Conceptual Imprisonment

Love cannot be conceptually understood and this is why it's not available. However, it can be experienced by engaging to understand it. Unfortunately, you engage from prediction and, therefore, suffer disappointment, because it can never be what you predict.

Attempting to extend outward from a concept is to demonstrate misunderstanding. To experience a concept is, of course, no experience at all. This is equally true for “non-dual awakening.” If you think you've experienced “it,” then clearly you haven’t.

Love is an awakening that is unpredictable and cannot be prepared for, since you have no idea what it is. To predict and prepare is to set conditions upon an experience for which you have no understanding. When you think you know, you only imprison another within your concepts, thereby, imprisoning yourself. To define what you need from your own “knowledge” is to deny the truth.

Yet, when you engage without knowing or defining, you allow an openness for surprise.

Surprise is natural, while concepts are completely made up. Love, like enlightenment, must come as a complete surprise. Otherwise, you can be certain you have come prepared for the experience you expect based on what you predicted and, make no mistake, you will have it as expected. Yet, it's funny how what is expected seems to lose value over time, which means your preparations have been useless.

This applies as equally to “non-dual awakening” as it does to love, since both transcend time and are thus, timeless. Prepare for either, based on past learning, and you will experience neither. However, your ego will inform you that you have experienced the concept you were prepared to experience and you, obviously, will become a “believer.” Are you a believer?

The world is full of “believers,” but exhibits little in the way of truth. Love transcends the world, but if you awaken to it based on the world’s specifications, you have nothing other than what you had before. And who wants that?

To predict is to construct experience based on past learning. What is “loved” is the concept of another and not the other at all. In fact, essentially the other has ceased to exist by becoming a concept that you have constructed for which to fantasize an exchange of conceptual “love” based on your predictions of what it is. But concepts are always empty and there is nothing you can experience from a concept. Duh!

Yet, it’s funny how we look to concepts for our salvation, rather than to each other. But wasn't that the Buddha/Christ message? What happened?

Imprisoning another through a concept means that the other will exist only as a concept and “love” must be predicated upon conformance to that concept and for the ego, nothing else will do and anything less feels like betrayal. Therefore, if another fails to conform to your concepts, the ego can only see “love” as absent and will adjust accordingly.

This is why the ego seeks endlessly for love, but dies without it. To awaken to it, is to live and many realize this just prior to dying. In a moment they immediately understand what they were here for. Do you know what you're here for?

Love is “awakening” to truth and therefore, can come to you only through another because the truth of you is in them. It can’t be realized alone, through deep contemplation or years of meditation. It must be engaged with in the understanding that you cannot predict or prepare for it, whatsoever. Fail to see it in them and you will mistake the truth of yourself and choose your own imprisonment by limiting what you can awaken to in them. This is because “they” are indivisible from “you.”


“and all my instincts, they return
and the grand facade, so soon will burn
without a noise, without my pride
I reach out from the inside”

“in your eyes
the light the heat
in your eyes
I am complete
in your eyes
I see the doorway to a thousand churches
in your eyes
the resolution of all the fruitless searches
in your eyes
I see the light and the heat
in your eyes
oh, I want to be that complete
I want to touch the light, the heat I see
in your eyes”
(Peter Gabriel)

Re: Conceptual Imprisonment

that's a wonderful peter gabriel song, let me see if i can find a good version… ok.

I've been thinking about this a lot, ending a relationship and thinking a lot about it all. The new group Meeting Love has been a good place to ponder it all.

I've been very reluctant to begin on the area of expectations because my expectations have been so very problematic, so very strong. I really believe as you are saying that I have to get away from those as completely as possible. Also, that I cannot get away, so I must not deceive myself. They have a strong hold on me from the inside. 

Imprisoning another through a concept means that the other will exist only as a concept and “love” must be predicated upon conformance to that concept and for the ego, nothing else will do and anything less feels like betrayal. Therefore, if another fails to conform to your concepts, the ego can only see “love” as absent and will adjust accordingly.

This is why the ego seeks endlessly for love, but dies without it. To awaken to it, is to live and many realize this just prior to dying. In a moment they immediately understand what they were here for. Do you know what you're here for?

This is a great sadness, one of the tragedies of human existence, to long so endlessly for love and not find it. But I see some have gone much further on this path than I have and I want to learn.

love,

Nicole

Re: Conceptual Imprisonment

Hey Nicole,

Actually, I do not see many that have gone, as you say, “much farther on this path.” Maybe you see what I'm missing.
I have specialized in marriage/relationship therapy for the past 25 yrs and it seems to me, as a whole, we seem to be regressing back into childish relating patterns. But that's just my skewed assessment. The same silly little relationship wars are played out every day all over the world. The reasons for war are repetitive. The ego is a very compulsive belief system.
However, yes, to engage closer to an experience of love, it does seem probable that one must give up expectations as to what it is, so as to finally understand.

Thanks,
mikeS

Re: Conceptual Imprisonment

Mike, 

 I did not get past the first few sentence… Love is a state of “being” it has no concept expect what we humans have placed on it. we are disappointed or afraid because we have human expectations… 
This is a spiritual site, Love is the Highest experience a being can have yet as a human with ego and expectations one can not Be in Love or “BE” Love, even though we all are Love. 

Peter G's words are very true “from the inside” I reach out… 

I am Love, Jeff

Re: Conceptual Imprisonment

Jeff,

“Love is a state of “being” it has no concept expect what we humans have placed on it.”

Yes and that was the point behind the post. “Enlightenment” is equivalent to the experience of love, except when conceptualized or talked about. Yet, note that many believe seeking “enlightenment” to be a solitary activity. Which may account for the confusion and why so little love is available to the world.
Inside, or “within,” is a metaphorical device. Actually there is no inside or outside. From my experience engaging “from the inside” would be a merging of the two perspectives.

But I'm just saying…

Thanks!
mikeS

Re: Conceptual Imprisonment

Hi Mike,

Maybe that's the challenge - that you see so many of the worst dysfunctions of marriage and family. It must be harder and harder to believe that anyone is doing anything right in this area. 

I often get discouraged too when I look at my life and the relationships within my extended family, by and large. But looking a little deeper and farther afield, I see reasons to hope.

Love,

Nicole  

Re: Conceptual Imprisonment

hi all
mike says

Yet, note that many believe seeking “enlightenment” to be a solitary activity. Which may account for the confusion and why so little love is available to the world.

mike - i recall several times (although i can't recall the specific conversations)when you have linked the solitary meditative or contemplative path with there being little love in the world.

personally, i don't get this line of reasoning.  and for me, the two are not related.  in other words, i don't believe that the solitary paths are cause for there being little love in the world. 

earlier in this thread you say
 The same silly little relationship wars are played out every day all over the world. The reasons for war are repetitive. The ego is a very compulsive belief system.
However, yes, to engage closer to an experience of love, it does seem probable that one must give up expectations as to what it is, so as to finally understand.

here is my view of it.  the conditioned relating is what sets up the compulsive beliefs - as you say … the “conceptual imprisonment” that is indoctrinated.  setting up expectations…

but how does one first learn about expectations - that they are even there?  usually by having someone point out that they are there - so they can be recognized… teachers, therapists, a friend with experience, books etc… occasionally someone may figure it out on their own - but that would be very rare i think.

then - how does one give up expectations?  and THAT i believe, is the solitary practice.  because no one else can give up your expectations… no one else can clear the space for surprise.  contemplation, meditation - to gain experience and even understanding of one's own mind… i think this is crucial. 
and guidance through this process is valuable i think - because the expectations can become more subtle… so to have a friend with experience is very valuable… so there is both the relating with the experienced person - to help recognize what may not be seen on one's own - AND there is the solitary practice of recognizing and remaining open.

so for me, it isn't the solitary paths that are causing little love in the world, rather i think that the reason there is such little love in the world is because not enough people have engaged the solitary practice of knowing their minds.
so there is - as you say - The same silly little relationship wars are played out every day all over the world.

hey Nicole

i was thinking about your posts above - and the way i see it - love is a lot closer than you may think… i think it is just a tiny tweek of a change of perception away… and that you - and your willingness to relate to people shows how close you are to love - close not being apart from you… love that happens through the conditioning, despite the conditioning.  the merging and the falling away - despite of what mind is doing, consciously or unconsciously.  i think it is always just right there… in the reaching out, in the drawing in.  the trying of things.  even the pushing away.  love manifests in motion for us egoic embodied beings.  it is the creative elements as what is born, what changes and what dies away.  whether relationships - which can never be understood and can never remain the same.

what i say may not make any sense… but, there is an experience i am trying to express.

love
christine.


 

Re: Conceptual Imprisonment

Yo Christine!

the conditioned relating is what sets up the compulsive beliefs - as you say … the “conceptual imprisonment” that is indoctrinated.  setting up expectations…

Okay.

but how does one first learn about expectations - that they are even there?  usually by having someone point out that they are there - so they can be recognized…

Yep.

then - how does one give up expectations?  and THAT i believe, is the solitary practice.  because no one else can give up your expectations… no one else can clear the space for surprise.

Hmmm…did you construct your 'self' in solitude? Then what makes you believe you will identify and “give up expectations” in solitude?
Egos clearly rebel against this idea since I do believe that in general we have lost trust in each other and we expect very little from others. We tend to experience a sense of hopelessness that others can join with us in our quest for salvation and so we believe we must go it alone. This merely reinforces the individual paradigm that has shaped the world and is slowly destroying it.

so to have a friend with experience is very valuable… so there is both the relating with the experienced person - to help recognize what may not be seen on one's own - AND there is the solitary practice of recognizing and remaining open.

Well now you seem to be sending a mixed message. Of course, others assist “you” in remaining open. It is they who you are seeking to remain open to. Every problem we encounter is a problem of relating and the greatest joy we experience is in relationship. Even to say that one's greatest joy is through relating to nature, presupposes sharing that joy with another to fully experience it. Experience is not a solitary activity, although ego insists that it is.

so for me, it isn't the solitary paths that are causing little love in the world, rather i think that the reason there is such little love in the world is because not enough people have engaged the solitary practice of knowing their minds.

I see it as simply more of the same perpetuating of the individual paradigm. The “hero's journey” is our curse. We merely continue to perpetuate separation. This was neither the Christ or the Buddha message, before ego got a hold of it and tailored it to its own 'individual' specs.

Just saying…what say you?
mikeS

Re: Conceptual Imprisonment

christine, mike,

i see both-and, love growing through true intimacy between us in many ways, and love growing when we are alone - it depends so much on intent and attitude, doesn't it? there is a solitude of drawing deeper into reality and a solitude of escaping or withdrawing. maybe no solitude is purely one or the other, but it seems to me that we cannot sustain full engagement with everyone all the time, that even in the withdrawing there is a purpose in re-fueling for more engagement…

no, i don't feel love is so far. i see where what i said could be understood that way. i see many failings of love, in myself and those around me, but i do actually feel quite excited about the possibility of something that feels quite new, and does not seem hard or far, but natural, and unfolding at its own pace. because for once, i'm not trying to be in charge, to bring love to myself.

love,

nicole

Re: Conceptual Imprisonment

Hi Mike! on the issue of solitude: i basically agree with your assessment of engagement rather than disassociation. but i think and feel that there are times when we need to breath in so to speak, and six months or six years of withdrawal from the world doesn't seem counter productive to me as long as one is aware of the intentions behind such a decision. having said that, howard hughes wouldn't be an example of what i am talking about, but perhaps jesus' times of solitude would be……………

hi nicole, hi christine………but ya know, maybe j. geils was right! love stinks!lol……….okay then, sick and jaded boy is leaving the building……..

Re: Conceptual Imprisonment

andrew,

If you were the only person on the planet, you would still define yourself based on the absence of others and not simply on the fact that you alone exist (Heidegger). Others would still continue to be the defining characteristic of your 'self' whether they actually existed or not. You define your experiences in direct correlation with others. Without others “you” would not exist. They define “you” as you define “them” since 'self' is nothing more than the attachment to conceptual values as to who and what you are based on who and what 'they' are.
I have no issue with disengagement for solitude. But make no mistake, the chief reason you disengage is based on problematics with engagement. One may seek solitude in which to engage in spiritual practices or seek solace in ideologies, but clearly the purpose of this is only to maximize engagement. Every problem in the world, whether your personal world or the world at large, is a problem of relationship (chiefly, the fear of relating).
As I see it, solitudinal seeking is counterproductive when disengagement is claimed in the service of the self, alone. Unfortunately most of our precious religio-spiritual ideologies advocate this in recognition, I suppose, that we really have little faith in one another. This is sad, because it seems to me that by this time we should all realize that our mutual salvation will require each other, together as ONE. A “collective Buddha,” if you will.
Nevertheless, we go off in search of our personal 'enlightenment,' or our own personal jesus, rarely realizing that we did not conceptualize (create) the self in isolation, so how do we expect to save the self in isolation. The solitudinal moments of Christ was to better see Christ in the face of those met.

But that's just how I see it, for what it's worth…
mikeS

Re: Conceptual Imprisonment

hey andrew, thought the equivalent in vancouver of the loch ness monster had gotten you lol

good to see you. j geils was wrong :) and don't go just yet, there are other posts waiting for you, for example in God Pod or Stranger's Torah, have a look…

Love,

Nicole

Re: Conceptual Imprisonment

Nicole,

but it seems to me that we cannot sustain full engagement with everyone all the time,

“Everyone”? No, time/space would not allow it. However, in a sense, it seems likely to me that we are engaged with everyone all the time and this keeps the construct of reality locked in place, since all we really have is an 'experience' of reality. We can't really prove it exists although we can agree about our experience which always has a mutualized correlation to it.
Nevertheless, your experience of a 'world' is based on your relationship to it, more specifically, your relationship to others IS your 'world.' An experience of a 'world' is nothing more than an experience of others, since you defined them and they defined you and together the world is defined and given meaning. There never has been and never could be true isolation, just a delusional experience of separate goals and actions.

even in the withdrawing there is a purpose in re-fueling for more engagement…

You got that right. In fact, that's all it is, so I think it's best we all start seeing it that way, as opposed to some delusional purpose of further developing the self. The self was not developed in isolation.

Peace Angels,
mikeS

Re: Conceptual Imprisonment

Hi Mike, I'm glad we agree on the re-fueling. But I believe there are other good things that can go on when we are alone including becoming closer to God and ourselves which again means a deeper engagement with others.


love,

nicole

Re: Conceptual Imprisonment

Nicole,

But I believe there are other good things that can go on when we are alone including becoming closer to God and ourselves which again means a deeper engagement with others.

Yes and that seems to be the conventional perspective not just of western, but even more so with eastern religions.

The question then is do we engage deeper with each other as a result of our solitary engagement with “God” or is it more likely that we engage deeper with “God” through our mutually deep engagement with each other? make no mistake, the ego is very interested in time coordinates as to which should come first, second and subsequent. These levels and degrees are given higher value. Therefore, if one values engaging with God above human engagement, human engagement may be severely minimized, at least until god is realized by the individual. But when that?

You might say it is both, however, I think if you look at most religious ideologies there is a distinct influence of finding “god” or salvation separate from others and this is where the individualized special concepts of 'revelation,' salvation,' 'awakening,' enlightenment,' etc originate. these concepts weren't devised to applied to whole collectives.

First comes the ego's realization and then we call on others to join us. I merely advocate that first we call on others to join and then we will not fail to realize. Until there is this joining we remain, as we always have been, the blind leading the blind.

But my advocacy of this goes against centuries of antiquated ideology reformulated from any pure essence of the message, by egoic tailoring.

just saying…
mikeS

Re: Conceptual Imprisonment

hi mike

i enjoy your perspective, however, in some aspects we do not seem to have the same experience.  for example - the solitary relating in nature.  it is only solitary in regard to there not being any other people around at that moment in time - but there is still deep relating to the environment through the senses.  or in the garden… taking a seed - feeling it's smoothness and density and pushing it into damp warm earth… the smell, the breeze, the feeling the soil drying on my skin… or in the ravine - amongst the ferns and moss covered fallen trees - with the stream - feeling the tiny vapour droplets, the sound of water flowing over stone, the smell of the forest …

i can relate these things to you now - in words, or tell you about them… but that in no way enriches the original experience - as a matter of fact - the telling of the past sensations seems inadequate … and the experience is past anyway.  the great enrichment was as the experience was actually happening…  not in the telling or the remembering of the event.

in regard to the hero's journey - the purpose , in my view, is not to perpetuate separation - but to eventually completely integrate back into the collective - like the last picture in the ten oxherding pictures… where the being enters the marketplace to be of service. 

warm regards
christine

Re: Conceptual Imprisonment

Christine,

I have no issues with nature, except when some attempt to replace humanity with nature, as if to exclude people (this is often a Taoist interpretation). Sensation is fine, but it is the mind which gives meaning. No matter how thrilling the sensation, the thrill is of the mind as is the “body,” essentially, given meaning by the mind.
I suppose it is all a matter of perspective (or the “juggling of perspectives,” if you will). Many so-called spiritualists find greater harmony through interaction with nature and to my mind, this is out of fear. The fear of people.
Until we overcome our deep-seated fear of one another, nature can only continue to suffer. We cannot substitute nature for one another.
This is not an indictment on you personally, or anyone else. I present it as something I see in general. It seems that generally we really don't like each other very much. Nor do we trust one another (as far as we can spit, ha!). I sense this may be a direct result of a deep-seated discord within ourselves. Nevertheless, there is no division and until we find joy in each other, most likely we will not find joy in ourselves (and vice versa). There is no sequence to it.
Note the ego requires 'me first' and then others, if possible. this is the general consensus with spiritual “enlightenment” and “awakening” that I find only slightly disturbing. This paradigm is no different from any other paradigm found in the world. Why do we expect that the same maps we use to seek the world's rewards would allow us to acquire rewards beyond the world?

I don't get it…
mikeS

Re: Conceptual Imprisonment

Hi~

Surprise is natural, while concepts are completely made up. Love, like enlightenment, must come as a complete surprise. Otherwise, you can be certain you have come prepared for the experience you expect based on what you predicted and, make no mistake, you will have it as expected. Yet, it's funny how what is expected seems to lose value over time, which means your preparations have been useless.

I find I agree with this.  I think by very virtue of the word, enlightenment, we are surprised.  It must be experienced as something new and revealed (at least in one's own experience) in order for it to be relevant to one's life.

But since I do not search for enlightenment so much as experience, I don't so much care by which avenue it may or may not arise.  Eureka! moments are great, as long as they sustain in the sense one is transformed, even if on a smaller scale.  I think, as well, that a feeling of being one up on the enlightenment scale is not enlightenment at all, but ego talk, plain and simple.  Even if an experience appears valid, it loses its' validity once narcissism enters into the picture frame.

For me, if I don't have a balance between social interaction and solitude, I become ineffective.  Prayer and meditation can be a relationship between oneself and one's perception/experience of something greater than oneself.  The experience one has of something greater than oneself can certainly be experienced within a collective setting, but I find I always have to ponder the experience after awhile in complete solitude.  The painter, the dancer, the poet, the writer, the sculptor, et al, utilizes the balance between solitude and interaction.  An imbalance of either seems to interfere with the creative process.

I think love is destroyed the moment we attempt to isolate and contain it.  I think love needs movement and flow.  Contemplation, on the other hand, is more solitary but seems to enhance interaction when it occurs.  And it has a lot to do with trust.  I trust people as far as I can spit.

Blessings~

Re: Conceptual Imprisonment

Mike and Nahnni, I'm not much interested in promoting one religious ideology or another here. Speaking for myself, I go through times of strength and weakness, up and down, in the outward and inward journey. I know how I experience life, others and myself is a function of my personality including the fact that I am at core an introvert but have learned to become an extravert in many ways, and am attracted to the mystical but lack discipline, etc etc (oh it's tempting to ramble about myself, but how dull for all the rest of you!).

Nahnni, thanks for bringing in the arts - solitude is a vital part of creation of many kinds isn't it? And so is interaction. 

Perhaps partly it's not being overly attached to it having to be one or the other always but moving toward a greater flexibility? What do you think?

Love,

Nicole

Re: Conceptual Imprisonment

Hello Mike~

Well, that is the balance, is it not?  Where we go in reflective solitude to where we are in social interaction and back again.  I actually agree with you for the better part, only I think we may be at cross purpose as I define a need for solitude.  The artist, of course, is like a seed, whose creativity may be cultivated in solitude, only to burst forth as a creation to share with the world.  The fiction writer is under the greater pressure, I suppose, because the solitary endeavor of having written a story must convince an audience to indulge in the solitary space of reading that story.  Perhaps this is why writers are reputed to drink.  But again, there is the problem of the often fragile ego of the artist, who wishes to be understood by the social mechanism and struggles when feeling that absence, so this directly supports your viewpoint.

I guess what I am saying is that the breathing space of solitude and the stimulation of social interaction, when in balance, helps to create an energy for an individual to flourish.  I do understand that our concept of who we are comes from social messages, but in solitude we have the space to decipher that message, to agree with it, believe it, or reject it, change it or what have you.  I think an imbalance makes one a little crazy.  Strange notions may be born from a solitude that turns into loneliness, and confusion can reign from sensory overload, which is why too much work and too little play makes Johnny a dull boy, I suppose.  Oy.

Anyway, I think we agree in the most crucial respect.  It is only in the dimension that there seems to arise some shade of grey.  Prayer and meditation are solitary activities, but taken to the extreme, well, I suppose that is a different calling, a whole different set of mythology, or at best, perception.

Blessings,
Nahnni

Re: Conceptual Imprisonment

Nahhni,

Very stimulating ideas, as always!

The painter, the dancer, the poet, the writer, the sculptor, et al, utilizes the balance between solitude and interaction.

True. However, the painter paints for others, the writer and poet write for others, the dancer dances for others, the sculptor sculpts for others. What we do, we do to share. Do others ever leave the mind even for a moment?
There certainly is solitude in these endeavors. But is it real? Is it ever truly isolative or alone? Essentially, in the mind, is there ever real solitude? Even if the body is not physically “interacting,” is the mind free of interaction? is the mind continually interacting? Are we ever really alone? Is that even possible? I suppose if we have become used to living through information provided by the body 'senses' we may consider an isolated body as alone. Yet, I believe the mind is a truly communal 'thing' (although the egoic part wishes to deny it as such).

I know all that's a bit abstruse. But they're just questions, no answers.
mikeS

Re: Conceptual Imprisonment

Hi Mike, that's exactly it, what we do in solitude is also for and with others! I'm delighted you see that.

Love,

Nicole

Re: Conceptual Imprisonment

Nicole,

So true. However, sometimes people feel safer in solitude and tend to deny this is why they seek it, religiously.
My simple guess is that if one's solitude does not result in deeper interactions, then it may border on useless. In that case it may be engaged in due to fear as opposed to 'refueling.' The 'self' recalls pain and suffering and, just as our engagement with others can lead to our greatest joys, it can also leave deep wounds.
I have found that many who profess to be devout spiritualists, have often been the most deeply wounded and find solitude more an escape from further wounding. yet, it is easy to deny this is the case.

But i speak personally…
mikeS

Re: Conceptual Imprisonment

Mike, it seems that we are in agreement again. What can we do about this terrible state of affairs? :)

Re: Conceptual Imprisonment

I can never get the post to reply thing in the right spot.  It is always hit and miss.

Re: Conceptual Imprisonment

Hi Nicole :)

I think it is wise not to be overly attached to things being one way or the other, although I confess, perhaps to my detriment, an attachment to solitude.  It is not by any faith system sense that I feel compelled or engage in the wish to be alone, but recognize it as much a part of my spirit as my own skin.  For me, there has to be a balance, or I feel imbalanced.  It has been this way since my earliest memory and my memory is long.  As much as I engage in interaction, there must always be a door to solitude.  I may experience a relationship with what I perceive as something greater than myself when alone, but that appears to only be something which occurs, and not the motivation behind the compulsion.  My relationships outside of solitude are deeply meaningful.

Yes, we do define much of who we are through social ties as Mike says, but I have found we discover the nuances in our solitude, but that is just my own perception.  For me, too much social interaction leads to sensory overload, likewise, too much solitude leads to an implosion, so in recognizing this, for me, I need to balance my need of both.  This is probably why I never remarried after my divorce so many years ago.  I know I can't do it.  Sooner or later, compromise becomes surrender and together, alone, does not make sense to many, although I find it a fulfilling experience.

Blessings~

Re: Conceptual Imprisonment

I hear you, Nahnni. It's something that is challenging perhaps for a full extravert to understand, that pull to solitude, to drink deeply of the still waters. So, why not just acknowledge we all have different natural tendencies/capacities for social actions, so it's not necessarily a special virtue on the part of the one to excel at solitude or the other at vigorous engagement. 

But at the same time, the way we are is not static - I have changed drastically from the withdrawn, socially fearful child I was, and even from the young adult who tested strongly ISTJ on Myer's Brigg's but more recently ENFJ (it seems that only the judging is a constant for me, Mike!).

I have no doubt that if I have another 30 or 40 years, I could continue to change.

Love,

Nicole

Re: Conceptual Imprisonment

Interesting, when I do counseling, I merge into the situation.  I talk, I listen, but I am most meditative.  IN the most intensive of situations, I feel as if I have been cleansed. What I'm asking is if it is possible to drink of the still waters?  I think so.  Take care.  Burl

Re: Conceptual Imprisonment

Hi Burl, that's beautiful, being able to stay in that meditative state while counseling. You inspire me.

Nahnni, oh, I find the busy busy quite a challenge too, I can really relate to that, and often feel like I am from another planet in terms of not “fitting in” :) but that's ok!

Re: Conceptual Imprisonment

Bensoph,

I can relate as i too, work in such settings. It is quite rejuvenating when physicality seems to disappear and minds merge in ever deeper understanding.

Thanks!
mikeS

Re: Conceptual Imprisonment

Nicole,

To the contrary, judging is the chief and only component of egoic mind. We make judgments from the moment we awake until sleep and even in sleep the judgment capacity plays on in dreams. Therefore, it is no wonder we so easily judge others automatically. In those judgments of others we determine what purpose they serve for us. It seems to me that once we surrender our purposes we will then see free of the conditions we impose upon love.
Anyone who claims they do not judge, in my opinion, fears the judgments they do make, moment to moment to moment. To negotiate the 'world' requires it be incessantly and continuously judged. However, usually when most folks talk about judgments, what they really mean are 'negative' judgments. But the ego works off of contrasts and value hierarchies, so many apply value judgments without even realizing they do it. But they do, nonetheless.

say me, say you…
mikeS

Re: Conceptual Imprisonment

Hi Mike,

It's not so much that I am afraid of judgments as I think many of mine that are negative, as you say, are not fair. So, I think an awareness and a lightness about my judging helps me not to take it so seriously.

Love,

Nicole

Re: Conceptual Imprisonment

Nahhni,

I think this goes much deeper than “social ties.” Who we conceptualize ourselves to be is inherent to consciousness. I do believe we are all in the same “consciousness,” so to speak. However, even on a more shallow level, culture pervades our 'self' and you can't take the self out of the culture, just as you cannot take the culture out of the self. And culture is everything in consciousness, since it's the belief system that defines the self.
Yet, I suppose things can be learned alone. But as I suggested earlier, we are really ever only alone physically. But then, we are always more than our bodies, even if some tend to consider only the body 90% of the time.

Saying…
mikeS

Re: Conceptual Imprisonment

Hi Mike,

When I was very, very small, perhaps 3 or 4, which I remember clearly because it was before my youngest brother was born (I would have been nearly 5 when he was born), I was at my Grandmother's and walking down the corridor just as the sun was rising.  I remember clearly noting all the vibrant shifts and shapes of the shadows and light, the sparkles from the lake across the road.  I remember thinking “I like this place of stillness and milky shadows”  I remember distinctly thinking “milky” to describe the shadows.

Point being, no matter what idea I had stirring at that moment of myself, I remember the perception of pleasure in a solitary awareness of the environment and my response to it.  To this day, I am mesmerized by shadow and light.  So, I do think we come up with perceptions of “self” and awareness of its' existence very young and not necessarily by sole virtue of social interaction.  Even babies show distinct personalities.  So, we are “something”, at least in a pure form of spirit (for lack of a better word).  I suppose, then, we come to the argument of what corrupts that pure form.  Messages.  Labels.  Etc.  Then, do we not come around full circle and ask what is insight, what is intuition and imagination all over again?  Are these separate from messages and labels and beliefs?  I don't know.  I really don't know.

Blessings :)

Re: Conceptual Imprisonment

Nahnni,

Ha! You stretch my thinking and I take great pleasure in such 'stretching.'
We may disagree on this one, but disagreement creates.

You may certainly perceive in seeming isolation, but what is perceived must be interpreted. Interpretations are learned and shared, but we may be deluded into thinking we've come up with it all on our own and that interpretation is learned as well. Such is the nature of ego.
My dogs have “personalities” too, but I wonder, do they know their personalities or have I simply projected it upon them, unbeknown to them. It seems the ego invents a purpose for everything and everyone, ha!

But then, like you, I really don't know either and every single idea I post is nothing more than conjecture. Sometimes people take me seriously, but that's not my intent.

Thanks,
mikeS

Re: Conceptual Imprisonment

Good Morning, Mike~

I always appreciate a good debate.  Never let it be said that I don't accept, and most appreciatively, the notion to agree to disagree.  And I think there is more agreement than disagreement on this one, actually, but I feel there are some subtleties within the nature of the perception of self that we are somehow born with (or cursed with, if one takes the bite of the apple mythology to heart.)  A child prodigy might be a good, if even drastic, example.  What we  shape into, I think has its basic formulation in the parental/social message.  I don't know if animals are aware of their “personalities” and this may be the separation between man and beast. Then, again, it may all be a language barrier, lol.  I think animals just go with the way they are, and if we see a “personality” in their nature, then that is what we see.  It's difficult not to anthropomorphize the animal kingdom, especially domestic animals.  The interconnection of things is terribly subtle, and we do paint our landscapes in shades of pareidolia all the time.  We do it with our gods, we do it with the housecat.

But then, there is always mystery.

Blessings :)

Re: Conceptual Imprisonment

Hi Nicole~

I think we agree on this, that it is ok to acknowledge the differences in individual temperament in the solitary v. social debate.  I only speak for myself and go outside of that only to ask if there is not crucial value in a balance between the two spheres.

Of course we are not static, or at least I hope not, for we would hardly progress if we were.  I think it is part of seeing our patterns, which ones fail us over and over again, against changing and transforming, thus flourishing.

I was an extroverted child, but could change on a dime to wanting to climb a tree and disappearing.  I am still this way, which leads me to conclude it is simply part of who I am.   The one thing about this 21st Century world of “busy, busy” is that it makes me feel rather crazy, because I loathe being busy, and yet, I must needs be busy.  Catch-22.

Many Blessings,
Nahnni

Re: Conceptual Imprisonment

Love is one of the two major powers of the soul, the other being discrimination. In the fully realized soul, love and the other emotions are applied only after reason has run its course. In this way, truth is energized and warmed, so that the soul lives in righteousness and enjoys it too. These come out of excess power beyond a plain sense response, knowledge, love and enjoyment. Therefore love does not come as a surprise to the wise.  

The ego does not really know love, it only knows a liking where it sees its interests. Love is a rational thing, emerging out of appreciation for what is observed to be objectively good. In the case of relationships, this means noting and appreciating noble attributes of personality. In this way, a universal love can arise which does not use or abuse, and breaks down any physical barriers, such as skin color, family, country, or surface beauty.  

It follows from the nature of spirit that this universal love does not involve touching, because touching interferes with forming accurate mental models for the various strata of the souls, and because touching is the dark sense, through which little to no information is communicated. People who are truly striving for universal love, will not touch one another. Now, there are two kinds of bodies, male and female. There are no other entities in the human frame, that could be loved. The practice of the ego is to love only one member of the opposite sex. I say this is a harshly limiting and ignorant condition. It isn’t love at all, but a private preference as the person seeks sense stimulation in lieu of love. 

But a strong soul, rising up high on the wings of asparshana or non-touching, will be able to feel true affection for members of both sexes, on the basis of their noble personality attributes. Living with hands-behind-the-back, as it were, he knows everything to be known about spiritual joys, but without any physical contagion of ugliness or ignominy.  

Further, this strong soul will be able to support different varieties of love within his heart, turning from one to the next with facility. He or she can have a romance transcending lifetimes, but also love the members of the community with a deep feeling, perhaps as the Greeks meant by differentiating love according to philia, affection, eros, the soul-mate bond, and agape, love based on appreciation for the divine. Is there anyone, so strong?