Is Better Best?

Self, all the way up, all the way down. Maybe. The body has a strong sense of self as evidenced by our immune system, which detects and does away with unwelcome outsiders. Is it equally ‘natural’ for the mind to protect the self against unwelcome others?

Makes good sense to me that seeing/understanding the way judgment works can reduce its stronghold over our thoughts and actions. In this sense, we can leave it behind partially. But I wonder (and maybe I shouldn’t, could be a cul de sac) if it can ever be left behind fully.

I wouldn’t say “self” but to “protect” itself , the mind / brain, from any unnecessary ‘occupation?

K has proposed that freedom from the known is not only possible but critical for our survival…now it’s up to me to find out before I die.

Yes, that’s better: The mind protects the mind from interlopers. If that instinct is working properly, healthily, for the good of the organism, what happens?

“What happens” when there is no identification with whatever is going on in the mind?

Or the body?

Yes, when it’s practical to keep one’s distance from someone with a contagious disease or a tendency to bite people, and No, when someone is “unwelcome” for psychological reasons, e.g., skin color, gender, religion, etc.

If and when practical thought is “tinged with self”, it isn’t practical, so I would say that our ability to discern the difference between practical and psychological thought is blocked by fear of losing our illusions, aka self.

I think it’s quite nuanced. As long as we have/are a psychological self that can be wounded, a wounding that is reflected at the bodily level (mental suffering brings bodily suffering), it makes sense for the brain to protect the psychological self.

As long as we are fear, we must be fearful.

The mechanical scarecrow crumbles at its own projections, and thus yes, it does well to remain cloistered in its spiky shell.

I guess the question is something like: Is it possible to have a less woundable self? I won’t even venture into “Is it possible to not have a self” which is for me in the realm of fairy tales.

Each ‘self’ IS a fairy tale…a story put together by the past and updated in the present?
“A tale told by an idiot, full of sound and fury and signifying nothing” (?)

Of course, we have many years experience with this goal.
Attack first is one strategy.
But we usually use a combination of smoke and mirrors to serve the primary delusion.

eg. drugs, therapy, mindfulness, exercise, long walks etc…

what about “freedom from self” ? is that more reasonable?

The brain protects “the psychological self” because it believes the psychological self is real. The self is not the problem - it’s the symptom.

The problem is that the brain is conditioned to choose what is true (by believing/disbelieving) before it’s mature enough to understand the significance of what it’s doing.

It signifies much, though, and without self-knowledge, the brain doesn’t know what its self signifies.

Awareness of self is “more reasonable”.