How to handle the unknown

[Marblehead]

Heheheh ... groovy.

 

It's good that we are on the same page here ... quite a feat really for a religious and a philosophical Taoist

 

 

 

Hehehe. Yeah, we occasionally do agree on a concept.

 

And yes, I do realize that your base of reference is different from mine but we can work around that.

[Marblehead]

Oh, and I didn't want to get too much into shamanic journeys into the unknowable yet because I didn't want to mess with Mr Marble's blood pressure too much ... heheheh

 

 

I appreciate the consideration. Hehehe.

[Otis]

Oh My Goodness!!! You threw a monkey wrench into the machinery!!!

 

Your example is a perfect example of our need to be flexible because things around us are constantly changing. Some of these things in our life take a very long time to change and we can feel secure in establishing a fixed opinon of its reality but other things change quite reapidly so we have to stay aware of these changes and adapt as best we can.

 

This is why I speak to the concept of harmony rather than balance. Hard to keep our balance if things are constantly changing but it is a little easier to make a small change and reestablish the harmony.

 

I think it is possible to claim a known when a thing changes very slowly but for me, personally, I would never say I know a woman. Hehehe.

Yeah, things like snakes and chairs are easy to "know", but women ... that's a different matter.

 

But I think we can go further, and extend that to the rest of reality, without losing validity. My interaction with each thing in the world is evidence of my relationship with it. And my relationship (relating) is always changing, because I am always changing. I appear the same, but how I relate is based on many functions (energy, mood, etc.) that are cyclical and fluid, sometimes from second to second.

 

So, even if the chair is always a chair, I do not relate to that chair in exactly the same way twice. Nor do I experience it the same way, because my experience is always colored by where I'm at, not just the reality of "chair".

 

In fact, repetition in my relating and experiencing is a sign of habit controlling me, rather than approaching the world freshly. We can see that truth with a woman: approach her freshly, in every moment, if I really want to hear her, and not my concept of her. Isn't the rest of the world pretty much the same?

[Marblehead]

 

But I think we can go further, and extend that to the rest of reality, without losing validity. My interaction with each thing in the world is evidence of my relationship with it. And my relationship (relating) is always changing, because I am always changing. I appear the same, but how I relate is based on many functions (energy, mood, etc.) that are cyclical and fluid, sometimes from second to second.

 

Yes. Important concept that I had not spoken to. Thanks for mentioning it.

[Stigweard]

Any relationship is about existing in the unknown, and although we can get better at understanding each other and connecting together, I think it is a mistake to ever start thinking about it as "known", because that's when I forget the actuality of the woman, and replace her with a concept.

I believe this is called taking your partner for granted. Tough lesson to learn.

[aridus]

Yeah. Other things always change too. You don't always experience chair the same way, and chair doesn't always experience you in the same way. Some forget this second half of it.

 

The chair changes over time. We don't notice it at first, because of our concept of "chair", but eventually, over time, the chair can become a little crooked. Or become loose. Maybe it develops a squeak. Or the cushion is not as fluffy anymore. Upholstery gets worn. It gets stained. We don't notice some of this until one day it jumps out at us and we go "this chair, it's different now!" It was always slowly becoming different all the time with use.

 

It could even be said that you don't sit on the same chair twice.

[Marblehead]

It could even be said that you don't sit on the same chair twice.

 

Yep. All things change over time. Some change fast, others change more slowly. Isn't the Dynamics of Tao (Dao) beautiful?

 

Purpose for edit: Will try to start spelling that word Dao instead of Tao.)

Edited April 10, 2011 by Marblehead

[Easy]

Yep. All things change over time. Some change fast, others change more slowly. Isn't the Dynamics of Tao (Dao) beautiful?

 

This is a good space for me to flow into this interesting thread to write that I while I can understand Stig's original model, I think it has more problems than it has "cash value" as the pragmatists call it. In my way of thinking the problems begin with the apparent dualistic separation between the known and the knower. In my perception the known is a processual emergent in my mind (which is not just the brain) and I am a manifesting event that encompasses that mind. Perhaps the only thing I know that has any cash value is that I am a continually emerging event that permanently, though ever so slightly, effects reality, makes tracks, fathered children, creates steel artwork and generally degrades energy a la the Second Law of Thermodynamics. That story might not be in accord with the Great Metaphysical Truth Of It All, but metaphysical truth is perpetually beside the point. In other words the known is grounded within me, thus it can't be an island.

 

The other problem with the model is that the known, as island, is delimited by its surrounding shoreline and that limits possibility for growth and flow and other dynamics. As you can see I am writing this from a 'process" perspective that has the known in a continually emergent flow. I am going to have to think about this some more, but the corollary of that might be that the unknown is not the ocean, but also a flow in itself that exists just beyond the horizon of now.

Edited April 10, 2011 by Easy

[rene]

In my way of thinking the problems begin with the apparent dualistic separation between the known and the knower. ... The other problem with the model is that the known, as island, is delimited by its surrounding shoreline and that limits possibility for growth and flow and other dynamics. ... but the corollary of that might be that the unknown is not the ocean, but also a flow in itself that exists just beyond the horizon of now.

Easy, agree, summed in your (edited to, above) post. The only difference, from my perspective, is that the flow of the unknown is not beyond the horizon of the now, but everpresent and interplays unboundaried with the flow of the known within in each moment; the interplay being an expression of the reverting nature of tao.

Edited April 10, 2011 by rene

[Easy]

Easy, agree, summed in your (edited to, above) post. The only difference, from my perspective, is that the flow of the unknown is not beyond the horizon of the now, but everpresent and interplays unboundaried with the flow of the known within each moment; the interplay being an expression of the reverting nature of tao.

 

Good thinking, nicely written.

[Marblehead]

Great posts Easy & Rene.

 

I have nothing to add at the moment.

[Stigweard]

This is a good space for me to flow into this interesting thread to write that I while I can understand Stig's original model, I think it has more problems than it has "cash value" as the pragmatists call it.

Yup there is no doubt that the model has limitations, just as any conceptual model has.

 

In my way of thinking the problems begin with the apparent dualistic separation between the known and the knower.

Not quite. In the model the knower IS the known.

 

The "idea" of the island of the known is that the conceptual frameworks that we create for ourselves through incessant description and self-narration creates a "little world of our own." It is our personal window through which we view the world framed by our conceptualized beliefs of what is and is not.

 

The other problem with the model is that the known, as island, is delimited by its surrounding shoreline and that limits possibility for growth and flow and other dynamics. As you can see I am writing this from a 'process" perspective that has the known in a continually emergent flow. I am going to have to think about this some more, but the corollary of that might be that the unknown is not the ocean, but also a flow in itself that exists just beyond the horizon of now.

Ah yes, this is the real limitation of the model. The image of island in an ocean implies both that the situation is static and also that there is some sort of solid delineation between known and unknown. Of course the living reality is infinitely more subtle than this.

 

And, as rene has so accurately said, both the known and the unknown are simultaneously ever-present. Each and every moment contains the full spectrum of possible perception. It is only the self-imposed boundaries and conceptual filters that prevents us from seeing the all.

 

Thank you Easy and thank you rene for your valuable perspective.

 

[Otis]

In the model the knower IS the known.

This is a great point.

 

Aaron started a thread on "truth", which of course, covers some similar ground. One question that was asked: why let go of beliefs? Because, of course, the habits (which include beliefs) are what makes up the ego, the sense of I. If we can surrender the "known" (i.e. the habitual), then we can surrender "self".

[Stigweard]

This is a great point.

 

Aaron started a thread on "truth", which of course, covers some similar ground. One question that was asked: why let go of beliefs? Because, of course, the habits (which include beliefs) are what makes up the ego, the sense of I. If we can surrender the "known" (i.e. the habitual), then we can surrender "self".

Or is that when we surrender the "known" we embody the "self" in its integral wholeness?

 

[aridus]

[Marblehead]

If we can surrender the "known" (i.e. the habitual), then we can surrender "self".

 

Surrender? To What? To whom? And why surrender?

[Easy]

 

Not quite. In the model the knower IS the known.

 

 

Thanks for making that a little more clear. I did not get that from the OP. The model's images make more sense to me now.

 

[Apech]

Surrender? To What? To whom? And why surrender?

 

Surrender! We've got you surrounded. Come out with your hands up!

[rookie]

Hi Sean,

 

Great response and wonderful concepts to be considered.

 

I would speak to only this at the moment:

 

is a sense of unshakable confidence = proof of known? a strong sense of logical consistency = known?

 

neither are "wrong", either can be useful, but taking a backward step, i propose these are also merely impressions and can be rather easily challenged.

 

Yes, every time I have sensed my chair being where it is and I have sat into it it has always been there. Not one time has this perception failed me. Therefore I can assume, and rightly I think, that the next time I set into it it will also remain in a physical manifestation. Therefore I can say with 100% reliability that the chair will still be in its manifest form and will support my body until something happens to destroy it. Do I know "I" am sitting in the chair? Of course I do.

 

And I know that I am typing characters on the keyboard of my computer and these characters are representing words pointing to the concept I am trying to transfer to others. This too I know.

 

Do I know what impression my words will make on someone reading this post? Of course not. That is an unknown.

 

Proof: Start with a hypothesis, test it and create a theory, test it and if it has resulted in the same result "every" time it is tested then the theory can be stated as a fact until it is proven to be not so as a result of a test that resulted in a different answer (result).

 

So I sit on the beach and I observe what I perceive what I think is an island. I get into the water and swim in the direction of what I believe to be an island. If what I perceive remains in a fixed position and I eventually beach myself on that island I can be comforable in 'knowing' that what I perceived was in fact an island and not a mirage.

 

But still, no, unshakable confidence is not proof of a known. The proof I offered above for the existance of my chair applies to me and me alone. There is no way I can 'prove to you that I know that the existance of my chair is a Known unless you physically come to my house and you attempt to sit in the very same chair I am speaking of. The best you can do is assume that I am speaking a truth. You even have the option to believe that I am actually sitting on the floor and the chair is only a figment of my imagination.

 

However, I do still hold to the concept that the less we think we know the fewer conflicts we will have in our life. But on the other hand, we need to believe that we know some things like when the burner is turned on on our range in our kitchen we should not touch the heated area because it will most likely be very hot. I just simply say that I 'know' I should not touch it. Afterall, the electricity might be off and the stovetop is still at room temperature.

 

And all this leads back to my understanding that we should observe 'yo', manifest reality, understand the processes as well as possible so that we can live a life full of many experiences and even have the opportunity to experience 'wu', the unknown, on occasion. In this way I think we will be closer to the 'truth', whatever that is, when we have these experiences instead of just filling our mind with illusions and delusions.

 

Regarding the experience of the chair, what is known, or expected, I want to point out that the best current model of the physical universe does not disagree with your experience or expectation, but it also allows the possibility of completely different experiences or interactions with the same two objects, being your butt and the chair LOL.

 

Consider this simple experiment. Take a smoothly rounded bowl and hold a marble against its inner side about half way up. What do you think will happen when you let go of the marble? I should roll back and forth across the inner surface of the bowl, right? Most probably so. But what would you think if it seemed to jump out of the bowl and rolled out across the table and then across the floor? Would you believe your eyes? or think something must have acted on the marble?

 

There is a probability predicted by quantum mechanics that the marble will "pass right through" the wall of the bowl and continue on its way with the same energy it had before when on the inside of the bowl. This could happen without adding any force or energy to the marble. In fact, this is the way electrons act in semiconductors a very large amount of the time. The probability for the marble is vanishingly small because its mass is so big, so you will probably never see it happen, but it could happen. But you and I would probably not believe our eyes.

 

So you (we) are conditioned to believe and therefore expect that our butt will safely land on the chair every time and call this "true" or known. In reality, it is only a belief or an expectation.

 

We also tend to think of science as true. But science is really only about building a model that correlates well with observations. Then we believe it is true (well most seem to), until the next bit of evidence comes along that doesn't fit with the model and then the models are revised and this game continues over and over. For now, most people will say that quantum mechanics is true.

[rookie]

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

 

Very beautifully said.

To approach this (dare I say) "knowing" requires looking past any beliefs or expectations of what it.

 

I would say this; there is a knowing that is not conceptual, is not of the thinking mind. The thinking mind lives in its closed space, its island, and it can only respond with awe when it gets the sense that there is something beyond it, where it cannot go, that it cannot touch.

But there is something that can apprehend this, yes?

 

I have already used too many words here. The mind, conceptual mind, will never resolve this. I suppose that makes it an interesting and possibly fun game that it can play forever, ...... or not

[rookie]

Surrender! We've got you surrounded. Come out with your hands up!

 

he he he,

I like it

 

surrender is maybe not so good of a word

maybe sort of lost it for a while, or forgot to take it along?

maybe the computer didn't load all the programs on waking this morning, until a memory made you "snap out of it" and come to your senses, or step back into your full suit of beliefs....

 

anyway, it doesn't matter if you buy it, one has to do something with their time and debating these things is as good a game as any

 

here is another game.....

is it possible to be in a state of pure perception? not looking at the model nor living through it, not manipulating the model trying to produce a desired outcome?

 

this reminds me of something I read or heard but I don't remember where.....

 

If you do not use your thoughts, memory, emotions, associations, perceptions, attention,.....who are you?

 

what happens then?

hmmmm

[Otis]

Or is that when we surrender the "known" we embody the "self" in its integral wholeness?

 

Right; this is a limitation of the English language. What do we mean by "self"? This could be a whole thread unto itself. Warning: the following gets pretty dense.

 

The part of me that communicates with you now, the part that tries to observe and correct itself, tries to define itself and the world, that is what I am referring to as "me", as "ego", or as "self".

 

If I ask myself "who am I" (meaning what cluster of functions in my brain calls itself "me"?), then I have to rule out any part of my brain which surprises me. If I am surprised by a function, then it cannot be the same function as "me", because "I" would not be a stranger to my own function.

 

Not always, but certainly at times, I have been caught off guard, and surprised by my functions of: thought, emotion, imagination, inspiration, action, habit, dreaming, etc. In each function's case, there have been times in which I was taken aback, and asked: "where did that come from?" Therefore, that function is not the same as "me".

 

Well, shoot, that's a huge portion of the brain. All these pieces are not me, but are still functioning in the same head as me. Am I their boss? I'd like to think so, but I certainly can't tell my emotions (or my inspiration, or my dreams) what to do. I can only ask nicely, and help facilitate their adjustment. I can force action, somewhat, but I've also learned that action is not all that responsive to my will, and it happens more easily, when some other part of my brain wants it to happen (i.e. when I fall in love with a behavior). For example, I can force myself to clean my place, but if I fall in love with cleaning (i.e. if I surrender the "yucky" label of cleaning, and if some part of me wakes up to the joy in cleaning), then I need do no forcing, merely being aware of when the place needs cleaning.

 

In fact, being aware is the one thing that "I" seem to do natively. I am aware of my thoughts, emotions, sensations, etcetera. I am not the generator of any of these, merely the part which observes. "I" don't even seem to be the story-teller, because the stories often surprise me.

 

"I" am not aware of what's in the "external world" whatsoever; I am only aware of what my other brain functions (including my memory, sensation and perception functions) tell me about the outside world. I only observe the inside of my brain, and the simulacrum of reality that my other functions have assembled, and think I'm looking out at the world. So, therefore, every thing that "I" experience, is only a part of "me". This is why I may not notice novel events, because I don't yet have a way of processing them.

 

Another reason to think that "I" am the part that observes: the fact that I disappear when I "plug in" to awareness. When I give up the traditional functions of the ego (e.g. self-management and defense, getting it "right", defining myself and the world), and I just attend to what arises, then the sense of self vanishes, and the full Self (i.e. the body) seems to act on its own (wu wei). Wu wei, IME is the surrender of small-s "self", to allow all the functions of the body to work together as a unitary consciousness.

 

I think the ego was born upon the introduction of language. When the part of this organism that pays attention started learning language, then it became swollen with definition. It (now "I") used to just be a conduit for awareness, but now I begin to break up the world into elements, defined by words. Once I created "bad" in (my simulacrum of) the world, then I started avoiding parts of life. Once I created "right and wrong" then I started trying to manage my own behavior, be my own boss. Since the other parts of me are not within my direct control, I had to increase the power of my ego, and try to micro-manage the other functions of the full Self, even though the "I" function doesn't know the other jobs the way that the other functions do.

 

But all of those attempts at self-control just make the "I" function stronger, and debilitates the other functions, because they are constantly harassed, and never given the chance to come to full maturity, by living life fully themselves. In my early quest for self-improvement, I sought to control all of the surprising functions (which society has labeled "wild" and "animalistic"), but now I realize that "I" am the problem, not the other functions. I have been tripping them up, making them neurotic, (when they just wanted to grow up naturally) because I couldn't accept them as they were.

 

So "I" surrender "I" (i.e. the importance of the known, of the safe, of the right, of the good, of the pleasurable), in order to make room for all the other functions to take their place at the table. It has never been just "me" in my head, but "we", many functions that are supposed to work together as a unified team. But it is not until "I" get out of the way that the "we" can really function as a greater, unified "I".

Edited April 11, 2011 by Otis

[Otis]

Surrender? To What? To whom? And why surrender?

I rolled my reply to you into the answer to Stigweard, above.

[Marblehead]

Surrender! We've got you surrounded. Come out with your hands up!

 

Hehehe. The only time I will surrender is when I am out of ammo and that would be only with the thought that I might be able to escape and continue my mission.

 

Yeah, if I am out of ammo and there are six weapons pointed at me you can put money on the bet that I will surrender.

[Marblehead]

There is a probability predicted by quantum mechanics that the marble will "pass right through" the wall of the bowl and continue on its way with the same energy it had before when on the inside of the bowl.

 

Yes, I have seen and heard of this stuff on various TV programs and while I will not try to negate the science behind the idea, I have never seen it happen, I have never heard of it happening, and I have never seen or heard of the prediction of such a thing ever actually happnening.

 

So that brings me back to things I can verify with my own senses. Sad sometimes that I have to be so practical but that's just the way I am.