Nothing is necessarily as you thought it was, and you should never believe what you're told until you've had a chance to study it for yourselves
Quote of the day
 Email & RSSSign up to oD's editorial summaries email:
 NavigationThe World
Our writersPopular ArticlesRecent: |
 |
The theory of multiplicity of self
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."
Dear Joeanna,
You are interpreting things well, according to every day knowledge. To understand this quote it is required that we understand the theory of multiplicity of self. I will start by saying that, to know this theory is not true knowledge. To verify this theory within ourselves IS knowledge, but is also very difficult as we are not objective about ourselves.
I will start by dismounting the usual conceptions about our mind, and its logical or rational operation. (I copied this from another post, in "the problem of ideologies")
People believe in ideas and in words, but little more than that. I meet someone once that said we used language to think, and he was very surprised when I noted that, if it was the case, mutes should not think.
The fact is that the mental process occurs with ideas and thoughts, but there is an interesting process, hardly explainable for it is much subtle, but much more powerful than ideas and thoughts: conscience.
When we are conscientious of any situation, that does not require a formulated idea or a structured thought, it just is.
This process is a lot more complete and profound than other mental process, yet we doubt him, and sometimes its very existence. Yet it plays a role in our every day life. First we have a notion a feeling that something is on a certain way, and afterwards we create a reasoning that would explain our notion.
Some would call it intuition. However there are wrong connotations to that word.
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. 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.
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.
The difficulty is to separate the two, 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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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. 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.
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. 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...
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:
Stop your senses,
Close the doors;
[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.]
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?
Submitted on Sat, 2005-07-30 21:11
Re: The theory of multiplicity of self
Eduardo,
One quick note. There is a growing intelligence that thinking and language are interconneced, studies of children found with relatively little or no language skills after the age of nine or ten seem to indicate a barriar to learning associated with their language skills. Given that for one to learn one must be able to think, there might be something to consider there.
Added for clarity: I was referring to language as thought, not verbal language.
I can't find the origianl post you mentioned you copied this from, did you write it? Where can I find it?
Thanks,
Message was edited by: chris9234
Re: The theory of multiplicity of self
Ok, now your all scaring me. I don't have a degree in any of those fields. I read a book on Freud once and died laughing at his 'penis envy' and 'edipus theory'. I have read bits and pieces of Socrates but that was a dogs age ago. Although, when Eduardo and I spoke of Taoism, I was actually reading about Poohism.
I happen to like Poohism. If you can read it, do. Its the way blunt people look at life. Now, Im going to skulk away and cry over my lack of mental acuity compared to the list of degrees posted formerly. :(
Re: The theory of multiplicity of self
Degrees, shigrees! Don't be impressed with the things people hang on their walls Jo, most of my learning happened after I was out of school, and it still dosen't amount to much. When does the type of stuff we're currently posting on ever come into use anyway.
I should have went to dental school.
Re: The theory of multiplicity of self
It's not so much of being impressed thats daunting...it's the lack of being on par with the level of knowledge thats intimidating, which is more the word I would use. Intimidating. Yup, thats the one.
Re: The theory of multiplicity of self
Searching for information on imagining yourself as a bat (that's what you spent your philosophy degrees doing?!), I stumbled across this:
"...consciousness, as the subjective character of experience is a fact but it cannot be represented. We believe that the bat has conscious experience but could not imagine what this is like without actually being a bat. Consciousness in general could never be captured in a theory because it essentially involves a point of view. Nagel says that phenomenological facts about humans form a common type and we can imagine the subjective experience of other humans but this cannot lead to psycho-physical reduction because the more a theory leads away from the human viewpoint, or subjective experience, the further away from capturing the mental a theory will be. You cannot capture the reality of the mental because the point of view, or the way things appear to a subject is just what consciousness is like."
Philosophical Questions
Which ties in with my ideas (well, theorists such as Barthes might have played a part) about the limitations of language.
If certain things can't be discussed, because we don't thave the words to describe them, does that rule them out of philosophical consideration?
Re: The theory of multiplicity of self
I reiterate: intimidating.
But, Im a hard headed Irish woman...who knows how to google...so, I guess your stuck with me.
Ok, are we talking about the mammal? or the lathed piece of wood used in baseball?
Re: The theory of multiplicity of self
Joeanna,
Mammal. I think.
I'm assuming the point of the exercise is that it's impossible to imagine life as a bat, as we have no idea what that's like. Same way that I can't truly understand someone's experience of God without having experienced it myself...
Re: The theory of multiplicity of self
I don't know what the memory span of a cricket or baseball bat is, so I would go with the winged version.
Just to contradict myself (besides, we are talking about the mind, so I expect everyone to do it at least once), to imagine one as a bat, one would work on the current knowledge of how bats behave and operate (wow I sound like an engineer again). But after not having any caffeine for near a month now I'm not prepared to stay up all night to think about it. God, on the other hand, is a personal experience as opposed to general behaviour and function.
Unless you want to know what it's like being one particular bat. Do they have personalities? The only one I've had any contact with just kept squeaking at me. Guess I shouldn't have held it so tight ;)
I don't want to sound all anti god or anything, but how can someone experience something that isn't here?
--- waiting for the barrage
Re: The theory of multiplicity of self
Charles,
to imagine one as a bat, one would work on the current knowledge of how bats behave and operate
But all you'd end up doing is imagining what it would be like to be a human pretending to be a bat - which is different from the experience of being a bat itself, something none of us (I assume) have any experience of, and therefore little if any knowledge of what it's like.
Re: The theory of multiplicity of self
Ah-hah, I didn't say it would work. But going by what you said, we can't really relate to anyone as each experience is unique. We can only imagine what it would be like to be us pretending to be them in that particular situation.
Thinking about thinking. Again, I'm sure someone asked, How far down the rabbit hole do you want to go?
Re: The theory of multiplicity of self
Right [cracks knuckles] [winces due to being a wuss]
There’s an issue here that some of us have studied this stuff and some haven’t. This obviously isn’t about how smart anyone is – I know from experience that you guys are firmly on the ball – it’s just what we have or haven’t read. And this isn’t like particle physics, you don’t need a degree to join in usefully. So I'm trying to talk through these ideas without sounding like some sort of patronising old git... :)
Mind: I think the best way to define this is as the totality of anything you might count as being mental or psychological – thoughts, emotions, moods, bodily sensations (including perceptual images), opinions, memories, dreams, and also stuff that’s more in the background, such as general knowledge, motor or language skills, personality traits and the like. This definition doesn’t take sides on the issue of whether the mind is really a soul – some sort of real but non-physical entity, connected to the brain somehow – or just a set of processes – ‘what the brain does’ – in the way that life isn’t a distinct thing, some sort of ‘vital spirit’ as they used to think, but just the condition of and processes in a creature’s body.
Consciousness is that aspect of the mind that we’re aware of at any given time. If you want to be practical about it, you might say that any mental state you could mention if asked about would be conscious (‘yes, I did just hear a noise’; ‘no, I don’t want to kill my father, why would you imagine that Dr Siggy?’).
Bats. Yes, the winged variety. The point (copyright Thomas Nagel) with this is that their minds are so different from ours in kind (not just the individual variations that you get between humans) that we can’t imagine what it’s like to be them, however much of the science we might know. They get around using this sonar/echolocation thing with the screeches, which, while based on hearing, is effectively a whole sense that we just don’t have.
You could say that a person born blind can’t possibly know what it’s like to see colours (although there’s a limited scope for talking to others and drawing parallels between vision and other senses). But bats’ conscious minds – assuming that they do actually have something of the sort, their brains are a bit on the wee side – are just something else entirely. You can’t make the imaginative leap, and as has been pointed out, the nearest you can get is imagining yourself, with your human mind, in a bat-shaped body, screeching and hearing the echoes and… well, there it sort of runs into the sand.
Which is said to illustrate, as Matt’s quote said, that consciousness is inherently subjective and so any attempt to describe or explain it objectively is going to miss out on what it’s actually like (for whoever) to be conscious. And if you can’t explain consciousness, you can’t explain the mind.
I don’t buy this argument but that’s quite a bit of writing to explain. Right now I need to log off for a while, but this is fun. A pleasant experience to actually know a bit about what I’m talking about!
Oh, Matt, sure you can read the Blackmore book without the Dawkins one. (I’ve actually read no Dawkins books at all.) He does I think write an approving preface to her book, and probably all you need is a general idea of what evolution and genes are about. She does describe the gene/meme analogy in detail (and while it’s interesting I’m not sure how useful the meme concept is, but never mind that).
Re: The theory of multiplicity of self
Mind: I think the best way to define this is as the totality of anything you might count as being mental or psychological – thoughts, emotions, moods, bodily sensations (including perceptual images), opinions, memories, dreams, and also stuff that’s more in the background, such as general knowledge, motor or language skills, personality traits and the like.
Tom,
If our minds are the totality of these things, what happens if we lose some of them? For example, if someone is in a horrible car accident and is rendered a paraplegic, is their mind now diminished too? Or perhaps just changed?
Do you identify the "self" with the mind as you have defined it, or with consciousness, or something else altogether? or maybe there is no self, I don't know, apparently Jughead was no help.
PS. Jo
Jughead isn't interested in Veronica, he's after the readhead.
Re: The theory of multiplicity of self
Hey Chris
If, say, lower spine damage means I can’t move my legs, I wouldn’t say that affects the mind (apart from being pissed off) – I’d still theoretically know how to ride a bike, etc., I just wouldn’t have the working equipment to do it. But if some damage to the ‘leg area’ (technical term) of my motor cortex meant I couldn’t move my legs, even if they themselves were OK, then I think I might well class that as something about my mind that’s been altered.
I know that certain kinds of cortical blindness, as opposed to retinal blindness, mean that not only can you not see anything, but your ability to imagine/remember what things look like suffers as well. No idea if the same sort of principle applies to motor skills.
“Do you identify the "self" with the mind as you have defined it, or with consciousness, or something else altogether? or maybe there is no self”
Oh rats, I knew I’d forgotten something. Um… I tend to think that there isn’t really a ‘self’ as such, distinct from the rest of the mind, but certainly there’s a ‘sense of self’, which is partly about the feeling that all our thoughts, sensations, actions and so on at any one moment belong to the same individual, and partly about the sense that we endure over time, and that I have these personality traits and those preferences and beliefs, and did such-and-such when I was six, and that I’m going on holiday next week, and that I do a particular job and have certain friends and certain family members – whatever factors are important when I think about me and who I am. And various thoughts I have are about other thoughts or feelings that I’ve had, or decisions that I’ve made, and so this sort of cross-referencing helps to tie them all together into an intertwined bundle of narrative – and that, I think, does all the work that the notion of a central internal ‘self’ is supposed to do.
(Whoa, it’s been a while. I feel very rusty.)
What d’you reckon?
Re: The theory of multiplicity of self
Tom,
I'd reckon I haven't the tiniest idea of what the mind is, I'd also say I don't think your rusty at all (did you ever have that discussion of an ant farm and how it functions similarly to the brain/mind?) anyway, I digress from my digression. If I may, I'd like to bend the discussion away from "what is the mind", just for a minute, to explore the consciousness of consciousness idea. More to the point, what are your ideas as to the purpose of consciousness? You've already shown quite nicely that we hardly need consciousness for thinking, and in many ways it might even get in the way of thinking, and action for that matter (aren't those who freeze on stage in the grips of consciousness).
So if not for thinking or action what is consciousness for?
Side note: I tried to shift my thinking to analytical philosophy in order to bypass this whole debate, I just loved the whole idea of brushing aside discussions for being irrelevant with the wave of the hand. Do you find yourself flip flopping between different ways of thinking too?
Oh...great, Matt just added indecisiveness and lack of certainty to the Chris9234 file.
Message was edited by: chris9234
Re: The theory of multiplicity of self
"So if not for thinking or action what is consciousness for?"
it might not be for anything, it might simply be an emergent property. not the sort of view i usually subscribe to, but worth considering.
one of the best books in my opinion on this subject is Godel, Escher Bach by Douglas Hofstadter. he explores about a thousand different avenues but keeps coming back to self referentiality (or strange loops as he calls them). at one point he suggests that consciousness is somewhat akin to two mirrors facing each other, or the 'self swallowing' mad feedback loops you get when you point a TV camera at the screen showing its own output. (for e.g. see http://members.tripod.com/professor_tom/galleries/video/index.html)
the idea i suppose being (very crudely) that as you train your awareness on your own awareness the resulting feedback loop magics up an internal world.
Re: The theory of multiplicity of self
Ok...in my own small and very limited way, this started in a discussion of Taoism and my question to Eduardo that its the wise man that does not feel.
Ive been rather busy lately, and have tried to read what I have missed. First, I would like to ask Erin if (Im hoping I have the pronoun correct, if not accept my apologies) she was patronizing me or what...because I really am not sure how to take that little blurb with the quotation marks and Lord knows I loathe misunderstandings.
Second, Ed (can I call you Ed? If not, please accept my apologies) seeing my brain capacity broken down into that tidy little formula (this is why I only got a D in chemistry...damn formulas) doesn't seem to really fit the human brain. We really don't know all that its capable of. Im huge on documentaries and watched one on medical miracles. It showed a young boy of about thirteen who was shot in the head with a shotgun blast. He lived, he speaks, he even walks (with assistance) and can think and reason.
As for layers of self...yes. As each new experience and/or distraction, I do believe we layer them. To be absolutely still, clearing ones mind...is extremely difficult. When I practice Tai Chi, I find it very hard (being a novice...I have a long way to go) and have to use white noise in order to block other thoughts. When one is stressed, it's usually due to a noisy mind which becomes irritating. But trying not to feel, seems cold somehow. I guess Im rather conflicted on that point. If you could expand Ed, I would appreciate it.
As for some of these post, I am going to have to take my time and digest them. I skimmed the long ones....sorry, its getting late and I mean no disrespect. Thanks for your patience.
Re: The theory of multiplicity of self
Joeanna,
Has I said, the trouble with this theory is that it is difficult to explain. I know, because I was also on the receiving side.
Apparently every one of us read this theory in a different way, in your case you understood it like stop feeling, or being insensitive, when it is really the opposite.
Just to provide a comparison, I will ask you: do you lose or gain anything emotionally when you are sleeping? (That is, if you can remember your dreams...)
In my experience, you have the same emotional capabilities, but you appear to be someone else, as you don’t remember your daily life and you are not aware that you are dreaming.
If we compare our daily life with dreaming, the use of conscience could be compare to be awaken. Instead of losing emotional capability, we gain clarity and honesty in our life, and consequently in our emotions.
BTW, I just remember this simple exercise for those that like to have experiences. The objective is to awaken in dreams, and to do that you have to create the habit of asking yourself "am I dreaming?" every time you see something unusual in your daily life. As we are creatures of habits, it will come a night when you do this while dreaming, and suddenly you become fully aware, while still on your dream. What you do then... ;)
Re: The theory of multiplicity of self
Dear Ed,
I wasn't taking it as being insensitive...um...more as bereft or void of all feeling...like a rock, sort of.
Yes, I remember my dreams. Upon occasion, I can actually orchestrate them, other times they are issues played out with something I have thought of doing or saying to someone that I just can't bring myself to say or do. I am a visual person and see words as pictures. Example: if you were to tell me something is 79 yards away, I wouldn't have a clue...unless I had a visual context to compare it with. (Made math in school challenging)
When we all post, I hear it as an actual conversation, I see what I think the poster looks like with each post and whatever info gleened from what is said.
So, in Taoism...how would I acheive a state of nonfeeling where I am too sensitive to emotion?
Re: The theory of multiplicity of self
Ed,
No, I don't wish to be void of emotion. I was referring to your original quote in your first post. I like my emotional being, its a part of me. The good and the bad. You can't have one without the other. Yin and Yang.
As for Marcus Aurelius, the only Roman Emperor not to be of Caesarian lineage, was a fascinating man. He returned Rome to its people.
But, my point would be that I wouldn't make a good Taoist student as I feel too deeply at times. Im too passionate. It would be difficult for me as my mind likes to wander. The different books recommended by Erin and ideas from you should be a nice start into the layers of the ego or id as frued loved to call it.
Re: The theory of multiplicity of self
Joeanna,
You said:"I like my emotional being, its a part of me. The good and the bad. You can't have one without the other. Yin and Yang."
Certainly you believe that everything you are is an indispensable part of you. We all do.
To lose something we are is like dying. And we don’t want to die. Each of these parts of us doesn’t want to die. And they will protect themselves. They will say: “I am responsible for your emotions”, and in fact they do play with emotions.
But what they are also responsible is for blunting our senses. Our connection to our world is less than it should be, our attention to our loved ones is just a fraction of what is could be, and our bond to our emotions is sporadic and erratic.
We cannot truly value what we can lose, until we experience what we can win.
And if you notice the Taoist quotes above (thanks Erin, for these excellent translations), it says something about good and bad.
People think in terms of duality, right/wrong, black/white, good/bad.
One thing I learned is that they are only words, artificial definitions of our creation.
To kill is bad, that is absolute. Yet this absolute will not be so absolute when the protection of our life and the lives of our loved ones is in cause.
Things are unique and have no other value, other then their uniqueness. To think otherwise is not to see the thing itself.
An action can be beneficial to some and harmful to others, simultaneously. How dare we to classify it? Our judgments are always faulty, for we lack to capability to see the true implications of our actions.
Re: The theory of multiplicity of self
Well Ed, I happen to think that there is black/ white and all the shades of grey in between. Life shows me that.
As I read these different versions of Tao, it seems like its non existent, so there for it always exist. That seems false somehow. Am I reading this wrong?
Re: The theory of multiplicity of self
Joeanna,
Black and white do in fact exist, but only in our perception. You can only believe something is beautiful when you believe other things are ugly. It is the duality that defines these concepts.
When you talk about the shadows of grey, you are saying that life has showed you there is no clearly defined "black" and "white".
When you consider one person, it can simultaneously be good and bad for you. But because we like to see life in a dualistic manner, we strain to classify it.
However, like all other preconceptions (or conceptions, actually), this is not related to the reality. It is a world of mental constructions dissociated from reality. The true perception of reality should be free from "filters".
As an example: one can believe everything is "green", but in fact it will see other colors with its eyes. Only if you put on some green glasses, everything would "appear" green – but in reality they are not. Now would I say that the "green" world does not exist? It does exist, but only in ones mind. IT IS NOT REAL.
Re: The theory of multiplicity of self
Dear Ed,
When you talk about the shadows of grey, you are saying that life has showed you there is no clearly defined "black" and "white".
This is the sentence that makes sense to me. This is how I see life, now that explains a lot for me. Thanks to you and Erin. I will read more about this Taoism.
Re: The theory of multiplicity of self
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
Re: The theory of multiplicity of self
Given that for one to learn one must be able to think, there might be something to consider there.
doggy learns to bring shoe.
Re: The theory of multiplicity of self
"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.
Re: The theory of multiplicity of self
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.
Re: The theory of multiplicity of self
Re: The theory of multiplicity of self
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.
Re: The theory of multiplicity of self
Michel,
Your post reminds me of alchemist texts. You are hermetic, are you not?
Re: The theory of multiplicity of self
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.
Re: The theory of multiplicity of self
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...
Re: The theory of multiplicity of self
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! :)
Re: The theory of multiplicity of self
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 with the hope I will lessen the expected 16-year recovery period I'm facing!
Well not exactly, I'm just hoping to get some house cleaning done today.
I dont know how people can quickly go from one relationship to the next; that is insane.
Re: The theory of multiplicity of self
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.
Re: The theory of multiplicity of self
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.
Re: The theory of multiplicity of self
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.
Re: The theory of multiplicity of self
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 -IMO 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.. or maybe you are ok with colors? ;)
I think we are probably saying something very similar.
wow, it's late; posting online is easily the weirdest thing I do. ta.
Post new comment |
|
Elections Most discussed articles... |
Posts: 301
Joined: 2004-08-17