. What will be important is what we DID with what we subscribed to. Religion, like a gun, can be used for good or bad. It is how we decide to use it that makes us what we are, e.g. we can help kids or molest them.
We have the ability to examine ourselves, to judge ourselves whether something is good or bad. I hope you agree at least with that.
"So you're saying that God makes the universe a certain way, but then pretends it's another way to avoid forcing us to believe what is actually true?"
In a way, yes, although God does not pretend anything. When I look around me at the world (in my very limited way) I see proof that God exists in every direction I look. By every leaf I see growing or falling. By the consistency how every child grows up or people experience NDE's and how this 'system' has parallels in the deeper meaning in every story in the Bible.
"You failed to understand Ramachandran's talk entirely."
Nothing he said proofed to me that we don't have a spiritual mind. It sounded more like a three year old who talks to grandma on the phone and believes she lives in the phone :)
"We can prod the brain and make the person have ideas."
Just like our mind can..
"I haven't the will to try to fathom any longer."
Well it was nice talking to you
Wish you all the best!
Adri
Peter Law 30+
We are the children of the creator of the universe; He is spirit, we are spirit. Our bodies just help us get around until we grow up. Simple really !
:-)
László Szantor
A sage will caution us to seek the truth and live in peace. But, of course, the overwhelming majority, even hearing it won't comply. The strife and horror we create for eachother hinders our progress to attain a higher level of consciousness. All the money, resources and insane armament is invested to kill those others. We and them instead of us. Life on this earth could be paradise if we ever came willing to work together.
The mystery of "I" could acquire new, exciting connotations.....we could see things through different eyes.
If we didn't have to cope with human ugliness and greed we still have natural disasters," acts of God" to deal with.
The resulting fear, living with uncertainty clouds our value judgements. We become aggressive and jumpy.
"The human condition" is what it is. On a rosier note, we have lived today in our loves and hopes for a better tomorrow. Just do away with "I" entirely and let's all become us. I am fidgeting already......
James van der Walt
I would love to take this idea and see if I can link it to science. The more we show the world that we are 1 the sooner we might start working together. It's a dream but we only have our dreams... so dream big!
László Szantor
My "I" serves as a depository, filter, transformer to boost or reduce intensity, digesting and editing before we transmit what we have received. We have to have a physical organ to accomplish these amazing feats. And we do them our own way, individually. Could it be that because our biological mass is constructed a certain, unique way, the functioning of the mind is influenced by corporeal directives ? "You are what you eat" comes to mind. The degree of detachment from the common good may be due to overwhelming concerns and worries about securing basic, life sustaining necessities. Procuring fuel to keep our economy going....Is this not a primary concern on a global level as well ? Oil for our cars, food for our bellies.
Would worldwide harnessing of solar energy and universal eradication of poverty save us from the destructive woes of selfishness ? Greed would still keep us isolated in our "I".
James van der Walt
Humanity is doing much better than it did a century or 2 ago. Human rights is implemented or being considered all over the world. More and more people have access to education and information. Everyone now has the potential to make something of their lives. We are more aware of our environment than ever before! Sure we might have more suffering but we also have more people. I think there is hope. We will find the perfect balance. We need suffering as a race in order to evolve, to keep the fire burning so to speak. Yet we don't need that rude physical suffering any more. Can we find that perfect mix of light and contrast?
Sorry for the rant. I'm just stating my dream.
natasha nikulina 50+
Why "Greed" is so special? How it can be separated from Pride, Envy... and God knows how many vices we have ?
I think at the deep root level they all came from one source -- Fear, dig deeper and it is the Almighty instinct of survival, elevated to the social status.
Remember, Gordon Gecko "Greed, for the lack of a better word, is good..." So, James I agree with you , it is the part of our nature, we can't fight with it , we must balance it.
With what?- We should evolve, I can't agree more, but
"We need suffering as a race in order to evolve, to keep the fire burning so to speak. Yet we don't need that rude physical suffering any more."
- What is suffering then? Our teenagers commit suicide finding life meaningless, is it any better? Maybe we should start with ourselves, and only with ourselves, enlightenment, is a personal endeavour, but it is the state when everything will come with. There is a Russian aphorism "If you want to save Russia, become a saint!" James, to save the world, each of us should try to be better.'Do the best you can with what you have and stay in peace" We rae one and through each of us we all evolve. I believe it's that simple.
Colleen Steen 500+
James,
I believe the idea of us all being connected IS starting to be recognized by science...is it not? Scientific methods can now detect energy fields in and around humans, as well as other animals and plants...yes? It is only a matter of time before more connections are recognizable to science:>)Everything starts with a dream:>)
László,
You write: "The degree of detachment from the common good may be due to overwhelming concerns and worries about securing basic, life sustaining necessities". Do you suppose that in some respects we (humans) are still living in the survival mode, even in areas where there is an abundance? Could it be that greed dominates sometimes simply because it is "programmed" in our brain, and some people are not aware enough of him/her "self" to realize the abundance?
James,
We may not ever be able to "destroy" greed, and I agree that we could balance it with more awareness and understanding the ramifications of greed. I personally have not encountered any content, happy greedy people.....have you? They seem so distracted with the effort to have "enough" that they are missing many good moments of life. Greed is not good for the individual who is greedy, nor is it beneficial to the whole. I totally agree James, that there is power in strengthening our connections...leading by example...be what we want to see. The process gives me pleasure and enjoyment without attachment to an end result, and there is nothing lost. What we focus on expands, and although we are seeing what appears to be chaos around the world, at least we are "seeing" it now because of advanced communications technology. I don't believe there is any more chaos than there has been throughout history. I believe we now know more about it, and that seems like a positive change. Much more chaos, violence and abuse of human rights can happen in isolation, and that is changing.
natasha nikulina 50+
I am happy to be you! :)
Amily shaw 10+
László Szantor
Change is the only constant? Whatever or whoever we imagine ourselves to be, we are in this unstoppable flow.
Plum to prune.....but the pit remains the same.
Adriaan Braam 20+
Many believe that “I” or “thought” is the person. But there are two powers that make a persons life - understanding and will. Our thought belongs to the understanding, and affection (as parts of love) belong to the will.
Thought without love does not in any way make a person's life; but thought springing from love does make that life.
These two powers are distinct from each other, which is evident to anyone who stops to reflect on the matter from the consideration that with our understanding a person can perceive that something his will desires is either good or bad. From all this it is plain that the will is the real US, not our thought, except in so far as anything passes into it from the will.
James, this great but age old question is 'voiced' here :) Oh and the why is too. I haven't read the whole thing but maybe it even eludes to what the difference is between male and female (spiritually).
http://www.swedenborg.com.au/eternalQuestions.htm
László Szantor
Lawrence Trevanion
This seemingly obtuse understanding highlights 2 important points. Firstly, the question is part of a tradition - it doesn't actually express what is meant. Secondly, it highlights the difference between identifying someone else and identifying ourselves.
You appear to be suggesting that you would have trouble identifying your self in a crowd of selfs - I don't think this is actually so. I think you would manage it easily.
I think you should pursue these two points rather than embark on wild speculations about something that you appear unable to even identify - ask the question you actually mean; and reconcile the difference between identifying others versus yourself.
The idea that the self cannot identify the self; minds asking what and where minds are; consciousness confused about consciousness - all part of a long muddled tradition.
James van der Walt
A few questions. You mentioned tradition. Are you saying this is a traditional definition of "I"? In my opinion the traditional definition is were "I" is just a some of your experiences which I pointed out is not relevant any more. You cannot remove yourself from your environment when defining your identity.
Secondly. I don't think you would be able to have any trouble telling you self apart from a crowned room. You can identify yourself just as well as you can identify other. All I'm saying is that your identity is not a separate thing. Your identity resides both in your mind and in the minds of others.
Maybe I'm not understanding you correctly...
Lawrence Trevanion
One of my points was that we recognise others as objects - without the real world we would not see hear touch etc others and would, therefore be unaware of them. We know that we ourselves are also object-selfs. The question is, are we any more than object selfs? If we are, then what is the relationship between this object self and the non-object self?
As for identity residing in our own mind and in the minds of others, this is questionable. If one says that experience consists of perceptions in the mind (the 'in' is a metaphor taken from our understanding of the real world) then the mind is either an item of experience, in which case it is inside itself (which I think is silly), or it is a word that comprehends the gathering of experience, in which case it is a theoretical and rather pragmatic notion, and its existence is questionable. If you say "I am my mind" then you have stated your identity and you are no longer in a position to say that your identity resides IN your mind. How you know you are your mind and what you mean by saying so become serious questions. If you say "I am my mind and my body" then you will additionally need to address the question as to how these two things are distinct and how they relate to each other - how they contribute to integrated (to some extent at least) experience.
Note that in my previous post I drew you attention to the problem of minds not knowing what and where they are.
There is also the tradition philosophical problem of other minds. If our mind consists of all our experience then we have difficulty proposing there is anything other than our own mind (and the notion that anything is IN our minds doesn't make much sense).
James van der Walt
First, objects... Object is defined as anything with definable properties. Then everything and every combination of everything is an object. So there are infinite infinities of objects. So are we more than object? The question implies we include something undefinable in the "I". This is a choice and there's no right answer. If you think you can ever fully understand who you and objectify your identity then no, you are just an object. If you believe there will always be an undefined element and no matter how much you know you will never know who you are then yes, you are more than an object. This is a very personal question and I believe both are valid answers. According to my theory you are everything but you include an undefined element as well hence I don't think of myself as just an object.
Next you talk about minds and it being the corner of you identity. This is True. Everything you do and experience has to go through your brain and its filters. You see what you expect to see. As for the mind is experiencing the mind. Mind is in the mind. It might sound silly but I believe it's true. It's called self awareness. Nothing is real like they say in matrix. You mind makes it real. So is the mind real? This is the same question as “Am I real?" It's a paradoxical question which is why it's silly. You mind might have a model of what it thinks of itself but how do you know it's real since you cannot trust anything it tells you. This is the exact reason I started asking this question. There must be axioms to reality. Things that's true whether or not your mind is real or not. Whether it's an object or not. That why I wanted to move back to the mathematical way or reasoning. It always starts with constants. What do you think is true regardless whether your mind exist or not?
natasha nikulina 50+
Gerald O'brian 50+
James van der Walt
natasha nikulina 50+
Despite turbulence and fluctuation of the physical world.
Gerald O'brian 50+
natasha nikulina 50+
Maybe you don't believe in oneness , but you are in there ! :)
Bill Burns
I am being. I am me.
Scott Armstrong 50+
Brian Gonsalves
I am who you say I am, I can be no more and no less than that.
In all ways it is irrelevant who or what I think I am, because what others say of me becomes essentially who I am and was.
There are a very few people in all of human History who have defined themselves and have actually been wholly accepted for who they claimed to be.
I am everything that you say I am and none of what you say that I am simultaneously.
James van der Walt
This makes compassion a must. If you suffer I suffer. Helping another is helping yourself... as long as you don't drag yourself down in process. We are on the same team. So I'm not trying to make the world a better place for your sake, I'm making it better for my sake. We are one and there's no such thing as a selfless act...
If we can all realize this fundamental truth about ourselves the world would be a better place.
Brian Gonsalves
There is a commercial currently running on Canadian TV, where a guy goes into a shop and while munching on some complimentary cookies provided by the owner, he queries about the stores lack of presence on the Internet. Does the store even exist if it doesn't exist on the Internet? He begins to leave and the baffled owner asks if he was leaving, he answers "was I even here?
So I think that the question "Who Am I?" is best answered by others who are witness to our contribution or lack there of in our world.
May your contribution be of such significance that you may in the end define yourself and all else would concur.
lynn eschbach 30+
I wanted to comment on the statement "Yet the child is in you." I've experienced walking along a path and really seeing through the eyes of my child. I'm sure it was some kind of deja vu but the feeling came from my childhood. It was surreal and wonderful.
Who am I . . . my thoughts, I guess. As you say, "I am everything and nothing." Riding along a fractal.
Frans Kellner 100+
It is nothing uncommon and certainly in a close relation as you are with your child.
natasha nikulina 50+
Naming is treacherous
for names divide
truths into less truths
We inevitably get involved into creating " less truths" trying to define something, but it's a part of our human condition,
and "less truths" , are helpful and they work, it's like the real planet Earth differs from a map, "a map is not reality, but it works better for the purpose"
But " I " on the level of Truth is undefinable, maybe because there is no "me" and others and All is One. Only the continuum is real!
Listen to this: "Before Abraham was, I am" - what is it if not the picture of timeless continuum?
James! Great definition" I'm everything and nothing at the same time. A paradox, just like everything else."
Nothing is where everything came from. I think that paradox in the language of mathematics is "0", and it's the only true statement :)
And even on the level of "less truths", who is me who inhabit my body in "now" where all my thoughts, ideas, opinions came from? - Entanglement?
What is actually mine?
Nothing and everything!
Should I stop to use quotation marks? :)
James van der Walt
for names divide
truths into less truths"
- Beautifully said. :)
Yes the paradox nature of reality is very strange. For example. How many corners are there on a circle? Infinite or none? Both answers are right.
natasha nikulina 50+
James ,what is up/down, in/out there in 0D?
James van der Walt
The who we are has a possible answer but then the next big question comes. Why we are here?
natasha nikulina 50+
The dream is dreaming itself.
The thinker is the thought, the experiencer is the experienced.
Consciousness is its content.
We are here to say WOW!
Ed Schulte 50+
thereby activates within Source, a deeper knowing of its Infinite Selfhood.
natasha nikulina 50+
And there is no interruption to the continuity of deep consciousness, not even by death!
Ed Schulte 50+
here confirming that I am now a bit better at due attention/ observation to your questions. :-)
However Re: "what is Selfhood?" To answer this with the due respect would take more words within a specific context then a form such as TED is suited for. Else where the words "Self-Aware-Soul " represent this spectrum much better.
I as sure you have a good understanding....by way of actually experiencing it....to say yes, the HHtDL's "deep mind" = Self = Selfhood...
I used the convention of capital "S" when I said "Infinite Selfhood" (redundant error on my part ......Self is of course "Infinite" so just "Self" along is all that is required to say) and this is parallel with a much much better expression provided by DR D. R. Hawkins
The mind/ego thinks, Field consciousness knows, Self is.
This also matches what was well known among ancient cultures. that being ...Self is beyond any concepts the "thinking" mind can come up with BUT any opening to Self ( by mind/ego) also opens up the "field consciousness"'s flow....and the "thinking" mind gains in TRUE creative potentiality ...(( IOW becomes less and less destructive.))
And yes this is a "no interruption" cycle of opening to Self-hood all HUmans are going through ...definitely no such thing as "death" the latter is just a point of mind confusion caused by some branches of Judea-Christianity
natasha nikulina 50+
I was confused with Self, because traditionally it is understood as a bright side of Ego,
but still it is a separation, but now I understand or better, "see" a different motion, not linear..up, from Self to One but spiral, like double helix in dance, floating in all possible directions. Maybe it's even true, because it's beautiful! :)
Thank us!
Ed Schulte 50+
I noticed this in the I Ching this morning and saw it as a very appropriate overview of the (only to the lower mind)"Paradox") of Duality ....this Hexagram 31 resonates with your "beauty of the double helix dance" very well
There is no greater natural law in the Cosmos than Attraction.
From the magnetic pull of an atom's nucleus to the centrifugal force that spirals a galaxy, the face of the universe is shaped by Attraction.
On a human scale, it is Attraction that fuels procreation and furthers our species.
Yet it is also Attraction that spawns greed and covetousness, threatening our extinction.
Attraction is the underlying force of the situation in question.
You are refined or debased by the objects of your desire.
What gravitational pull are you now under?
Around what sphere of influence do you circle?
natasha nikulina 50+
Your responses are always the cryptic massages for me :)
I need to google a lot and I love it! You can't imagine how much I don't know! Hexagram 31 ??? I Ching ???!
Thanks God, I have never been under the illusion that I know something.
But "The Law of Attraction" in it's disguise was revealed to me through a documentary or whatever the genre,it was awful, but "a gut feeling', you know, I understood there was a point ! And I see now how it works, from that time when I realised that I need to know... I don't have a name for that .." Everything" :) the teachers started to come to me, and I am so grateful!
Thank you very much!
Frans Kellner 100+
You may like this as much as I do?
"the law of attraction.", by Abraham Hicks.
http://youtu.be/RTb6mKAwftA
natasha nikulina 50+
Thanks for the link, I am listening ! :)
László Szantor
I didn't want to miss everything else. I would rather give everything a name.
natasha nikulina 50+
Thanks a lot for your comment, and sorry for the delay with my response. Actually i responded immediately, I was here on the page and had some free time in the morning, but at the very moment I was going to press the "submit" button the electricity vanished with all I'd written to you/ / it is a part of our everyday life, here in Ukraine :)/ But i got some time for thinking, while being busy with different things during the day, this question was circling round my mind, how reconcile my "no name'' me with me who is here and now , who is functioning in the society, has opinions,judge, makes decisions...In my vanished comment I said something like:"It is a natural split in human Psyche , we are divided creatures and we should live with it." But I have been thinking and I want to share with you my thoughts :)
I agree with you, we need to have a name and even opinion, though all opinions are vanity. We judge, knowing "Do not judge!" We make decision as if we have a free will.
It's our human condition, I don't have a free will ,but i should make my choices as if I do and maybe from that point comes everything-my name, my personal identity, my destiny. Maybe "me" is my responsibility for a tiniest spot I currently occupy in Space and Time, Here and Now. We should never lose the bond with something beyond, God, Eternity, Whole, whatever the name, and remember who we are in the realm of the Truth, it will colour our thinking, influence our decisions and shape our life, our shared life.
I don't remember who, said " you can't waste your time not injuring the Eternity". I think it was David T./ I am afraid to misspell the name/ , he knew this and left his massage.
Whatever our choices, we choose to stay here amongst people or become a monk, i am not to judge what is easier or harder, every path has it's own hurdles, but we should never forget who we are.
We are both, a tiny part , almost nothing, with a capacity to influence everything, and everything...
Ed Schulte 50+
our responses are not sounding glib? Your presentation here and the now closed "Can you project yourself onto the zero dimension? " are both very well done therefore reflecting a high degree of consciousness.
Yes the core of I cannot be observed unless "something" of this "I" becomes manifest. What is the "what" in "what is HUman Being" and Human is always return to source or "Zero point" as you call it
James van der Walt
I belief that everything starts and potential. Consciousness is presented the first question and as quantum theory points out that all viable options happen at the same time. So light and dark are born. Hence the multiverse theory and the duality philosophy. But this is a large other topic...
gale kooser 20+
Muhammad Aizat Zainal Alam 30+
Colleen Steen 500+
I think/feel that what I have experienced certainly has contributed to who and what I am. However, I don't accept that I "am" what I've been through. If that were the case, I could label myself victim of violence and abuse, victim of cancer, victim of a traumatic brain injury, etc. I do not choose to have my experiences define who and what I am. I choose to use the information I learned from the experience in a broader way...make any sense?
The only reason I clarify this for myself, is because I witness a lot of people defining themselves by their experiences, and that, to me, is sometimes limiting.
Muhammad Aizat Zainal Alam 30+
Colleen Steen 500+
As I said, I wanted to clarify, because I do think that people often label themselves, and that becomes who they are for the rest of his/her life. I don't like labels:>)
One particular situation comes to mind...
When I volunteered in the correctional facility co-facilitating cognitive self change sessions, the offenders would often say..."I'm ADD...what do you expect?" People sometimes define themselves with labels they have been given, or give to themselves, and that is how they live their lives.
Muhammad Aizat Zainal Alam 30+
Colleen Steen 500+
I think/feel that is very safe to say indeed...it's PERFECT in my humble opinion:>)
I am what I want to be in any given moment:>)
Ed Schulte 50+
Gloria Felicia
Ed Schulte 50+
"I AM You...and ....You are ME" ......all we truly have is "each other' .......now Full stop??..
James van der Walt
Clark Ho
James van der Walt
The sum just gets so big that you might as well be everything.
Clark Ho
These things really depends on what angle you look at it, i guess
James van der Walt
Carol A.
Frans Kellner 100+
James van der Walt
The paradox is that we are separate as well. BUT you can still tell others what the world looks like through your eyes and because we are all connected we know what another is seeing. Empathy.
I'm continuing on my previous post because I got some email to reopen the conversation :) Thanks for joining again.
Colleen Steen 500+
I am everything and nothing...an energy being having a human experience:>)
I contemplated this question a LOT after being told years ago that I would never be "normal" again because of a near fatal head/brain injury, and I continue to ponder the question at various times. I studied various religious and philosophical beliefs, psychology and the teachings of a number of psychologists, and teachers throughout history.
I have always felt like an adventurer on this earth school, facing life, death and everything in between as an exploration. I've always been fascinated with human behavior...mine included. At this point, with the information I have, I believe that I am a a conglomeration (a mixed coherent mass) of all the energies and learning I have experienced...everything and nothing:>)
One way I explain my sense of being connected, and yet seperate, is exactly like electrical energy...it flows from the generating station, it is connected, and yet goes into individual homes on one line...seperated again in the breaker box to service various areas in the home. Energy flows...just as we have the opportunity to "flow" through our life adventures.
Another good way to think of it is as Frans writes...a current in the stream...or a drop of water in the ocean...individual, and yet part of the whole:>)
James van der Walt
Colleen Steen 500+
Denis Fitzpatrick
Just a few thoughts...
It seems to me that unlike many other words, the pronoun "I" doesn't have a reference... or better yet, its reference cannot be considered content. At the University of Copenhagen, a man by the name of Dan Zahavi is participating in the Danish National Research Foundation: Center for Subjectivity Research, where they are using a multi-disciplinary approach to tackle the problem of what we mean by the word "self". Here's a link to a series of Youtube videos that might be of interest : http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W15koSG9_Xw
Philosophically, the works of Hume and Nietzsche have been of assistence to many of us.
The contemplative tradition too, offers a more experiential approach to the question.
Its interesting that we want to define, to find the limits of, “something” which may or may not have any independent reality, that may be nothing more than a useful social construct, a fiction !
Is a wave separate from the Ocean ?
Hmmm?
Colleen Steen 500+
I think/feel that we, as individuals ARE the reference...are we not?
Personally, I really DON'T want to define, which is why I said I don't like labels....why I feel that the being that is called Colleen in human form is unlimited energy having a human experience....why I say that "At this point, with the information I have, I believe that I am a conglomeration (a mixed coherent mass) of all the energies and learning I have experienced...everything and nothing:>)"
I believe that to define myself or anyone else is limiting, and I believe that humans want to "define, to find the limits of "something"" because it may offer the feeling of control. I don't mind saying...I don't know...I don't have all the answers, and I don't need to have the answers to some questions. I believe when it is time for me to have the answers to certain questions, the information will be available to me.
A wave is not seperate from the ocean, nor is a drop of water seperate from the ocean in my humble opinion. We can seperate them by removing the drop of water from the source, and it eventually goes back to the source. We can percieve the wave as seperate if we choose to "see" it in that way, and it is all still connected...is it not?
Denis Fitzpatrick
I whole-heartedly agree with you that our labels provide us with a feeling of control... but more often than not, they conceal the incredible mystery of what is presently occuring.
I have always been fascinated by those moments in my life when everything in my world falls silent, and I lose all sense of separation from that which I behold... a flower, a sunset, the eyes of my child... its as if all sense of “self” disappears, and all that remains is the mysterious Other !
So in order to clarify what I was getting at in my previous post :
What if our sense of separation is sustained by our language and thoughts ?
What if our assumptions about the independent reality of “objects” and “subjects” turned out to be false ?
In other words, what if “identity” is merely a projection onto any given experience ?
For example...
As you are reading these words, a label is being attached to every unit that is being read, and perhaps there are corresponding sounds arising in your imagination. The same process may occur as you look around at your immediate environment. The focusing and labelling tend to occur simultaineously, and this creates the appearence of a field of independent realities, and at exactly the same time, a sense of separation from these supposed separate realities.
If you turn “inward”, the same process can occur with your thoughts and feelings.
But what is creating these labels, and separating out the various phenomenon... and simultaineously observing them ? Is your awareness one with, or separate from, these “individual” events ? The thoughts, the feelings come and go...as do these words... but the awareness, is it really constant, and something ''separate'' from the content ? Or, just as we project a constant onto the stream of our so-called outer experience, we do the same inwardly ?
We naively gaze through the spectacles of language, and forget we have them on !
Colleen Steen 500+
Yes...I agree that in addition to labels providing a feeling of control, they also, often conceal the present moment. Once we have labeled something/someone, we think we "know", and the exploration stops, thereby preventing us from discovering anything more. As you insightfully say...it actually seperates us from more information.
I believe that often our sense of seperation IS sustained by our language and thoughts, just as our sense of "self" can be sustained with our language and thoughts. I totally agree that " “identity” is merely a projection onto any given experience". How we choose to "be" in any interaction is often identified by our own labels and expectations, and/or the labels and expectations of those around us. However, for others' labels and expectations to influence us, we need to accept them as our own.
You ask..."Is your awareness one with, or separate from, these “individual” events?" Personally, I feel connected to everything and everyone, and I realize that I may not be "normal"...LOL!
I believe it is the thinking process, the ego, and a sense of needing to control, which causes the separating of various phenomenon. Whether or not our awareness is "one with", or "separate from" anything, is a choice. When we let go of the labels, expectations and mind chatter (trying to put things in an order we may understand), I believe we feel more "one with", rather than "seperate from".
We (humans) create, accept and live with the labels ourselves...I suppose in an attempt to understand and explain our "self"? I find that letting go of the labels and expectations, provides a much bigger picture of "self", than when we label, expect and try to control. So, actually, with an effort to understand and explain by labeling, we prevent our own learning, growth and evolution!
Denis Fitzpatrick
And as to “normality” ... well ... its something we need to shake off anyway!
From childhood onwards, our family and friends, our schools and other institutions, the media in all its forms, and countless other influences, attempt to “normalize” us. The result is, quite simply, an ego that is often disconnected from any deeper sense of identity that we once had, long before we came to believe in the stories we tell ourselves, about ourselves.
So in asking the question “Who am I ?”, many of us settle for the acquired image, of an acquired identity. We defend it, we promote it, and worst of all : we honestly believe its who we are. Furthermore, not only is this “normal”... its expected of us. Thereby, we become predictable characters, in a story not of our own making, who imagine that we are free!
If this wasn't so tragic, I would laugh. But the suffering that results from such false identification, is very real.
We have been literally taught how to see, and how to be: in THEIR world... and that is precisely why the question “Who am I ?” is so valuable in helping us to shed our character armor, and to return us to who we are, prior to the development of our separate self sense !
There is a space, within each one of us, where all sense of “self and other” falls away... who are we then? That's the mystery, and my deepest interest.
So... enough of my nonsense... let's get back to the metaphors !