Quentin Anciaux-2 wrote: > >> >> >> >> Quentin Anciaux-2 wrote: >> >> > >> >> > Immortality still means what it means, what you're talking about is >> not >> >> > immortality. If nothing is preserved (no memories) then nothing is >> left >> >> > and >> >> > I don't care. >> >> But is is not true that nothing is preserved. I already gave an >> example >> >> that >> >> even without explicit memory something more essential than memory can >> be >> >> conserved. >> >> >> > >> > No your example is wrong. Taking it to the limit, you never have >> memories, >> > because at no point do you remember everything. The point is that you >> can >> > remember your own memories. >> > >> > >> >> If you don't care, you are just being superficial with regards to what >> >> you >> >> are. >> >> >> >> >> > I don't thing so, what is important to me is me in the event of dying. >> I >> > don't care if a not me stays. >> > >> OK, you are just insisting on the dogma that all one could be is a me. If >> you presuppose that, than further discussion doesn't lead anywhere. It is >> just that this assumption is not verified through experience. > > > Which/what experience ? Don't say "drugs"... this comparison is invalid. > Fundamentally, every experience. There is no ownership tag in experience that says: "There has to be a me here!". The me is simply a certain mode of experience, which can be there, but doesn't have to be here. There is a lot of evidence for that. During meditation, flow, extraordinary states of consciousness induced by sleep or drugs it is quite a common experience that there is experience without a me. Enlightenment consists of realizing that there is no "I" (and the realization that there is only consciousness) in a way that is stable. These people report that there is no feeling of seperation, no sense of doership, no feeling of fundamental otherness (which make up the "I") and still they live quite normally.
Quentin Anciaux-2 wrote: > >> Actually there >> is just experience, no "me" that experiences that > > > ??? What's hard to understand about that? Just look at your experience. There is experiencing, but there is no entity that has this experience. Yes, the feeling of an I having the experience appears in the experience, but since this I is just a part of the experience, it can't "have" it (it just imagines that it has it). Just like a window can't have a house, and a leg can't have a body. If anything, metaphorically speaking, the experience "has" a me. Quentin Anciaux-2 wrote: > >> , apart from the feeling of >> "me" (which is just another feeling). >> >> There is no need for a self for consciousness to be there. > > > But it exists... that's what demand explanation, that's what lead to the > envy of immortality. It is no big mystery that a self seems to exist. Consciousness experiences itself through a body and a mind, which is, in terms of superficial things, the main invariant of human experience. So, as long as consciousness is not conscious enough to experience the absolute invariant of itself (which is more subtle than the body/mind), it will identify with this relative invariant. With this there comes a sense of self (as opposed to other), since what it identifies itself with is seperate from an other (my body is not your body, my mind is not your mind). But we can transcend this indentity (even though the "I" can't). If we directly "see" ourselves as consciousness itself, the appearance of being a seperate individual, a "me", can dissolve. If this process is complete, it usually comes with a great sense of liberation, freedom and peace (this is also known as enlightenment, liberation, nirvana, moksha,...). If you don't believe you are a body that can be hurt and die, a mind that can be ignorant of the solutions the most important problems, a person that can lack love,etc... a great burden is lifted from you. Unfortunately this realization is rare, since it requires one to not buy into the dominant collective delusion and deeply ingrained feelings of fear towards death of self. Quentin Anciaux-2 wrote: > >> Neither >> experientally, nor logically or scientifically. >> > > You say so... What's your evidence? In experience, the "I" is merely a mode of experience, like sleep is, and there are modes of experiences where there is no I. There is no logical contradiction between being conscious and not feeling to be a seperate individual (an "I"). In science, we never have found any such thing as an "I". benjayk -- View this message in context: http://old.nabble.com/QTI%2C-Cul-de-sacs-and-differentiation-tp32721336p32788734.html Sent from the Everything List mailing list archive at Nabble.com. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Everything List" group. To post to this group, send email to email@example.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.