Otis

Sounds like a great epiphany. Human beings have existed a long time before methods were invented. Particularly, methods that are designed to get us to learn how to be fully human. We should never deify a recipe. Nonetheless, just because I am the chef, the materials, and the cake, doesn't mean that a recipe isn't useful.

I've been doing barefoot hikes for a few years (and would highly recommend it for others). In the last few months, I've also added some backward hiking, and spiral hiking. Both gain me some strange looks, but they are great for adding useful stress into my body (particularly feet, ankles, calves, etc.) to wake up and enervate the all-important base of my body. The balance of the rest of my body depends upon an easy balance in those lower parts, because all the weight has to pass through them.

Great! I think that balance, as in all things, is the answer. Some people read something that their chosen authority figure has written, and declare: "this is the gospel!" Others read, not to understand better, but to be able to overwhelm others through authority: "oh yeah? Well, I know best cuz my guru said it was so!" Others will not even seek to gain other viewpoints, but will still insist that their provincial view is correct. No better reason than: "it's mine, so it's real". But there is something in-between, in which we read to hold a mirror up to our own viewpoint. We can see any well-thought-out text as a projection which attempts to illustrate the nature of reality. The more wise projections we have, the more fully dimensional our hologram of reality can be. Triangulation gives me a much better 3-D view than my own individual point of view ever could.

I agree, but only to a point. For Aaron to admit that what he's saying is "belief" as opposed to "reality" is already an enlightened step. Too many people mistake their inner simulacra for the real thing, and will insist to their dying breath that they are describing "actual reality" instead of the contents of their heads. However, when it comes to "seeing things as they are", I don't see how anyone can do that. We can see things with less crap in the foreground, but we're still limited by being a singular organism, with a specific set of senses that we evolved into. Objectivity is an asymptotic goal; we can get closer and closer to it, but never reach it. And there are no omniscient beings around to (dis)confirm how close we got to actual truth. So it's always a big question mark. To me, "seeing things as they are" merely means seeing my own limitations as an ego, studying a simulacrum inside my head that is created by electrochemical impulses in my nervous system based upon certain stimuli from the outside world. But I remain agnostic about the "actual world", because that is, a priori, forever outside of my view.

Is it possible, however, that there is no such ladder? For example, how would you rate Mickey Mantle vs. Einstein vs. Gandhi vs. Mozart? Each has his own brand of genius. They are skilled in very different areas, with only a little cross-over. They certainly are not on the same ladder. So too, I think that Simple Jack and Twinner and Manitou and so on, each has their own brand of genius. Each of us has experiences, insights and wisdom to share with each other. We are not two-dimensional hierarchical beings. The ladder is only an illusion.

Hey Aaron, I saw that Nova special, too. Good stuff. Nothing like a good brain documentary to help bust our bubble, that thought is something grand and divine. But I think that's a useful humbling, because my thought process is self-important enough, without me trying to convince myself that it's divinely inspired.

Excellent! Another way of saying this might be: belief structures are just another form of habit. In this case, it's a habit/subroutine which says: if there is X context, then I launch my warning, the thought that is recorded here. If I look in the mirror and notice my crow's feet, then a subroutine says: "oh, I'm getting so old". If I drop something, a subroutine says: "you clumsy oaf". And so on. So my thoughts may arise from many different functions in the brain, each an if/then subroutine. (Of course, they are not simply if X, then Y, because many factors may play a part in the firing of that thought. It may be more like: if this context occurs, and if my dopamine level is this low, and if my cortical arousal is this high, then I produce Y response.)

I very much agree. I think you're pointing at the same thing as what I quoted from Steve F's post, how the self is not the doer, and thought not the decision, but both merely side-effects of deeper processes in the brain. And how neither thought nor self are necessary to carry out actions. In fact, you point to how both thought and self can get in the way of action, how they can contaminate the process with excess rumination and second-guessing. Wu wei, then, does not have to be a supernatural process, but merely a neural one. It could just be: getting the I and the thoughts out of the way, so that the deeper processes of my organism can work as a seamless flow, without being slowed down by "my" interference, my obsessive need to try to control my brain. "I" am merely an apparition, an illusion arising from the functions of that brain.

Excellent contributions, everyone! This, to me, is one of the most important indicators of what is happening in my head, and is the neuroscience explanation of why the "I" is an illusion. "My" thought does not precede the decision, therefore I am not the decision-maker. "I" am merely the observer of functions that happen elsewhere in my brain. Also, therefore, thought is not the decision, but is a side-effect of the decision. In process, it would be like this: X= The part of my brain that decides, which is clearly not "me" (i.e. my ego). X decides, and that decision is the catalyst for the next steps in the process. Several different neural pathways are activated by that catalyst: including motor nerves, emotional context, visual/spatial feedback, etc., and somewhere along the line, the "I" is notified. The next question is: is the "I" notified via thought? Or is thought merely the ego's response to non-thought inter-brain communication? For example, if X, the "decider" function, fires off my anger response, does the ego sense anger, and then create a story to match it: "oh, I'm really pissed off at that guy". Or is the ego even more clueless? Does it wait until some other function, a story-teller function, tells the ego how pissed off I am? If the latter, then the ego is merely the part which believes or disbelieves the story-teller. If the "I" is merely an observer, and not a decider, or even the story-teller, then it becomes very easy to stop taking thought so seriously. I can merely watch the thought, and recognize that it is a phenomenon, not a truth. And I can wait until the next thought arises, and see if that one serves me better. That certainly helps in social interaction, if I don't attach to my first response, but count to ten, and see what other responses arise, thereafter. (Of course, it also gets very complicated in terms of feedback loops, because even the "count to ten" is still a thought, still a habit that probably precedes the "I". What seems paradoxical, I think, is actually just a great deal of cross-communication within the brain, a nanosecond-by-nanosecond internal ecology of cause and effect, which gives the semblance of a flow of thoughts).

As you see, many of us do. Personally, I don't like to use the term "spiritual", because it implies something special, something different than ordinary reality and psychology. I don't think that we need to go into "magical" or "supernatural" territory in order for the wisdom of Taoism and Buddhism to still make sense. Logic still holds in a Zen universe, just not "common sense" (which is a form of provincialism). I think it is enough to say that "my view of reality does not describe what is actually there, nor will I ever have an objective viewpoint". There's plenty of mystery within that statement to last a lifetime, without the need for bringing in special powers and forces. Not to say that science has all the answers, of course, or that what is outside of science is necessarily false. But science IS doing great work, and I think that's a pretty good starting point for considering the world. In particular, I think neuroscience is blazing trails that are very relevant and useful to "spiritual" seekers, in order for us all to get a better view of how our brains work. (That said, there are terms that science doesn't have much to say about, like Qi and Agape love, so "squishy" metaphors may still need to be employed).

I'll try. I'm still learning to love the people that I like, not to mention those who I allow to irritate me.

I agree. There's certainly no point (especially on a discussion board) for anyone to declare: "my enlightenment is bigger than yours". I mean, really, based on what ... ? Kinda makes the whole concept of enlightenment (as an attainment) seem silly, if two people can have two different enlightenments. Maybe we should drop the measuring sticks, and just say: "this is what has worked for me, thus far" and "this is what seems true to me, right now." Seems a lot more honest, and avoids all the contaminating self-description and potential traps that come with "I've arrived".

Unless, of course, it's Bavarian Cream.

I highly recommend (to anyone): go out dancing! Have fun, learn how your body wants to move, where it holds tension, and how fatigue wants to unwind itself, all without contaminating the process with intention or boredom. Don't make yourself work out, when you can just play out! And cultivate delicious stretches! The best thing for the body!

Hi Christoff. I have had a great deal of success with reversing some premature aging. It sounds to me like your time with your son may be a great opportunity. For me, play has been one of the best ways of getting to know my body, without having specific concepts or goals to stress about. Just enjoying the fun of the movement, and the moment. Kids have a ton of energy, so if you really let yourself get involved in playing with your son to the point of fatigue, it will probably be a great work-out. And what could be better at getting you fit for playing with your son, than playing with your son? Have fun!

Truth is, I don't think I am very skillful when it comes to "other people", and especially the category of "bosses". This is one of the places that I recognize I have a lot of baggage around, but not a lot of awareness. I'm just learning to coddle the boss. And it does seem off; it feels like a clumsy short-cut. But it works better than what I had before, which was a tendency to roll my eyes, around the boss. So, I feel like I'm stumbling around a bit in the dark, and applying rules-of-thumb that don't quite fit reality, but which are working better than my previous brand of stumbling around in the dark. That's part of why I want y'all's opinions on the matter, because I can use the insight.

Sure. A baby is entirely dependent on having the parents look out for it. Once it grows older, and is no longer under the direct guard and supervision of the parents, the child now feels the need for a "heavenly father", who watches over the safety, and enforces the morality of the child. Eventually, the belief system itself becomes the deity.

So, what's your solution? If the others are not selves, how do you deal with them? I'd wager that they see themselves as selves. And since you know that you are not a "self", how does that realization affect your interaction with these fabled "others"?

Good luck, Mandrake, in finding that job.

Great share and insight, Matt!

There is a great conversation going on here, with a lot of insightful things being said on all sides. I do want to make a small criticism, not of any specific individual, but of a style of posting, that I think is turning this into an unnecessary conflict. It is the use of "you" that I object to. Many times in this thread, posters have said things along the lines of: "you do not understand", "you are at ____ level of awareness", "once you see it, you will know" etc. This use of "you" seems problematic at best, and possibly, intellectually dishonest. All we have of each other, are some words on a screen. There is no "you" there, only an argument and some assertions. By all means, let us take on the argument. Let us take on the assertions. But let us leave "you" alone. Have any of us have ever been inside each others' heads? Have any of us shared each others' experiences? It doesn't seem very likely. In fact, it seems delusional, it seems like projection, it seems like ad hominem fallacy. All I have to share is my experience. I have absolutely nothing else. Even what I am taught or what I intuit or what I remember is just part of my experience. So that is what is legitimate to share. The rest is delusion. If I say "X is real", instead of "X seems real" or "IME, X is real", then I am lying. I do not, cannot know what is real. Because I am always relying on myself as the standard, and that standard is inherently limited. And - I absolutely cannot know what is "you". I feel no hesitancy, responding to what has been written, but I think it is shameful to make projections in a philosophical argument. How would I expect anyone to take me seriously, as having a clear view of my own mind, if I am busy creating false and impossible assertions about the contents of someone else's mind?

Excellent.

This is awesome!

Certainly I would never make that claim (material absolutism), nor can I imagine science making that claim (individual scientists might be a different matter). There's no way to prove a negative. What science has done is amass a great deal of evidence to support the positive (consciousness arises from matter), and I think we neglect that evidence, at our own peril. Like with evolution, an enormous amount of good honest thorough work is dismissed out-of-hand, when a creationist insists on dismissing it all with: "scientists have bias". It doesn't matter how strong the evidence is; the believer will still throw it all out, if it doesn't match with his firmly-held beliefs. Here we are, a discussion group that spends a lot of its time talking about consciousness. Shouldn't we at least give strong consideration to what science tells us about the matter? As for consciousness, I know that it feels like a "luminous quality". But it could easily be argued that consciousness is merely an illusion that arises from function. Just like with our closest attempts at A.I., consciousness may just be layers upon layers of subroutines (mental habits) that feel and appear like individuality. I don't think we should dismiss these possibilities, because otherwise we're just doing like fundamentalists everywhere, and insisting on our own beliefs, evidence be damned.

Two of my greatest heroes, Gandhi and Dr. King, would agree with you.