A doorway to the entire self?

Sensation activates a fear, whose sole purpose is to hide the structure of the self, ensuring that only the psychologically colored thought/images can respond to sensation.
Fear is a gap between sensation and reaction. It is the fundamental building block of ourselves, without which we would not exist psychologically.
One can play with this using observation, logic or knowledge,

We usually add the concept of “interpretation” between the 2 - because obviously not all sensation provokes fear (unless you are defining all the emotions of the self as “fear” - which is fine, just not apparent from the statement)

What do you mean?

How many “emotions of the self” are there? Not many, it seems since they’re all conditioned responses, reactions to the effect one has on others.

When I identify with my imagined self, I respond to insults with alarm or offense. When challenged, I get defensive. And when flattered, I feel pleasure and validation…if not suspicion that I’m being manipulated.

Perhaps the self is made of nothing more than emotions; made from reactions moving out from a center.

It is quite possible for these observed images to dissolve and become less frequent with repeated observation, one even might become gentler and kinder. However, the mechanism that produces all the hurts and pleasures won’t stop until the energy generated by fear is arrested. We’re back to confronting the root from which the structure of self grows.

If there weren’t fear guarding the curtain behind which the self lives, perhaps one could enter and see the flimsy construct of what we had believed to be ourselves. After all, the self is but a belief system, which fear is protecting. The Wizard must be hidden to be believed.
That is its sole purpose, for it dies with the death of the self; they are one and the same.

What indicates that there might be a self (distinct from the fear) hiding somewhere?

1 Like

Is fear the curtain hiding the self, or is self the fear of finding nothing behind the curtain of belief?

Interesting question. How to talk about self and other without looking at one piece at a time. That’s the limit of language and thought. I’m playing with fear as the keystone that keeps the self in place, as an icon to be worshipped. It also is the root of the tree, so not separate. I feel if we don’t, from time to time, remain with the blank wall of paradox, we’ll just endlessly spin our tires in the shifting sands of words. Fear is s component of self and also it’s raison d’être. Then, I ask myself, from whence arise fear?

They might be the same, and we are taken in by the constant transmogrification that thought presents.

I’m not sure I know what you mean. Could you give an example?

1 Like

Wherefore art thou paradox, and where dost thou dwell?
Am I just me, or all that I see? Let me count the things.

The self exists because of fear. Images of self are constantly shapeshifting in order to meet the criteria that fear dictates, imagining the imagined is an entity independent of imagination, which creates and controls the thought/images. Or are all the questions and theories of fear and self and meaning, but distractions of an impossible pipe dream that keeps at bay a life of light and beauty and love?

1 Like

I think you are implying that your intellectual understanding of self/fear may not be accurate, or unimportant, when compared to other, possibly more juicy stuff? Might even be keeping us away from the juicy stuff?

What has been unfolded, other than logic and theory and belief, in the whole psychological and “spiritual” struggle. personal, collective, past and present. The search may have its value up to the moment it becomes habit and then one ought to just jump into the whirlpool of living without the lifejacket of thinking

1 Like

Logic is an excellent tool as far as I am aware - one of the best when it comes to uncovering silly theories and beliefs.
But yes, any philosophy that just gives me more beliefs and theories that only affect my mental library of theories and beliefs (which I suppose implies that they might also become a methodology for how we live our life) is no better than any other cultural conditioning.

The question K (and others like Zen Buddhism) asks is whether it is possible to see the whole process of struggling - see what conflict is - that it may be all that we, and the life we experience, is. And in that seeing, be free of it.

To be free of the thought that I am missing out. By seeing that missing out is just the process of being me.