Ahaaaa!?!
Psychological demarcation! This body is mine, other bodies are not.
Nobody body!?!? Tricky but simple when understood.
Okay - but gotta go - I’ll come back later.
I was thinking more of a physical demarcation, but psychological as well, definitely.
Shall we investigate, if this 100% pure being is possible? What does it mean to be outside thought-feeling causality?
Let’s start with pure thinking, thinking without feeling. Say you think of something totally neutral: What is 2+2? (Assuming math is neutral for you.) Is this thinking without feeling?
1 Like
If “pure thinking” is part of thinking, then it is still limited and fragmented, right? So by “pure thinking” we mean knowledge or a conclusion which is not triggered by or contain a feeling?
On the other hand, is feeling not also put together by thought? So regardless, our investigation remains the whole time in the field of thought, is that correct?
Neutral is also a feeling. I am pretty neutral to 2+2, but I know some people are very passionate about it and others are fairly annoyed. What happens if I observe 2+2 without neutrality or other feeling?
In order to do that, I need to create an image of myself not feeling neutral or anything else about math. Then from that image I can analyse or observe what takes place, which is the knowledge itself.
If by neutrality we mean that there is no feeling to begin with associated with 2+2, then we are left with this dead, mechanical, technological knowledge, which is the past. There is no movement in 2+2.
So we have defined “pure thinking”, and observed that it remains in the field of thought. Where do we go from here? Or do you see this differently?
So you’ve learned nothing, and only strengthened your sense of self and its grievance against others.
So we are saying that this body and its thoughts are me - there is the feeling of having a body and thoughts, which is the sense of self.
If we agree, the next question might be : what purpose does this feeling (of being this mind/body) serve? What is the function of self?
I’d say: The body and mind writing this feel like they are my body and my mind. I don’t know what you’d say, hopefully you’ll tell me.
What are the consequences of feeling this is my body and my mind? I feel protective of them, they are mine, me, my survival and well being require both to be safe 'n sound. I identify with them, an injury to the body is an injury to me, a happy calm mind is a happy calm me. My mind states (thoughts) have power, because they are me.
By ‘thinking’ I mean a dynamic process, not knowledge or conclusions which are static. It’s the difference between thinking and thoughts. I’m asking if it is possible for the process of thinking to happen without there being any simultaneous trace of feeling.
Sometimes. But always? I don’t know. That’s what we’re exploring, right?
That’s what I meant, yes: neutral as in empty of feeling.
I see it differently: We are left with feeling-free thinking. “Dead, mechanical, technical” all are in the realm of feeling, right?
1 Like
That’s what I am…
So, the self is the feeling of being me, in order to protect me (and mine).
The last question (after what and why) is how does it do its job (protecting me)?
Do you want to answer that in the same spirit? I agree with the description so far. Or would you prefer to hear my version for “how”?
The drive to protect me and mine arises from the feeling of me-mine. From what does the feeling of me-mine arise? What’s the ultimate source of the self feeling? (Could Vedanta have gotten it right – there is a universal Self?)
Your turn: How does the self protect me and mine?
The me = identification with a center for survival purposes.
Vedic Universal Self = ???
The only reason one might associate the two is probably due to the usage of the word “self” for English speakers (speculation based on automatic free association of words)
The apparent (evidence based) source is effectiveness at surviving through evolutionary processes. You might as well be asking : what is the source of the big bang? This is not necessary to a description of self (and is unknown)
By fear.
I find the evolutionary view compelling. But, like any view, it’s not the whole story.
Fear does seem to be one of the main drivers of the urge to protect: I’m afraid of feeling pain, I must protect myself against it. Logic might also be a driver: If X happens, Y will result, and Y is detrimental to my project (family, community), so I must protect against it. But even the most logical person is likely to be susceptible to fear.
As implied earlier the whole story spins out in an endless web, and no one person is capable of following even one strand of the web to its end.
Anyway when it comes to the physical and psychological development of animals, everything points to evolution - if we start speculating about something that nothing points at, we can assume anything (aliens, unicorns, god?)
Self protection is fear. Fear of death, fear of pain, desire for security, desire for pleasure : these are all synonyms of fear.
Logic is merely a demonstration based on premises, that demonstrate whether something is logical or not. If I want something, I can reason why.
So - I am the necessary basis for fear. Fear is my reason for existing. The movement of fear is me.
This is simple - is it true? Can it be denied?
When I am afraid, yes. But what about when I am not afraid? It’s not like my sense of self disappears when I am not afraid, right?
I see the world through the lens of self protection - which implies constant fear.
However circumstances change regularly - so there is a difference in intensity, I do not always feel the same way as when bungee jumping or watching a horror movie. Sometimes I am having a nap, or eating an ice cream.
We associate high intensity self with fear : panic, terror, alarm. But there is also medium intensity experience of self : anxiety, worry, timidity. Low level, resting level.
But maybe the hardest to recognise as fear are what are seen as positive experiences : attraction to a mate, effort and pleasure of accumulation, relief when feeling safe & secure, happiness when with the tribe/family etc…
We are used to using the word fear to point at certain emotional states - but there is also the understanding of what fear is - how it works, what it means, not just what the word symbolises for communication purposes.
If we are inattentive to inner dynamic (Images, voiceovers, verbal reactions, and other sorts of things), I feel that there could be a shift in our mood and other subtler aspects of our psychological operating point with respect to the previous operating point.
Please tell if me if it is not making sense.
What is the difference between understanding and experience? Anyways, in the present context, I see that for learning our disappointment there is no need of thought.
Excellent question with possibility of long discussion!
I can imagine many meanings as to what you are saying - but could you expand a bit (we will have to use thought unfortunately - but maybe we have some shared culture, so we will be able to get what the other person is trying to say) ?
Do you mean that everyone is learning all the time when they have emotions (like disappointment)?
nb. We have an expression here that goes : “life is a learning experience”