Do you, actually? Do you see yourself as separate? Do you see yourself as an individual?
Facts. It is the drift from facts into factoids that causes the distraction Peter.
Formal logic might assume that either one is separate or one is not. But the fact is that we are both separate and non-separate. Why do we find it so difficult to accept that? We love formal logic because we are intoxicated with its simplicity. ‘A’ can never be ‘non-A.’ Where ‘A’ appears to be ‘non-A’ formal logic calls this a contradiction. So, one can never be both separate and non-separate. So says formal logic.
I wonder if you can see the problem? The paradox is resolvable once one understands it. It arises because the word ‘separation’ is being used in the wrong way. It has become an absolute.
I am separate insofar as my actions are directed by my understandings, which is inevitably the case. Each person’s understanding is unique. No two understandings are ever the exact same and so no actions are ever the exact same. The motor force for my action comes from this distinct life form and not from its neighbor. There is no getting around this discrete fact.
I am not separate insofar as my understandings do not come about through my own inner processes, through some core basis I may call a soul or an essence. My understandings reflect the summation of my experiences, which are social. I am the result of social interaction. That result may be unique but one cannot possibly call it separate. The commonality of species and of life itself are the basis of interaction and relationship. It is because I am essentially a part of all that, that I have any understandings at all. I am that. I am the world, in that sense.
The fact that I am both separate and non-separate is not a contradiction (except in formal logic). It is a paradox, something like an apparent confusion. The confusion has occurred because the idea of separation has separated from the fact.
I don’t know how to address such theoretical stuff. Talking about the way thought occupies the mind, and then following along with the content, there is the thinking this is reverberating with life. But it is dead.
Then maybe address my first question, put before the ‘theoretical stuff,’ as you call it.
“Do you, actually? Do you see yourself as separate? Do you see yourself as an individual?”
I think if you start by answering that question, with honestly, the other issues I raise may appear less theoretical. In fact I was dealing with something very practical. But it is something that requires a little effort and motivation to understand.
I think I can concur, Peter. We think this is living…this preoccupation with the content of consciousness. But it’s a kind of death…death to what’s real…death to actually living in the sense K spoke of. It’s based upon division and separation and fragmentation …fragmentation of the whole.
Sounds to me like what you are doing on here habitually. Do you understand why thought is limited?
Thought is limited because knowledge and experience are limited, memory is limited. These are the basis of thought. Conclusions are thought. Sometimes conclusions are warranted to explain physical processes. But how effective is thought when it comes to understanding and explaining psychological thought processes? It can’t be anything but limited.
Yes I understand we think practical is something different, but the actions, creativity, and invention are based in knowledge. I understand knowledge is the great tool of humanity, but looking at knowledge, and using it, is what we have called wisdom, virtue, truth and all that. We still continue to want to develop knowledge, thinking the use of words and ideas and the verbal expression of wisdom, virtue, and truth, is the actuality of these. But obviously it is not.
So wisdom and truth is not knowledge. But throughout our history, man has been caught there. How do we get ‘un-caught’? Apparently it’s not obvious to most of us that knowledge is not the way of understanding. Knowledge of the various religious scriptures and conformity to their teachings has been considered of utmost importance over the centuries…by Christians, Jews, Hindus, possibly Buddhists too and other religious adherents.
Look at doubt. I think I am doubting. I think I am looking at some singular aspect and doubting it. But the word doubt actually tells me I am hesitating between two alternatives, considering a choice. We don’t see this condition, this duality of process, and take self to be acting as the judge, the arbiter. But it is not intelligence, it is choosing from amongst the known.
Doubt from latin - dubius, (shortened from duohibius, duo-two, habes- have, hold.)
Doubt is not hesitating between two alternatives - it’s remaining dubious until enough evidence or adequate explanation is forthcoming. What you’ve described is being on the horns of a dilemma.
How can someone completely miss this and come up with the complete adverse?
Doubt from latin - dubius, (shortened from duohibius, duo-two, habes- have, hold.)
Just like a painting draws your attention and you follow with interest a line, a color, a shape or a figure, knowledge is a predesigned image on the mind, doing the same.
