As if you and it are separate from each other.
Must one avoid hogwash if one has no use for it and isn’t susceptible to it?
Trying to be nothing is obviously just confusion in action. So hopefully we can drop that.
But just to be clear 
: the conceptual entities/objects that arise in our consciousness are what we call things. We relate to them as actual real objects, and ourselves as the separate, central subjects relating to these objects.
The self (myself) is one of these conceptual entities, that we have the experience of being, and that we understand to be a mental process arising from life.
The self is no more a thing than any other thing, but it definitely exists and functions.
My question is : is the self process the master of all experience? Is what I want all that matters? Or does your suffering matter too?
2 Likes
Most of the time we are on the outlook for sthg to happen. Sthg that might surpass our daily experiences. These are called expectations. Why do we fill our lives with expecting?
Isn’t it our purpose? Thats what I am for no? Wanting stuff.
Wanting exciting, pleasurable, good stuff for me.
Wanting boring, uncomfortable, bad stuff not to happen to me.
What else does my identification with this center serve?
It seems that way.
Is what I want all that matters?
It may be inevitable when one’s relationship with actuality is determined by one’s reactions, i.e., pain/pleasure, good/bad, true/false, right/wrong, like/dislike, etc.
Is there a way out of this this dualistic process, or is the way out the way in? That is, does awareness of reaction undermine its authority?
We can’t function without reasonable expectations, so expectation isn’t the problem. When we’re disappointed, it’s usually because our expectations aren’t met, and much of the time it’s because our expectations weren’t reasonable.
Depends how strong the reaction and awareness are. Deeply ingrained reactions might resist being tempered by awareness. Vivid awareness-attention might stop a reaction in its tracks.
Continuing the discussion from How to have a sane mind:
An expectation is an awaiting (etymologically).
Mostly an awaiting for sthg better to happen. Where does it come from? Why do we have them? Most of it leads inevitable to sorrow, because it won’t meet witj what actually is going on.
Doesn’t conflict arise from it?
Not being content with current experience is sorrow - so not only might it lead to sorrow, it begins there.
Wanting this experience to be what it is not, is conflict - so we are saying conflict arises from conflict; and sorrow arises from sorrow.
Why are we the movement of sorrow and conflict? because it is a process that has resulted in lots of babies.
Psychological ‘expectation’ arises inevitably along with the belief of psychological ‘time’? If I believe in a psychological ‘future’, how can I not be concerned about what will ‘take place’ there? Thought has erroneously carried its process into the mind and with it, practical time?
It took a wrong turn?
Can we look at the “wrongness”? In what way exactly is it wrong?
What’s the actual problem with projection/imagination (into the future)? Are we clear as to what the botheration (or damage done) is exactly?
When the starting point is “The human brain took a wrong turn” the dialogue will be biased due to the assumption that something is wrong, bad, un-good. What about: “The human brain took a turn, what are the consequences?” Psychological time is seen not as the enemy, rather: what-is.
The physical brain is the result of evolution. It has protected itself through time by means of a skull, because it is in itself very fragile. No conflict on that level.
What about the mind ( here the thinking process).It seems that the mind is an extension of the brain( without the brain , no thinking).
What is then the relation between brain and mind? Are they seperated? And where does this seperation come from? Is this seperation the cause of what went wrong?
If psychologically there was only the now (no ‘future’ in which to ‘become’) what would be different in how we lived? No ‘time’ other than this moment psychologically?
Are they separated?
I don’t know - what is the problem specifically with how we do live? In this case the projection of suffering through imagined time.
Is it to do with the omnipresence and omnipotence of fear (in all corners of experience)? The exigent reality of I want?
Of course, some may say that we can amuse & tickle ourselves, which somehow makes everything ok.
Somehow I think the endless killing, brutality, environmental destruction…the greed etc, is tied to this imaginary ‘future’ of the self image? Awareness / fear of the possible happenings ‘up ahead’?
Yes. It depends on how aware the brain dares to be.
We can’t help but expect certain things to happen because certain things happen frequently and certain things happen unexpectedly, so for one to be oblivious of what can happen in any given situation would not be sane.
Doesn’t conflict arise from it?
Expectation is only a problem when your expectations are too unreliable to be taken seriously.
If you’re not expecting too much or too little, the worst thing that can happen is that you’ll be mildly disappointed or surprised.
That’s like asking whether the kidneys and the liver are separated. The answer is yes and no. They’re interdependent. They are parts of a system that can’t function if they’re not operating together.
And where does this seperation come from? Is this seperation the cause of what went wrong?
The problem isn’t that the brain and the mind (thought) are separate, but that thought is confused, incoherent. If you recall, K said that thought is separated into practical and psychological thought, and the fusion of these two kinds of thinking creates confusion. Unlike the liver and kidneys, these two things are not mutually dependent - they’re conflicted.
Thought is a tool to get practical work, survival work done. What is it about psyche thought that creates “confusion”, conflict?