How to handle the unknown

[Marblehead]

Just thinking about certainty as a potential dead zone. Areas in the bodymind closed down due to being decided.

 

Yes, that should always be a consideration whenever we think we know something. We would be in error to close our mind to other perspectives.

[Marblehead]

... but it is merely saying that "some delusion is okay. Some delusion is close enough to work". IOW, the "island of the known" may be better called: "the island of acceptable delusion".

 

I have already mentioned in other threads but I will mention here as well, when I am in my own world (on my property) I hold to a few illusions and delusions. This allows me to be more at peace with my Self and also believe that the outside world is doing just fine. But when I leave my world I leave my illusions and delusions at home. I am aware that there are those 'out there' who could cause me harm.

[三江源]

Yes, that should always be a consideration whenever we think we know something. We would be in error to close our mind to other perspectives.

 

not to be too cumbrian about this.....just meandering on the way of this topic, it comes to me to comment: the should and the always and the correct and the in error are part of the language and thinking pattern of certainty creation. Those modes are terrific for learning to drive and to use an oven etc, but .... a different kind of language is beneficial for facilitating a soft gaze mind set that allows previously unseen gestalt to come into focus.

[宁]

Bahahahaha !!! You are RIGHT!!!

 

 

Corrected

 

I think that was (a sabotage from) the your buddhist inside, telling us the two of them are the same anyway...

[Otis]

When I am in my own world (on my property) I hold to a few illusions and delusions. This allows me to be more at peace with my Self and also believe that the outside world is doing just fine. But when I leave my world I leave my illusions and delusions at home. I am aware that there are those 'out there' who could cause me harm.

In general, I think my strategy is kind of the opposite. When I am home and/or alone, I need fewer pretenses, and so can live more authentically. When I am dealing with others, I feel that I have to engage some of my delusion/projection about them, because otherwise, it's hard to interact. These projections include: make them feel special, show that I'm listening, etc. These strategies are one of my "islands of acceptable delusion".

[Marblehead]

not to be too cumbrian about this.....just meandering on the way of this topic, it comes to me to comment: the should and the always and the correct and the in error are part of the language and thinking pattern of certainty creation. Those modes are terrific for learning to drive and to use an oven etc, but .... a different kind of language is beneficial for facilitating a soft gaze mind set that allows previously unseen gestalt to come into focus.

 

I cannot argue that point because it is very likely valid. We'll see if this thread is going to go in that direction so I can show some of my ignorance.

[Marblehead]

I think that was (a sabotage from) the your buddhist inside, telling us the two of them are the same anyway...

 

Ouch!!!

 

That was the deepest cut of all.

 

Hehehe.

[Marblehead]

In general, I think my strategy is kind of the opposite. When I am home and/or alone, I need fewer pretenses, and so can live more authentically. When I am dealing with others, I feel that I have to engage some of my delusion/projection about them, because otherwise, it's hard to interact. These projections include: make them feel special, show that I'm listening, etc. These strategies are one of my "islands of acceptable delusion".

 

Yes, I understand what you are saying and I actually operate that way as well. I will probably never be able to adequately explain about my illusions and delusiosn. But that's okay.

[Stigweard]

Hehehe. I was pretty much with you there until that last sentence.

 

No, we have other options other than jumping. We can turn around because even though we might think that the falling would be a great thrill the knowledge that our fall will be broken via contact with earth. And I promise you - that hurts. 'Tis better, I think, to keep ones feet firmly planted on earth. What is that saying? "If God wanted us to fly he would have given us wings."

 

The Sage remained safe and secure while travelling through the forest because he was aware that there be tigers and rhinos in the forest so he avoided contact with them.

 

Yes, unsuccessful mutations die off. That's life. Successful mutations create new, more adaptable species. That too is life.

 

However, I still suggest that in the process of trying to improve ourself we should not venture into the danger zone too often because Murphy's Law will get us sooner or later.

 

While in the 'wu' state we can fly. I acknowledge this. But in the 'yo' state we cannot. We must never confuse the two states of being.

LOL you are like a little fat kid on the beach sprouting all the safe and logical reasons why going for a swim is such a "bad" idea

 

hehehehe

 

[Stigweard]

hmmm...

 

i know this is just a model, but when i actually look for this "island of known", i can only find more swirling sea.

 

i often operate habitually as if i know, as if there is an island.

 

but what do i absolutely incontrovertibly know to be true in this actual moment that is simply beyond even the subtlest shred of doubt or argument? where is this island?

 

for me, when i sincerely ask, nothing arises but silence decorated with what is. nothing known, nothing graspable, nothing i can articulate. this moment itself is utterly unknown.

 

sean

Nice words but do you really mean them?

 

I remember you saying with conviction that preferences are natural and that the impartial view that you described above is actually somehow "inhuman".

 

What is a preference after all?

 

It is a discriminatory elevation of one thing over another based on one's own view of the world ... a view that comprises of fixated conceptual descriptions. And it is this that I am referring to as "The Known".

 

From my view, it is not the physical chair that is "you ming/the known," but is instead our fixated perception and associated conceptions of that chair.

 

[Stigweard]

Without wishing to interrupt this interesting discussion - just quickly - you have to understand the relationship between the island and the ocean.

Huzzah!!!

 

[Stigweard]

yes, very practical and common sense view and likely crucial to operating in the world.

 

and at a more fundamental level (which i assume we are trying to investigate on a taoist forum) these are simply relatively safe assumptions based on accumulated stories.

 

is that what is meant by "known" in this topic?

 

if so, than yes there is a huge ass island of relatively safe-seeming assumptions arising at any given moment, agreed.

 

Yup, reality after all is just a collective hunch

 

to experience beyond that kind of knowledge i can only again suggest further inquiry along the lines suggested in my previous post.

 

what is absolutely known to be true, directly, without any assumption or reference to concepts that can be argued?

 

i humbly submit the "answer" is not what you (or i) think.

 

and yet sitting in chairs will (probably) continue to function as expected, heh. there is a relative quality of continuity amidst our experience. but ime, directly realizing the groundlessness of 99.9% of what is generally assumed to be known (in the absolute sense) creates space for a stunning sense of wonder, even with "simple" things like "just sitting", otherwise sanitized of mystery via socially encouraged habits of taking concepts seriously.

 

sean

Huzzah!!!

 

Yes agreed ... when we realize that "the known" is just a whole conglomerate of conceptual assumptions we can start to loosen our fixations of what we think we "know" and relax into the incredible, wondrous, mystery of it all.

 

[Stigweard]

I think that was (a sabotage from) the your buddhist inside, telling us the two of them are the same anyway...

[Stigweard]

In general, I think my strategy is kind of the opposite. When I am home and/or alone, I need fewer pretenses, and so can live more authentically. When I am dealing with others, I feel that I have to engage some of my delusion/projection about them, because otherwise, it's hard to interact. These projections include: make them feel special, show that I'm listening, etc. These strategies are one of my "islands of acceptable delusion".

LOL ... indeed I have also heard it referred to as "controlled folly".

 

[sean]

Nice words but do you really mean them?

 

I remember you saying with conviction that preferences are natural and that the impartial view that you described above is actually somehow "inhuman".

i "mean them" in the sense that i am being honest and reporting my experience of the inquiry i shared, yes.

 

give it a try.

 

simply ask yourself with complete sincerity and openness what you really know to be absolutely true in this moment.

 

What is a preference after all?

 

It is a discriminatory elevation of one thing over another based on one's own view of the world ... a view that comprises of fixated conceptual descriptions. And it is this that I am referring to

so why not just call the island preferences then?

 

i'm just really not seeing how it's useful to refer to "fixated personal conceptual descriptions" as "known". because this seems like a better working definition of occlusions to what is known, blinders to clarity ime.

 

sean

[Stigweard]

i "mean them" in the sense that i am being honest and reporting my experience of the inquiry i shared, yes.

 

give it a try.

 

simply ask yourself with complete sincerity and openness what you really know to be absolutely true in this moment.

 

Please don't get me wrong here, I actually agree with 99.9% of the sentiments made in that post. You are right that what we think we "know" is founded, at best, on shifting sand.

 

I just see an incongruity between your statements on one hand that there are no fixed basis for what we may "know," versus your previous statements that promote the correctness and "naturalness" of making preferences. Especially when making preferences, by necessity, require us to fixate to a conceptual description of what we think we know.

 

so why not just call the island preferences then?

 

i'm just really not seeing how it's useful to refer to "fixated personal conceptual descriptions" as "known". because this seems like a better working definition of occlusions to what is known, blinders to clarity ime.

 

sean

My term "fixated conceptual descriptions" is the best wordage I have found to articulate, at least to me, the process or phenomena of what I see as "the known/you ming/to have name".

 

Fixated means that the particular way of seeing the world is "stuck", that it is habitually ingrained, that there is little or no variation away from that way of seeing the world.

 

Conceptual because it is a mental construct.

 

Descriptions because this way of seeing the world is upheld by the naming (and subsequent incessant internal dialogue) of the elements of that mental construct.

 

And you are right that these "fixated conceptual descriptions" are very much "blinders" to the multi-spectrumed reality of the "now" moment. You have my full agreement that, in reality, "this moment itself is utterly unknown".

 

But 99.9% of people desperately need the security of believing that they know, and so they collectively cling to their conceptual descriptions of their world, reinforce it with each other and themselves and this "collective hunch" is the "reality" of our culture ... it becomes the "island of the known".

 

Now as Mr Marbles has accurately said, there does seem to be some basic universal laws of nature that apply to every one. And so my view is that the path of Dao is about dissolving the "fixated conceptual descriptions," which really are just the artificial decorations on our "island of the known" (mind you I do like that fountain over by the waterfall ), and bring ourselves back to the unadorned state of ziran, self-so-ness.

 

Not to abolish the island completely mind you, but just minimize it's harsh features and harmonize how all the features interact with each other so that our personality (which really is just the expression or "face" of our "known") is peaceful and calm.

 

But there is another, less altruistic, and perhaps more practical reason for this process of "feng shui of the island of the known."

 

I personally view the message of Laozi as saying that, because wu ming and you ming are polarity aspects of the subtle reality of Dao, the wayfarer must encapsulate both in their perception and awareness. But this is simply not possible in any way shape or form if you are excessively constrained within "you ming/to have name/the known".

 

To me the balance is to have a minimal, fluid and well integrated "known," whilst allowing a liberated and pervasive "wu ming/no name/the unknown".

 

[sean]

your previous statements that promote the correctness and "naturalness" of making preferences. Especially when making preferences, by necessity, require us to fixate to a conceptual description of what we think we know.

just to clarify, i would say preferences arise and that this is natural and human and need not be resisted. but i would not say it is "correct" to "make" preferences.

 

To me the balance is to have a minimal, fluid and well integrated "known," whilst allowing a liberated and pervasive "wu ming/no name/the unknown".

i see. i see.

 

so this fluid quality of your ideal "known" suggests it is not separate in any ultimate metaphysical sense from unknown. but on a human level it does have specific qualities, e.g., maybe recognition, clarity, luminosity, balance, integrity, and these qualities are useful enough to point to this island (at least temporarily) as being distinct from the brutally inhuman "unknown" (impersonal ocean) that includes being lost, unclear, floundering, suffering, drowning.

 

am i getting warmer?

 

thanks for taking the time to clarify stig.

 

will ponder this further. literally about to walk out the door to fly out to a 10 day silent retreat so i'll have plenty of time, hah. talk to you soon.

 

sean

[Stigweard]

just to clarify, i would say preferences arise and that this is natural and human and need not be resisted. but i would not say it is "correct" to "make" preferences.

I think the question here is, "From where do preferences arise?"

 

i see. i see.

 

so this fluid quality of your ideal "known" suggests it is not separate in any ultimate metaphysical sense from unknown. but on a human level it does have specific qualities, e.g., maybe recognition, clarity, luminosity, balance, integrity, and these qualities are useful enough to point to this island (at least temporarily) as being distinct from the brutally inhuman "unknown" (impersonal ocean) that includes being lost, unclear, floundering, suffering, drowning.

 

am i getting warmer?

 

thanks for taking the time to clarify stig.

 

will ponder this further. literally about to walk out the door to fly out to a 10 day silent retreat so i'll have plenty of time, hah. talk to you soon.

 

sean

The "ideal", if there is such a thing, is for the known and the unknown to have the same interplay as the Yin/Yang symbol.

 

I would not however attach your conceptual associations of "lost, unclear, floundering, suffering, drowning" to the unknown. I could quite easily use other conceptual terms of "liberating, exhilarating, pervasive, flying free, wondrous."

 

[hagar]

I think the question here is, "From where do preferences arise?"

 

 

The "ideal", if there is such a thing, is for the known and the unknown to have the same interplay as the Yin/Yang symbol.

 

I would not however attach your conceptual associations of "lost, unclear, floundering, suffering, drowning" to the unknown. I could quite easily use other conceptual terms of "liberating, exhilarating, pervasive, flying free, wondrous."

 

 

Creativity is in its essence a destructive act

 

h

[Marblehead]

LOL you are like a little fat kid on the beach sprouting all the safe and logical reasons why going for a swim is such a "bad" idea

 

hehehehe

 

 

That's okay Stig. I am still here and most of my friends are dead.

 

Oh, I go swimming in the ocean. Actually love it. But I learned a long time ago that I need to know the waters I am jumping into BEFORE jumping in. I did that once and had a near-death experience because a strong under-tow got hold of me.

 

Many of our life experiences produce the possibility of death. A flip of a coin. I don't like those odds. I will take a few minutes to learn about something BEFORE jumping in. That has worked really well for me so far as I am still here and have had many wonderful experiences.

[Marblehead]

From my view, it is not the physical chair that is "you ming/the known," but is instead our fixated perception and associated conceptions of that chair.

 

 

Yep. That is a valid concept. But still, I suggest that when I leave the room the chair is still there, capable of the same functions whether I look at it and consider its functionality or not.

 

The chair is still a chair whether I understand its purpose or not.

[Stigweard]

Creativity is in its essence a destructive act

 

h

Aye ... I love compost

[Stigweard]

Yep. That is a valid concept. But still, I suggest that when I leave the room the chair is still there, capable of the same functions whether I look at it and consider its functionality or not.

 

The chair is still a chair whether I understand its purpose or not.

LOL to you and me its just a chair ... but to an aboriginal in central Australia it's firewood

[Marblehead]

Yup, reality after all is just a collective hunch

 

Huzzah!!!

 

Yes agreed ... when we realize that "the known" is just a whole conglomerate of conceptual assumptions we can start to loosen our fixations of what we think we "know" and relax into the incredible, wondrous, mystery of it all.

 

 

You do know, of course, that I disagree with you here. Who appointed man God?

 

The Earth existed before man came along. It did not need man to conceptualize it in order for it to be.

 

We are not the center of the universe nor does the universe need us for there to be a function of this universe. (No, I have no idea what its ultimate function is.)

[Stigweard]

Yep. That is a valid concept. But still, I suggest that when I leave the room the chair is still there, capable of the same functions whether I look at it and consider its functionality or not.

 

The chair is still a chair whether I understand its purpose or not.

 

And I am not trying to allude to any "we create the world but when our back is turned the world is no longer there" presumption.

 

Again "the known" as I am referring to it, is about you ming, to have name. It is about the descriptives and internal dialogue we use to uphold our view of the world.

 

You and I might look at the same chair and interpret it differently based on our internal construct of conceptualizations. You may look at it and get a nostalgic feeling because it reminds you of the chair your Aunty Esmaralda once had when you were a boy. I might look at it and think, "Wow if I sanded that back and put of bit of stain on it then it would probably sell quite well at an antique auction."

 

Same chair but because of different conceptual filtering two versions of the same base reality is formed. But the chair is still just a chair.

 

If we are to truly become ziran/tzu jan/self-so and see reality for its plain truth these constructs of what we uphold as "known" must dissolve and dissipate.