John and everyone,
Your post made my day. I've had these ideas locked in my head for a long time and you
are the firs
t to
communicate an understanding of where I am coming from. Ok, I'm getting a little
emotional here an
d we
can't have that *LOL*! Back to business...
I start with one quick question. You quoted David B's post that said "The problem
with SOM's Carte
sian
self..." As you can understand from my last post, I thought that SOM was not
Cartesian. I've neve
r
really read Descartes and don't know -- is my notion of duality different from
Descartes?
Anyway ... I brushed over so many things the last email that I only glossed over the
dynamic/static
self. I would like to delve further into the "dynamic self" as I still think it is
unambiguosly
better.
As explained, the self is from each person's perspective -- everything. One can't
distinguish it
through any of the senses because the senses can't contrast it against anything. That
solves the
mystery. The self does exist: The intellect puts it together when saying "There
seems to be an
external reality so all these perceptions of it must be mine". In a sense, the self
is the
intellectually derived focal point of experience.
In Krishnamurti-ish words the self is sensitivity to reality. To be more clear, it is
not *that which is* sensitive but the sensitivity itself.
With this dual explanation, East can meet West. Both are centered on one side of dual
reality. Th
e
West is centered on the external form -- which is understood intellectually through
abstraction of
patterns. The East -- through meditation and so forth -- knows the self/reality
through becoming
tenderly sensitive.
The whole picture is not understood -- however -- until we do both. The West assumes
there is only
form, and no separate sensitivity of it, and creates a SOM monistic materialism. The
East consider
s
sensitivity, fails to hypothesize what is going on outside of experience and creates a
monistic
idealism. There is experience AND and an external structure. These are mutually
exclusive.
So the self is sensitivity to reality. I become a little more stuck, when I consider
there is a se
nse
of participation with reality. There is will and attention, which William James
explains are the s
ame
thing. I can't explain much about this participation -- only that it is there. (Any
ideas -- can
we
know if there is freewill or can this only be assumed?)
With this participation, we have another East vs. West dilemma. Is it better to think
about things
or
to quiet the mind? I say it is best to be dynamic! This means not fighting or
blocking reality --
including thoughts. A dynamic self moves with reality. Try to be more sensitive and
attention wil
l
flow naturally to what is good. In particular pay attention to judgementalism: little
verbages in
the
mind that detract from the rest of experience. (Any help of better explaining
judgementalism -- in
this context -- would be greatly appreciated.)
People often confuse the intellect and observation as conflicting. They say when one
is "in the
moment" one fails to consider consequences. An "in the moment person" parties all
night and does a
poor job at work the next day. But the moment contains all the necessary information.
The trick i
s
for the will to keep from judging experience. Back to the party example -- unless a
person genuine
ly
forgot whereby nothing could have been done -- the mind at one point was probably
queued into think
ing
about work the next day. The person should have paid attention rather than saying
"Screw it! I wa
nt
to have fun and I'm not going to think about it". It is always better to be dynamic!
In solving the dilemma of what is judgment and what is knowledge, William James'
notion of "recepts
" is
valuable. Suppose I am completely immersed in a movie. I am totally "in the moment"
with no
judgementalism or fragmentation of myself from reality (the observer is the observed).
At this tim
e, I
-- without any act of will -- completely understand the language used in the movie. I
understand t
he
plot and remember who the characters are. In this moment, there is memory and
intellect harmonizin
g
with sensory perception. These "recepts" feel as if they are *received* by me. That
is the way a
dynamic self is, I think. There is an attitude that truth is always received.
A static self does not receive truth but creates its own truth. One may create misery
by saying "I
deserve to be treated with more respect" when a very busy waiter at a restaurant is a
bit late serv
ing
dinner. Intuitively, if this person was sensitive to the whole of experience, or was
dynamically
flowing with reality, there would be no notion of disrespect.
I think examples as above are the source of 99% of our undue misery. People on the
list might argu
e
that the person was putting social quality ahead of intellectual quality. I don't
want to go out o
ff
topic so I will say this. It is time to take personal responsibility. The
fundamental problem he
re
is insensitivity. And it is only the self that is capable of being insensitive.
MOQ.org - http://www.moq.org
