(20 characters) Huh?
The more one looks at these questions, it seems fairly obvious that for it to have any meaning, awareness cannot be seen as some objective agency, force or divine principle that is separate from that which is under investigation. It makes great sense to talk of violence being aware of itself, or of anger being aware of itself. I donât quite understand why there is such a resistance to look at this.
When I am angry, I am that anger. I am that energy. There isnât then any other energy of awareness, except as some insipid dreamlike state inspired by the laziness of thought.
When the brain says âI am that anger. I am that energyâ, it is personifying itself for the purpose of communication. But does the brain know there is no actual I, no person that is aware of whatâs happening, but only its conditioned response to awareness?
Could it be that the brain is so confused and conflicted by its conditioning that it canât tell whatâs actually happening?
Because it doesnât necessarily follow - for example : a brain may be capable of awareness, and it may be capable of creating the feeling of anger -
And it doesnât seem to make sense either : why should a feeling (anger, sadness) be capable of awareness? a feeling might be something that the brain (or whatever) can be aware of.
Why would a feeling have cognitive capabilities?
Yes, these are the questions that arise when a confused brain says a feeling is aware of itself, because there are no feelings without awareness. Awareness is fundamental, and feelings are one of the many sensations, responses, and reactions the brain is aware of.
1 Like
First of all, whose confused brain are you talking about? Are you outside of the conditioned confusion yourself? If so, what are you? Are you the voice of awareness? Or are you also in the same place of not being able to tell what is actually happening? This seems much more likely. Being in such a place - of not being able to tell what is happening, of being lost, of feeling angry or afraid or confused - awareness is then a vital necessity and not something just tacked on by thought as the cure-all for our ills. I wonder if you see the difference here.
There is no awareness without feelings.
So when the brain says, âI am angry,â then, âI am anger,â then, âI am that energy,â it begins as one limited self-centred energy with the âIâ in charge. But as it goes further, as the feeling develops its own cognitive capability, its own intelligence, it starts to see that there is no centre to itself. This then is real awareness, which has its seeds in the actual activities of the brain with all its confused feelings and desires.
There are degrees of confusion. Some brains are more confused than others.
not being able to tell what is happening, of being lost, of feeling angry or afraid or confused - awareness is then a vital necessity and not something just tacked on by thought as the cure-all for our ills. I wonder if you see the difference here.
Imagine two people lost in the woods with no clue or sense of what direction to move in. One sits down and prays for help while the other one looks for their own tracks to find there way back to where they went astray. Theyâre both lost, but one is hopelessly lost and desperate while the other explores a potential solution to finding their way.
Both are aware, but oneâs awareness is more acute than the otherâs. That is, one is more grounded in actuality while the other resorts to belief and wishful thinking when at a loss.
Wouldnât this perhaps be a good time for them just to look at one another? Being lost in the woods is only a metaphor, after all, for what humans have brought about in their muddled relationships.
Considering your obsession with âmeetingâ another, this is probably what you would do, so why donât you put it to the test by getting lostâŚwith someone?
I havenât said anything about meeting. I donât know what that means. Just to look at one another. Are you shy to look?
Are you shy about getting lost?
We are already lost, according to your metaphor. Or do you mean it in the sense of, âGo away and donât bother meâ?
I think even without any metaphor it would be right to say we are lost. Trying to getting rid of one another doesnât seem to be a sensible suggestion at this point. But maybe you see it differently.
Anyway, I am happy to tell you that I am shy to look. However, regardless of my feelings about this, just to look at one another seems to be our only logical option. From there, something else may happen.
Yes, so why do you spend so much time here, and little or no time looking at actual people? Why donât you spend less time with your computer and more time with people?
Thatâs a strange response! Then why are you here so much, if I may ask? Are you running away from people too?
Foolishly, perhaps, I was expecting to find a few actual people here. I didnât realise that you were nothing but a chat bot.
Be kind onto our digital brethren and sistren! Most of my friends are bots in one way or another. 
Do you think this is a good time to look at one another? I mean, regardless of the fact that we may feel shy about it.
I see you through the filter of me.
2 Likes
That sounds too clever. Iâm not suggesting that you are wrong though. It just doesnât seem to mean much.
I think itâs profound. Not the writer, not the trite wording, but the idea that when I see you I see me. When you take this possibility to heart, open to it, it really rocks the boat! When we look at each other, what are we truly seeing?
1 Like
When I see you, I see I seeing you.
1 Like