If I am not able to let go of my beliefs, this is the authority of fear/desire.
In the case where I am not able to respond to some apparent criticisms of my world view (psychological stress/cognitive dissonance ?) The appropriate response is to flee or fight. Or some civilised mitigation of our reactions.
Well, why say it then? Why double-down, again and again, on views that you don’t even (apparently) hold? I don’t understand why someone would say something that they don’t really mean?
Don’t you see that this is at least partially responsible for your feeling of ‘stalemate’?
Because it is my view and I like sharing my views and having others share theirs. But I know that my views are often very different than those held here, so I don’t expect them to be taken seriously.
Again, I do hold those views, though what I mean by ‘holding a view’ might not be the same thing you mean. All views are like stories to me, so holding a view means something like: being fond of a story.
Sure. It takes two to stalemate. Do you see your half?
That sounds about right.
Ending a stalemate by choosing to shut it down might be an act of escape. It might also be an act of mercy, even skill. I’d say my ending the dialogue about paths with James was a bit of both.
Ok nobody, we are talking about dialogue here, right? That is the current topic (whatever else has been said up til this point).
So in dialogue it becomes really important that there is clarity of communication (as well as listening). This is because - during dialogue - our basic assumptions are going to come up, and so it is important that we make those assumptions as clear as we are able to, so as not to be misunderstood. This means that if you think that you are going to use a word or a concept in a way that you think might be alien to the other person, you have to take the time to explain it. You can’t just say something cryptic and leave it at that.
So when you say that holding a view is just like holding a story in one’s mind, you must realise that most of our most deeply held assumptions are not held in such a light way: that is, we are attached to them deeply. So what do you mean by a story here?
I see my frustration, and how this gets in the way of listening to what you have to say.
A story (mental model) of how something exists, how it works, what it is. The story of who you are, what the self is, what awareness is, what intelligence is, what a path is, what comfort is. Some of these stories are very compelling, others not, some are less ‘fictional,’ others more. But they’re all stories.
Yes, I see this too.
Who are you protecting ? And from what?
What is the purpose of bringing up stories that you do not think are accurate? It kinda looks like you are holding up the false as some kind of solution or counter-argument.
Metaphor, for example is only worth bringing up if its message is somehow important/addresses the situation at hand/furthers the inquiry.
So you are using the word ‘story’ here in its most general sense, as in any “connected account or narration of some happening”.
The account may be purely fictional (as in the Lord of the Rings), or based on very carefully collated empirical data (as in the most recent IPCC report).
There is clearly a wide gulf between fictional and factual accounts, even if we admit that there is frequently a mixing of the two (as happens often in news journalism, for instance).
But, seeing as you are blending them together and making them in some sense ‘equal’ (“they are all stories”), the question is: what do all accounts have in common?
Aren’t accounts (stories) essentially constructs of our thinking? Stories are essentially our thoughts, right?
I’d say stories are made of and put together by thought. In this sense, the self is a story. A very compelling one, the most compelling of all for most people. Similarly, the notion that the self is a story spun by thought is a story. And so on, all the way up, and all the way down.
Does that resonate with you?
Is there any’thing’ that is not a story?
Yes - but these are two different things, no?
The story we might tell ‘about’ the self is external, peripheral, secondary - wouldn’t you say?
While the story that we ‘are’ is internal, existential, primary. Or would you disagree with that?
It’s an interesting question, do the stories we believe in differ in essence?
That they differ is indisputable. But what’s more essential: the difference between two stories (atheism and Zen, for example), or the sameness of all stories as models of actuality rather than actuality itself?
The danger of the former is confusing the pointer with what it’s pointing to, the finger with the moon. The danger of the latter is nihilism.
As I am sure you know, I tend toward the latter, and yes, nihilism is an issue for me.
Nihilism is surely a story too though, is’t it?
Nihilism, atheism, Zen or Christianity are all stories ‘about’ the world - that is, they are all
Actuality, on the other hand, is not ‘about’ something else: rather, it is simply ‘what is’; what is actually happening this moment. Right?
So what matters the most is how we approach this moment, what is actually happening in the present. No?
And for that, do we need a story? Or are all stories a hinderance to observing - being in contact with - what is happening (inwardly primarily, but also outwardly)?
Surely there may be sameness in the quality of our relationship to our stories - ie. we might believe they are a good description of reality.
But surely some models are broken and others work (make great predictions) - this seems like a major difference.
A story is a hindrance only when one doesn’t understand story-telling. It’s just an art form, but if one hasn’t thoroughly explored it, it can be a problem.
A good example of this is the number of people who are too credulous to see when they’re being more manipulated than informed.
Ja. For me a compelling one and one that feels ‘close to the truth.’
Yes.
Why? Isn’t mattering in the eye of the beholder? The present might not matter at all to someone.
You should probably tell me what you mean by “it matters.”
I don’t know if we need a story to approach this moment. I don’t know if it’s possible to be story-free, even only for a moment. What do you think?
In physics, how well a theory is able to predict behavior is a test of the fitness/rightness of the theory.
But in metaphysics?
So we believe, but all we really know are pain and pleasure and the avoidance/pursuit thereof. So when actuality is painful, we resist, and when actuality is pleasant, we’re present. This is our conditioning. It can’t be helped. As long as we have the means to live in our own reality, the means matter more than matter.
I think the question is, does the present matter to you?
The future is the story we tell ourselves about what we think might happen.
The past is the story we tell ourselves about what we think has happened.
The present is where we can observe the active telling of those stories.
So if one wishes to discover the actuality of what is going on in oneself, one has to catch the story in the very process of being told - no?
And this can only happen in the present.
Do you know this based on your knowledge of the past? Then this is merely the story you are telling yourself about what has happened.
Do you know this based on your projection of the future? Then this is merely the story you are telling yourself about what might happen.
Or, do you know this because this is what you are experiencing right now? In which case telling stories about it is no help at all; but only watching it passively, nonverbally, so that it tells you exactly what you are.
That’s a good compelling story and one that feels ‘close to the truth.’ But, if taken literally, it becomes a method, a prescription. A … path! 