Otis

Function (as I mean it here) is just part of consciousness, like a steering wheel is to a car, or like paint is to a painting. Consciousness is just the name we have for what arises from the various functions / structures of the brain. Your post that I was responding to said that it was an "assumption" that consciousness arises from the brain. But all the evidence I know of (and there's lots of it), is in favor of that "assumption". I think the real assumption, is that consciousness is something other than the function of our brain. That's the claim that seems much more open to doubt, since there's no empirical evidence (that I know of) to support it.

Nice. By coincidence, I just found this quote by Paul Ferrini:

This is "winning", Charlie Sheen style. Jog a victory lap, declare yourself a genius, and (with faulty arguments) dismiss your "opponent", who never even saw this as a competition, to begin with.

Yes! That does seem to be the case. Stroke victims do sometimes report that their personalities change dramatically, after the stroke. But, yes, I agree with you, there are no specific neurons that we can point at and say: this is me. Rather, we have a beautifully functioning brain, and from that arises (among other things) the sense of "me". It is from the mass of activity of all the different brain parts that consciousness arises. (Not mechanical at all like your CD analogy, because it will never play back the same way twice; even the activity of remembering changes the memory). What I think is intriguing is not just "what parts are me", but rather why is it that I pretend that some parts (usually the parts I don't like, like dark emotions and stray thoughts) are not me. And why do I have a hierarchy of mental functions (the ones I trust vs. the ones I'm afraid of), as if some were more "me" than others? That's the illusion, as I see it: thinking that this "sense of me" actually describes who I am, when "the sense of me" is only a small part of what makes up my brain (and body) functioning.

Just speaking from my own background as a psych major, and from my conversations with my dad, who is a professor of the neuroanatomy of consciousness: there is now a huge amount of evidence which ties function to structure in the brain. Of course, that evidence cannot say: that is all we are. But I do think it's worthwhile questioning what the evidence is, which suggests otherwise. Isn't it possible that that's the real fallacy here, that our need to be special makes us want to be more than flesh?

Great stuff, Barb. The above, in particular, made me think of people I've met, who have displayed racism. I guess if I hate the person for their racism, I'm probably just reinforcing it, because my hatred will make them more entrenched in their belief. But if I can love the person, and just accept the racism, there may be room for me to model a different path, and actually help make a change.

Beautiful. So, what I'm hearing you say is: you don't worry too much about being able to "read" the other person. Rather you put your attention on loving them, and let that be enough. Is that right?

Excellent.

I agree with this.

Boy, do I wish!

This is part of why I agree with you so often. You don't seem to be defending a point of view, just stating it.

Thank you. Very nice.

This is a very interesting point, and I think deserves its own thread. With our experiences in waking ourselves up, how then do we propose to raise children, in such a way that they remain awake, and they mature without falling (too much) under the spell of delusion and ego?

My favorite way to view ego is as my habits, particularly those of consciousness. Those habits include all my beliefs, which are just a more sophisticated form of conditioned encoding. What each habit does is suggest that there is a right way to do things. I have a habit of walking, which pretends that there is a right way to walk. I have a habit of how loud to speak, in what tone of voice, where my eyes are allowed to wander, what expression should be on my face, how to hold my hands, what posture to stand in, how to sound wise. Each of these encodings suggest (or even dictate) what is right, and by definition, everything else is in the realm of wrong. But there is no right. There is no such thing as right posture, right walking, right tone of voice, etc. Every right is only an encode from the past, whereas reality is what is unfolding right now. This is why I push so hard against certainty, because certainty is the most fixed and dogmatic encode. It is like a muscle spasm, that never lets go. Certainty is the death of freedom, because it makes everything that is not part of the past encode of right into a wrong. IME, my journey is not aiming toward finding the true nature of reality, or the right way of seeing the world. Instead my journey is an ongoing surrender of the need to have such a thing as "true" or "right". These are bugaboos that haunt my mind, and my habits, but have no basis in reality (or none that I can actually confirm). And they only serve to imprison me in my past encodes.

Agreed. Well said.

I agree with you, Aaron about the unfortunate tendency of religion to say: "don't trust your self. Your self is inherently sinful, and only through divine intercession (or lots of practice in our method) can the self be redeemed." In particular, I dislike the concept that inner guidance is inherently wrong, and only external guidance (a method and/or deity) can lead to peace and freedom. I do see the ego as being a neurosis, however, rather than an actual thing. IMO, ego is an illusion of the language parts of the brain, thinking of themselves as the self. This is a neurosis, because there is a lot more to the brain (perhaps what you refer to as the soul), such as inspiration and compassion, that are powerful, but which don't directly speak in words. They present ideas in other forms, but the language-centric parts of the brain often don't listen, because thoughts in language are so compelling and vivid, and crowd out all the rest. That doesn't make the ego "sinful" except in the meaning of "to miss the mark". Since ego is enamored with concepts and with simulacra, it misses much of what is possible and available to the whole organism, should the ego quiet down and be patient. That also doesn't mean that ego needs to be "killed". But I do think there's a great advantage in doubting the stories from the ego, because it is highly conditioned, and thus, warps my view of the immediate. And I think it's worthwhile training the ego to stop taking itself so seriously, and let other (non-language) points of view be heard.

Hi Aaron, Thank you for sharing your views on the nature of "self". Although I have some different metaphors for some of what you described, I agree with most of what you wrote. In particular, I like that you emphasize that mind/body/spirit are merely different views of the same organism. Each describes a different part of the blind man's elephant, as it were. Different aspects, but just one elephant.

I like this response very much, and I get this, too, on a philosophical level. On a practical level, it's been more difficult for me. When I connect to inanimate objects, it is my surrender to the moment and my willingness to be clumsy, that has opened up my freedom with them. When I connect to people, I (perceive myself to) have less room to be clumsy, and thus, less room to surrender. It has been my attention to gentleness, to listening and treating others with as much room to be them as possible, that has brought positive results. Not that the latter is bad, but it still reflects me trying, and therefore working in the realm of the conceptual, not the immediate. Perhaps it is simply a matter of practice: that I need to try now, to focus on gentleness with others, because that is not a well-developed skill in my repertoire. Perhaps once those qualities have more fully woken up in me, then I won't have to make them my focus, and I can stop trying, and just flow.

This sounds like very good advice, and I have been leaning in that direction for awhile. I do find, however, that others often have expectations that they will not communicate with me, but will assume that I understand. Even though my wish is to project as little as possible, often it is socially very helpful if I do cater to those unsaid things. For example, my boss will never tell me that he wants me to sound agreeable, when he presents his ideas. But he will react badly, if I give a negative (albeit honest) response. IME, it is in my favor to play to his unspoken wishes (to make him feel important and creative), more than to give him what he actually asks for (my honest opinion). But of course, that is not responding to reality as it is (as you suggest), but to my heuristics about reality.

The fact that systems have levels and hierarchies is not necessarily a sign that reality also has those things. Systems have levels and hierarchies, because those things are endemic to systems. If we try to teach, we end up creating conceptual hierarchy, we end up creating conceptual levels of progress. That is inherent in teaching a system. It does not mean that those things are truly reflective of how any unique individual will experience growth.

Oh, and another question for the Bums: Since we know that we exist to others, only as the simulacra in their heads, then how does that realization change our behavior? What does that suggest we should do, in order to connect and communicate clearly to the other who only sees their projection of us?

I think we're speaking the same language, you and I. As you say: the actual person will not be found in my head. The thing in my head is my simulacrum of the other person. My question is: what next? You say: not picking or choosing. Does that mean that you no longer try to listen to what mood they're in, or how they're reacting to your behavior? Because not picking and choosing seems to be throwing away the useful heuristics about how to connect to others, not just the dysfunctional ones (although I admit, I can't tell you for sure which habits are which). I often practice "not picking and choosing" with physical objects, like stuff I juggle, or parkour obstacles, or even my own body in dance; and I agree, it works great. With the physical world, getting my self-consciousness out of the way allows a beautiful flow that I neither plan, nor experience stories about. And I see glimpses of that possibility with other people. With my deepest dance partners, I have the experience of meeting at a lesser egoic level, what feels like two people temporarily merging into one, and in that realm, I have very little need to "pick and choose". But when it comes to language, it seems that I mostly speak from my ego, and others usually seem to hear from their egos. How do I communicate in language, without being subject to ego habits? When it comes to communication, "not picking and choosing" has mostly led to clumsiness on my part. Not having stories about others leads me to forget to be gentle to their egos, which has made the difference between received as a friend or a foe. How do you bridge the gap? How do you "not pick or choose" in social realms, and yet not alienate or overpower others?

Excellent! I agree completely!

I was just reading Buddhism is not What You Think, by Steve Hagen, and came across the following: "Zen - that is, meditation - is simply coming back to just this - being present, noticing that we babble to ourselves, that we tell stories to ourselves, that we try to explain everything. Zen will never say anything to you. If it does, it's only because you're making it up. If you tell yourself, 'Oh, that was a good meditation. I really got into something deep there.,' it's nonsense. Pure delusion. And if you think, 'Oh, my meditation was off, my mind was really disturbed,' it's more delusion. Or, if you try to justify your meditation practice by saying, 'My day goes so much better when it begins with meditation,' it's all delusion. I never once heard my teacher talk like this. This is just our spinning minds jabbering to themselves."

Great metaphor. We were just discussing the meaning of "higher self" on the karma thread, and I think that metaphor is describing the same territory. The only reason why I'm less fond of the "oversoul" metaphor is that it still suggests something that is "out there", although the last sentence in the part that I quoted above, suggests that the Hawaiians don't take the metaphor too literally. They seem to see that source (as I do) as part of my self, just not the same part that I normally consider "me". The point I'd like to reach is not just having that "oversoul" inspiring me, and giving me guidance when I slow down and ask, but also really taking charge of my life. I'd like to see it involved in every moment, not just when I'm meditating. So that "I" and my "oversoul" work as a team, making every decision together.