GENIUS FORUMS

How about we sort out this issue properly?

It is surely obvious to anyone not of the fucking idiot variety that there is a self of some sort. This is because such a thing is named and defined (ok, maybe nebulously for the most part, but close enough). Therefore, a self exists (in the same sense that anything named and conceived necessarily exists). But in what sense are our notions of a self valid and where do they go awry and become false? One of the common features of the self as ordinarily conceived is that it represents a/the locus of consciousness. Yet, no such locus can be demonstrated. There is no seat or foundation for consciousness to which we can point. Consciousness seems like an emergent property, yet it isn't one because we cannot show from whence it actually emerges. We nominate the brain in an attempt to do so, but correlation is not causation. The brain is clearly involved, but what isn't? So, for me we can dispense with any idea of "self" that references it as any kind of locus for consciousness. It's just not a sustainable idea.

So, what about introspection? i.e. the fact that it occurs? Can we reasonably give the title "self" to the processes of thought (wherever and however the hell they "emerge") that recognise themselves and think about themselves and reference themselves and subsequently give an identity to themselves which continues over time? Why the hell not? The simple fact is this phenomenon exists. It may as well have a name. Let's call it the "self", or "Frederick" if you'd prefer.

This "self" is not special in any way. It does not exist uniquely. It exists in the same way that any other thing exists. If we left things at that everything would be peachy. However, the dynamics that get laid down as this phenomenon begins to appear are rather problematic. Without going into those dynamics too much in the opening post, let's just say for now that what develops is the ego itself. The ego is not an idea of self. It's a form of self. That difference is enormously important. It's what the basic thing of self grows into as those aforementioned dynamics develop and find completion. If it were possible for evolution to actually fuck up, we might say that evolution has fucked up. Oh, hell, let's say it anyway, even if only for poetic effect.

Psychological maladies and aberrations excluded, everyone develops into an ego. But it's the very facets of introspective intelligence that arise that form what ego essentially is and how it functions. That ability to reflect, to self-reference, combined with memory and temporality produces the sense of identity that continues over time. But simultaneously, if not at the very same time, that ability to self reference and grant identify also produces the sensation of separation (which upon examination proves to be false - hence the innately delusional nature of ego). If the self is real in some kind of inherent way (which is what is experienced) then it must be distinct and separate in some real way to the rest of reality. Thus instantly emerges two of the most distinct and powerful elements of ego dynamics - insecurity and grasping. The ego begins a never-ending process of reification, of loss and gain. It attempts to give its reality concretion by identification with or attachment to things outside itself. This process does not cease partly because the things of reality are ephemeral but also because that sense of separation is like the other side of the piece of paper of the sense of identity. One creates the other, so to speak. Thus samsara. The rest, as they say in the classics, is history.

Ok, so that's all kind of simplistic, but the idea was to open up some discussion about some basic things so that we can get them sorted out. So, all you all you OCD types, I've just thrown a pack of coloured jelly beans on the floor; get sorting.

Now I have to add you to the list, I was under the impression you usually get insulted first at least or lean toward jokes so I left you off, but now you are on the idiotic team of people who would rather contend and insult over avoiding it completely.

I hear people, for example in the other room, contending in delusional arguments for absolutely no reason, and I just think that I am glad I am not one of those people, but would rather openly try to avoid such contention through simply not beginning or trying to end it, it is usually very easy to avoid unless someone is clinging to something strongly.

And as I said before, self is a word, the wrong word, it means 'me', which area of consciousness would you define as me/mine? The whole or part? Some section of form maybe?



Also I would prefer Frederick or Dan or any name, those don't mean mine. Can't know about you, but there is no identification happening here with this form.

There are feelings but no feeler of the feelings, experience arises but there is no one there experiencing.

There are feelings but no feeler of the feelings, experience arises but there is no one there experiencing.

Discourse of the Merged Unconscious.

There are objects but no subjects.

I am going to ask you a very direct question. But, if you're unable to actually engage in a meaningful discussion, feel free to just give it a miss rather than ramble on about you are nothing. Like, you know, tell us how this nothing becomes so deluded -- I mean the actual experiential event or series of events -- as to think it is something.

What do you think Dan meant by the ego beginning a neverending cycle of reification and how can you demonstrate to us that this is not what you are experiencing in your "enlightened" state of non-existence?

If you haven't directly addressed my question, I'm going to call you a fucking idiot. As you are feelings without a feeler, speakings without a speaker -- a non-exist -- this shouldn't be a problem since we are just dealing with words, and we all know they're not actually feelable, but only seeable without a seer.

SeekerOfWisdom wrote:Now I have to add you to the list, I was under the impression you usually get insulted first at least or lean toward jokes so I left you off, but now you are on the idiotic team of people who would rather contend and insult over avoiding it completely.

There's no need to avoid is at all, really. If you can't see that the reactions to supposed "insults" are of themselves deeply informative and deeply indicative of a mind set that needs to be exposed and examined, then you are indeed a naive little boy. If they are inapplicable to you personally, then your reaction to them is a bit bemusing.

The rest of your post suggests you didn't even read the rest of mine.

Oh, and by the way:

SeekerOfWisdom wrote: Can't know about you, but there is no identification happening here with this form.

That would be nice, if true, however all the evidence points to this being a piece of self-deceit of grand proportions. Just sayin'. If someone calls out to you, "Hey Seeker, watch out for that fuckin' bus!!!" I suppose you'd just walk in front of the fuckin' bus, eh?

Such a thing cannot be demonstrated to a person who has the plan to call fucking idiot on the next comment, that discussion would not be realistic and any reply would be based on an emotional grudge, shouldn't have to say that there is the option of discussing on equal terms. The reason remains that there is non-attachment even from what you would call my own self, let alone having "attachment to things outside itself". From here it seems that identifying with form as self is the basis of egotistical attachment and cause for the loss and gain he mentioned. Which is why the next question is, how does your understanding of 'self' differ from 'identifying with particular form as self'? And if it does, what exactly makes up your self?

To "give its reality concretion" through attachment to external things seems to be referring to the drive which moves a mind to believe that it wants or needs these sensual distractions. This desire is a distraction because it is blinding the fact that "I want" is a lie accepted instead of the alternative of confronting the reality of the emptiness and transience of "I". If this is not a complete mistake, he was referring to a never ending cycle of conceptual clinging through which the ego separates itself, an alternative being to simply let go. Still, all of this is made up of manifestations and nothing more.

And me stating 'self' has completely wrong implications does not equate with non-existence.


Dan you were correct I was leaving at the time tho I have read it now thanks to Leyla and the response is hence directed at you as much as her. Also I think it is very silly to say it is indicative of anything, otherwise one could just as well say the same for any of your past reactions involving insults or swearing and there would be no clear grounds for distinguishing intent or even mood. Why is it that non-attachment is being related to suicide?

You said the evidence points contrary, despite the point given above about the 'evidence', it was just stated that the non-attachment is from form, it should be clear that also means identification with any past manifestations as if responsibility for them is held.

It is clear that existence is not an easily communicable topic, which seems only to be more of a reason for in-depth discussion rather than attempting to pass judgement before- or even after- a clear platform of communication is established, which was actually the original point that you made when inquiring on 'self'.

I'm sure that's all very meaningful to you!

lol, not really, though naked girls and food still hold meaning.

Genius Forums, the ideal place you can discuss the nature of Ultimate Reality with nihilist pothead teenagers. L.O.L. or "Hahahaha!"

[spits her tea all over the screen!]

Diebert, I have a sense, perhaps mistaken, that you have Christian links. Has some Christian thinker, perhaps a Jesuit, ever come up with this?

*

1 In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth.
2 And the earth was without form, and void; and darkness was upon the face of the deep. And the Spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters.
3 And God said, Let there be light: and there was light.

*

- Thought is conceptualization.
- Conceptualization is required in order to "say."
- In the above hierarchy God is, prior to conceptualization.

Substitute the word Self for God.
- Conceptualization, in conjunction with the formless universe created by Self, confers form.
- Light is the understanding of a formed universe that has been created through thought, by Self.
- Form is transient.
- Form which clings to transient conceptualization is known as ego and is the cause of suffering, as ego is functioning under a false premise, namely: In the beginning, form created form.

- Drop transient conceptualization, even for a moment, and the clouds dissolve, the waters part, and all that remains is the unadorned eternal Self.
- When the light of transient conceptual understanding again adorns the eternal Self, as it invariably does as long as form persists, thought resumes its heirarchical place.
- The eternal Self creates the heirarchical order prior to conceptualization, and it is conceptualization which confers understanding (light) upon this order.

Cahoot wrote:Diebert, I have a sense, perhaps mistaken, that you have Christian links. Has some Christian thinker, perhaps a Jesuit, ever come up with this?

It's a bit tricky to talk about "Christian" thinkers. There are many rooms in Father's house for these conversations. But yes there are many traditions coming close to what you're talking about, starting with various Gnostic groups even before the Catholic Church was formed! It's being argued that scriptural sayings like "I am the Alpha and the Omega" or "In the beginning was the Word" were references to the idea of the birth of consciousness and self-form. In other words, that the creation myths and the Israel myth are at best illustrating how things work internally right here and now ("eternally"). Or "as above so below" in the sense that history reflects upon our own formation,delusion and liberation.

Cahoot wrote: Substitute the word Self for God.
- Conceptualization, in conjunction with the formless universe created by Self, confers form.
- Light is the understanding of a formed universe that has been created through thought, by Self.
- Form is transient.

Even in mainstream Christian theology it's understood that the book of Genesis contains several separate creation stories which act independently from each other. Each of them revealing a different aspect (the style is considered prophetic, like a Psalm, and not historical).

First you have two recounts of the heaven and earth's creation, one short and one longer sequence but with differences. Then the story of the fall with the Tree of Life and the forbidden Tree of Knowledge. Eating from the latter one (listening to Snake) removes access to the first tree or at least "paradise". What is created here is shame, meaning self-consciousness in this case of the self-body. What is shame but awareness of ones state in exaggerated or sometimes twisted form. Shameless people are often not the brightest cookies after all. So a dramatized creation story! Then Cain and Able, a familiar drama with siblings, victim, perpetrator, betrayal -- a rendition without much connection to any parentage at all. So it's another version with different aspects I believe, a bit closer to earth so to speak.

Ok..this popped into my head, it is simple to understand :

Who/What Am I ?

I have eyes...am I eyes ?
I have a mouth....am I mouth ?
I have ears...am I ears ?
I have a voice...am I voice ?
I have arms...legs...puss...blood...urine...shit....bile...
Can you find me,myself,I in any of those parts of this body ?

All these things make up a body...you may think it is relevent to being who I am....
But these things are just material flesh & blood...
Since birth , conditioned by my environment & society....
Molded, formed, like a piece of clay....
programed like a computer....

This body/self, will get old[like a car] and fall apart...
Death will suck the life out of this body....

Then what is left ?

In my ashes, there will be some kind of energy....
this energy never dies....
this energy is what everything is.

Personality seems to be a person....but it too, is a programed script, reacting to stimulants...like a rock thrown into a pond...rippling......

The Real self is no-self. Selfing is ego...wanting to exist as a person/personality.
The Real is the essence of everything.
Everything is Everything.
Everything is No Thing.

Don't ask me what No Thing is....some call it Buddha Nature...
It's the essence of everything.

The Real Self.

Here's another one :

Idiots f....producing the self...
who were the first f'ing idiots ?

Mankind comes from idiots, f'ing.
F'ing produces the egoic body.

This whole material Universe F'ed itself into existence.

Stop f'ing around and return to the Void.
The Void .....is it a little f'er in disguise ?



i swear....i think i do have multiple personalities....i am embarassed all the time at what this one posts and find myself
having to delete what this one writes all the time !!!!

Here's Buddha's version:


10. 'There comes a time, Vasettha, when, sooner or later after a long period, this world contracts. At a time of contraction, beings are mostly born in the Abhassara Brahma world. And there they dwell, mind-made, feeding on delight, self-luminous, moving through the air, glorious — and they stay like that for a very long time. But sooner or later, after a very long period, this world begins to expand again. At a time of expansion, the beings from the Abhassara Brahma world, [85] having passed away from there, are mostly reborn in this world. Here they dwell, mind-made, feeding on delight, self- luminous, moving through the air, glorious--and they stay like that for a very long time.
11. 'At that period, Vasettha, there was just one mass of water, and all was darkness, blinding darkness. Neither moon nor sun appeared, no constellations or stars appeared, night and day were not distinguished, nor months and fortnights, no years or seasons, and no male and female, beings being reckoned just as beings. And sooner or later, after a very long period of time, savoury earth spread itself over the waters where those beings were. It looked just like the skin that forms itself over hot milk as it cools. It was endowed with colour, smell and taste. It was the colour of fine ghee or butter, and it was very sweet, like pure wild honey.
12. 'Then some being of a greedy nature said: "I say, what can this be?" and tasted the savoury earth on its finger. In so doing, it became taken with the flavour, and craving arose in it. Then other beings, taking their cue from that one, also tasted the stuff with their fingers. They too were taken with the flavour, and craving arose in them. So they set to with their hands, breaking off pieces of the stuff in order to eat it. And [86] the result of this was that their self-luminance disappeared. And as a result of the disappearance of their self-luminance, the moon and the sun appeared, night and day were distinguished, months and fortnights appeared, and the year and its seasons. To that extent the world re-evolved.
13. 'And those beings continued for a very long time feasting on this savoury earth, feeding on it and being nourished by it. And as they did so, their bodies became coarser, and a difference in looks developed among them. Some beings became good- looking, others ugly. And the good-looking ones despised the others, saying: "We are better-looking, than they are." And because they became arrogant and conceited about their looks, the savoury earth disappeared. At this they came together and lamented, crying: "Oh that flavour! Oh that flavour!" And so nowadays when people say: "Oh that
flavour!" when they get something nice, they are repeating an ancient saying without realising it.
14. 'And then, when the savoury earth had disappeared, [87] a fungus cropped up, in the manner of a mushroom. It was of a good colour, smell, and taste. It was the colour of fine ghee or butter, and it was very sweet, like pure wild honey. And those beings set to and ate the fungus. And this lasted for a very long time. And as they continued to feed on the fungus, so their bodies became coarser still, and the difference in their looks increased still more. And the good-looking ones despised the others. . . And because they became arrogant and conceited about their looks, the sweet fungus disappeared. Next, creepers appeared, shooting up like bamboo. . . , and they too were very sweet, like pure wild honey.
15. 'And those beings set to and fed on those creepers. And as they did so, their bodies became even coarser, and the difference in their looks increased still more. . . [88] And they became still more arrogant, and so the creepers disappeared too. At this they came together and lamented, crying: "Alas, our creeper's gone! What have we lost!" And so now today when people, on being asked why they are upset, say: "Oh, what have we lost!" they are repeating an ancient saying without realising it.
16. 'And then, after the creepers had disappeared, rice appeared in open spaces, free from powder and from husks, fragrant and clean-grained. And what they had taken in the evening for supper had grown again and was ripe in the morning, and what they had taken in the morning for breakfast was ripe again by evening, with no sign of reaping. And these beings set to and fed on this rice, and this lasted for a very long time. And as they did so, their bodies became coarser still, and the difference in their looks became even greater. And the females developed female sex-organs, and the males developed male organs. And the women became excessively preoccupied with men, and the men with women. Owing to this excessive preoccupation with each other, passion was aroused, and their bodies burnt with lust. And later, because of this burning, they indulged in sexual activity. But those who saw them indulging threw dust, ashes or [89] cow-dung at them, crying: "Die, you filthy beast! How can one being do such things to another!" Just as today, in some districts, when a daughter-in-law is led out, some people throw dirt at her, some ashes, and some cow-dung, without realising that they are repeating an ancient observance. What was considered bad form in those days is now considered good form.
17. 'And those beings who in those days indulged in sex were not allowed into a village or town for one or two months. Accordingly those who indulged for an excessively long period in such immoral practices began to build themselves dwellings so as to indulge under cover.

http://www.columbia.edu/itc/religion/f2 ... asutta.pdf

I've worked on Neural Networks which are computer programs that attempt to 'come alive'. They sort of fake reality in a sense, but computer's are not a complete description of reality, because computers lack some Quantum Physics that our brain contains.

I think that listing self allows for you to fake self in a future computer...

1/ Self is a location where...

2/... Cause starts in your brain as time...

3/ ...The location should be a hole, and self should flow from that hole. Electrons sit in holes, and their energy projects from those holes.

4/ Self is a form of energy. The flow of energy is likely to be similar to a liquid flow, but very fast. This is missing from computers, so until somebody inserts this energy into a computer you cannot really fake self very easily.

5/ Then the flow leads towards logic gates which we can easily fake in computers.

So basically the fifth element onwards can be faked. The first 4 elements are not used in computers. When someone first starting programming Neural Networks which is the fifth listing they were surprised to see fake intelligence emerge from a computer. They are very interesting to program, and once you program them you can see that the self is only just about missing from our physics list. We are so close to being able to fake real intelligence that I would bet on it happening within 20 years. So to understand self is only to understand future technology 20 years ahead of time, and that isn't hard.

[sorry Pincho.. I was typing this as you were & posted as you were posting]






The Buddha and all sentinent beings
are nothing but expressions of the one
mind. There is nothing else.


- Huang Po


This I can also comprehend [somewhat],
as all we see, hear,smell, taste, experience
is related to the brain/consciousness....
and this is related [somewhat] to the Mind....

But the Mind is independant of our brain that feels/experiences.
[This is the part I have problems comprehending]

WHAT IS THE MIND ?
This is the true self.

But I don't quite understand it.

Pincho Paxton wrote:Self is a form of energy. The flow of energy is likely to be similar to a liquid flow, but very fast. This is missing from computers, so until somebody inserts this energy into a computer you cannot really fake self very easily.

Yes...some kind of energy....also our flesh & blood bodys are capable of adapting to metallic/robotic parts, that help us to survive also !!!
So as we adapt to machines replacing parts in our bodies....machines [computers], are becomming more human-like also !

This energy is the same reguardless if it is in a rock, metal, or flesh.
[Atoms/protons/neutrons/electrons,etc]

Buddha wrote:mind-made, feeding on delight, self-luminous,

Interesting how in his Creation Story...he interjects that we were once "MIND-MADE" & "SELF-LUMINOUS".
Don't scientists say everything is composed of light [when it is broken down into quantum physics] ?
Or is it the energy of sound/ vibrations ?

I'm working now on the Jelly Bean Theory : I always ate the black ones first....then red....yellow & white were always last....unless they were pineapple flavored...you are what you eat !

Kunga wrote:Don't scientists say everything is composed of light [when it is broken down into quantum physics] ?
Or is it the energy of sound/ vibrations ?

No and no.

Kunga wrote:Here's another one :

Idiots fuck....producing the self...
who were the first fucking idiots ?

That would be the Jews. It's always the Jews.

How can we comprehend what we are, if we can't even comprehend the universe ?
I'm 1/2 way into this lecture :

http://pirsa.org/displayFlash.php?id=13020146

Kunga wrote:How can we comprehend what we are, if we can't even comprehend the universe ?
I'm 1/2 way into this lecture :

http://pirsa.org/displayFlash.php?id=13020146

You used the word 'we'... you should have used the word 'I'. You shouldn't be ashamed of yourself so much that you need to include everyone else in your struggles. The Universe is the most simple thing that there is. It has no intelligence, and particles just bump into each other. You are over qualified to think about the Universe.