Is the self a sacred space?
Yes, for the self it is, but as said earlyer:
'what we hold on is not sacred at all ’ !
Does the self imprison the body and the mind?
Yes in the sense that while the accumulation of memory, experience occupies the brain, it is blocked from ‘coming into its own’. If we’re calling that blockage the ‘self’, it’s the self that is seeking through the many ‘ways’, the freedom it has heard is out there. Yet it is the self’s presence (narrowing) that keeps the brain isolated and occupied from realizing its full potential.
So you seems to say that the accumulation of memory, experience , which occupy the brain, is the self ? And a limitation . What about the images my mind has create about myself or others ? Are they also part of what one call the self ?
Hi Pat. Honestly, I don’t quiet understand your question. Is the self a space ? Or does it occupy space ? Can you explain what you mean by that ?
Is the self virtual reality - a space of image interaction as neurological patterning - where pure perception no longer acts?
The self limits and expands the scope of the body and mind. Without psychological attachment to the self we’d be bigger in some ways, smaller in others. (That’s a guess since I’m not without attachment.)
Richard - 'sacred space ’ in the sense that the self must be revered and will not allow scrutiny or self- reflection, believing it is the centre of all thinking and knowledge.
Yes it seems so. But can we first establish what one means by the self ? K. , if I remember well, said that the self is evil, and a limitation. And that when the mind sees that the self is a limitation, it leave it. So what is the self ? And also why does the mind/brain don’t allow self scutiny of self reflection , believing it is the centre of all thinking and knowledge, if I may ask.
If the ‘self’ is this blockage or limitation, what if anything is there that can be done to dissolve it? This was K’s dilemma. He ‘saw’ that it was this ‘self’ or ‘center’ that was restricting the brain but how to communicate that to another without inadvertently strengthening the self. Without creating yet another ‘religion’ or ‘teaching’, that the self could play with. In the Wrong Turn discussion with Bohm you can hear the frustration in his voice…
Yes, in the sense that no one but I can say who or what I is. I created and curate I, which means I is God.
Is the self capable of annihilating another self if it believes that will make it a smarter, more powerful. more important self?
No. The self knows that it is hopelessly flawed, neither redeemable or reparable, and aspires to annihilation.
Yes understood. But he tries anyway. Hope you don’t mind Patricia that I put a quote here regarding the me (or the self).
K.: So there is the superficial awareness of the tree, the bird, the door, and there is the response to that, which is thought, feeling, emotion. Now when we become aware of this response, we might call it a second depth of awareness. There is the awareness of the rose, and the awareness of the response to the rose. Often we are unaware of this response to the rose. In reality it is the same awareness which sees the rose and which sees the response. It is one movement and it is wrong to speak of the outer and inner awareness. When there is a visual awareness of the tree without any psychological involvement there is no division in relationship. But when there is a psychological response to the tree, the response is a conditioned response, it is the response of past memory, past experiences, and the response is a division in relationship. This response is the birth of what we shall call the “me” in relationship and the “non-me”. This is how you place yourself in relationship to the world. This is how you create the individual and the community. The world is seen not as it is, but in its various relationships to the “me” of memory. This division is the life and the flourishing of everything we call our psychological being, and from this arises all contradiction and division. Are you very clear that you perceive this? When there is the awareness of the tree there is no evaluation. But when there is a response to the tree, when the tree is judged with like and dislike, then a division takes place in this awareness as the “me” and the “non-me”, the “me” who is different from the thing observed. This “me” is the response, in relationship, of past memory, past experiences. Now can there be an awareness, an observation of the tree, without any judgement, and can there be an observation of the response, the reactions, without any judgement? In this way we eradicate the principle of division, the principle of “me” and “non-me”, both in looking at the tree and in looking at ourselves.
And in the course of this kind of observation, one will see how deeply conditioned our mind is. One have been trained to compare, make judgement, believe … what else ?
No, that is impossible, but it thinks it is, and will do anything to at least belittle the other!
One has seen these documentaries on TV, where the Aztecs practised ritual sacrifice and placed the victim (willing at that!) on a large stone, killed them, even practising cannibalism. Many tribes across the planet did this. Time and time again, throughout history, one group of people have invaded the territory of another group, killing the males, stealing whatever they could, and even absconding with the females, apparently all to enrich their own group, so as to ensure the continuance of their tribe, as they saw it. Today, the businessman offers opportunities to those who are just trying to survive to work for him, so that in the end, the businessman can make his own life easier - i.e. he can guarantee his own security by becoming smarter, and have more power to choose a way of securing his future - exploitation by any other name. One has sat in a room full of people like that. They were all smug, flaunting their wealth, their knowledge, and their power. They just used others, using them up to become like that. Such is the self, eh?
Charley - The wrong turn?