open Democracy News Analysis - The theory of multiplicity of self, - Comments

Candace on "The theory of multiplicity of self"

Candace — Sat, 02 Jun 2007 16:51:00 +0100

I understand your statement of "accepting who I am" as the need to recognize the personality traits that are difficult to believe we have. Once we know who we really are, then it becomes difficult to accept it. After that, acceptance usually is an excuse for not changing anything. I know what you're saying but that is not what I talking about. I didn't like the sound of mastering oneself because it implies to me a goal of perfection; a finished product. When I discover something I don't like about myself, I feel accepting the reality of it is the only way for me to change, instead of avoiding that "uncomfortable feeling". I was also referring to coping with regret. You have to be able to accept what you cant change, what you've learned and where it has brought you currently in life in order to move on, which is what I am presently trying to do. I know that we all have our life philosophies that help with what specifically challenges us, and sometimes they are similar, sometimes not. True feelings that do not overwhelm us": so much to say in such a small sentence. How many of our feelings are true? Do some people feel love or is it the fear of loneliness that drives them? Do some people feel altruistic, or is it the promise of a heavenly reward that drives them? Do some people feel honest, or is it the fear of authority that keeps them in line? Yet even if we do not recognize these emotions for what they are, we let them lead us without anything more than a thin layer of control. It sounds to me that you believe fear is the starting point for many emotions and then beliefs and behavior. Yet even if we do not recognize these emotions for what they are, we let them lead us without anything more than a thin layer of control. I believe I commented on this from my first post on this thread I am just using different language. Recognizing these emotions for what they are is understanding where they are coming from in yourself if anywhere significant at all. (sometimes we can all be petty) and then you are better able to decide whether to discard it or learn from it instead of an automatic denial of parts of yourself in pursuit of this impossible colorless perfection.

Eduardo Ferreira on "The theory of multiplicity of self"

Eduardo Ferreira — Fri, 01 Jun 2007 10:38:53 +0100

I am glad that I could be of assistance. I understand your statement of "accepting who I am" as the need to recognize the personality traits that are difficult to believe we have. Once we know who we really are, then it becomes difficult to accept it. After that, acceptance usually is an excuse for not changing anything. Mastering ourselves is very difficult but necessary. As someone once told me, we are like wood in the ocean; we go wherever the waves take us. If someone says something pleasing, then we are happy, but if someone is unpleasant than we are angry. We hardly act, and mostly react. There is no internal balance. Tell me, do you think it is natural than anyone can ruin our day with just a few words? Between total insensitivity and oversensitivity there is a point of natural sensitivity; where we have true feelings that do not overwhelm us. "True feelings that do not overwhelm us": so much to say in such a small sentence. How many of our feelings are true? Do some people feel love or is it the fear of loneliness that drives them? Do some people feel altruistic, or is it the promise of a heavenly reward that drives them? Do some people feel honest, or is it the fear of authority that keeps them in line? Yet even if we do not recognize these emotions for what they are, we let them lead us without anything more than a thin layer of control.

Candace on "The theory of multiplicity of self"

Candace — Fri, 25 May 2007 13:17:59 +0100

Eduardo, I would change mastering yourself for understanding and accepting who you are. "Men are disturbed not by things, but by the view which they take of them". actually, that is helpful. thank-you.

Eduardo Ferreira on "The theory of multiplicity of self"

Eduardo Ferreira — Wed, 23 May 2007 03:38:15 +0100

Candace, There is a stoic sentence that may help you in your pains, Epictetus says: "Men are disturbed not by things, but by the view which they take of them". Having said that (whatever is worth), I must thank you for having such a positive view of what I wrote. Actually it is less positive, and certainly is not leading to inner peace. If you read carefully my theory (let us call it like this), there is hardly anything like inner peace. In our normal unconcerned state, we are divided in conflicting parts of our personality. If one takes upon its shoulders the hard work of mastering itself, then it is a lot worst, it becomes a war, filled with weary watch's and fierce battles with "yourself". I personally do not state this as a theory, but as a fact. It is something that needed a long time to learn, that I finally understood and observed in my psyche, and I set up to do something about it. However it was to hard and I cowardly abandoned this road. Now I am content in being what I am, and I willfully forget the knowledge that I have gained. I classify this with a sentence attributed to the mythical Merlin: "The greatest sin of man is to forget". The motivation for my post comes from this. Maybe I am just remembering what I should not forget. Maybe I am just trying to give others something that I had a hard time to learn. Maybe it is just an intellectual sense of pride. P.S. - I didn't sign in for months, so it is a bit of a coincidence that I saw your post.

Candace on "The theory of multiplicity of self"

Candace — Sat, 19 May 2007 22:43:00 +0100

Eduardo, After reading the entire thread I think I might have interpreted your topic incorrectly. What caught my interest was that the first post was like reading a calm and almost literal description of my ex-husband. It will probably take another 16 years to undo that particular filter of thought for when I'm reading about how people think or behave. As we all know, experience is the most effective teacher. My impression of your motivation for starting this thread was to share a way of finding real internal happiness. Maybe I'm wrong but that is what I got from reading it. On my own I've never had a problem with that, but it would certainly be nice to find a way to have that internal automatic sense of peace exist around my ex. A spiritual or philosophical answer would be appreciated, or better yet a mathematical equation! Yes, that is what I am looking for. Actually, I know this site is pretty much dead so I am not expecting an answer I am just unloading some chaotic thoughts about my ex

Candace on "The theory of multiplicity of self"

Candace — Wed, 16 May 2007 18:22:25 +0100

Then, what are these thoughts? The easiest way of putting this, is to say that they are independent parts of the mind. They are a part of the mental capacity that somehow became detached from the whole. Under this definition they are called "egos" by some schools, but generally could be interpreted by tendencies, involuntary/voluntary behaviors or compulsions Eduardo Ferreira I disagree with that. I think they are expressions of the whole; usually reflecting a need that the person isn't willing to acknowledge to themselves for any number of reasons. The reaction may appear to be out of their control and detached from who they are but it isn't. They are just unwilling to understand why it is there theres always a reason! :)

Eduardo Ferreira on "The theory of multiplicity of self"

Eduardo Ferreira — Wed, 22 Mar 2006 08:21:09 +0000

Michel, Be aware that my previous post has multiple meanings... Are you using automatic translation from French to English? P.S. - Its now 7:20 in the middle of the Atlantic, and I am still at work...

michel_1 on "The theory of multiplicity of self"

michel_1 — Wed, 22 Mar 2006 07:51:52 +0000

neither hermetic nor in maconnery, I just wake up one hour ago , it is 8h30 here in paris, i tried to assert that good humour is a good candidate for a second step toward wiseness, the first step is person dependent, and, growing in age, I realized that the "lights" of the 17-18 century have nearly been defeated today. it is obvious to me that we are in need for new political schemes, we should maybe convocate a worldwide forum only dedicated to men, not to country, association, culture, or other trade marks, etc. the weakest force 6400km*2pi around has become the man. No doubt that we have to change our point of view about dying. for centuries dying has been correctly considered a fatality. with the enligthment, the taboo idea born that the mechanic of the world could be dominated by the "dominus". this also apply to the body of the man, and from faith to reason in the man death is moving from fatality to accident. this is why death is devoted to be more and more untolerable, this is why, in my lovely toulouse in south france, new district builder of "the mirail" forget the graveyard, modern architecture, isn't? bad post, I will be back this night.

Eduardo Ferreira on "The theory of multiplicity of self"

Eduardo Ferreira — Wed, 22 Mar 2006 05:57:30 +0000

Michel, Your post reminds me of alchemist texts. You are hermetic, are you not?

michel_1 on "The theory of multiplicity of self"

michel_1 — Tue, 21 Mar 2006 22:35:06 +0000

please do not read my post about faith. it was a english keyboard test. and it is late in Paris you know, and I am getting old with passing time. I tried good humour as a second step for wiseness, take care it's a trick.

chris9234 on "The theory of multiplicity of self"

chris9234 — Tue, 21 Mar 2006 22:30:09 +0000

michel Fair enough.

michel_1 on "The theory of multiplicity of self"

michel_1 — Tue, 21 Mar 2006 22:28:17 +0000

dear chris, 1)one does not have to think to learn. 2)for one to learn one must be able to think. surely deeply correct somewhere, just depends on the multiplicity of your "one". maybe the planet has learned to move around the sun. but I do not think that this post was for you. I just wanted to test foreign forum, to check differences in attitude.

chris9234 on "The theory of multiplicity of self"

chris9234 — Tue, 21 Mar 2006 22:14:23 +0000

"Given that for one to learn one must be able to think, there might be something to consider there. doggy learns to bring shoe." Michel, But one does not have to think to learn. grasshopper plays lovely music.

michel_1 on "The theory of multiplicity of self"

michel_1 — Tue, 21 Mar 2006 22:10:45 +0000

Given that for one to learn one must be able to think, there might be something to consider there. doggy learns to bring shoe.

michel_1 on "The theory of multiplicity of self"

michel_1 — Tue, 21 Mar 2006 21:54:48 +0000

Dear friend allow me to accompany you on your florishing promenade. Good humour is the good company, isn'it? all from here to next stop also apply to dogs' way of live : > In a technical approach I would explain this process > like a computer neural network (that, by the way, is > based on the operation of our own neurons). An > associative network uses a stimulus (an image, for > instance) applied to the network, and this stimulus > will result in an output. If the output does not > correspond to the association we wish for, then we > return a learning impulse and the network > reconfigures. In a long run, you supply images and > have the appropriate output, without any logical or > rational processing being used. > > I would attribute then, logic or reason to the realm > of mental constructions. It is things we created to > help us in certain fields, but hardly connected to > the reality of our mental structure (doublevé-bouche, mes pantouffles !). The neural > networks just require an input for the output to be > provided, not a chain of ideas linked by some logic > structure. We can see this in mathematical exercises: > if logic was the base for thought, it would suffice > to know the propositions of a theory to be able to > solve problems with proficiency. Yet that does not > happen, we have to PRACTICE ( train the neural > network) in order to be competent in problem solving, > therefore the theoretical prepositions and the > logical process are just tools, that at best, to > judge or guide our efforts. > > This digression goes to claim that what we transmit > and use, ideas and words, is really a rigid mental > construction that is hardly prepared to evolve, like > the conscience of things do. > just as with singing birds, isn't it? > It is only possible to speak of "changing mind" when > you are based in ideas, conceptions and precepts. As > they are rigid metal structures, you have to actually > strain to change them. > > However, the "natural" mind operation of conscience > does not require a specific change, because it is > always adapting and reacting to every impulse, and > learning from it. > Surely deeply correct. So you miss it, isn't it? > The difficulty is to separate the two. when you are back home forces come back to go out from home, isn'it? , and actually > start using a conscious mode of operation in our > life. Most of us are lucky enough to have flashes of > it in the specific moments we need, like realizing > that the idea we cherish might not always apply. > Alternative behavior, luckyness, special moments, this this las vegas, isn't it? > > > Having stated what the mind is not, it is time to > state what it is. > > > If anyone would spend some time analyzing its own > thoughts, like they where from someone else, one > would conclude two things: thoughts come in an > endless and chaotic succession, and they are beyond > our control. It is not easy to be 30 seconds without > any thought, if we are aware of them, we will see > them creeping through more subtle ways into our mind. > Another conclusion about this exercise is that we are > not our thoughts! We live, we breath, we walk, we > feel, we see, we sense, we ear, all this without the > chaotic thoughts. > r&b, isn'it? > What is there, beyond these thoughts? I will use the > word "conscience", the direct experience of this and > other realities, and our own existence. If you are a > religious person, you can find another name. > a deep paragraph that deserve the toppest place of this page, not just as a merly conclusional song. > Then, what are these thoughts? I accompagn you, if you don't mind. friendly your. >The easiest way of > putting this, is to say that they are independent > parts of the mind. of who? who here dare be separated without authorization? They are a part of the mental > capacity that somehow became detached from the > whole. > I just dare to say that this is still deeply surely correct. > Under this definition they are called "egos" by some > schools, but generally could be interpreted by > tendencies, involuntary/voluntary behaviors or > compulsions. I surely copied and cut instead of pasted definitions and argumentations here. > > The trouble is that we do not see ourselves as a > multiplicity, we see ourselves as a singularity. "I > am what I am, with good and bad." To think otherwise > is a difficult process, even facing the most obvious > evidence from our examination of the mental process. > > If we are identified with the egos, then we do not > accept that we are not the egos. Yet we are not > always the same person. Depending of the stimulus, we > can be aggressive, ambitious, jealous, vindictive, or > aroused. These are only the most discernable internal > process, each one of us has many others, that would > account for our moods and interests. > Moving to anthropology one puts a dream on the skyline. > In reality, the egos strive to reach the dominance of > the mind. At any time during the day we can be under > the control of several egos. together we are strong, outside and inside you, my friend the researcher of light, the delighted though tense friend What we receive from the > exterior is responsible for giving that extra impulse > for specific egos; consider that someone is watching > sensual images; its mind will get overcome by the > specific ego of sensuality. > Some parties, friend? I accompagny you out the milky way. > The main problem with all this is that these > individualities that exist in us are clever, and > extremely devious in maneuvering us. They do not wish > to be recognized for what they are, and usually > disguise themselves. this is from I don't like the soup to the soup too much salted, isn'it? Let's keep just oneself a while again, friend, do not give up. Anyone that had tried to > overcome an addict or a bad tendency is familiar with > this process: it is incredible the amount of > reasonable justifications we find to do what we > wish. > > Take an alcoholic, after 10 days without a drink he > will have the notion of taking a drink to > celebrate... .... this text, arguabily; I say that to help drunkers, not lucky delighted friend, isn't? > > > > Now that I stated this theory, what will you do with > it? Do not accept it blindly or deny it instantly. > Neither option is reasonable. If you are an open > person, and able to consider things objectively, then > you should keep this theory in mind without > qualifying it, and observe your inner processes. > > Watch in you daily life how little things, small > events, change the way you feel and act. Look how you > are overcome by irresistible impulses. Try, from time > to time to resist those impulses just to test > yourself and watch the workings of your own mind. > > "Oh man, know yourself and you will know the Universe > and its Gods" > Writings at the Temple of Delphos > > Now we can understand the Taoist quote: yes, finally back on the begining of a deligthing whirligig, isn't it? > > Stop your senses, > Close the doors; > doors, friend? no, please open the doors, spring is on. Be able to stop your senses and do it, too? Sleep maybe. It is surely deeply true, and remember that working is also polluting. We should sleep more and more peacefully. > [Avoid the stimulus that invite the egos.] > > Let sharp things be blunted, > Tangles resolved, > The light tempered > And turmoil subdued; > > [Reach a mental equilibrium without the chaotic > thoughts and the domination of egos.] > Reach a mental equilibrium without the chaotic thoughts and the domination of egos? ron,ron,ron,ron, snoozing friend.... It does it, doesn't? I am so much aware. your mental diet is too much targeted. Please let's us remember that, here, we are COMMUNICATIVE. my friend, those words are here for others, let's put slice of good humour. when friends have got time for such matter, it is precious time, let's have it good. > For this is mystic unity > In which the Wise Man is moved > > [ The unity of conscience, in opposing the > multiplicity of Egos.] > > Neither by affection > Nor yet by estrangement > Or profit or loss > Or honor or shame. > > [ Some of the manifestations of Egos.] > > Accordingly, by all the world, > He is held highest. > > [ He is enlightened ] > > > And to conclude, let us analyze the first lines: > > Those who know do not talk > And talkers do not know. > > Because if you talk without a complete awareness of > what you are doing (like me), you are just > manifestating the Ego of pride. Under this, other > egos may come like the desire for power that will > make people create and lead sects. Under this > position, other egos will manifestate, like lust, > violence and greed. > > In reality, I am fully aware that this post is > worthless. Only if one is ready to learn about egos, > he may experience the reality of this knowledge. Who > am I to judge this, since I already declare myself > defeated by the egos? don't be defeated tonight, let's rather accompany each other. "Search and the light will come to you" is misleading, isn'it? Ligth from far? And light from the group? Realistic, let's bet on the group. A lucky group will surely help even on this path, let's bet for peace, just a while. Let's bet on evolutionary groups. Let's try some conformatable changes. Politics is not a question of governments, it a man's good humouristic question. Hey, I have got some general political questions, for good humour. 5 is not enough. Remi

The theory of multiplicity of self,

Eduardo Ferreira — Sat, 30 Jul 2005 22:11:52 +0100

I will start, in a typical Socratic way, to state that all I say has no value. "Those who know do not talk And talkers do not know. Stop your senses, Close the doors; Let sharp things be blunted, Tangles resolved, The light tempered And turmoil subdued; For this is mystic unity In which the Wise Man is moved Neither by affection Nor yet by estrangement Or profit or loss Or honor or shame. Accordingly, by all the world, He is held highest." Tao Te Ching http://www.mountainman.com.au/taotrans.html To this quote, Joeanna Nee had this to say: "On you last quote, I interpret that to mean that the wise man feels nothing at all. Is that correct? That to me would not be wise, it would be void of all things. But, I could be misinterpreting as I do not know Taoism very well at all." Read the rest of this post...