Freedom comes from seeing what the self image is (what its function is, how it works).
The idea is that once we understand how it works, what is going on, we no longer mistake the feelings, thoughts beliefs about myself for an actual reality (like gravity) that must be obeyed.
Oups! I see how this could be used against me in court.
But as long as we acknowledge that I am saying that fear is me, or self-protection is a synonym for fear, then I am okay with that.
I am not saying the conscious emotional state of fear (aka worry, panic, concern) is always present for there to be self.
I am not saying that self protection necessarily implies that I feel scared.
I am saying that if I am the movement of self-protection; my whole being is a form of fear (even when Iām feeling safe and powerful)
nb. Iām saying something a bit paradoxical, though often iterated in mundane conversation (eg. āheās being a bit aggresive because he feels that his dominance is being challengedā which is violence in lieu of insecurity. Or āheās showing off because he wants to impress the girlā high spirited over confidence in lieu of hopeful desire. )
They are not really fears. They are bodily reflexes, are they not?
This is an interesting argument because it proposes that the self is benign, a natural and necessary response to stimuli, and this is contrary to the abiding assumption here that the self is corruption and depravity that hides behind an impenetrable screen of words and images and reflexes that can only be obliterated by the awakening of intelligence, an event that many people claim to have undergone, and no one can prove has ever occurred.
So what are we to do about it? Recognising that we are both self-protective entities, what shall we do? How shall we proceed from here?
Benign : gentle & kindly, not harmful. - Why would one associate this word with fear or its possible consequences?
Fear can of course easily lead to corruption and depravity.
If I am fear, hiding behind a wall of knowledge of my own making, whoās going to come looking? and if they do, they might find a very confident looking erudite fellow.
I just thought Iād repeat this question again from Paul
Since it strikes me as a very good/important question - Iāll just make the case again that the self is no more than a survival mechanism : that the movement from fear to security to progress to power is no more than one same movement of fear.
Being chased by a Tiger I instinctively save myself by running away - I feel relieved - then I remember this experience and donāt want it (or worse, getting eaten) to happen again - I learn as much as I can about Tigers - I build cages, invent bows and arrows, and traps - I kill all the Tigers - I feel relieved and proud and strong - I start wondering about the wolves.
Iām calling this whole story the movement of fear (or self preservation) not just the bits where Iām scared.
If I am a self preservation mechanism (self-protective entity) what am I to do?
Iād say but not sure that it can come about from experimenting, from thought/self ātryingā to bring it about, to grasp itselfā¦trying all the tricks. I think but not sure that this is what Peter tries to get across, the state or perception beyond thought, beyond the individualized personal complex of āselfā.
That āitā
sees the smallness, the tiny ness of the self, the ācocoonā.
Iād say there is a body-reflex component to both, especially falling, but very shortly after the reflex fires (milliseconds), intense fear kicks in that does not involve thinking.
Thatās it. Doesnāt it seem that before the center can be afraid of something, the center must exist? There is an āinnocentā center as an emergent property of the human brain, which does not know fear until it thinks about it.
So I would question if the Me is for survival purposes. That does not seem to make sense. Before motive to survive, there must be an idea of survival, which implies a center and an identification with the idea of a center.
The process after the foundation is immediate; fear takes over and corrupts thinking. And if we call that structure self, then it is sensible to call self fear.
The fearless center, which emerges from knowledge/brain, is the actor when we conceptualize insight to knowledge. The tragedy is that all knowledge - after self is put together by fear - is corrupt which means that conceptualization is inherently corrupt. Seeing without any concept is Insight.
If you are interested in learning about Evolution, it is possible to do so. I say this because your presuppositions are not in line with the idea of natural selection (which is what everything indicates is the process driving fitness and change)
In terms of logic (which is a good aid to determining whether our common sense actually makes sense) : was there an idea of planets before planets were able to form? (I am referring to the big lumps of matter gravitating around stars - not the concept of planet inside my head)
Are you saying that the fearless center is merely an imagined goal?
PS - additional question : if the self is not about fitness, survival, self-protection. What is it ?
Are we saying that Me / self is part of this same process? Once the sense of Me emerges, it is subject to the natural selection / evolution?
Natural selection we see in the nature does not require psychological Me / self. Natural selection is based on mechanical, material process. Are we saying that Me / self is subject to such process as well?
No, I said that psychologically there must be a center before it can identify with anything and become afraid of losing it. Which implies that this center is without fear at least for a moment. If this center is part of āselfā, then the self is not 100% fear.
If we do not see the structure and process of fear in the functioning of self, then it could be concluded that self is 100% fear. However such conclusions stop inquiry, and would not provide Insight to what is.
Perhaps the point is, there seems to be a pre-requisite of a center before psychological fear can emerge. Once the fear has corrupted the process of the center, our sense of me / self is born.
Physical (and now cultural & technical) evolution of life forms is driven by natural selection.
Humans are a form of life.
Therefore humans are a product of evolution.
Yes - Nothing indicates that natural selection is an entity nor a mind.
Of course - where else did the brain and its processes come from? At first, reaction to stimuli was selected for fitness. Then various forms of brain were selected for fitness. Then various forms of proto-mentation and proto-selves. etcā¦
Quite right - what would be the point of saying that a computer is not 100% a computer because there was a moment in time before we booted it up, or switched it on or installed windows?
Another way of looking at it would be that the center (separate from, in opposition to, acting upon and being acted upon by everything else) and fear necessarily go together?
Like water and wetness? Do we say that water must first cover me, thus allowing wetness to corrupt my being?
Or like falling and gravity? Do we say that massive bodies must first be close enough and massive enough to affect each other before gravity is able to have an effect? Or are we just saying the same thing twice, only with different words?
That which builds the wall might awaken to what a colossal mistake itās making.
First of all, what is being protected apart from the body? Is there an actuality that deserves the time and effort of protection? Or are we merely protecting a lot of ideas? This is important to find out before we think about what to do next.
āActualityā is just another idea.
I donāt see why - why the body is so important (apart for its importance to me/the self)? why ideas or feelings or processes are less important than physical and/or biological objects (ideas and stuff can be just as useful to me)?
Are you saying that in order to carry out our job (security agent) properly , the objects under our guard must be well defined?
Aah, but why of course? We can see that this is how we approach our self, but is it necessarily so? And I was not talking about brain (which is a physical structure), but Me / self (which is the functioning of the brain to produce image/identification with the past).
If we subject me / my mind / my consciousness to a mechanical process, we are saying that the mind can be changed by time, arenāt we? This implies it is limited, is divisive, and thus generates conflict.
Leaving inquiry here, leaves us with a conclusion that human consciousness is inherently violent, and we cannot change it.
Is this what we are saying? Or should we investigate further if the consciousness (the entirety of thoughts and relationships) actually can be changed through time? Not the brain, not the physical world, but the idea/identification.
I donāt understand what you are saying - please try again, maybe keep it very simple.
What is your point? Kinetic force is a function of physical muscles - are muscles a result of natural selection? surely so is our ability to use kinetic force? maybe you are saying that kinetic force (or self) is a fundamental/primitive force, thereforeā¦?
Is the idea of some absolute fundamental unchanging eternal mind affecting your statements? ie. when you speak of mind changed by mechanical processes
And why is mind subject to change necessarily violent.
Are we a mechanical process? Why conclude that we cannot change our minds (though on its own, I might be able to agree here - but now Iām too confused)?
Can you start by making one simple point? And then maybe I can understand what your point is, and go on from there.