The problem of self.

Isn't life exciting and full of wierd stuff! Got to love it.

I'm interested to hear how you view the thing we call “the self”. Let me try an experiment:

You are sitting on a bench in a park on a beautiful summer day. Before you is a tree. Your eyes are looking at it. Now, a thought in your UL starts and does this:

“About 6 meters in front of my eyes is a tree.”

The thought in your UL has “reached out” and gathered information (the distance, where in relation to you, and what kind of object) about the the world in which you are situated. It probably also have gathered qualia information like: the leaves are green, and how it subjectively ”is like” looking at the tree. This information now gets stored somewhere in your brain as memory.

Now, who or what has access to the memory?

…

In a normal conversation a person would probably say something like this: “What are you talking about? I have access to the memory, of course. I fail to see how this is relevant.”

Well, that sounds alright. Or does it?

We know now from a scientific neurological (UR) perspective and from (most) phenomological or meditative (UL) perspectives that when we search for the self in organisms and in ourselves … we simply cannot find it. It doesn't matter under how many rocks we look, it just hasn't been found yet.

Let's say from the UR perspective that electrical signals transmits the information you gathered about the tree from the memory center in your brain, and then over to…… what? The center of self in the brain? Scientists have found no such center. But to where are the signals from the memory center then transmitted with the stored information so we can use them? Who or what has access to the information? How does it happen?

Is it like a little CEO who jumps around inside the brain picking up every signal and deciding what to do with them? Not likely. But this is usually what people think about (including myself 99.9% of the time) when they think about themselves; like the omnipotent, independant, unchanging and enduring CEO inside the brain - the self.

Any neuroscientists here? Any long time meditators? Anyone who could share their views, or have read about this?

Re: The problem of self.

One interesting slice of this question focuses in on thinking/thoughts. Where do they come from, how do they arise, and who is thinking them.

In Steiner's Philosophy of Freedom, he talks of four main worldviews/ character types/ modes of thinking (out of twelve) and here he uses these four to look at the question of thinking, using the example of looking at an object:

3-1 Materialism
The observation of a table, or a tree, occurs in me as soon as these objects appear upon the horizon of my experience. Yet I do not, at the same time, observe my thinking about these things. I observe the table, and I carry out the thinking about the table, but I do not at the same moment observe this.

3-2 Spiritism
I am conscious, in the most positive way, that the concept of a thing is formed through my activity; whereas pleasure is produced in me by an object in the same way as, for instance, a change is caused in an object by a stone which falls on it.

3-3 Realism
While I am reflecting upon the object, I am absorbed with it, my attention is focused upon it. To be thus absorbed is precisely to contemplate by thinking. I attend, not to my activity, but to the object of this activity. In other words, while I am thinking I pay no heed to my thinking, which is of my own making, but only to the object of my thinking, which is not of my making.

3-4 Idealism
I am, moreover, in the same position when I enter into the exceptional state and reflect on my own thinking. I can never observe my present thinking; I can only subsequently take my experiences of my thinking process as the object of fresh thinking.


All four point to the fact that you cant observe yourself actually thinking, which perhaps suggests that this thinking is somehow closely connected to this elusive self (?)

Re: The problem of self.

“Now, who or what has access to the memory?”

The memory lives in conjunction with thoughts, sensations and feelings - one vast mindscape. Things arise and they pass away…

No problem,

Peace,

James.

Re: The problem of self.

“The memory lives in conjunction with thoughts, sensations and feelings - one vast mindscape. Things arise and they pass away…”

Mmmh. But for whom?

Re: The problem of self.

The brain has access to the memory.

For you and I as human animals, the brain and nervous system is functionally the self.

You can adopt a more constructed view, such as - “A metaphored “I” in an analog simulation of the human's environment”, but, such a constructed view may not end up being an accurate description.

Re: The problem of self.

Hey IS, still looking for the ghost in the machine? That is good! Keep looking in every hiding place till you either find it or are convinced it does not exist.

Is it like a little CEO who jumps around inside the brain picking up every signal and deciding what to do with them? Not likely. But this is usually what people think about (including myself 99.9% of the time) when they think about themselves; like the omnipotent, independant, unchanging and enduring CEO inside the brain - the self.

Yeah, that is delusion. The fundamental spell cast by maya almost all of us are under. Years ago when I was part of a Sangha, I used to meditate every Tuesday night with my dharma friends. One night while sitting a temporary shift occurred in awareness. I was hanging out with my friends afterwards and they were chatting and I was paying little attention to the context of what was being said (my awareness shifted in a way that I could not, I could not hold the meaning in mind long enough) and I paid attention to their mannerisms, to the expressions of their faces. I could see how they so wanted to belong and how they wanted what they were saying to be acknowledged. It was like a wave of energy would manifest on their faces and then a scared look in the eyes looking for acknowledgement and belonging, so needing the reflection back to keep their sense of self intact and propped up and in control. I wanted to tell them to just put it all down, that they do not have to live this way under the tyranny of this false self. But I was having a hard time speaking and so I remained silent. I don't know if they would have even understood if I told them.

–

“The memory lives in conjunction with thoughts, sensations and feelings - one vast mindscape. Things arise and they pass away…”

Mmmh. But for whom?

Relatively for me and for you, ultimately for no one.


<3  e

Re: The problem of self.

e: Hey IS, still looking for the ghost in the machine? That is good! Keep looking in every hiding place till you either find it or are convinced it does not exist.

You took the words right out of my mouth e. I recon now it's time for a touch of Ramana Maharishi of course ;) A good old dose of rewind. Keep it up IS, run yourself dry. The tiger will pounce when he's least expected.

- I really liked the mini-'delusion sense of self' story. A very poignant snippet indeed. Couldn't help wonder what alarm you would have raised, had you remained able to speak and shared your perspective to your wavering sangha buddies.

Lisa

Re: The problem of self.

After reading so many books about all this, pointers like Emptiness and No-Self have become like nice little concepts in my mind. And nothing more. I'm starting to understand that I don't at all understand what is being pointed to, which is a good thing. It's first now I'm becoming aware of the fact that wherever I look, I simply cannot find this self which is thought to be running the apparent show.

I can almost feel the mind doing everything in it's power to keep this from being seen through. It doesn't like Nagarjuna.

“But also this concept of 'emptiness' is 'empty' and in the final analysis irrelevant.”

Have all you people here seen through “the self”? Do you have constant access to it or do you tend to fall back into old ways of thinking sometimes?

Re: The problem of self.

IS: Have all you people here seen through “the self”? Do you have constant access to it or do you tend to fall back into old ways of thinking sometimes?

Of course, I was born a jivamukti (liberated while living) so this is very easy for me to answer. :) :) :) - seriously though:

This is an interesting question of course IS, but the one which I believe repells people the most. Talk about the 'authentic self,' the 'psychic being', or whatever other label you want to apply to that which is simply real and undying. and people run to the cave for cover. You only have to look at threads on these topics to see the shrivelling process with your own eyes.

Why is this?
Multiple reasons. Here's a mere token couple of them. Probably because there is such stigma in 'appearing' to have stable access to fullness of awareness  - and thus realisation -of this penultimate perspective & position. Curious, as this is the location of being any aspirant continually tries to finely tune operating from. If they only get glimmers, they might, if serious about this, increase practices to make this a more permenant trait, other folk are already there (they didn't have to go anywhere, it was there all the time) indeed but there is a mass reluctance to appear to be calling oneself 'enlightened' in any capacity because we know that conditioning has tricked the majority into thinking this type of sharing is acute egoism at best and untruth at worst. This is a symptom of the postmodern where you have to go on trial for using certain words. Try it, and you will see the repulsion for yourself. This is interesting to me in itself. But ultimately we all know that its a permanent state available to all, through calling, evolutionary development or just as a spontaneous happening of the type you see in its purest formed state in people like Ramana Maharishi. Coming back to what we already are, and always have been. Have you read Ramana's death encounter line of questioning when he first began his hardcore self enquiry? If not, here it is below for you to dig and ponder further:

“It was in 1896, about 6 weeks before I left Madurai for good (to go to Tiruvannamalai - Arunachala) that this great change in my life took place. I was sitting alone in a room on the first floor of my uncle's house. I seldom had any sickness and on that day there was nothing wrong with my health, but a sudden violent fear of death overtook me. There was nothing in my state of health to account for it nor was there any urge in me to find out whether there was any account for the fear. I just felt I was going to die and began thinking what to do about it. It did not occur to me to consult a doctor or any elders or friends. I felt I had to solve the problem myself then and there. The shock of the fear of death drove my mind inwards and I said to myself mentally, without actually framing the words: 'Now death has come; what does it mean? What is it that is dying? This body dies.' And at once I dramatised the occurrence of death. I lay with my limbs stretched out still as though rigor mortis has set in, and imitated a corpse so as to give greater reality to the enquiry. I held my breath and kept my lips tightly closed so that no sound could escape, and that neither the word 'I' nor any word could be uttered. 'Well then,' I said to myself, 'this body is dead. It will be carried stiff to the burning ground and there burn and reduced to ashes. But with the death of the body, am I dead? Is the body I? It is silent and inert, but I feel the full force of my personality and even the voice of I within me, apart from it. So I am the Spirit transcending the body. The body dies but the spirit transcending it cannot be touched by death. That means I am the deathless Spirit.' All this was not dull thought; it flashed through me vividly as living truths which I perceived directly almost without thought process. I was something real, the only real thing about my present state, and all the conscious activity connected with the body was centered on that I. From that moment onwards, the I or Self focused attention on itself by a powerful fascination. Fear of death vanished once and for all. The ego was lost in the flood of Self-awareness. Absorption in the Self continued unbroken from that time. Other thought might come and go like the various notes of music, but the I continued like the fundamental sruti [that which is heard] note which underlies and blends with all other notes.”^[15] 


Lisa 

Re: The problem of self.

“The brain has access to the memory.”

I'd say the brain has “access” to its junior holons - firing neurones, brain chemistry.

What does have access to the memory? Each memory already has an “I” dimension intrinsic to it. It is not necessary to postulate another “I”. You could say that the mind has access to the memory but that is just a different way of wording the same problem - what is the mind? Prop up the front, the back falls down…

As for access to the Self; recently I feel more relaxed about my lack of mindfulness. It is easy to respond with contraction when we notice our minds going “off track”, but if there were no track…?

Re: The problem of self.

>>”The brain has access to the memory.”

>I'd say the brain has “access” to its junior holons - firing neurones, brain chemistry.

The day you (or anyone) can demonstrate memory without a brain, or self without a brain, is the day the brain can be demoted from it's position at the top of all theories of mind and consciousness.

Eveybody here is making assertions based on storylines.

So I'll repeat mine.

The brain/nervoussystem has access to the memory.

The brain/nervoussystem is functionally the self.

Self exists, and ceases to exist, with the brain.

Re: The problem of self.

Eveybody here is making assertions based on storylines.

Whilst to some degree this may indeed be true, and they are translative entities -  in this context, they serve no other purpose than that of simply being kind.

The Translation vs Transformation section in this article goes into the proper role of this in the process of spiritual transformation. 

Lisa

Re: The problem of self.

>in this context, they serve no other purpose than that of simply being kind.

To be kind is one of the obligations of consciousness.

Altho, he kindly added, insisting that storylines are “true” may not always be as kind as it at first appears. Because storylines compete for dominance - we humans haven't let learned how to be truly kind with our storylines.

Even tho one of the functions of storylines is anxiety relief and the resolution of dissonance, and that is certainly a kind goal.

Re: The problem of self.

“that which is simply real and undying”

Real I can agree with. Undying though … I don't know about that. It's the selflessness of consciousness, but does that imply that consciousness itself metaphysically survives the death of the brain? I remain agnostic when it comes to this question, it generates the least attachment, I've found.

“there is a mass reluctance to appear to be calling oneself 'enlightened' in any capacity because we know that conditioning has tricked the majority into thinking this type of sharing is acute egoism at best and untruth at worst.”

Yeah I can see the logic in that. That is, the strong reaction against a person calling oneself a Buddha. Particularly because of the reason that, ultimately, there is no one who gets enlightened. Because there is no one there in the first place. Right?

Re: The problem of self.

Taking the spectacles off the top of his head, the man dusts down the lenses, and upon placing them back in front of his eyes he can see properly. Things as they really are.

warning: this is just a metaphor. if you take your glasses off and polish them and return them to your eyes you will not receive instant enlightenment, but you may get fewer headaches.

Lisa

Re: The problem of self.

After reading so many books about all this, pointers like Emptiness and No-Self have become like nice little concepts in my mind. And nothing more.

Right, so we have knowledge, understanding and wisdom. Even if you understand, you may not be wise. So how does wisdom (insight) arise? If you don't get wise from reading and thinking then you are relegated to the zafu. To deconstruct your experience, to turn over every hiding place self can be…calmly, patiently and methodically without a gaining idea. Check out the 5 aggregate teachings of Buddha (22-34). This is what he would refer to in order to deconstruct personhood. So, meditatively begin to investigate each aggregate objectively, like a scientist would. Learn about each, what they are made of, how you react to them, how they function, etc. Uncover with the light of awareness where your sense of self begins, ends and hides. Where am I? When am I? How am I? What am I? Who am I? Am I?

I'm starting to understand that I don't at all understand what is being pointed to, which is a good thing.

Yes, ignorance is a hard thing to admit. If you are really in need of help and have read and thought as far as you can go, then find a sangha and get help. Together, for awhile, you may be able to go further. Think of it as a journey, have fun with it, make new friends!

I can almost feel the mind doing everything in it's power to keep this from being seen through. It doesn't like Nagarjuna.

It does not like Nagarjuna…yet! :-)

-

Lisa, it is not only what you say about folks not wanting to talk about their experience. What good is it to another outside of some sort of inspiration…for how long can that excitement last? In the end all narratives must be put down and you have to find out for yourself.


<3  e

Re: The problem of self.

I agree. The narratives usually make better reading once one has found out for oneself. But alas, they are still useful and can be a catalyst for that occurance, especially if they are very provocative like Ramana's, which encourages the 'seeker' to fold back into their own awareness, as you also describe with the objective investigation into the 5 aggregates.

Lisa, it is not only what you say about folks not wanting to talk about their experience. What good is it to another outside of some sort of inspiration…for how long can that excitement last?

I don't think it has much to do with inspiration. its potentially interesting material in forumville for example, at least to some. And rather than being concerned with excitement for example, it may add an evolutionary dynamic to discussion in the sense of walking the tight rope into the continually unfolding unknown.  I think that's about the only thing exciting about it. But as I said, if you think of this in terms of 'authentic self' discussions, the mere mention brings the AC students and ex-students out of the wood work eager to get into a bit of a group consciousness hit, and leaves others scratching their heads cursing and gritting their teeth. A curious dilemma. Mainly because of penultimate misunderstanding and confusion.

How else do you integrate this stuff into ordinary mudane communication and waking reality, If not through how we communicate about it and from it?

Lisa

Re: The problem of self.

Is writes:
I'm interested to hear how you view the thing we call “the self”. Let me try an experiment:

You are sitting on a bench in a park on a beautiful summer day. Before you is a tree. Your eyes are looking at it. Now, a thought in your UL starts and does this:

“About 6 meters in front of my eyes is a tree.”

The thought in your UL has “reached out” and gathered information (the distance, where in relation to you, and what kind of object) about the the world in which you are situated. It probably also have gathered qualia information like: the leaves are green, and how it subjectively ”is like” looking at the tree. This information now gets stored somewhere in your brain as memory.

Now, who or what has access to the memory?
…

We know now from a scientific neurological (UR) perspective and from (most) phenomenological or meditative (UL) perspectives that when we search for the self in organisms and in ourselves … we simply cannot find it. It doesn't matter under how many rocks we look, it just hasn't been found yet.


The felt self or “I” exists in the subjective domain in UL. It is the function that is structuring our perspectives, making meaning of sensations, or gathering information. At human level of brain functioning  has appeared an “I “ that can reflect on itself . A  lot of meaning making and reflection by an “I” has been needed to produce this text.

The complexity of the UL subjective awareness has correspondence with the complexity of the brain functioning that can be measured in UR. The brainwaves of a  person when he is awake, dreaming or in deep sleep are different from each other. Each of these states has a differently functioning “I”.
 In your example of looking at a tree ,what is naturally perceived as “I” is a function that creates a totality or a whole with continuity from our sensations. This function makes our sensations cohere. Ony a tiny part of this structuring we are conscious of. Without this function our sensations wouldn't make any meaning. Sensing couldn't provide any meaningful information and couldn't help the organism survive. Intelligent sensing,  that an “I” provides, is a tool  for an organism to survive and thrive in the various interactions with its surroundings. This interpreting and meaning making “I” is crucially important for an organism to exist and survive.
I claim that this “I” is felt as “I am” or Being in the more subtle and silent states of the human mind.
I claim also that, when we evolve in the self line, e.g. through long time meditation, this “I am” or Being can be felt even when the “I” is busy making meaning of the different sensations in various interactions.
 This “I” is the universe evolving. This same meaning making function is present everywhere ,although in its differing evolutionary stages. When this function becomes self aware, it can be felt as “I am”.
 
Another function we call “I” is our image or idea of the function described above as our personal self, often called self image. This image is often rigid, one-sided or grandiose, and not a realistic description of the functions of the meaning creating “I” in its many different functions. This self image at the present stage of human evolution tends form an ego that overshadows and replaces completely the conscious connection to the wider and deeper meaning making “I am”. 
The ego starts to work for the survival and enhancement of the ego, instead of being in the service of the survival of the organism with it surroundings in life supporting evolutionary ways.
We need also a self image, but it should be subservient to “I am”.


Irmeli

Re: The problem of self.

“Self exists, and ceases to exist, with the brain.”

  -true enough, and the brain is certainly central to any theory of mind and consciousness. The brain is not, however, a sufficient condition for mind.

no brain therefore no mind

 does not imply

brain, therefore mind

So much for the UR - what about this?:-

no collective therefore no mind

What is the role of the LL?

“The felt self or “I” exists in the subjective domain in UL. It is the function that is structuring our perspectives, making meaning of sensations, or gathering information. At human level of brain functioning  has appeared an “I ” that can reflect on itself . A  lot of meaning making and reflection by an “I” has been needed to produce this text.”

The “I” that is responsible for these kind of texts is the product of a process of socialization. Beyond making assertions based on our storylines, perhaps herein lies the value of practice with friends.

Re: The problem of self.

James said:
The “I” that is responsible for these kind of texts is the product of a process of socialization.


Do you think the “I” that is also clearly strongly connected to our culture, is not the “I” the sages have referred to, when they have claimed there is no “I” ?

When someone declares there is no “I”, I perceive the person either just repeating what he has learned through his tradition, or he is incapable of expressing the state he is referring to accurately.

Before we can discuss intelligently about something, we must define what we mean by the concepts we use. Otherwise you cannot make assertions that have any general validity. You are just entangled in the myth of the given.
 

As long as I use the concept “I” in my thoughts and communication there is an “I”. That is my staring point to if there is an “I” or a self or not. When I think I’ll write this comment, there is clearly an “I” present there. And as long as there we use the concept “I” in our communications with each other there is an “I”.
 

If somebody who is discussing with me, means by an “I” something else, he should try to define what this “I” is about. Otherwise our discussion is senseless, and ends up both parties feeling themselves misunderstood.

In my earlier post I defined pretty accurately what I understand by the concept “I”.


James said also:
 Beyond making assertions based on our storylines, perhaps herein lies the value of practice with friends.

I cannot make any sense at all of this sentence.

Irmeli

Re: The problem of self.

>no brain therefore no mind > does not imply > brain, therefore mind

It doesn't?

As you construct it in strings of abstractions, It's not a valid verbal logic proof ( I'm agreeing that in verbal logic, a trillion 'no brain no mind' observations do not irreversibly prove, according to the rules of verbal logic, that brain = mind ) - but, brains don't exist in the abstract realm of verbal logic.

Brains(/nervoussystems) physically exist on the surface of this planet.

Re: The problem of self.

Bill: The brain/nervoussystem is functionally the self.

Self exists, and ceases to exist, with the brain.


What created the brain?


David

Re: The problem of self.

“What created the brain?”

Offtopic! :P

Let's take the creationist vs materialist debate somewhere else, and focus on the self here.

Re: The problem of self.

“I claim that this “I” is felt as “I am” or Being in the more subtle and silent states of the human mind.
I claim also that, when we evolve in the self line, e.g. through long time meditation, this “I am” or Being can be felt even when the “I” is busy making meaning of the different sensations in various interactions.
 This “I” is the universe evolving. This same meaning making function is present everywhere ,although in its differing evolutionary stages. When this function becomes self aware, it can be felt as “I am”.”

Thanks for your long reply, Irmeli. An interesting read.

More and more as of late I have become suspicious of this I Am. Like Ken Wilber's Zen teacher told him just before realizing the switch from causal to the nondual state: “The Witness is the last stand of the ego”. (Heard this in the Kosmic Conciousness recording.)

I'm thinking that perhaps this causal I Am is a bit like that, the last stand of the ego.

I bet you've seen this video with Jill Bolte Taylor? http://www.ted.com/talks/view/id/229

She had a hemorrhage which completely shut down the left part of her brain, which deals with thinking and analyzing, presumably the part of the brain which is responsible for inventing this false (but utterly necessary) self. It left her with nondual realization, or “Nirvana”. This is what she had to say about it, from first hand UR experience:

Re: The problem of self.

Is said:
Thanks for your long reply, Irmeli. An interesting read.

More and more as of late I have become suspicious of this I Am. Like Ken Wilber's Zen teacher told him just before realizing the switch from causal to the nondual state: “The Witness is the last stand of the ego”. (Heard this in the Kosmic Conciousness recording.)

I'm thinking that perhaps this causal I Am is a bit like that, the last stand of the ego.


That is possible, but I haven’t got any glimpse to that. When people talk about emptiness, I must admit that although I’m a long term meditator I have never had such a state experience. Or at least I have interpreted my experiences in meditation differently. There has  always been a consciousness present, for which I use the concepts Being or “I am” in my communications here.

Only when trying to communicate this ground for others I pick up these concepts from what I have been reading. Reading of books or posts where these kinds of ideas are discussed, is rather new for me. This very stable ground that keeps me anchored even in storms of emotion and other tumults of life, and makes it possible to not indentify and attach to emotions, phenomenal world and other products of the mind, I have spontaneously on my own felt to be “I”.
However this “I” I doesn’t feel to be separate from the “I” of others. Although I have a strong sense of “I “, I don’t feel separate from others. My sense of separateness ended with an awakening transformation at age 16. (See my blog.

Is:
I bet you've seen this video with Jill Bolte Taylor? http://www.ted.com/talks/view/id/229

She had a hemorrhage which completely shut down the left part of her brain, which deals with thinking and analyzing, presumably the part of the brain which is responsible for inventing this false (but utterly necessary) self. It left her with nondual realization, or “Nirvana”. This is what she had to say about it, from first hand UR experience:

Re: The problem of self.

“Now, who or what has access to the memory?”

The memory lives in conjunction with thoughts, sensations and feelings - one vast mindscape. Things arise and they pass away…

Thoughts arise, they pass away, sure, but there different kinds of thoughts.
Some are unconscious thoughts, urges and desires,  that we can consciously choose to observe, or not choose, and so blindly serve - thoughts that arise in the 'delusional self'.

 There are 'random rambling' thoughts that can be observed, or just allowed to roam, and which can give us a very rich set of 'data' with which to know ourselves a little better.

Then there are clear conscious thoughts of decision - the will to sit and meditate, the thought to study, to make one choice over another, to engage in conversation, to listen, basically the conscious thoughts behind the choices and actions we make.

And there are thoughts that arise, often 'randomly' or from 'nowhere' that guide us, if we are silent enought to hear them, eureka moments of momentous discovery, the ahh moments of understanding, the quiet 'voice' that knows the true surrender to a partner, a son or daughter or the conviction of knowing 'the right' vocation.

A good example was quoted in Is's post:

Re: The problem of self.

Quote from Jill Bolte Taylor: “It's that little voice [the left hemisphere] that says to me, “Hey, you gotta remember to pick up bananas on your way home, and eat 'em in the morning.” It's that calculating intelligence that reminds me when I have to do my laundry. But perhaps most important, it's that little voice that says to me, “I am. I am.” And as soon as my left hemisphere says to me “I am,” I become separate. I become a single solid individual separate from the energy flow around me and separate from you.”


Melv:To me these last two kinds of thoughts, that arise or are to some extent willed, are suggestive of what people have called the Self, Higher Self, amongst many other terms.

Irmeli: I'm suspecting what Jill Bolte Taylor is describing here is a regression to a state of symbiotic fusion, before the formation of an individual self, that can reflect on itself. The incapacity to sense the presence of a consciousness, leads her to a “no I” state. This is the kind of consiousness animals have. It is not an advanced unity state or stage.

I personally have a strong sense of  “I” and have not been in a state I would interprete as “no I”. I'm strongly individuated. I have been able to direct my life in a way that is not in accordance with what people around me would have been expected. Instead I have chosen to follow my inner guidance, which has meant in many ways living a modest life instead of making career, becoming something important in other people's eyes.  I have had the inner strength to create and follow consciously my own path in spite of the criticism and manipulations of people around me to fulfill their expectations. Before a person can do this she/he must be strong in oneself, become consciously separate from the invisible, symbiotic ties to others. Not seeing or feeling those ties, does not mean they don't exist.

Paradoxically however at the same time I'm feeling less and less separate from others. I perceive the same “I” in others as in me, also in animals. I feel also a deep connection to the nature around. I sense the same very subtle vibration in plants and animals as in me. Most deeply I resonate with the nature here in South-Western Finland where I have been born, and lived all my life. I feel I'm part of the nature here.


Melv: Unfortunately it is very hard to know when thoughts and actions are a product of the ego, and are illsusion, and which flow through from a conscious surrender to the ungraspable.

Irmeli: That does not need to be a problem. All kinds of thoughts just arise from many different sources.Trying to control this spontaneous arising creates suppression, tension and shadow.
I allow all kinds of thoughts arise. This means that when a thought appears, soon after that another thought appears from some other place inside my mind that questions the validity or morality of the earlier thought. The  thoughts from different sources and levels are in this way in a dialogue with each other inside my mind. My “I” is more like a householder, who gives a space inside my mind for all kinds of thoughts, emotions, feelings and states, and entities to interact, and communicate with each other, and criticize and question each other.
I am mostly uninvolved in this process, but I am however the one who is usually in control of what comes out, how I express myself, what I write here. On the other hand my expressions are strongly dependent on the results of these internal dialogues..

Re: The problem of self.

Lisaji: The narratives usually make better reading once one has found out for oneself. But alas, they are still useful and can be a catalyst for that occurance,…

Brand me a skeptic and a slow learner, nothing really started to change for me until I sat down and shut up for a 1000 hours.

How else do you integrate this stuff into ordinary mudane communication and waking reality, If not through how we communicate about it and from it?

IT is already 100% integrated, “I AM” just has to get out of the way and voila, there IT is. Isn't this what development is? You are identified with the bodymask, then you get out of the way and identify with (I AM attaches to) your country, then you get out of the way and you identify with (I AM attaches to) humanity, then you get out of the way and you identify with (I AM attaches to) the ALL/Self. Some of us get out of the way and then don't identify (re-attachment does not ensue and the ruse is seen thru), that is emptiness or no-self. I fully understand the difficulties involved in this when you are 100% focused and concerned about yourSelf. :-)

–

Bill: The day you (or anyone) can demonstrate memory without a brain, …is the day the brain can be demoted from it's position at the top of all theories of mind and consciousness.

memory without a brain

…or self without a brain,…

The onus is on you, you would first have to present a self.

Self exists, and ceases to exist, with the brain.

You must feel real hot and cramped in that brain Bill. You should get out of there and stretch your limbs. :-)

<3  e

PS Bill, don't get mad at me for teasing! I forever am your impish freind!!

Re: The problem of self.

Irmeli said:

Do you think the “I” that is also clearly strongly connected to our culture, is not the “I” the sages have referred to, when they have claimed there is no “I” ?

Yes, it is the conditioned, relative self.

In my earlier post I defined pretty accurately what I understand by the concept “I”.

Firstly you talk about the “I” which “structures perspectives” and “makes meaning” - that which “assembles” the world and the self image.

Then:

I claim that this “I” is felt as “I am” or Being in the more subtle and silent states of the human mind.
I claim also that, when we evolve in the self line, e.g. through long time meditation, this “I am” or Being can be felt even when the “I” is busy making meaning of the different sensations in various interactions.
 This “I” is the universe evolving.

What then is the self which contracts and separates when I feel myself questioned in a forum? - Presumably the conditioned relative self, the self which is related to the left hemisphere and says continuously “I am, I am…” The “I” which you define creates this self just as it assembles the world.

When someone declares there is no “I”, I perceive the person either just repeating what he has learned through his tradition, or he is incapable of expressing the state he is referring to accurately.

The former could certainly be the case or he could be talking about the relative, conditioned self which is a construct of the “I” as you define it. When I talk of,        ” - one vast mindscape. Things arise and they pass away…” I am merely trying to convey the sense of spaciousness of a meditative state. It could be understood as saying, “there is no self” but it is not an assertion of a belief and is not intended to create misunderstanding.

Your English is quite excellent - I have only just realized that you are not a native speaker.

I feel I'm internally connected to many other entities. I seem to partly share my “I” with many others. Many of these others seem to be spiritually very advanced beings. I can feel them as a loving presence in my heart area.
Without the suggestions and internal dialogues with these beings I wouldn't be capable of writing anything on this forum…These beings also help me writing in English.

So the self we know as Irmeli is in some respects a composite being. I think we are all composite beings and that we are not separate.

Re: The problem of self.

Irmeli:Do you think the “I” that is also clearly strongly connected to our culture, is not the “I” the sages have referred to, when they have claimed there is no “I” ?

James:Yes, it is the conditioned, relative self.

Irmeli: What is the problem with a conditioned, relative self? I perceive everything in the manifested world to be relative. Do you mean by the expression “there is no self” that there possibly is no self  which wouldn't be relative. Then I agree with you.

Irmeli:In my earlier post I defined pretty accurately what I understand by the concept “I”.

James:Firstly you talk about the “I” which “structures perspectives” and “makes meaning” - that which “assembles” the world and the self image.

Then:
Irmeli:I claim that this “I” is felt as “I am” or Being in the more subtle and silent states of the human mind.
I claim also that, when we evolve in the self line, e.g. through long time meditation, this “I am” or Being can be felt even when the “I” is busy making meaning of the different sensations in various interactions. This “I” is the universe evolving.

James:What then is the self which contracts and separates when I feel myself questioned in a forum? - Presumably the conditioned relative self, the self which is related to the left hemisphere and says continuously “I am, I am…” The “I” which you define creates this self just as it assembles the world.

Irmeli:You are observing the conditioned relative self at work.  And yes the “I” of my definition is a conditioned relative “I”. I question the existence of any other sort of “I”. Btw. I have no voice inside me, which says I am, I am….

Irmeli: When someone declares there is no “I”, I perceive the person either just repeating what he has learned through his tradition, or he is incapable of expressing the state he is referring to accurately.

James: The former could certainly be the case or he could be talking about the relative, conditioned self which is a construct of the “I” as you define it. When I talk of,        ” - one vast mindscape. Things arise and they pass away…” I am merely trying to convey the sense of spaciousness of a meditative state. It could be understood as saying, “there is no self” but it is not an assertion of a belief and is not intended to create misunderstanding.

Irmeli: I too experience vast spaceousness during deep meditative states.But it has never occurred to me to claim based on that experience, that there is no self or no “I”.

 Irmeli:I feel I'm internally connected to many other entities. I seem to partly share my “I” with many others. Many of these others seem to be spiritually very advanced beings. I can feel them as a loving presence in my heart area.
Without the suggestions and internal dialogues with these beings I wouldn't be capable of writing anything on this forum…These beings also help me writing in English.

James: So the self we know as Irmeli is in some respects a composite being. I think we are all composite beings and that we are not separate.

Irmeli: There is no self inside, whom I know as Irmeli. This conditioned, relative “I”, who is producing this comment, is not limited to a certain physical entity, called Irmeli. When I try to form an image of myself, I cannot. Nothing emerges. I'm not a thing, or a certain organism in the UR, I'm a complex function in the UL. I'm capable of learning and including into myself very many less complex functions than I am.

Irmeli

Re: The problem of self.

memory without a brain

ha ha ha, my impish friend.

But - was designed by living entities with brains, made by same, the information needed to do so discovered and transferred thru brains. Even the image was generated by the action of brains.

As are all abstractions and 'made objects' we humans have seen and can see so far.

Even such bioproducts as limestone exist because of the rudimentary reactive  'nervous system' of ancient calcium absorbing plankton.

Everywhere we look, negentropy, life, and brains/nervoussystems are inextricably and inseperably linked.

There is no dualism that is so utterly clearly present.

Re: The problem of self.

> The onus is on you, you would first have to present a self.

I present you.

Thus self is demonstrated.

When you die, the self I presented will cease self-behavior.

Thus I demonstrate anatman.

And the brain as self.

Re: The problem of self.

“I present you.

Thus self is demonstrated.”

*peers around suspiciously*

Come out, come out, wherever you are…!

Re: The problem of self.

*peers around suspiciously*

Come out, come out, wherever you are…!

And thus it is demonstrated again, with another volunteering human.

Self behavior is easy to demonstrate.

( note - self behavior is not equivalent to atman. Self is not atman. Atman cannot be demonstrated. )

Re: The problem of self.

Damn, you saw me!

*the shimmering little Dawid-soul sneaks back to hide behind the skull*

Re: The problem of self.

e, you have just have just cracked me up there kidda with your Zenified stand up comedy.

Hari krishna :) & a thousand hail Mary's

Lisa

Re: The problem of self.

Here's a very interesting lecture from a rather uninteresting german gentleman regarding this subject of selfhood:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AfdVyYSTuIs&feature=related

Re: The problem of self.

Bill, I put brains/consciousness everywhere you had written ‘brains'.  It seems it makes the most sense with both. Would you agree? For without consciousness, what is a brain?

Bill said in response to the PC RAM picture:

But - was designed by living entities with brains/consciousness, made by same, the information needed to do so discovered and transferred thru brains/consciousness. Even the image was generated by the action of brains/consciousness.

Everywhere we look, negentropy, life, and brains/nervoussystems/consciousness are inextricably and inseperably linked.

There is no dualism that is so utterly clearly present.

If they are inseparable, how are they dual? Would seem 2 perspectives of describing the same thing i.e. experience.

–

e > The onus is on you, you would first have to present a self.

Bill > I present you.

Thus self is demonstrated.

Every time I look into this me that you call you, I find nothing permanent. Self implies permanence. What is permanent in you Bill?

When you die, the self I presented will cease self-behavior.

Thus I demonstrate anatman.

That is not anatman but annihilationism.

And the brain as self.

There has never been a self to be born and die or live forever. The brain/consciousness functions for awhile and then stops. Self is imputed.

–

note - self behavior is not equivalent to atman. Self is not atman. Atman cannot be demonstrated.

Huh? You are kind of wanting it both ways Bill. Atman is Self, at least in every context I have seen it translated. You are free to translate these terms however you wish but then meaningful dialog comes to an end or else becomes quite laborious.

–

Here's a very interesting lecture from a rather uninteresting german gentleman regarding this subject of selfhood:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AfdVyYSTuIs&feature=related

Bill's self idea of being hardwired into the brain comes in at around 2:15 in part 5.

This is a very important idea to wrap your mind around if you are interested in no-self.

Naïve-realistic self-misunderstanding: We necessarily experience ourselves as being in direct and immediate epistemic contact with ourselves. (3:49 part 6)

“The tragedy of the ego dissolves. Because strictly speaking nobody is ever born and nobody ever dies” :-))))

<3 e

Re: The problem of self.

I dont understand this clinging to 'no self' and the vanquish of ego…

Part of Wilber's, and Genpo Roshi's, amongst others' work, transcends this massive stumbling block of clinging to the emptiness and rejecting the form, which is what these statements seem to demonstrate to me:

And the brain as self.

There has never been a self to be born and die or live forever. The brain/consciousness functions for awhile and then stops. Self is imputed.

–

note - self behavior is not equivalent to atman. Self is not atman. Atman cannot be demonstrated.

Huh? You are kind of wanting it both ways Bill. Atman is Self, at least in every context I have seen it translated. You are free to translate these terms however you wish but then meaningful dialog comes to an end or else becomes quite laborious.

–

Re: The problem of self.

Huh? You are kind of wanting it both ways Bill. Atman is Self, at least in every context I have seen it translated. You are free to translate these terms however you wish but then meaningful dialog comes to an end or else becomes quite laborious.

1. And I have said, those translations are wrong. Translations are translations, not absolutes - translaters are sometimes forced to use a poor choice of words, or choose to use a word incorrectly.

The western meanings of the word “self” are NOT equivalent to the word “atman”, and no amount of violence done  to the words will make them so.

The use of the word “self” in the western information stream does not and never has implied permanence. The primary implication of the word 'self' is autonomy and autonomous action and responsibility.

I am trying to correct a laborious and pointless and endless and silly dialogue by reminding people that word choice is critically important.

ATMAN is NOT SELF. Any attempt ot make it so is doomed to failure, and creates misunderstanding. Atman is atman, an enduring identity which survives death and is reincarnated. That is not self. Self, and self-behavior, dies with the brain.

If you mean atman, SAY atman. The word is not that difficult to write.

The western word self is most equivalent to the idea of the skandhas - because the ancient thinkers did not understand the existence and activity of the brain/nervoussystem.

ALL of these endlessly silly debates about a word end the moment you realize that atman is not self as that word is used in the west.

2. I repeat my argument and ask anyone to refute it by providing a counter demonstration - ALL evidence of self involves a living brain/nervoussystem.

Re: The problem of self.

>>Self implies permanence.

This is the verbal crux of the appearance of what little disagreement there is between you and I, e.

I EXPLICITLY stated that self is not atman.

Self has no permanence.

If I use the word “self” - I NEVER mean something with permanence. Never have, and never will. If I mean to imply permanence, I will use the word atman, soul, or some more modern construction like “the idea of an enduring self which survives death”.

Bill, I put brains/consciousness everywhere you had written ‘brains'.  It seems it makes the most sense with both. Would you agree? For without consciousness, what is a brain?

I wouldn't agree, e.

That's rather like an escape clause - bringng the dualism of “god” or “spirit” or “soul” in thru the back door, by calling it consciousness.

( And, self behavior happens without a brain - for instance, in single celled organisms - so, to make my statement as accurate as possible, when I say “brain”, I mean “brain/nervous system” - including the reactivity of single celled organisms as a rudimentary nervous system. )

To be explicit, all the self-behavior we humans can see, everywhere in the universe we can see, only occurs where living brains/nervous systems are present.

We have no such evidence for 'consciousness' - tho that is a word I like and often use to describe an effect produced by brains - and 'conssciousness' cannot be as esily demonstrated as self-behavior and brains/nervoussystems.

Re: The problem of self.

Hi Bill,

With the first part regarding the impermanance of self, it seems we are in agreement.


We have no such evidence for 'consciousness' - tho that is a word I like and often use to describe an effect produced by brains - and 'conssciousness' cannot be as esily demonstrated as self-behavior and brains/nervoussystems.

As to consciousness and the brain - it makes sense that every organism has self-behaviour, but i think also there are different levels, of brain complexity, and of consciousness.
I think there is a markable different between the self-behaviour of the following levels of organisms:
Matter has its physical constituent/manifestation: atoms molecules and compunds, and the energy of wave/particles
Plants and simple organisms live, have the energy of being alive, or subtle enrgy.
Animals have brains, metabolism etc, and seem to some extent to display feelings/emotions, and some would say, have causal energy as well as subtle enrgy.
Humans have this thing called self, able to question its existance and choose its behaviour.

 Whether you add the terms soul, god and spirit is up to you, (i dont see a reason to not at least hold them up there as concepts that may hold truth, but thats another topic)

Melv

Re: The problem of self.

Yes, different levels of organic complexity produce different classes of self-behavior.

I don't personally draw such a strict dividing line between animal and human self, but it is common.

 Whether you add the terms soul, god and spirit is up to you, (i dont see a reason to not at least hold them up there as concepts that may hold truth, but thats another topic)

My objection was to bringing them into the argument 'thru the back door' - invoking a dualism that may not be present, and isn't necessary to describe self-behavior.

I accept that they will be offered as 'truth' by many, and thought of as important by many.

But, I state that one never sees evidence or information or demonstration of god, soul, or spirit, except with the aid of living brains. 

To give examples - I have had hundreds and hundreds of visionary experiences of god and 'spirit' entities - but I have a living brain. I have read hundreds of scriptures - all written by humans with living brains, and read and cognized by a human with a living brain. I have had experiences of past lives, which would seem to personally confirm the existence of an atman - but those experiences were had by a human with a living brain.

Re: The problem of self.

I don't personally draw such a strict dividing line between animal and human self, but it is common.

well without adding any value judgement, humans certainly seem able to change their behaviour in a way that no animal i know of can do, both in a behavioural sense, and in a much wider context such as the developement of culture. im not saying humans are in any way better, but they certainly seem to have a much much more complex 'self behaviour'.

My objection was to bringing them into the argument 'thru the back door'
Im not quite sure what that was in response to, but fair enough, anything 'through the back door' isnt helpful

invoking a dualism that may not be present, and isn't necessary to describe self-behavior.
well the dualism is inherrently present, even  in this medium of comunication - this pc and internet are purely products of dualism. The fact that there are differnent opinions on this topic implies that there are different self's and individualities that hold them.

Re: The problem of self.

Lisa > e, you have just have just cracked me up there kidda with your Zenified stand up comedy

:-) You are a good sport Lisa and you know how to play and have fun!!

Melv > I dont understand this clinging to 'no self' and the vanquish of ego…

‘You' or ‘I' can't cling to ‘no self'. With ‘no self' there is no ‘you' or ‘I' to cling. With ‘no self' the subject/object duality ends. There is no separating space (subject over here and object over there) in which clinging can wiggle it's way into. What most call clinging to ‘no self' is meant clinging to the idea of ‘no self'. ‘You' or ‘I' have a better chance of catching the wind in our hand or stopping a river with a sieve than to cling to ‘no self'.

Part of Wilber's, and Genpo Roshi's, amongst others' work, transcends this massive stumbling block of clinging to the emptiness and rejecting the form, which is what these statements seem to demonstrate to me:..

Does this help Melv?

[Ultimately, rightmost in the lattice] there has never been a self to be born and die or live forever. The brain/consciousness [UR/UL] functions for awhile and then stops. [The relative line of development in the UL of] Self is imputed [like a line drawn with a stick in water].

Did you have a chance to watch the lecture IS posted? It fleshes this out very well within a philosopher's dialect.

You also stated self is atman by saying, the death of self is anatman. Here is what you said…

Thus self is demonstrated.

When you die, the self I presented will cease self-behavior.

Thus I demonstrate anatman.

So which is it? You seem to want it both ways. Or are you saying self is just a relative designation for a locus of behavior? If that is the case, then why do you need to add (impute) self onto behavior? Does not behavior and it's ceasing suffice? Why add self, you know… Occam's razor?

RE: consciousness. You think Buddha was mistaken and there were only 4 aggregates? Surely the difference between someone alive and dead is the lack of sentience/awareness/consciousness. Or would you say that person is behaving dead and acting without self?

RE: Self = Atman.

Bill > The western meanings of the word “self” are NOT equivalent to the word “atman”, and no amount of violence done  to the words will make them so.

From the Hindu Wiki on Atman

The Atman or Atma (IAST: Ātmā, sanskrit) is a philosophical term used within Hinduism and Vedanta to identify the soul. It is one's true self (hence generally translated into English as 'Self') beyond identification with the phenomenal reality of worldly existence.

From the Buddhist Wiki on Atman

Ātman (Sanskrit) or Atta (Pāli) literally means “self”, but is sometimes translated as “soul” or “ego”.

So, I am not trying to change word meanings mid-stream, you are. Again, like a poet you are free to use words however you wish. However, it makes dialog more laborious and misunderstanding ridden.

It seems what you are trying to delineate is done is this manner. Self (capitol S) is Atman, self (lower s) is ego. This is how WIlber has used it before Integral Spirituality. He used to say, Self (Hindu Atman) is Buddhist no-self (egoless) awareness. I don't know if he would maintain that convention now with the introduction of the lattice.


<3  e

Re: The problem of self.

Thanks e,
I'll check out the vid and give this some more thought later - i'm back into work after a month off…In answer to 'Does this help Melv'
In short yes, but i realise i didnt put what i was trying to say very eloquently at all, so more later.

By the way, i hope i didnt offend anyone with the tone of my potsing, i dont mean to offend, or even to provoke, i sometimes just get a bit into what i'm thinking and writing…

Re: The problem of self.

Your tone did not bother me. I welcomed the energy…makes the communal fire burn brighter.

<3  e

Re: The problem of self.

G'day Melv,

I see nothing wrong with the tone of your posts. :)

Love to le family

Lisa

Re: The problem of self.

Cheers me dears

Love to you and yours!

Re: The problem of self.

So to wrap up what has been said here … what has access to, for example, the stored memory in the brain?

Do anyone here still actually think one has to postulate a spiritual soul or self or Witness (that is, something that couldn't be scientifically explained) for the question to be answered? Or is it simply down to neuroscience to find how the brain does it?

I think I've concluded the latter. Does this make me a boring materialist now? :( Seems the last outpost of God in terms of Ken Wilber is this Witness or Ultimate Subject. Hmm, let me speak to the voice of the Skeptic, please.

Re: The problem of self.

Well, one does also have to take into account the inductive experiences that have convinced so many people - including myself for many years - that there is in fact an atman.

Those experiences have to be explained in a way that satisfies the intensity and the content of the experiences.

For many years I contemplated the question - what is it that I am feeling when I seem to be feeling an atman - a “true and higher self, which is not dependent on the body.”?

This question was of course made more complex by the fact that I had already equally demonstrated to my own satisfaction that anatman had far more evidence to support it.

I've drawn my own conclusions about that, tho I doubt many here would appreciate them.

I also haven't figured out a way to demonstrate them - so, no point in talking about it much.

Re: The problem of self.

I've drawn my own conclusions about that, tho I doubt many here would appreciate them.

well you donbt know unless you try…   ;-)

Does one's experience not offer any possibility of empirical study? Neuroscience can only expand the UR, so leaving the answer up to an UR discipline has little hope of answering what is clearly an UL question.

It's very difficult to find evidence from one quadrant to prove the validity of another - they certainly dont deny eachother though. Just because neuroscience hasnt proved that there is a 'self', whether higher or lower, doesnt mean it cant exist.

But how do you account for individuality - different opinions on a subject implies that different individualities are forming those opinions.
SO what, it that doesnt prove that there is a self - but what are you looking for here - i mini director inside everyones brains?
We dont have any concrete answers (yet) but i would be very surprised if all of them came from UR and neuroscience.

Re: The problem of self.

I've drawn my own conclusions about that, tho I doubt many here would appreciate them.

well you dont know unless you try…   ;-)

Yeah, well, actually, I could describe it, and you'll see what I mean when I say it might not be appreciated.

I think what we see when we appear to see an atman is a type of standing wave of information, that forms in the stream of information that vectors alongside the dna molecule.

In effect, it's a standing wave of dna - and represents/iconizes the “real” informational entity as it has manifested in some number of generation cones reaching backwards in time from the moment of the experiencer.

This is not a “self” in any personal sense - it's not an “entity” or “identity” at all, in the sense that we understand those words and ideas. Our minds model it as an entity because that's the closest thing we can model it too, the only model that 'fits' and doesn't intimidate. But, once you understand 'simulation' - the entity mockup is no longer really applicable.

It's an information phenomenon, akin to other important information phenomena like life, “consciousness”, many of the structures in matter/space/time, simulation, and others.

Re: The problem of self.

So are you saying that mind and brain are one? They “meet” in the UR. This is to say that the brain, and matter in general, is more basic, primary and causative than subjective experience. The perceived depth of experience arises from the complexity of the brain system.

Would a fair analogy be a computer program for say web design? You get an option - either you work with the design (colours, scripts etc) or you write the code. In terms of practice the code is more direct and precise. The design page also has its place however as it allows you to see the visual effect of the lay out as you design it. The code is more basic - more real if you will.

The design can be reduced to the code but not vice versa. The code is more primary but it lacks something that the design has from the point of view of the designer (from the point of view of the programmer the design IS the code). From the point of view of praxis the design page cannot be reduced to code. If you do that something is lost in terms of the aesthetics and the message you want to deliver (which is the reason for the existence of the program in the first place).

Both design and code reduce to binary code / electronic circuitry etc - the “ground” as in Ground of Conciousness if you like to pursue the analogy. So lock, stock and barrel - mind or brain - it is all sacred anyway (if that bothers anyone).

So it may be possible one day to explain the mind in terms of the brain. The sphere of human action (ethics and aesthetics) will always be best understood in terms of the mind. Mind language, feelings, values etc has something which brain language will never have. We can reduce mind to brain in terms of function but in terms of human practice the mind will never be reducible to brain.

Re: The problem of self.

Thats an excellent way of putting it.

Bill, without saying it is any more or less likely, the picture you paint of what the self is as questionable as  the picture/concept of mind or self.

There seems to come a point in UR science, as completely valid as it is for 'objective' empirical observation, when the conclusions it comes to on matters that are outside that perspective are as fantastical as any theory founded on the given of individual consciuosness.(however ultimately real or unreal that identity of self-ness is).

Any quadrant trying to determine the truth of what is another quadrants' perspective is giving a warped and.or incomplete picture.

Re: The problem of self.

the picture you paint of what the self is as questionable as  the picture/concept of mind or self.

Point 1 - I am not suggesting this as a model of “self” or “higher self” - it's one possible answer to the question “What is it that humans who do “higher self' practices “feel” when they do those practices?”.

If you haven't done those kinds of practices, and don't have the neural/somatic/content experiences I'm referring too, there's nothng to explain or model, and the invokation of information phenomena won't make sense.

I tend to work from experience to theory - I'm basically a clinician, seeking explanations for experiences, not a jnanist, trying to match the universe to theories.

Point 2 - the model of “information phenomena” is still quite applicable to the questions of “consciousness” and “self”, even if the standing wave explanation I suggested for the 'perception of higher self' turns out to be specious.

For example, the answer to Is's original question, might be a standing wave of information, altho I think it's better to model it as a multiple order simulation.

Point 3 - I said the explantion wouldn't make sense. You have to have studied some fairly exotic theories of information science before it could make sense. Thats why I don't usually mention it.

Re: The problem of self.

Added note - of course, “a simulation” is also a highly likely explanatory answer to the question “What is it that humans who do “higher self' practices “feel” when they do those practices?”.

It could also be a combination of 'standing wave' and 'simulation'.

Another model I like, I think of as 'simulation with better brain access'.

Gobbledegook, right? Technical language is like that. Still, i think it's keyworded pretty well - easier to follow than letter and colors. Easier for me, anyway.

The big advantage of the 'standing wave of dna information' model is that it explains the apparent 'exterior impersonal purposeivenes' of the experience. Otherwise you're left with the question of “why purposeiveness” and “what was the origin of purposeiveness?”.

If it's a pure simulation, the “purposeiveness” presumably comes from folklore and storylines and the other informational inputs a human gets. Which is certainly a possibility.

I doubt I'll live long enough to find out.

Re: The problem of self.

Point 1 - I am not suggesting this as a model of “self” or “higher self” - it's one possible answer to the question “What is it that humans who do “higher self' practices “feel” when they do those practices?”.

From this statement it seemed you were talking about atman, arguably equivelent to 'self' or lower self.
I think what we see when we appear to see an atman is a type of standing wave of information, that forms in the stream of information that vectors alongside the dna molecule.

If you haven't done those kinds of practices, and don't have the neural/somatic/content experiences I'm referring too, there's nothng to explain or model, and the invokation of information phenomena won't make sense.
What kinds of practices are you referring to? A different kind of, as you put it, ''higher self'' practice, or a different thing altogether?
You need to somehow define and map your starting point and which perspectives you're including so this perspective can be to some extent mapped AQALy. (so i can better understand it, it sounds interesting)

I tend to work from experience to theory - I'm basically a clinician, seeking explanations for experiences, not a jnanist, trying to match the universe to theories.

I say the same about myself - i have only 'taken on' theories that correlate with what i actually experience, and have experienced.
I think it is more than possible to interpret, and even be emprical with experiences, but there's allways the problem of conveying, sharing and matchging one's experiences with those of others. (and thats where i think AQAL gives the best tool to do so)

For example, the answer to Is's original question, might be a standing wave of information, altho I think it's better to model it as a multiple order simulation.

I have no problem with this model, i find it fascinating and would like to find out more, but i still think it is firmly rooted in UR and so can only illuminate that perspective, all be it (potentially) to a very refined degree.

This thread has had many views accross all the quadrants, and i think its helpful if a starting point is defined or mapped, whether it is more focused on one perspective, or is AQ and AL.

Point 3 - I said the explantion wouldn't make sense. You have to have studied some fairly exotic theories of information science before it could make sense. Thats why I don't usually mention it.

Reply 3-1 i havent said it doesnt make sense, but you've made my point there by stating it (the model) comes from exotic theories of information science, which is an UR perspective.

Re: The problem of self.

Reply to Melv's post:

To this point:

Any quadrant trying to determine the truth of what is another quadrants' perspective is giving a warped and.or incomplete picture.

Amen, Brother.

(This is not a comment on the content of any other post in this thread, because I haven't read them carefully. I just see in general this logical error is pretty common and wanted to applaud a succinct and clear statement of the position.)

Blessings, OM Bastet

Re: The problem of self.

Thanks Vector.

To me it is so obvious, that there are many different people using terms like 'I' and i think or i experience(d), which implies individualities are participating in this thread, which is a collection of UL perspectives and/or opinions.
It is therefore a truth that can be explored from that perspective (my own experience), or from others. (we experience) (or any scientific, objective 3rd person perspective), and one that cant be denied if we want as complete a picture as we can get of what is manifest to us - and everyone's own experience is surely an essential and integral part and perspective of the whole.

Re: The problem of self.

So are you saying that mind and brain are one? They “meet” in the UR. This is to say that the brain, and matter in general, is more basic, primary and causative than subjective experience. The perceived depth of experience arises from the complexity of the brain system. …. Would a fair analogy be a computer program for say web design?

Well, I personally wouldn't say they are “one”. But I do think it's reasonable to use the hardware/software analogy and metaphor.

We can reduce mind to brain in terms of function but in terms of human practice the mind will never be reducible to brain.

It's not a reduction, it's an informational exfoliation. The brain is VASTLY more magnificent and complex than mind. The mind is dull and almost inconceiveably limited by comparison.

Like running a commodore 64 game on a state-of-the-art supercomputer.

And, needless to add I suppose, I completely disagree with your concluding position.

Now, one of the models I have in my set of possible models is the fairly common”mind as a field phenomena” - and I am certainly open to seeing demonstrations and experiments that confirm it. (to state simply - the model is that mind, at least in part, operates like a field generated by the brain/nervoussytem, and that it therefore operates according to the physics of fields.)

And mind as software contains many informational mysteries. You mention ethics and aesthetics - those are fairly simple and easy to explain.

It's “The Content Problem #1” that is the real puzzler. How does brain and mind generate complex visionary content in such seemingly endless amounts? Now that is really astonshing.

Re: The problem of self.

The brain is VASTLY more magnificent and complex than mind. The mind is dull and almost inconceiveably limited by comparison.

That's again not an AQAL statement. the mind, self, Self, observer is as complex as the brain - they are two sides of the same thing, and correlate with eachother. sure we dont use anywhere near half of the full potential of our brains, but then most of havent realised anywhere near half the potential of our internal experience either.
The software analogy is a limited (but not incorrect) one. How many software programs have the beautifully flawed and random vista of human experience. (well they're not designed to at least…)

If the human is a commodore 64 game on a state-of-the-art supercomputer  then how could it possibly develope into a state of the art program unless we are matrix style puppets fighting machines awaiting for our creators to upgrade us (god or machine), or we have the fully developed potential latent in us, heck its allready there but as yet most of us cant realise it.
thats no program.

Re: The problem of self.

That's again not an AQAL statement. the mind, self, Self, observer is as complex as the brain - they are two sides of the same thing, and correlate with eachother.

It doesn't particularly concern me wether or not it's aqal.

One of the great failings of the aqal model is that it artificially creates an illusion of equality, a square and perfectly flat order, that doesn't exist in reality, nature, the surface of our planet, and our universe.

But I don't mind if you want to use it to critique the model I proposed. I knew before I spoke that the ideas I'm presenting would not be popular here, as I said.

If the human is a commodore 64 game on a state-of-the-art supercomputer  then how could it possibly develope into a state of the art program

Thru time. The human mind of simulation and abstractions is barely 50,000 years old, compared to the brain/nervoussytems history of hundreds of millions of years - or billions, depending on where one chooses to put the origin point.

Comparitively speaking, I don't think it will be all that long before mind becomes vastly more complex, and exceeds the capacity of brain. Already the storage of information that the mind can eventually access and hand over to brain has become huge, and may even be larger than the brains abstract processing capacity.

We will upgrade ourselves, I expect. Certainly I personally have no expectation of external help. I expect we are alone, and perfectly free - and what help may exist, is too far away to be of any relevance to us here on the surface of this planet at this time.

The standing waves of information that I mentioned can't help us - if they happen to be real descriptions of the information process, and not a model doomed to be discarded as a curiousity. Maybe we can extract information from them, but they are not entities.

Then again, maybe neither are we. Kind of a funny image - non-entities looking to non-entities for help.

Re: The problem of self.

Bill: The brain is VASTLY more magnificent and complex than mind. The mind is dull and almost inconceivably limited by comparison.

Bill: It's “The Content Problem #1” that is the real puzzler. How does brain and mind generate complex visionary content in such seemingly endless amounts? Now that is really astonshing.

I find these two comments pretty interesting. Much of what you say regarding models is too cryptic for me. My primary concern is practice and my interest in models of either mind or reality is secondary. I'm not sure how far I would be interested to take this. It seems clear that you have gone into this stuff in some depth. Could you give me some references to the literature so as to have at least some common ground? (Preferably on the web.)

James: So it may be possible one day to explain the mind in terms of the brain. The sphere of human action (ethics and aesthetics) will always be best understood in terms of the mind. Mind language, feelings, values etc has something which brain language will never have. We can reduce mind to brain in terms of function but in terms of human practice the mind will never be reducible to brain.

Bill: And, needless to add I suppose, I completely disagree with your concluding position.

I suppose it depends on how you chose to carve things up. If you are going to use an aqal model then by definition you can't collapse one quadrant into another, but it is only a model. Mind language, feelings, values etc (proper to a left hand perspective) has subjective signifieds whilst brain language (proper to a right hand perspective) has objective signifieds. At the very least these are two different styles of language. Knowing human beings' propensity for playfulness and complexity I'd say that “mind language” was here to stay.

Re: The problem of self.

I find these two comments pretty interesting. Much of what you say regarding models is too cryptic for me. My primary concern is practice and my interest in models of either mind or reality is secondary.

My ONLY real interest is in practice also. As I said, I consider myself a clinician. While I am well versed in most of the models one can extract from the literature ( what I call the information stream), every one of the models I've invented or modified myself exist primarily to explain things I've seen and discovered in practice.

After a certain point practice without models becomes sterile - altho I'm not going to try to convince you of that - just explain to you that it is practice and concerns about practice that required me to construct the specialized models that I have.

—

As for “mind” and it's complexity - the way my model works is a bit like this - much of what you ascribe to mind, I ascribe to brain. Creativity, visualization, visionary experience, most of ethics, feelings, emotions, art, subjectivity, the list goes on and on - mostly brain, with mind as a kind of assistant.

Content problem #1 is very obscure - you can only even know it exists by having had many many many hours of visionary “trance”. Almost not worth talking about it's so rare.

I already stated the problem - where does all the content come from? Enter certain states, and flows of seemingly infinite content start, “Akashic records', “past lives”, endless streams of often contradictory information in incredible detail. What is it, how does it work? It has PROFOUNDLY influenced the literature information stream, wether we know about the experiences or not personally.

Content problem #2 is an entirely different type of content problem, and entirely different type of content also. Content problem #2 is all about the information stream itself.

Sorry if it's cryptic - it does actually all make sense, it's just technical language, much like aqal and sd colors.

Re: The problem of self.

OK - the mechanical and largely senseless stream of thoughts that go on in most people's heads during waking hours. “Monkey mind”.  This seems to play a large part in our false sense of identity. Is this mind activity or brain activity?

The strange feeling, which proves to be well founded, that it would be good to be in touch with such and such a person - mind or brain?

The car won't start - there's a healthy spark and fuel in the carburettor - what solves the problem - mind or brain?

The sudden insight that if we paint the living room green the curtains will no longer clash with the new carpet?

The irresistible urge to say something sarcastic to the telephone sales person who cold-calls us during a meal?

What wakes you up at 6.00am to meditate?

Dreaming?

Re: The problem of self.

1 - about 50/50 - depending on how one choses to categorize “normal” thinking. Normal thinking is actually both more complex, and more simple, than it appears on first assessment. (there is no such thing as false sense of identity - only identities and identifications, all of which exist to serve various functions. )

2- mostly brain

3- mostly brain

4- mostly brain

5 -about 50/50. see 1

6 - depends on how you categorize it, and what stimuli you have arranged.

7 - mostly brain.

Re: The problem of self.

>>As for “mind” and it's complexity - the way my model works is a bit like this - much of what you ascribe to mind, I ascribe to brain. Creativity, visualization, visionary experience, most of ethics, feelings, emotions, art, subjectivity, the list goes on and on - mostly brain, with mind as a kind of assistant.

By the way, when I first started to consider this brain/nervoussystem and “mind” model, years ago, it shocked and disturbed me. I grew up thinking “mind” and “spirit” were the ground of being, and brain just an animal support system So I totally get the skepticism.

I kept checking and cross checking, and eventually came to believe that it was a better description of human experience.

If I get new information, for all I know the new information will require me to abandon the model. That's happened to me many times over the years.

Re: The problem of self.

It seems that the mind is responsible for the neurotic thinking and “mechanical” thought loops that many of us suffer from.

I find the emphasis on brain strangely attractive - peaceful and harmonious - it reminds me of the ox from the Zen ox herding pictures.

So I suppose we still need some kind of spirit to explain the brain complexity - ha ha (crying) - just kidding, I really don't want to go there!

Peace,

James.