The Ego Loves Self-Improvement

[SquarePeg]

Originally Posted by VinceG

The concepts we put in front of us start out divided, separate. We grow when we realize that the separation comes not from the concepts themselves, but our minds.

Naturally, the mind cannot accept "everything as one" to start with. That's why the growth process, the realization, is necessary.

I can kind of nod along with you here, but I don't see how all that leads you to just say "it's all the same, who cares??"

There are no numbers in the world. Our minds create numbers. But these are useful concepts that help us.

Same thing with ego, self, free will. Many argue that there is no free will -- but it seems useful to think that there is.

It certainly is interesting to me to think about such things!

Originally Posted by VinceG

Importance is an idea also created by the mind. It's not important for others to do anything. The world was here before you were. If you want friendly relations with people, you have to create those yourself. Love is a choice you make, it is dependent on nobody else's decision to be of good will or to be mature, or to even recognize differences.

Again, not sure how all that leads you to dismiss this thread about the ego and how it loves self-improvement. So it's all ideas, it's all mind, et cetera. Yes, yes, yes -- but why is it uninteresting to you?

Originally Posted by VinceG

I have learned that it is more important than one thinks. For example, I have always had a materialist, humanist bent. It is easy to ignore others when you have a convenient reference for reality right in front of you.

Um, you're operating with your own definition of "humanist" there...a humanist doesn't ignore others easily; indeed, a humanist is concerned with all things -- and people! -- human....

Originally Posted by VinceG

Lately I've been unresisting non-material truths, such as the clairvoyance and telepathy you mentioned. When you're exploring metaphysical ideas such as these, it's helpful to have an overarching model of how this stuff works.

Ah, okay, well, then, I don't believe in such things -- though I won't absolutely say that I am sure they don't exist -- but I think I see now where you're coming from with your protest....

All I can say is that perhaps you perceive some "higher reality" than I do, and maybe from your higher plane of consciousness (no, I'm not being sarcastic here) you a unified cube whereas I can only perceive four separate squares -- ego, self, free will, mind....

Originally Posted by VinceG

To get that model, I follow threads here about psychic stuff and play close attention to posters like Erin and Midnite and wstein. I weigh what they say against the spiritual truths that I already know and am so slowly working in non-material reality into my perception.

Consensus reality can show us things about our personal realities that we've missed. This works in all areas of life, not just the non-material.

Okay, I see now, "where you're coming from"....

Originally Posted by VinceG

I followed it wondering why people were having the discussion. There's something about it that was confusing me. I can understand why people have political discussions, or why they get so heated in the sex and relationship threads, but these threads still confuse me.

Whoa! Wait a minute! You understand conflicting viewpoints WRT sex and politics, but not WRT reality itself???? WRT the self which perceives that reality????

Originally Posted by VinceG

People have political discussions to protect and advance their physical realities. They debate relationship topics to help them understand the other sex. Here, I still have no clue. So I'm going to keep following them until I can understand why people have these discussions.

Well, first of all, it's not necessarily the case that metaphysical discussions have to be the kind of life-or-death power struggles that politics and sex have to be....

Secondly, you may as well wonder why people study such things as dark matter and dark energy. No one is even absolutely sure they exist, just that present theories have a hard time accounting for certain phenomena....

What don't you get about curiosity??

Originally Posted by VinceG

The actual topic, ego, isn't terribly interesting to me, I've exhausted that one years ago.

You've exhausted it?? Yet you seem to have nothing to say except that there's so much disagreement why talk about it....

Originally Posted by VinceG

I can't just take your word for it when you say it's intrinsically fun.

I honestly don't think anyone does anything involving metaphysics unless it's fun!

Originally Posted by VinceG

So are all other forms of interaction. There has to be a reason you're having this particular discussion. That reason is what I'm after.

In learning about others, I learn about myself. Folks have talked of an ego separate from the true self, which I take to mean our sense of ourselves as opposed to the unknown totality of ourselves....

Originally Posted by VinceG

I am curious about a great many things, but the level at which I'm interested in them in is hard to convey usefully.

But usually the curiosity is expressed -- comes out -- in participation in discussions concerning the object of said curiosity.

Ergo, this thread on the ego!

[TheJourney]

It's the coding of reality. Stop following society, get in touch with yourself, and tune in to my broadcast.

[SquarePeg]

Originally Posted by TheJourney

The range of your thoughts become your reality. What you incoorporate into your feeling is how it will appear.

And this is the question about the ontology of it all: is that reality due to me acting in such a way as to effect a self-fulfilling prophecy or is that reality due to the so-called Law of Attraction?

And does any distinction even matter, practically speaking??

Originally Posted by TheJourney

Well, it could be anything. Anything you think about reality is based on assumptions. Only the ultimate perspective is free of assumptions, and therefore in control. I'm recently getting into Law of Attraction, but as it is obviously true from the perspective of ultimate truth.

Perhaps there is such a thing as "the view from nowhere" -- that is, perhaps there is no "ultimate perspective," "ultimate truth"....

Originally Posted by TheJourney

That which is, and creates, anything he thinks of. This is who you truly are.

You mean like Vishnu, how Hindus say everything and everyone is just a dream in his mind...?

Originally Posted by TheJourney

Try not to think of your thoughts as they pertain to "you." They are just outflow of your state of consciousness, but are no more "you" than anything.

But here's the thing about the ego, the sense of a unique self, which I was getting at before: it may be an evolutionary necessity, insofar as not having a sense of self seems to result in being eaten -- literally or otherwise!

Could it be that the ego has come to fear the recognition of the fiction of its own existence due to such ingrained habits, modes of action (or, perhaps more truthfully put, reaction) conditioned by eons of evolution??

[TheJourney]

Hear me. I am the programmer of reality. I hack into the matrix of the world, and program it to my liking. Stop analyzing as a separate self. Tune in to my broadcast. Turn on your preferred channel, or vision through eyes, and other sensory perceptions. Drop out of any sort of societal influence.

[ChrisGinsburg]

Originally Posted by TheJourney

Hear me. I am the programmer of reality. I hack into the matrix of the world, and program it to my liking. Stop analyzing as a separate self. Tune in to my broadcast. Turn on your preferred channel, or vision through eyes, and other sensory perceptions. Drop out of any sort of societal influence.

The matrix was a cool movie.

[Self Exploration]

Yes, the ego does love self improvement.
To those that equate the ego to everything that is evil in us, that would not make sense. But it seems like many people do think that the ego is to be pushed away because it is so terrible.

But the ego, that part that wants to be separate and important, in the end is the core motivator of the self. It wants certain pleasures, but as a whole is willing to pay for those pleasures creating a win win for all.

A wounded ego on the other hand, that is a different story for a different time.

[evolutionarypathways]

Originally Posted by SquarePeg

And this is the question about the ontology of it all: is that reality due to me acting in such a way as to effect a self-fulfilling prophecy or is that reality due to the so-called Law of Attraction?

And does any distinction even matter, practically speaking??



Perhaps there is such a thing as "the view from nowhere" -- that is, perhaps there is no "ultimate perspective," "ultimate truth"....



You mean like Vishnu, how Hindus say everything and everyone is just a dream in his mind...?



But here's the thing about the ego, the sense of a unique self, which I was getting at before: it may be an evolutionary necessity, insofar as not having a sense of self seems to result in being eaten -- literally or otherwise!

Could it be that the ego has come to fear the recognition of the fiction of its own existence due to such ingrained habits, modes of action (or, perhaps more truthfully put, reaction) conditioned by eons of evolution??

First of all I would like to say that I love the curiosity and the line of questioning you display throughout this whole thread. Very interesting questions indeed!

Ego as an evolutionary necessity...yes. One has to wonder how far we would be able to evolve 'spiritually' without having an ego (ie. strong sense of self) to keep us alive to begin with!

If we want to stand a chance at survival we need to meet a very basic and primal condition - we need to want to live!

When that proverbial tiger comes along...if we say, "Well, you are among God's creatures and you need to eat. As fate would have it our paths happened to cross just as you were wanting for food. Go ahead and eat me, with my sincerest and most heartfelt blessings."

Well, it's all over for us.

On the other hand, if we say, "Oh my God there's a tiger! Ok, calm down. This tiger isn't going to eat me today. He doesn't know it yet but I am not meant for him. I have better things to do with my life than to be become tiger food. There are people I love who are waiting for me and depending on me. There is plenty of food in this jungle for him to eat. Let him go and find his food elsewhere. If it tries to make a lunch out of me I'll teach him a lesson he'll never forget!"

I guess I owe a duty of gratitude to my ancestors for choosing mind-set #2. Without this mindset they wouldn't have developed spears and other weapons to help them survive against pretty bad odds. I owe my existence today to that mindset of yesterday.

Ego (as in a strong sense of self) is important and supports us in more ways than one. Pull that rug out from under your feet at your own risk!

You ask a great question, "Could it be that the ego has come to fear the recognition of the fiction of its own existence due to such ingrained habits, modes of action (or, perhaps more truthfully put, reaction) conditioned by eons of evolution??"

You seem to imply with this question that a recognition of the fictitious nature of ego is actually the end of the ego. Are you sure that that is indeed the case? What is there to fear about recognizing ego as fictitious? Does this recognition suddenly render us defenseless? Do we need to be identified with ego in order to use ego?

[ChrisGinsburg]

Originally Posted by evolutionarypathways

First of all I would like to say that I love the curiosity and the line of questioning you display throughout this whole thread. Very interesting questions indeed!

Ego as an evolutionary necessity...yes. One has to wonder how far we would be able to evolve 'spiritually' without having an ego (ie. strong sense of self) to keep us alive to begin with!

If we want to stand a chance at survival we need to meet a very basic and primal condition - we need to want to live!

When that proverbial tiger comes along...if we say, "Well, you are among God's creatures and you need to eat. As fate would have it our paths happened to cross just as you were wanting for food. Go ahead and eat me, with my sincerest and most heartfelt blessings."

Well, it's all over for us.

On the other hand, if we say, "Oh my God there's a tiger! Ok, calm down. This tiger isn't going to eat me today. He doesn't know it yet but I am not meant for him. I have better things to do with my life than to be become tiger food. There are people I love who are waiting for me and depending on me. There is plenty of food in this jungle for him to eat. Let him go and find his food elsewhere. If it tries to make a lunch out of me I'll teach him a lesson he'll never forget!"

I guess I owe a duty of gratitude to my ancestors for choosing mind-set #2. Without this mindset they wouldn't have developed spears and other weapons to help them survive against pretty bad odds. I owe my existence today to that mindset of yesterday.

Ego (as in a strong sense of self) is important and supports us in more ways than one. Pull that rug out from under your feet at your own risk!

You ask a great question, "Could it be that the ego has come to fear the recognition of the fiction of its own existence due to such ingrained habits, modes of action (or, perhaps more truthfully put, reaction) conditioned by eons of evolution??"

You seem to imply with this question that a recognition of the fictitious nature of ego is actually the end of the ego. Are you sure that that is indeed the case? What is there to fear about recognizing ego as fictitious? Does this recognition suddenly render us defenseless? Do we need to be identified with ego in order to use ego?

Ego is merely the process of identification with one's thoughts and beliefs about a self. Without this identification you would still instinctively avoid being eaten by tigers and so on. In fact what you currently see as yourself would move much more fluidly through existence and it would become quite apparent that the whole idea that you needed to identify with a self to survive was simply more of the mind fearing its own obliteration.

[evolutionarypathways]

Originally Posted by ChrisGinsburg

Ego is merely the process of identification with one's thoughts and beliefs about a self. Without this identification you would still instinctively avoid being eaten by tigers and so on. In fact what you currently see as yourself would move much more fluidly through existence and it would become quite apparent that the whole idea that you needed to identify with a self to survive was simply more of the mind fearing its own obliteration.

Hi Chris,

Yes, I agree that instinctively we avoid getting eaten by tigers. This is exactly my point. The question is, why?! Why wouldn't you let yourself be eaten by that poor old tiger who is just out doing it's job...looking for food?

What is it in you that would fight tooth and nail so that you could go home to your family and live to see another day? It's your sense of self, is it not? If you had no sense of yourself, as a separate entity, why would you put up a fight or run away for that matter? What would be the motivation?

[zeitgeist]

I quite like the point evolution made. The idea that that psychological force, the ego, fought for our body over millions of years, but now refuses to let go. In fact, this psychological force undermines our spiritual journey because it feel threatened by our homecoming.

As far as the tiger is concerned, the Force will keep the tiger away from us as long as we have our job to do and will use us as tiger food when our job here is done. Vivekananda once told the story of a holy man who was carried alive into the jungle by a tiger and as long as he was still alive kept on screaming 'i am Shiva, I am Shiva'.

[Arz Sra]

Originally Posted by zeitgeist

Self-improvement gives the ego something to work with. You aspire, become, live in the future. You have a suspicion that you are miserable now, but guess what, it doesn't matter because you will be better off, enlightened, in the future! Please stop fooling yourself my friend, embrace the now, accept that you are naked and realize that you are drifting like a leaf in the wind. After that realization there is nothing more to fear and perhaps at that moment there is peace of mind.

Agree, no doubt.

And another thing to observe is how mind now is trying to justify its acts. The post is a direct attack upon its very mechanism. It shatters and reveals all the 'golden' misery that is thrown light upon as being nothing but 'imaginary baggage'.

Even if it seeks the NOW, the very seeking tells that NOW has been reduced to a comfortable end. The very act that stands as the barrier between one and now is again carried out - this time under the refuge of 'now'.

[evolutionarypathways]

Originally Posted by zeitgeist

I quite like the point evolution made. The idea that that psychological force, the ego, fought for our body over millions of years, but now refuses to let go. In fact, this psychological force undermines our spiritual journey because it feel threatened by our homecoming.

So you thank the ego for keeping you alive, yet within the same breath you turn against it, identifying it now as an obstacle to spiritual progress. Interesting. What has suddenly happened to turn ego from friend to foe me wonders?

Originally Posted by zeitgeist

As far as the tiger is concerned, the Force will keep the tiger away from us as long as we have our job to do and will use us as tiger food when our job here is done. Vivekananda once told the story of a holy man who was carried alive into the jungle by a tiger and as long as he was still alive kept on screaming 'i am Shiva, I am Shiva'.

The force will do what it will do - agreed. Yet, you still have a choice of whether you are going to fight or run away from the tiger or not. You don't decide the outcome, but you get to choose your attitude. Your example is a good illustration of this. This holy man was obviously choosing his attitude, even as he was being mauled by the tiger.

[ChrisGinsburg]

Originally Posted by evolutionarypathways

Hi Chris,

Yes, I agree that instinctively we avoid getting eaten by tigers. This is exactly my point. The question is, why?! Why wouldn't you let yourself be eaten by that poor old tiger who is just out doing it's job...looking for food?

What is it in you that would fight tooth and nail so that you could go home to your family and live to see another day? It's your sense of self, is it not? If you had no sense of yourself, as a separate entity, why would you put up a fight or run away for that matter? What would be the motivation?

Identifying as a separate self is what creates the question in the first place. Noticing that you are not what is letting or not letting the eating occur removes the question entirely. The idea that one must identify as a separate self to navigate the world is one of a slew of projected fears the mind offers up to keep the illusion running. The Why?! part of why the human being reacts the way it does isn't necessarily known in its entirety in the same way I don't know the next thought that will occur. The impulse arises and you flee. Life is at play with itself and part of the play is the illusion of survival and keeping appearances alive.

[evolutionarypathways]

Originally Posted by ChrisGinsburg

Identifying as a separate self is what creates the question in the first place. Noticing that you are not what is letting or not letting the eating occur removes the question entirely. The idea that one must identify as a separate self to navigate the world is one of a slew of projected fears the mind offers up to keep the illusion running. The Why?! part of why the human being reacts the way it does isn't necessarily known in its entirety in the same way I don't know the next thought that will occur. The impulse arises and you flee. Life is at play with itself and part of the play is the illusion of survival and keeping appearances alive.

I think you are confusing 'identifying as a separate self' and actually being a separate self. You want to know the reason that you instinctively flee or fight the tiger? It's because you are an individuated (ie. separate) self.

You say, "Noticing that you are not what is letting or not letting the eating occur removes the question entirely." I disagree. It doesn't remove the question at all because we are both. We aren't just what notices. And we aren't just what is being noticed. We are both.

The mere fact of our physical existence raises questions that can't be ignored or explained away by referring to a larger or 'truer' reality. At least this would be my stance so long as you are the owner of a body. When that ceases to be the case...well, then we'd be onto a whole other discussion me thinks.

[ChrisGinsburg]

Originally Posted by evolutionarypathways

It's because you are an individuated (ie. separate) self.

You say, "Noticing that you are not what is letting or not letting the eating occur removes the question entirely." I disagree. It doesn't remove the question at all because we are both. We aren't just what notices. And we aren't just what is being noticed. We are both.

We are a separate self but we also aren't?

[evolutionarypathways]

Originally Posted by ChrisGinsburg

We are a separate self but we also aren't?

Yes, exactly. We are both - equally.

[ChrisGinsburg]

Originally Posted by evolutionarypathways

Yes, exactly. We are both - equally.

You're confusing appearances with truth. There's the appearance of a separate self which can be overwhelmingly convincing in every way. However, this can be noticed to be an appearance only and not actually the case. What you're describing becomes yet another mutation of personal oneness where one is unwilling to let go of the concept of a separate self and fits the minds idea of oneness into the whole shebang.

[evolutionarypathways]

Originally Posted by ChrisGinsburg

You're confusing appearances with truth. There's the appearance of a separate self which can be overwhelmingly convincing in every way. However, this can be noticed to be an appearance only and not actually the case. What you're describing becomes yet another mutation of personal oneness where one is unwilling to let go of the concept of a separate self and fits the minds idea of oneness into the whole shebang.

Actually, from where I see things it is you who is confused about the truth of appearances

You say, "There's the appearance of a separate self which can be overwhelmingly convincing in every way. However, this can be noticed to be an appearance only and not actually the case."

So my body is just an appearance and is not actually the case?!

So long as my guts, blood and brains are not spilling out all over the place I would have to disagree. You probably think that this is a simplistic view of a simplistic mind.

A brain like yours can see right through this to the core, right? So please...tell me your truth...

[Anagogy]

Originally Posted by ChrisGinsburg

You're confusing appearances with truth. There's the appearance of a separate self which can be overwhelmingly convincing in every way. However, this can be noticed to be an appearance only and not actually the case. What you're describing becomes yet another mutation of personal oneness where one is unwilling to let go of the concept of a separate self and fits the minds idea of oneness into the whole shebang.

This is interesting because this is exactly what it looks like to me that you have done here.

It would seem, from your words, that there is a connection between the consciousness that entertains the first person perspective called ChrisGinsburg and the consciousness that entertains the first person perspective called Anagogy. As in, there is a connection between all consciousness.

Would that be accurate from your perspective? You do talk about oneness, after-all. Doesn't oneness imply a connection of sorts?

What is the connection? Why is the awareness of one perspective seemingly disconnected from the awareness of other first person perspectives?

This is at the absolute heart of the confusion. At least, for this first person perspective that is watching this post be written.

If there were no barrier between the field of awareness of one first person perspective and other first person perspectives, absolutely no one would be disagreeing with you, and this would all be as obvious as day and night. But there is. The first person perspective called ChrisGinsburg is not aware of anything the first person perspective called Anagogy is aware of. Clearly, there is a barrier there of sorts.

Can you clear up this confusion for me, Chris?

[Reefs]

Originally Posted by Anagogy

This is interesting because this is exactly what it looks like to me that you have done here.

It would seem, from your words, that there is a connection between the consciousness that entertains the first person perspective called ChrisGinsburg and the consciousness that entertains the first person perspective called Anagogy. As in, there is a connection between all consciousness.

Would that be accurate from your perspective? You do talk about oneness, after-all. Doesn't oneness imply a connection of sorts?

What is the connection? Why is the awareness of one perspective seemingly disconnected from the awareness of other first person perspectives?

This is at the absolute heart of the confusion. At least, for this first person perspective that is watching this post be written.

If there were no barrier between the field of awareness of one first person perspective and other first person perspectives, absolutely no one would be disagreeing with you, and this would all be as obvious as day and night. But there is. The first person perspective called ChrisGinsburg is not aware of anything the first person perspective called Anagogy is aware of. Clearly, there is a barrier there of sorts.

Can you clear up this confusion for me, Chris?

It seems the kind of oneness you are talking about is consisting of separate parts that are all interconnected and in that sense make up a some total you call oneness. Is that right?

[Reefs]

Originally Posted by evolutionarypathways

Actually, from where I see things it is you who is confused about the truth of appearances

You say, "There's the appearance of a separate self which can be overwhelmingly convincing in every way. However, this can be noticed to be an appearance only and not actually the case."

So my body is just an appearance and is not actually the case?!

So long as my guts, blood and brains are not spilling out all over the place I would have to disagree. You probably think that this is a simplistic view of a simplistic mind.

A brain like yours can see right through this to the core, right? So please...tell me your truth...

Well, it's not 'your' body to begin with... it's just a body.

[Cado]

Originally Posted by SquarePeg

Well, first of all, it's not necessarily the case that metaphysical discussions have to be the kind of life-or-death power struggles that politics and sex have to be....

Secondly, you may as well wonder why people study such things as dark matter and dark energy. No one is even absolutely sure they exist, just that present theories have a hard time accounting for certain phenomena....

What don't you get about curiosity??

I wanted to comment on this: one reason for these discussions is to establish a baseline for determining what's valid and what isn't. When it comes to spiritual topics the truth is incredibly muddled and most questions are met with non-answers, words that sound deep but say nothing.

"It's beyond the intellect" is just an excuse-it's lazy. It's the same as saying "take my word for it." Objective, scientific proof according to the theoretical models we possess today isn't going to happen but a nuanced framework which caters to exploration and curiosity can be built. The people hesitate in this shows me that most people don't care about the truth, they just want answers. That leads to stagnation and it is, quite frankly, dangerous.

That is primarily why I deal in the metaphysical-because I'm curious and because I value truth above nearly everything else. Pure rational skepticism is too hostile to the emotional and subtle aspects of the human condition and thus I consider active spiritual exploration a valid means of progress. That doesn't mean accepting what we think upon tapping into our intuition, unguarded and without discernment, but it does mean that we should pay attention to those feelings and contrast them with our experiences and our material reality until we understand what truly stems from our core selves.

In other words, if I feel strongly that the world came into existence 6,000 years ago I'm wrong. Objectively, demonstratably wrong. However, that conclusion would likely be my conscious mind imprinting an interpretation onto a valid feeling, meaning that if I explore it I may find out I have something to gain in the study of creation myths, and that by contemplating the metaphors contained within them I may come to realize something about myself or the cosmos.

It's not "do I accept or reject this?" it's "what can I do with it?" and "what am I really trying to tell myself?" It takes a lot of practice to attune yourself to your own intuition and the model that's worked best for me has had a strong rational component which is set aside when I'm creating a new hypothesis, listening to my core self, or elaborating upon/exploring a theory which isn't yet robust enough to contrast with reality and experience.

What's interesting is that this seems to be the model the ancient Babylonians used in their spiritual and magical practices, their myths and rituals have simply been dumbed down, misinterpreted, co-opted and corrupted in the ages since. It's really no wonder there's so much confusion in topics like this, or why so many are desperate for whatever answers they can find even when those answers suck.

No doubt there are some good ideas within conventional spirituality, even some of the new age stuff, but that doesn't mean it's all timeless wisdom-not by a longshot. That, too, is why I participate in discussions like this: if not all of it deserves to be rejected, what should be kept?

If spirituality was not itself an evolutionary process I find it difficult to believe that we-evolving creatures-are, in fact, spiritual.

[ChrisGinsburg]

Originally Posted by evolutionarypathways

Actually, from where I see things it is you who is confused about the truth of appearances

You say, "There's the appearance of a separate self which can be overwhelmingly convincing in every way. However, this can be noticed to be an appearance only and not actually the case."

So my body is just an appearance and is not actually the case?!

So long as my guts, blood and brains are not spilling out all over the place I would have to disagree. You probably think that this is a simplistic view of a simplistic mind.

A brain like yours can see right through this to the core, right? So please...tell me your truth...

There's a body there. The idea that it is "your" body is just a story though. There requires a belief in this story to make separation of "your body" to exist in its own right. There's nothing being said that the body can't be injured or even die. None of this is noticed through superior brain power. "You" are not separate from "me". It is only through the identification in separation does it appear as though there's a me talking down to you using superior brain power. Everything that's being discussed can be noticed.

The difficulty is that from a separate identity, it appears that this requires strong mental effort and superior brain power to notice these things. The reality is that keeping the false identity of separation going is what requires what you might say God like powers and tremendous effort. Much of this effort becomes normal and most people don't even notice the baseline level of tension always present to hold the illusion up. It is truly amazing once seen that the illusion can and is so powerful. It's not something to be hated, denied or pushed away. Quite the contrary, it is a marvelous appearance.

[ChrisGinsburg]

Originally Posted by Anagogy

This is interesting because this is exactly what it looks like to me that you have done here.

It would seem, from your words, that there is a connection between the consciousness that entertains the first person perspective called ChrisGinsburg and the consciousness that entertains the first person perspective called Anagogy. As in, there is a connection between all consciousness.

Would that be accurate from your perspective? You do talk about oneness, after-all. Doesn't oneness imply a connection of sorts?

What is the connection? Why is the awareness of one perspective seemingly disconnected from the awareness of other first person perspectives?

This is at the absolute heart of the confusion. At least, for this first person perspective that is watching this post be written.

If there were no barrier between the field of awareness of one first person perspective and other first person perspectives, absolutely no one would be disagreeing with you, and this would all be as obvious as day and night. But there is. The first person perspective called ChrisGinsburg is not aware of anything the first person perspective called Anagogy is aware of. Clearly, there is a barrier there of sorts.

Can you clear up this confusion for me, Chris?

Oneness does not refer to a mass connection of separate parts. There's no process by which illusions are coming to merge with each other. There is no you moving on to be more and more aware of a connection with all that is and break barriers with other illusionary first person perspectives. Once the first person perspectives are noticed to be imagined, they simply go poof. The confusion lies in believing that there is a block between two or more imagined perspectives.

You have the power of identification. What you identify as will appear real to you and there is no doubt about it. Virtually all beings walking the planet identify as separate individuals pushing through a separate world. Through this identification there is and always will be an imagined block as you say. This identification is extremely powerful but produces resistance because you are literally trying to identify as something you are not. If stillness reveals itself, this ever present tension and resistance can be noticed as well.

Ideas of enlightenment or becoming more aware of your oneness are mind stories only. In fact, I would say that enlightenment is probably the single biggest concept that actually keeps people from realizing their true nature. It is so enticing to the mind that people get lost in fantasies about coming out of their body, gaining powers of knowing and seeing all other first person perspectives that when the point of seeing is just about to happen, most people turn back. They turn back because it becomes obvious that this would be the end of all they hoped for. No fancy enlightenment, no gaining access to minds across the world, nothing to become or strive for and sometimes the intense and overwhelming fear of not existing whatsoever.

I would suggest taking a peek at your ideas about consciousness and seeing which ones are assumptions and have been woven into a story to bring these concepts together.

[Anagogy]

Originally Posted by ChrisGinsburg

Oneness does not refer to a mass connection of separate parts. There's no process by which illusions are coming to merge with each other. There is no you moving on to be more and more aware of a connection with all that is and break barriers with other illusionary first person perspectives. Once the first person perspectives are noticed to be imagined, they simply go poof. The confusion lies in believing that there is a block between two or more imagined perspectives.

They simply go poof? As in, disappear? I find that difficult to accept. Not as in it would upset or bother me or anything, just that it seems like that would be more likely be a mind story than anything else I've seen.

Are you saying you don't have a first person perspective?

Originally Posted by ChrisGinsburg

You have the power of identification. What you identify as will appear real to you and there is no doubt about it. Virtually all beings walking the planet identify as separate individuals pushing through a separate world. Through this identification there is and always will be an imagined block as you say. This identification is extremely powerful but produces resistance because you are literally trying to identify as something you are not. If stillness reveals itself, this ever present tension and resistance can be noticed as well.

So your words make it sound like the only reason there is an apparent disconnect between the consciousness that is temporarily entertaining one particular first person perspective and the consciousness that is temporarily entertaining another first person perspective is this identification factor, which makes it seem like we are a bunch of individuals.

Well, that all makes perfect sense.

But here is the problem: people like you, Reefs, Arcanum, and others claim to be disidentified with this first person perspective (what I would refer to as a self). So my question still stands, why is consciousness that is apparently not identified with self, having a self perspective, and nothing more?

[ChrisGinsburg]

Originally Posted by Anagogy

They simply go poof? As in, disappear? I find that difficult to accept. Not as in it would upset or bother me or anything, just that it seems like that would be more likely be a mind story than anything else I've seen.

Are you saying you don't have a first person perspective?



So your words make it sound like the only reason there is an apparent disconnect between the consciousness that is temporarily entertaining one particular first person perspective and the consciousness that is temporarily entertaining another first person perspective is this identification factor, which makes it seem like we are a bunch of individuals.

Well, that all makes perfect sense.

But here is the problem: people like you, Reefs, Arcanum, and others claim to be disidentified with this first person perspective (what I would refer to as a self). So my question still stands, why is consciousness that is apparently not identified with self, having a self perspective, and nothing more?

Keep in mind here that there is absolutely no way to convince you of any of this. It's completely futile. With that being said,

They go poof as in you stop following along with the story insisting it is true. Not as in, I'm looking down from the clouds and I stop seeing a body and a mind appearing. Perspective is perhaps the wrong word. There is no first person identification. There's no denial that the appearance of ChrisGinsburg is seeing and seemingly experiencing different things than the appearance of Anagogy. It is through the noticing however that these are only appearances and not truly the case. It may appear completely trivial but it is usually the end of a long spinning storyline that centers around an original false belief. That is, if it occurs as a direct seeing outside of conceptual understanding. There will be absolutely no confusion about this if it is direct seeing.


Right. There's not really any disconnect anywhere. It is the confusion that illusions need to connect with each other that creates problems.

Dis-identified tends to imply that there was at some point a choice given to either identify with one's true nature or identify as a person. A forceful removal of identification of sorts. This is not the case. Upon noticing the truth of ones nature, the stories simply end and the haze clears. The choice if you could call it that would only arise in the mind. Perhaps thoughts may arise like "Oh come on, you know you're really a person, stop being ridiculous". These thoughts are really no different than any other thoughts and without the subsequent belief in them they just simply pass on by.

Personal oneness on the other hand is usually the product of no direct seeing occurring and a person deciding to believe they are one with everything because it makes sense or it fits into their experiences as a person. There appears to be this choice to go back and forth with whatever seems more appealing or beneficial to the belief of the person. Paradoxes abound in this situation and the mind starts dividing things up in order to hold conflicting truths without having to throw any of it out. At the end of the day though, there still spins the belief of the individual around all other subsequent thoughts and beliefs.

The "nothing more" part is an assumption. Yes, noticing truth doesn't mean the body takes a leave or you start seeing through a pair of different eyes or beam into other minds or anything else the mind can fancy. Noticing the truth does however reveal who you really are. I deeply hesitate to explain the ramifications of this because it then turns into minds grasping at how amazing it would be to be experiencing this. The mind can not see past itself and alas the last step must be taken without any guidance, accurate descriptions or enticement to the mind. You must give up everything you thought important to gain nothing. Nothing you already were not or didn't have. Nothing truly important will be lost though. Don't count on mind to view it this way though.

[inri]

For those of us who equate the word 'person' with 'Self'...(purely by definition)....the statements many here make about this shift of seeing, will be inaccurate.

I get the sense some cannot fathom that others who have experienced this shift; 'from being merged with the storyline to dispassionate observer', might describe things differently.


Such statements as; "The person disappears and the first person perspectives go poof," are only accurate if our definition of person perspective is very limited and specific.

Big difference between this:

Originally Posted by ChrisGinsburg

"Once the first person perspectives are noticed to be imagined, they simply go poof".

and this:

They go poof as in you stop following along with the story insisting it is true.

Isn't the locus of seeing still 'first person', even though that seeing has expanded to the position of observer and the point of noticing the storyline and detaching from it?

There seems to be a need/desire to overdramatize and exaggerrate the result of the shift in locus of seeing we're speaking about.... which itself seems to indicate certain judgments being made about each respective position.




When I speak about 'judgment' with regards to this subject, this is precisely what I'm referring to; the result of a belief that says; it is a good thing to have the first person perspective go 'poof.' (again, this is understandable when this shift is first made as there is a relief at being able to see through the storyline and to detach from it...but just know, there is expansion past this).

When this judgment dissipates, (because the belief that one locus of seeing is better no longer exists), acceptance of the entirety of the first person perspective prevails and there is no longer any NEED to purposefully hold that aspect of self that is seeing apart from that which was previously deemed to be 'not self.'

That which was previously deemed to be 'Self' has simply expanded. Nothing has been removed...other than absolute identification with the storyline....there's merely been a shift in seeing and a shift in identification.

[Reefs]

Originally Posted by Anagogy

But here is the problem: people like you, Reefs, Arcanum, and others claim to be disidentified with this first person perspective (what I would refer to as a self). So my question still stands, why is consciousness that is apparently not identified with self, having a self perspective, and nothing more?

No one said that he is disidentified. That's your own conclusion. You concluded that if they are not identified with mind or body then they must be disidentified. But to say "I am disidentified with all of this" and just leaving it there would be identification again.

It's all just functioning. There is no place for identification or disidentification.

[ChrisGinsburg]

Originally Posted by inri

For those of us who equate the word 'person' with 'Self'...(purely by definition)....the statements many here make about this shift of seeing, will be inaccurate.

I get the sense some cannot fathom that others who have experienced this shift; 'from being merged with the storyline to dispassionate observer', might describe things differently.


Such statements as; "The person disappears and the first person perspectives go poof," are only accurate if our definition of person perspective is very limited and specific.

Big difference between this:



and this:



Isn't the locus of seeing still 'first person', even though that seeing has expanded to the position of observer and the point of noticing the storyline and detaching from it?

There seems to be a need/desire to overdramatize and exaggerrate the result of the shift in locus of seeing we're speaking about.... which itself seems to indicate certain judgments being made about each respective position.




When I speak about 'judgment' with regards to this subject, this is precisely what I'm referring to; the result of a belief that says; it is a good thing to have the first person perspective go 'poof.' (again, this is understandable when this shift is first made as there is a relief at being able to see through the storyline and to detach from it...but just know, there is expansion past this).

When this judgment dissipates, (because the belief that one locus of seeing is better no longer exists), acceptance of the entirety of the first person perspective prevails and there is no longer any NEED to purposefully hold that aspect of self that is seeing apart from that which was previously deemed to be 'not self.'

That which was previously deemed to be 'Self' has simply expanded. Nothing has been removed...other than absolute identification with the storyline....there's merely been a shift in seeing and a shift in identification.

I hesitate to reply to this because it is almost pure projection. As mentioned before, there is no detaching. There is no insisting one thing is good and the other bad. There is nobody saying somebody is a 'dispassionate observer'. There is no idea of self which has now simply expanded. There are no positions to take concerning seeing except for explaining what's true and what's not. You're waiting for others to 'expand' to some point created in your mind. When I say the belief or identification in the personal storyline ceases it's because it's true. Not because that is all that can be said about the subject. It's not about comparing experiences and seeing who has expanded further. That is just another storyline you're spinning Inri. Just about everything mentioned will either appear underwhelming or exaggerated in some way. This is the nature of the mind and like I mentioned, there is no convincing Inri who has expanded to believe she is individuated consciousness believing they are focused consciousness and so on and on and on.

[evolutionarypathways]

Originally Posted by ChrisGinsburg

There's a body there. The idea that it is "your" body is just a story though. There requires a belief in this story to make separation of "your body" to exist in its own right. There's nothing being said that the body can't be injured or even die. None of this is noticed through superior brain power. "You" are not separate from "me". It is only through the identification in separation does it appear as though there's a me talking down to you using superior brain power. Everything that's being discussed can be noticed.

I wasn't talking about a body getting injured or dying. What I meant with my example was that the reason my guts and brains aren't spread out all over the place is because the body - my body - has very real boundaries. Boundaries that do separate. This is so self-evident yet you insist to come up with all of these theories about why the body 'appears' separate but is actually not-separate.

From where I see it - you have your body. I have my body. Etc. Why complicate things?

Originally Posted by ChrisGinsburg

The difficulty is that from a separate identity, it appears that this requires strong mental effort and superior brain power to notice these things. The reality is that keeping the false identity of separation going is what requires what you might say God like powers and tremendous effort. Much of this effort becomes normal and most people don't even notice the baseline level of tension always present to hold the illusion up. It is truly amazing once seen that the illusion can and is so powerful. It's not something to be hated, denied or pushed away. Quite the contrary, it is a marvelous appearance.

Are you aware of the elaborate story you are spinning here? What false identity of separation? Separation isn't false. It's as real as unity.

What of self-awareness? Do you have it? If you have it, then you also have an individuated, separate, existence that goes along with it. Otherwise you wouldn't have 'self-awareness'. You would only have 'awareness'.

Am I writing to a pure awareness? Or am I writing to someone who is aware of Chris Ginsberg? Or both?