What are "Other People"?

[Otis]

As we all know, we do not experience the real world directly. Instead, our senses fire off a series of nerves, which are interpreted in our brain to create a simulacrum of the world, a big surround-sound 3D IMAX movie re-presentation. This simulacrum is built not only from immediate experience, but also from habit, whose heuristics separate out object from background, solid from liquid, noise from meaning, reflection from "real", etc. All separation, all function, and all adjectives are supplied by our brains, in re-creating this internal mock-up of the world.

 

This isn't as much of a problem for much of the non-living world, because the chair we experience usually does support our weight, and the stairs that we step on, rarely turn out to be a mirage.

 

But when it comes to other people, in particular, then our simulacra and the actual world tend to come wildly into conflict with each other.

 

Information comes into my head from my senses and my memory about who this other person is, and mixed with my biases, my mood, and whatever other variables are playing in that moment, I create an interaction with them. If I believe that person to be dishonest, then I will probably hear dishonesty in what they say. If I believe someone to be an a**hole, or saintly, or desperate, or stupid, or wise, then I will probably experience our interaction as a reflection of these preconceptions. If I happen to be feeling pretty irritable or righteous or horny when I interact with another, there's a good chance that my mood will play a big part in interpreting their behavior. If two women, one beautiful and one horribly ugly, approach me separately, but act in the exact same way, it's likely that my experiences of the two will be very different.

 

So, I know that "other people" are not what I experience. I experience my own re-construction of them, chock full of my own delusions. And yet, unless you believe in solipsism, other people clearly do exist. Don't they?

 

So, my question for the Bums is: who are these mysterious "other people" that are hinted at, but never truly experienced? How do I interact with someone, when I know that I'm really interacting with my simulacrum of them? How do we have compassion for "other people", when the only "other people" that we experience are in our heads? Can I find out who the actual person is, or is there no end to that delusion?

[Birch]

Well I suppose acknowledging that they have an existence outside of your idea of them could be a good start?

 

A nice and proper dualism. Which IMO/IME can't be skipped over on the way to non-dualism because you'll get the proportions weird otherwise and start attributing stuff to them that comes from you and vice-versa.

 

And as I find more and more, having compassion for oneself seems to help with the other people thing - aside from the consideration that you won't quite be as bothered with whatever they're doing or what they look like. Unless, to borrow a Mr MH situation, they're kicking your a44 literally or figuratively and you need to do something about it.

[Marblehead]

 

So, my question for the Bums is: who are these mysterious "other people" that are hinted at, but never truly experienced? How do I interact with someone, when I know that I'm really interacting with my simulacrum of them? How do we have compassion for "other people", when the only "other people" that we experience are in our heads? Can I find out who the actual person is, or is there no end to that delusion?

 

 

Sounds like you are talking about what happens when we place our expectations on "other people". We experience their action/reaction but it wasn't what we expected so they become someone else.

 

I think that if we can experience them without any biases or prejudgements we would be able to experience the 'real person' and then there would be the opportunity for compassion.

 

But no, I doubt that you could ever get a full picture of me or anyone else on this forum based only on the words that are presented by the person. There is so much more to us than just our words.

[effilang]

This ^^^^^

[deci belle]

[InfinityTruth]

Very very deep. I'm honored just to read this thread.

[Otis]

Finding out the actual person in our heads— Yow!! I assure you, there is no actual person in your head! Not literally or figuratively. Not considering people real is a great act of compassion, so that should not be an unconscious act— not simply because you are not a real person either, but because there is no ground for dismissing phenomena. We decide who is in our heads! Not picking or choosing— that is abiding in Reality. If you don't pick or choose, nor allow habitual responses to engender further karmic debts— the world is you. Where is other now? This is what we call the Great Way.

 

I hate to say it, but not one single thing in the whole created world is ultimately real. That's not philosophy. When you know this or think about it in this way, you are much less prone to consider yourself a separate element observing "others". We are all an illusion. A very real illusion.

 

It's not in your head, it is your head. If you saw reality for what is really is, there wouldn't be so many "other" things in your head after all.❤

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?

Edited April 30, 2011 by Otis

[Otis]

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?

[Marblehead]

Just thought I would post this from Wikipedea pertaining to the word 'simulacra':

 

Nietzsche addresses the concept of simulacrum (but does not use the term) in The Twilight of the Idols, suggesting that most philosophers, by ignoring the reliable input of their senses and resorting to the constructs of language and reason, arrive at a distorted copy of reality.

 

And that causes me to recall a statement I like to use: Do what needs be done, nothing more, nothing less. In regard to this topic the would better be said as observe reality (others) as it is, nothing more, nothing less.

[ShaktiMama]

 

So, I know that "other people" are not what I experience. I experience my own re-construction of them, chock full of my own delusions. And yet, unless you believe in solipsism, other people clearly do exist. Don't they?

 

So, my question for the Bums is: who are these mysterious "other people" that are hinted at, but never truly experienced? How do I interact with someone, when I know that I'm really interacting with my simulacrum of them? How do we have compassion for "other people", when the only "other people" that we experience are in our heads? Can I find out who the actual person is, or is there no end to that delusion?

 

 

Be amused with your projections and live your life as is if you were in a constant interaction with the Tao. Because you are whether you know it or not.

Edited April 30, 2011 by ShaktiMama

[三江源]

Be amused with your projections and live your life as is if you were in a constant interaction with the Tao. Because you are whether you know it or not.

 

this is it!

[Otis]

Do what needs be done, nothing more, nothing less. In regard to this topic the would better be said as observe reality (others) as it is, nothing more, nothing less.

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.

Edited April 30, 2011 by Otis

[Otis]

Be amused with your projections and live your life as is if you were in a constant interaction with the Tao. Because you are whether you know it or not.

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.

Edited April 30, 2011 by Otis

[ShaktiMama]

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.

 

Nice.

 

Some of my teachers have told me that you cannot authentically recognize a quality in others until you recognize them inside yourself.

 

Here's a poem for you by Lawrence Bloom

 

FIRST

 

 

First you have to let go,

Only then can you truly surrender

Only then can you truly trust

Only then can you truly have faith.

 

When you have faith you can enter the gateway

When you enter the gateway

You stop living life

And life starts living you

 

And then you dance

'cos that is all there is left to do.

[Marblehead]

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.

 

Yeah, it is sad that we have to play that game but there are a lot of bosses who need to have yes-men working with them (note I did not say for them). And I think that this is true of the general population. We like to have people agree with us. It makes us feel good.

 

But I have long been at the age where I want to hear what you really think as opposed to just agreeing with me. I get all the agreement I need when I am talking with myself.

 

Yeah, we all tend to have expectations of others. This is not always a bad thing but we should try to minimize doing it as much as possible.

[Otis]

Nice.

 

Some of my teachers have told me that you cannot authentically recognize a quality in others until you recognize them inside yourself.

 

Here's a poem for you by Lawrence Bloom

 

FIRST

 

 

First you have to let go,

Only then can you truly surrender

Only then can you truly trust

Only then can you truly have faith.

 

When you have faith you can enter the gateway

When you enter the gateway

You stop living life

And life starts living you

 

And then you dance

'cos that is all there is left to do.

Thank you. Very nice.

[Otis]

But I have long been at the age where I want to hear what you really think as opposed to just agreeing with me. I get all the agreement I need when I am talking with myself.

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.

[Marblehead]

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.

 

I thank you for that comment. It is important to me that others see me this way. Yes, I will defend, although there really is no need, Philosophical Taoism. 'My' opinions and understanding are all up for modification whenever sufficient reason is presented. Of course, "sufficient", in this case is determined by none other than this old man.

 

But you are right, I really have nothing to defend here. What is, is, and that's just the way it is.

[deci belle]

Otis wrote:

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

 

I would communicate with understanding. Often, with understanding the unreality of it all, understanding is understanding not-understanding. Immediate knowledge of reality is instantaneous. No word, thought or self reflective action is necessary. Experiencing reality, one's communication goes through, or it doesn't— but one's essential function is whole, neither coming or going— regardless of others' experience. Others' experience of attraction, aversion or unconsciousness is your experience— it's just the way it is, so you don't have to do anything about it. It is not a separate reality. This reality is non-psychological. The non-psychological is spiritual, whether people know it or not. It is not a matter of empathy or emotionalism that passes for compassion in the social matrix.

Edited May 2, 2011 by deci belle

[manitou]

Also, once we get closer and closer to the genuine self, through inner cultivation, we are less and less at the mercy of our moods. Love finds a way in, even in the ugliest of situations.

 

I don't have a 'practice' per se, other than lowering my psychic defenses intentionally and allowing love to pass from me to others, strangers or not. I realize (at my best) that I AM the other person; to find something to hate within them is to acknwledge and hate that same trait in me. But to choose to love the hateful instead (by removing all your ego momentarily, as the hateful person will certainly get our ego to rise) and finding anything to love about him - even something as simple as he's having a good hair day. This is what keeps us balanced inside, keeps us comfortable. (In an alcoholic sense, keeping oneself sober).

 

Love means so many different things at different times. Sometimes it means swallowing our pride and not flipping off the person who just cut us off. A smile is more effective and doesn't ruin our day. The incident is over.

 

To remain in an emotional snit if someone gets in our way or offends us in some way, is just to carry the baggage along with us for the rest of the day. We're dragging the past with us when we should be fully here in the Now. Love is manifested in the Now....not the past, not the future. Now.

[Otis]

Also, once we get closer and closer to the genuine self, through inner cultivation, we are less and less at the mercy of our moods. Love finds a way in, even in the ugliest of situations.

 

I don't have a 'practice' per se, other than lowering my psychic defenses intentionally and allowing love to pass from me to others, strangers or not. I realize (at my best) that I AM the other person; to find something to hate within them is to acknwledge and hate that same trait in me. But to choose to love the hateful instead (by removing all your ego momentarily, as the hateful person will certainly get our ego to rise) and finding anything to love about him - even something as simple as he's having a good hair day. This is what keeps us balanced inside, keeps us comfortable. (In an alcoholic sense, keeping oneself sober).

 

Love means so many different things at different times. Sometimes it means swallowing our pride and not flipping off the person who just cut us off. A smile is more effective and doesn't ruin our day. The incident is over.

 

To remain in an emotional snit if someone gets in our way or offends us in some way, is just to carry the baggage along with us for the rest of the day. We're dragging the past with us when we should be fully here in the Now. Love is manifested in the Now....not the past, not the future. Now.

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?

[ShaktiMama]

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?

 

 

Just speaking from my own experiences here:

 

I only knew how to love someone deeply and authentically when I realized I was worth loving my own self in the same way.

 

I found that was a lot harder but once I was able to begin it made the quality of my loving others more soulful and personal not just a motion or act to go thru.

 

s

[Otis]

Just speaking from my own experiences here:

 

I only knew how to love someone deeply and authentically when I realized I was worth loving my own self in the same way.

 

I found that was a lot harder but once I was able to begin it made the quality of my loving others more soulful and personal not just a motion or act to go thru.

 

s

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

 

Please remember that all authentic spiritual practice begins with the cultivation of love for and acceptance of your self. Dont try to love other people before you learn to to love yourself. You wont be able to do it.

When some one comes into your life who pushes all your buttons, dont try to love that person. Just dont dump on him. Dont accuse him, blame him or make him the enemy. Simply acknowledge that he pushes your buttons and ask for time to be with your feelings.

 

When you are alone, remind yourself that what you are feeling belongs to you only. The other person has nothing to do with what you are feeling. Disengage from all thoughts that would make the other person responsible for what you are feeling.

 

Now`be with your feelings and say to yourself; " what i am feeling shows me some aspect of myself which i am judging. I want to learn to bring love to all the wounded parts of me."

 

Now you have come to the place of genuine transformation. Now you are ready to bring love into your heart.

 

Be compassionate with yourself . Take small steps. Begin healing your own thoughts and feelings. Every time you heal a judgmental thought or feeling of separation, it is felt by every mind and heart in the universe. Your healing belongs not just to you, but to all beings.

[ShaktiMama]

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

 

 

yes...this is reflected also in my own years of personal experience and practice.

 

sometimes i screwed up... a lot.. but I thinking i am kinda getting it now.

 

[manitou]

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?

 

That's exactly what I think. What the other person thinks of me is none of my business.