When we’re not in deep sleep probably not. But what is important is awareness of what we are doing when we are ‘awake’. Awareness of the self-image , me, that separates us from everything. The observer is NOT the observed is the fact we live with.
But there are moments when that is not so, moments when the self is absent. Some sight that stuns you with its beauty maybe. And then it’s back.
I come here because there are people here who are interested in what we are. And whether the violence can end.
This is my belief, but I don’t know myself as well as others do because I’m less interested in what I actually do than I am committed to being I.
I am always doing my best to be I, so when I’m aware of how another sees I, I may feel flattered, flattened, or bemused as to why they see I that way.
The brain can’t convince anyone that I is who the brain says I is, but that doesn’t stop the brain from persisting in this deception. As long as it’s never clear that the brain is pulling the strings that animate its false identity, the falseness of I-dentity is never obvious.
I thought you might resonate with that.
Since we’re on the same page, shall we see how far we can go together?
For example, we agree that we are humans, conditioned to be like humans. (in the same way that ants, or planets are conditioned to be as they are)
Do we agree that this is not a problem? (I say its not a problem)
Do we agree that if a social, thinking animal like us, moves away from what it considers to be evil, this is the movement of a healthy organism - and is not a problem? (I say its not a problem)
If we desire that the whole group moves away from evil - this is also healthy and normal. Agreed? (I do)
If the animal turns away from what it “considers to be evil”, the animal is more inclined to act on its beliefs than its instincts. But if “evil” is just a word for what the animal instinctually turns away from, I’m with you so far.
If we desire that the whole group moves away from evil - this is also healthy and normal. Agreed?
If the animal is acting instinctually, so are all the others of its kind, and there’s no need to persuade them of anything.
I am out to get IT and Krishnamurti’s unique insights nudge me along.
I enjoy the interaction with others around the existential questions we raise.
I enjoy writing and being read, it’s a creative-performative process for me.
I have an intimate and complex personal relationship with Krishnamurti* I am working through.
* The relationship is not with Krishnamurti the real, I never met him. It is with Krishnamurti the imagined, the space he occupies in my mind/memory/thoughts-feelings.
Does the brain believe that its imagined identity can “get” anything but its next modification?
We don’t know if the master-mind, the creator and manager of Identity, can awaken to what it is doing, but we hope that it can because it’s better to live with hope than with despair.
Is the brain “mine”, or am I a creation of the brain? If the latter, the brain can’t be mine because I am its play-thing, its representation of someone imagined.
It’s greed. ‘I’m’ going to get the prize! The ‘self’ is a form of greed: ‘I’m special’, ‘Me and mine’ are more special than ‘you and yours’. ‘My thoughts and beliefs may be wrong, even stupid…even dangerous, but they’re ‘mine’!
The ‘self’ has no proper place in the human mind.
Yes that’s what I mean, it’s there and it has no proper place. It’s destroying us and a lot around us.
In its hubris, it’s carved up the entire world. The self is a combination of ignorance and greed…based on fear of its imaginary existence.
If there’s a true I, it’s been sent to the dungeon by the false I, and that’s just too far-fetched, don’t you think? Isn’t our condition complicated enough?
Howdy Inquiry, whilst we wait for @rickScott to answer the question of why he is here - maybe I can talk a bit about the idea of starting from common ground in order to find out where exactly we diverge.
This is a method where we go slowly, step by step developping an idea to see exactly where “facts” no longer match up.
For example : fact 1 (agreement) fact 2, 3, 4, etc until fact 5 (disagreement!) - then maybe fact 4.1, 4.2 etc if necessary - until we see clearly what the disagreement actually is. (this can be enlightening in itself, but may not consitute a full stop - understanding usually allows for further, clearer enquiry - assuming thats what we want LOL)
Inventing things to disagree about is a very different method that should probably be avoided if we are to play the step by step game - of course we need to understand what the purpose of the the game is, and how it might be of interest (and we can talk about that too if you want)
PS - maybe I should say that the step by step game necessitates that one pay attention to what the claim is - in order to be sure that we are agreeing with the actual claim. (so the game usually collapses because our brains are too foggy to pay attention, or it stops due to some psychological resistance)
PPS. lets call it the “are we still together?” game - “step by step” is too generic
Getting IT is understanding, realizing, knowing, coinciding with IT.
The true nature of reality, IT, may be deterministic, mystical, substantial, spiritual, rational, irrational, intentional, random, loving, kind, violent, hateful, neutral. IT may be the product of human imagination, born from fear and desire. IT may be the only existent that is not imagined.
I feel driven to get IT. It’s like an alarm went off a dozen or so years ago: Time to find out what’s really going on, Rick! I feel I’m along for the ride rather than in control.
Sorry to keep pushing Rick - but I feel it may be helpful to see what you mean by “the true nature of reality” and whats “really going on”.
Can you say a bit more about what you are imagining? Whats really going on where? At the center of black holes? In the mind of Odin?
The true nature of what reality? Is this like the meaning of life the universe and everything? (I’ve heard the answer is 42)