What is more important to understand...

by Siddhashunyata 46 Replies latest jw friends

• 

  Narkissos

  What am I?

  1) I am a sensitive body in a constant flow of immediate sensations (Real).

  2) I am "me", a tiny spot in the world or universe as represented in my mind's map (Imaginary).

  3) I am the first grammatical person (subject) in the structure of language (Symbolic). Without speaking in first person, I wouldn't know (1) nor figure out (2).

  Wo es war, soll ICH werden (Freud).

  As soon as such thing as a symbolical order appears (involving meaning), there's no escape out of it. Silence is not anymore an alternative to language, but a part of it (we even have a word for it). Mysticism explores one limit of language, but it is not beyond language. What I can't say I can't experience either. Or tell me I can without using words...
• 

  one_ugly_time

  Moral Principles, Doctrine , Prophecy , Ourselves ?

  An individuals Moral principles, Doctrine, & Prophecy are all within Ourself. In examination of the earlier three items (along with a whole nother list), you are in fact examining yourself. So to understand how you feel or believe about any of these things is closer to understanding yourself.

  First, we must know our true-self, for everything else will be perceived through the lens of identity.

  Because we are forever identifying ourself with others, eg relationships, society, work, etc. I believe that our lens of identity is shaped by all of those around us; particularly from childhood. Without the interaction of others, we would have no reflection of ourself to identify with and our "search" for understanding would be in vain.

  Satan

  shamus -- It's a sad day when I comprehend and can relate with your comment.

  As I "watch" my mind I observe limitation after limitation. My perception is being cleansed by simply observing the "action". Limitation is declining and something else is coming forward. A different quality of mind .

  Technically speaking, I have heard this refered to as an "observing ego", if I understand you correctly. It helps to have alot of self-awareness and self-esteem when attempting to view life this way. It is easy, real easy in my mind, to fall into a self-hatred trap when you don't understand how to make the changes you see as desirable.

  Yes you can experience (real) what you can neither say (symbolic) nor figure out (imaginary). But then you don't understand it, and then you (as the subject of knowledge and understanding) don't really experience it. Understanding is the effort to put your real experience into words and "ideas", your "grasp of reality" into words and actions, the logic of your words into "vision" and "action", never giving up one aspect although there will never be exact correspondence between the three.

  Narkissos -- I really have to disagree on this philosophy. A feeling is experienced. I may not be able to say it or figure it out, but I know what I know, and when certain feelings hit my body, I definitely understand it. No words could every convince anyone, even myself, about what I felt... Sometimes called "intuition". I believe that this is simply acute awareness of feelings. The only thing missing is the ability with our natural language to convince others we understand it and experienced it. And in my book, that is simply justification or intellectualizing, and isn't a requirement for understanding.

  What I can't say I can't experience either. Or tell me I can without using words

  I just watched the Pianist. Great flick. But I hardly doubt that the movie, or even the book, which is an autobiography, even begins to get close to explaining what this individual experienced. How do you put into words the feelings surrounding the loss of loved ones, the help from the enemy, and so on. These statements are pure intellectualization.

  If or when, I discover my True-self, indescribably beyond mental and intellectual concepts, ideas and beliefs about who I believe myself to be, then, Life will be experienced as it was meant to be -- from the very same stage as Life itself, rather than secondhand via intellectual understanding or rendition. This, is why we must discover our True-self first, for only then -- do we live truly.

  JT - I want to say thank you personally for these words. They meant a lot to me in my search. ugly
• 

  Siddhashunyata

  one_ugly_time wrote :

  "Technically speaking, I have heard this referred to as an "observing ego", if I understand you correctly. It helps to have a lot of self-awareness and self-esteem when attempting to view life this way. It is easy, real easy in my mind, to fall into a self-hatred trap when you don't understand how to make the changes you see as desirable." Awareness is what is being cultivated. A great deal of the strain is taken off when you simply observe without judging. The thoughts are not you. There is nothing to change, awareness itself replaces the "old process" of attachment or identifying with the thoughts. For example, if lustful thoughts arise and I identify with them I may feel guilt and possibly self hatred as you suggest. However if I simply observe them as thoughts, and do not judge them as good or bad, just as thoughts rising... if I do not attach and play on them , they cease and other thoughts arise in the same way. In this way I become aware of the "process itself" of "conditioning" loops that are making me a tool of my mind. The key is to observe without "judging" and without trying to make changes. Its very simple but the action is so fast and the habit of attaching is so normal that very few find the way. Narkissos , before I disagree I want to be sure that I "understand" what you are saying. So if you will bear with me I will ask some questions. (1) Are you saying that language and self occur simultaneously ( symbolized by " I " )? (This would be the 3rd circle according to the scheme you submitted) (2) Are you saying that once that happens (above) it cannot be reversed and therefor the person is permanently "locked" into the morass of the 3 circles (Reality, Imagination, Symbolism) with language (Symbolism) as the only assuaging vehicle to approximate understanding Reality.
• 

  jgnat

  I find I am a better person if I do not remain introspective too long. Sitting quietly looking inward accomplishes only so much. Our understanding of ourselves will also always be limited, because we "understand" by applying structure - language - to our world. But much of what we are defies structure and can only be experienced.

  A respected guru visited North America for the first time. At first he had trouble accommodating to the climate and food. He found, however, that a small addition of pineapple juice and avoidance of the local water ended his joint pain and allowed him to get in to his habitual meditative state. That is how he described his visit to New York. I wonder how his hosts felt about his visit? I wonder if he remembered to ask them if his particular demands were burdensome?

  I like Jesus' answer to John the Baptist when he asked if he was the one, or if John should look for another.

  "Go back and tell John what you have just seen and heard:
  
  The blind see,
  The lame walk,
  Lepers are cleansed,
  The deaf hear,
  The dead are raised,
  The wretched of the earth
  have God's salvation hospitality extended to them. (Luke 7:22 MSG)

  I think the Christian life, to be at it's fullest, must also include activity along with introspection.
• 

  one_ugly_time

  Siddhashunyata -

  Point well taken. That clarified things very nicely and I would have to agree with you; although my agreement is only mental as I have never maintained the state of awareness to watch this process. I will report back as soon as I figure out how to do this and get it to happen for a while.

  Actually, come to think of it, this sounds a lot like how I talk with my children. It is extremely difficult, but it is the only method I can think of to stop "loosing my temper" when trying to communicate with a teenager. After all, I'm going to be wrong, so I just sit with my feelings and watch them come and go while still failing to get my point across.

  hmmmm....

  ugly
• 

  Siddhashunyata

  one_ugly_time,

  Yes, that's the idea. By observing yourself (thoughts) in relationship to your children the focus is taken off "reaction". Instead of identifying with your thoughts and reacting, you grow in awareness of what's going on in your head and that becomes your practice. You will still say and do things but your interest is in what's happening within you.(No Judging) . This is a practice that can be done all day long as one relates to any thing.

  We are weakening a conditioned pattern by observing it, conversely we are strengthening awareness.

  With awareness there is a natural intelligence that operates directly (insight). It does not rely on the "thinking process".This insight guides our reaction instead of the old mental conditioning that has enslaved us.
• 

  Narkissos

  Narkissos , before I disagree I want to be sure that I "understand" what you are saying. So if you will bear with me I will ask some questions. (1) Are you saying that language and self occur simultaneously ( symbolized by " I " )? (This would be the 3rd circle according to the scheme you submitted) (2) Are you saying that once that happens (above) it cannot be reversed and therefor the person is permanently "locked" into the morass of the 3 circles (Reality, Imagination, Symbolism) with language (Symbolism) as the only assuaging vehicle to approximate understanding Reality.

  Wow, I finally found how to make a quote!

  I think you perfectly got my point, so I'm afraid we really disagree (no problem though).

  After I left the JWs, I was very much attracted to negative, or apophatic, theology, such as Meister Eckhart's in the Western world, and its many Eastern equivalents. But then I had to cope with the epistemological problems arising from such a view.

  Our Western epistemology is tied in with the awareness of language: In the beginning was the Word. The Johannine prologue equates the Word (Greek logos, which something more and less than latin ratio) with light. As Jacques Derrida wrote, (Western) philosophy is always a photology, explaining what comes to light and leaving darkness in the dark. Admittedly, the logos cannot explain everything, but everything we can grasp as speaking subjects is within the sphere of logos. Knowing this built-in limitation of our understanding is the greatness and weakness of Western thought, which makes us very suspicious of every discourse (!) about the "unspeakable". I accept this inheritance which is a part of myself, although trying to keep an open eye on other traditions.

  Hope this sheds some light (!!) upon the corner where I'm speaking from.
• 

  LittleToe

  Narkissos:

  Kind of trinitarian structure, don't you think?

  So many things are, it would appear...
• 

  Siddhashunyata

  Narkissos, you are a gracious spirit and I thank you for that.

  Yes we disagree.

  If I "understand" you correctly you are saying that we get understanding only when it is "carried " to our consciousness through the vehicle of language and language , being limited, can only approximate understanding. Furthermore, once the process starts, ( " self within" symbolized by "I", language ) it is not reversible.

  Even when language is exhausted in an effort to describe what something "is not"(for example even using it negatively to describe what God is not ( apophatic theology ), we still cannot fully understand.

  I agree. I agree whole heartedly on the limitations of language. More importantly I agree with you that language can impart 'limited understanding". (the progression of scientific knowledge shows that).

  Where we disagree is on the point of "not reversible" (above). Certainly, I respect your choice to believe the process ( self/symbolization) is not reversible however, the failure of "apophatic theology" and the existence of a bastion of Western epistemology merely demonstrates what we already know, language is limited. These do not support the idea that the the process (self/symbolization) is not reversible..

  For the sake of argument , if the process were reversible how would the individual express what he is experiencing? Fundamentally , he would not. He would only point the way to someone else and to them the experience itself would communicate "understanding".

  Narkissos,

  "...concepts are empty because language is simply an interconnected system of terms that do not capture actual things. They simply relate to other words. One who fully recognizes this fact becomes freed from the snares of language and attains correct realization, an important part of the path to liberation." NAGARJUNA
• 

  Narkissos

  Siddhashunyata,

  I guess we're not so far apart however.

  Christian mysticism is certainly toying with the idea of reversibility as you describe: getting back upstream of symbolisation, so to say. The Johannine concept of new birth, which may be related to the Synoptic logion about becoming little children (cf. Latin infans, lit. "speechless") may point in that direction.

  For the sake of argument , if the process were reversible how would the individual express what he is experiencing? Fundamentally , he would not. He would only point the way to someone else and to them the experience itself would communicate "understanding".

  I'll try to sum it up this way: our logical-symbolical quest for real is asymptotic. We (as speaking beings) are sitting by the well of Real, but what we can draw from it and drink and offer to others will always be symbolic -- although the others too are sitting by the same well.