Do not make the mistake of thinking that because my conclusion is the same as another person's that my reasoning is the same
From the comments:
ultimately we want affection for who we are more than we want esteem for what we think.
I have a hard time sorting "who I am" from "what I think".
Okay, I have this body, right? It determines a LOT…what I see, what I CAN see, what I can do…
Someone's going to say we aren't limited by our body, to which I will reply I have neither thumbs on my feet nor sonar, so there are things that are biologically possible that I can't do because I am not so equipped. No wings…you get the drift. And were I capable of these things, whole worlds of needs and possibilities would exist for me that do not now.
And I have this physical position in space and history that also influences my possibilities in ways beyond my control (though not beyond my influence).
And our personalities are reactions to and choices made from the needs and possibilities that exist for us.
And the knowledge I have comes from the interaction of my personal choices and physical experiences.
And it all feeds back in the most hellishly complex way.
And it's all so…transient…that I have a hard time finding something that I can definitively claim to be.
And I'm not saying that I'm not anything at all. Not quite; I'm not ready to say that much, to take it that far. But I know, categorically, that I'm not anything that can be indicated.
So maybe it's not so much an inability to see the difference between "what I am" and "what I think" as an inability to see the point in such a differentiation.
Posted by P6 at October 4, 2003 10:43 PM | Trackback URL: http://www.prometheus6.org/mt/mt-tb.cgi/1842Entire philosophies are written on this issue so I will not attempt to capture the entirety of the answer in this little box. Let me however assert that it makes a great deal of difference whether you think of yourself as being no more than your thoughts or if you see your thoughts as one aspect of an incredibly diverse being. You yourself make this case in your post, speaking of the physical, personality, and historical aspects of who you are. I would add your emotional experience into the mix. And when befriending someone, learning what they think about different subjects is important to most of us, but so is enjoying wordless activities together, providing emotional support particularly with empathy (an emotional reaction), and sharing the experience of each other's life story unfolding over time.
It matters to me that you know that you are more than your thoughts because I don't want you to think you need to perform for me or anyone else to earn acceptance. You don't have to earn your keep. Your value is intrinsic and requires no action on your part to be established. If you don't feel that way, then my hope and my prayer is that you come to feel that way in time.
IO, there's a certain level where I don't even need my own acceptance.
As I said, I am not my thoughts. I am not anything that can be indicated, not even an incredibly diverse being or any aspect thereof. If compelled to indicate, I would say I am that which has visible effect when refracted by the prism that is the thing you indicate and call a diverse being, and the thoughts are as the rainbow a prism renders.
Then I would immediately point out that the preceding was one of a number of metaphors that can be used as one of a number of symbolic handles on one of a number of conceptual doors OUT of the structure within which all this looks real.
But, of course, since this is my blog I ain't gotta indicate nuffin.
That is the best part about the internet and the blogosphere: here, you are what you think.
Phelps, my friend, that is so NOT what I'm saying. But hey, Indigo Ocean thought I was identifying with thought as well.
There really is no way to directly say what I'm talking about, it seems.
that's why we like the ineffable so much...because, uh, it simply cannot be effed.
I thought of this comment thread as I was reading a Buddhist book today. Actually I am re-reading my favorite book, Cutting Through Spiritual Materialism. I was going to email you this, but then I thought it seems a blog convention to try to keep comment threads public so I am going to leave a rather long comment. If you would prefer such comments to be emailed in the future, just let me know.
Anyway, I've got some quotes for you I think you may find interesting. Basically I see your line of argument as similar to one style of Buddhist enlightenment practice. The Hindu says, "I am That." The Buddhist says, "Not that, and not that, and not that ..." The self is found at the end of all the not thats. They call it the luminous emptiness, but it is not what we think of in normally using the word empty. It is impossible to describe and that is why it is indicated in the negative.
For your enrichment: "According to the Buddhist tradition, the spiritual path is the process of cutting through our confusion, of unconver the awakened state of mind. .. So it is not a matter of building up the awakened state of mind, but rather of burning out the confusions which obstruct it.... The heart of the confusion is that man has a sense of self which seems to him to be continuous and solid. ... Since we take our confused view as being real, we struggle to maintain and enhance this solid self. We try to feed it pleasures and shield it from pain... This stuggele to maintain the sense of a solid, continuous self is the action of ego.... Experience continually threatens to reveal our transitoriness to us, so we continually struggle to cover up any possibility of discovering our real condition.... The Lord of Speech refers to the inclination on the part of ego to interpret anything that is threatening or irritating in such a way as to neutralize the threat or turn it into something 'positive' from ego's point of view.... The concepts are taken too seriously; they are used as tools to solidify our world and ourselves. If a world of nameable things exists, then "I" as one of the nameable things exists as well. We wish not to leave any room for threatening doubt, uncertainty or confusion."
So basically it is as if you are reflecting the Buddhist view that sees through these ego gimmicks. Which is not to say that you are enlightened, which I am sure you are not claiming to be, or necessarily even believe in, but simply that you are not fully seduced and continue to question the mechanisms of ego.
Indigo:
Posting here works, email works. It's not a topic I go into much on P6…well, not ever before, actually. I actually played with the idea of a blog dedicated to such stuff though. It still lurks as a possibility.
I'm familiar with Cutting Through Spiritual Materialism. Never read it, but the first contemporary Buddhist book I read was Trungpa's "The Myth of Freedom."
There's some stuff I could talk about from experience, some stuff I could say because after experience I said, "Oh, now I know what that means (Christianity is one of those things-'Behold the Spirit' by Alan Watts was a HUGE help)", and some stuff I can talk about because it makes sense to me. How deep you want to go?
One thing that makes sense to me is that "enlightenment" just isn't such a big deal that there needs to be a word for it. But of course if there were no word you couldn't talk about is, so there is a word…which immediately subjects people to the probability of misunderstanding it—I suspect you understand that.
Your quote about burning out confusion is to the point, yet ego-active enough that a person can still retain a handle on that dream of solidity. I like this way of saying the same thing, from The Book of Balance and Harmony:
"Take the real consciousness from the overlay of conditioning that obscures it and use it to make awareness complete"
Really cool book, if you ignore the Taoist alchemy in the back half.