Bright Light. Big Questions. (split from bobby & irene)

[novella]

goddess novella, should one seek to contend against others?

It's called Capitalism. Duh.

Anyhow, everyone has their own personal religion/cult anyway. This will just help them to expand the franchise.

 

[bobbyburns]

and is capitalism not a projection of the self?

 

[novella]

and is capitalism not a projection of the self?

Yes, that's very astute. But, of course, that's only true if you participate. If you prefer to join a cult rather than establish your own, you subjugate the self to the larger system. This is called stupidity.

 

[bobbyburns]

is there no way to avoid trapping yourself in a cult or some kind of ideology?

 

[novella]

is there no way to avoid trapping yourself in a cult or some kind of ideology?

I won't be around, see? I'll be dead. The others will be trapped.

I was thinking about the beauty of cemetaries and memorial statuary, the disposable nature of cremation, the way immortality is imagined by the living, and I thought it would be nice, instead of getting buried, cremated, or floated out to sea, to be preserved in small pieces in a nice pretty bejeweled vessel and worshipped forever as a god. I thought it would be more special.

But the essence of me will be gone. Only the memory will be worshipped.

And I can get some tie-in products launched, too, like Novella God-Doll instant miso soup and soft pillows.

 

[bobbyburns]

a few more advances in medical technology and you can have your brain transplanted from your body into a robot, and that robot will live forever thinking it's you.

 

[novella]

a few more advances in medical technology and you can have your brain transplanted from your body into a robot, and that robot will live forever thinking it's you.

Until someone pulls the plug. But that would be okay too.

 

[Irene Wilde]

all I ask is that shaquille, the court and the ball be one.

We in LA asked that each and every time he was at the foul line in the play offs. Now that's he's gone from LA, watch him achieve it.

Apologies for my silence in this thread the last few days, but where I am isn't a place I can put into words. I'm physically in the same space I've always occupied, but spiritually (or emotionally or psychologically -- pick your phrase) I am cascading down all those falling dominoes. It isn't an experience I have words to express. I just wanted all the participants to know I'm still here, just on the sidelines and paying attention.

 

[Irene Wilde]

I'm just going to throw this into the discussion because this is where I am in my reading, and people can respond or not.

"Can you watch fear without an conclusion, without any interference of the knowledge you have accumulated about it? If you cannot, then what you are watching is the past, not fear; if you can, then you are watching fear for the first time without the interference of the past."

Now, I believe it was to Mr. Burns (though it could have been our friend in exile Mr. Enema) that I said, "I fear, therefore I am." (And not so long ago, too.) So this particular paragraph has captivated me, again on that nonverbal level that I almost want to call intuitive, yet I refrain because (again) the language is too loaded. So I let my mind experience these words without letting thought interfere.

Fear is always considered something to avoid, to overcome, to conquer or control, but more often than not, fear is what conquers us, defining what we do and how we do it.

Going off on a complete tangent (or maybe not, I don't know), I was reading up on Beethoven the other day and what I was reading said that Beethoven, realizing his own genius, dispensed with the governing societal rules of his day -- not that he was murdering colleagues or robbing banks -- but the rules of "polite" society, the mores that say "doff you hat to a lady," "suffer fools," "dress appropriately," etc. I that how remarkable that was, to simply make that decision and live accordingly, yet it seems -- at least in this case -- Beethoven was one of those people not conquered by fear.

Like I said, I'm probably off on a tangent given the way this conversation has evolved, but I thought I'd put the ideas out there for anyone who would like to respond.

 

[Irene Wilde]

I'm not sure how far this thread has gone askew, but pressing on...

A funny thing I noticed (am I the only one?) is, seeing the logic of releasing fear, the self senses that being free of fear will leave a void. So right at the brink of the precipice, thought clammers to hold onto fear or generates more fear, to fill that void and to keep from stepping from the known into the unknown. Human beings are fond of knowing things, so do we truly hold onto fear because it is what we know?

Mr. Burns, you are familiar with my panophobic view of life, so maybe you would know more than others whether this is an expected reaction or just my own particular reaction.

 

[Irene Wilde]

Do any of you keep a journal of your thoughts? I feel compelled to start one.

I've been keeping journals at various points throughout my life, but about three or four years ago, I began keeping one very regularly. I've found, however, that it can be a double-edge sword. Sometimes, it gives you a place to contain some of the clutter that keeps my mind from focusing on a specific idea, and writing things down can help me to detect patterns in thought and situations so I can see if I'm repeated past mistakes or making progress. However, keeping a journal involves words and by putting ideas into words, the very process can distort the original idea because it becomes limited and defined by the language.

Still, my journal has become my close companion over the years and I don't ever see myself giving it up. Like Nin, I think I do my best writing within the pages of my diary because I'm not filtering it for an audience, I'm not distorting the reality so that others will see it as I do. Lots of what I write there is rubbish that should never see the light of day, but sometimes I can capture within its pages a mood or a feeling, and re-reading those pages can bring that feeling back in a harmless, escapist manner, because I always close the book and move on.

 

[Crystal]

I'm just going to throw this into the discussion because this is where I am in my reading, and people can respond or not.

"Can you watch fear without an conclusion, without any interference of the knowledge you have accumulated about it? If you cannot, then what you are watching is the past, not fear; if you can, then you are watching fear for the first time without the interference of the past."

Fear is always considered something to avoid, to overcome, to conquer or control, but more often than not, fear is what conquers us, defining what we do and how we do it.

I have been dwelling on this. But something kept being evasive. I couldn't tell clearly at the moment.

In addition, I liked this: Human beings are fond of knowing things, so do we truly hold onto fear because it is what we know?

Aslo, I have another question for bobby/Irene or whoever might be interested:

Like you said earlier, we'd better shake off this self, but it seems to me that we would have some void there. So, are there something else that will be possibly feed this empty??

Another one is: thought of the past could serve/function as a link or help to maintain the continuity. Without thoughts, where could be your stand-point to jump or lift?

well, my mind is as thick as the gravy now. sorry if that doesn't make sense.

 

[Irene Wilde]

I have been dwelling on this. But something kept being evasive. I couldn't tell clearly at the moment.

In addition, I liked this: Human beings are fond of knowing things, so do we truly hold onto fear because it is what we know?

Aslo, I have another question for bobby/Irene or whoever might be interested:

I feel like I'm half a something are we Martin & Lewis, Mr. Burns, or Ben Affleck & Matt Damon? And if we are, which is which?

Like you said earlier, we'd better shake off this self, but it seems to me that we would have some void there. So, are there something else that will be possibly feed this empty??

Aha! Dear Crystal, now you are getting somewhere....now you approach the oneness which I refuse to give a name to, but consider -- if you stop imposing the past on the future, are you not then free to really live in the present? But please, please, keep in mind that neither Mr. Burns, nor myself, nor Krishnamurti for the matter, is telling you "you'd better do this or your better do that..." because then you are simply doing our bidding because we are telling you to and not reasoning for yourself. This is only meant as a conversation about ideas, not giving anyone directions on how to live.

Another one is: thought of the past could serve/function as a link or help to maintain the continuity. Without thoughts, where could be your stand-point to jump or lift?

Thought does serve a function. For instance, thought tells you not to stick your finger in a flame, to watch for rusty nails when running around barefoot. It is when Thought runs amok and exceeds its authority, if you will, that things begin to go amiss.

Thanks for jumping in here. It's always good to see you name around.

 

[Irene Wilde]

Good morning Mr. Burns and other readers of this thread (if there are any remaining)!

Putting aside, for the moment, the discussion of fear, my personal explorations have been moving along at a steady clip, and here's where I'm at (sometimes, Mr. Burns, I wonder if you are just waiting for me to catch up):

I was doing an interesting google yesterday -- working again, from "instinct" or "intuition" or something I haven't got a proper name for yet -- regarding Mssrs. Krishnamurti and Bohm, and within the googles a little bit of a surprise kept popping up -- Carl Jung! More specifically, Jung's theory of "Synchronicity." And in browsing these googles, the common thread began to emerge again. Whether working from a philosophical, physical, or psychological approach, all three seemed touch at one tangential point: energy. Now, I'm not a psychologist, and I'm certainly not fluent in quantum mechanics, but still there is a certain amount of common sense that says everything is energy. Without energy, the universe does nothing. We give it names, will call it things, we argue over it, and we still don't understand how it all works (in quantum physics it appears different people will occasionally get a glimpse, but when their glimpse doesn't agree with someone else's glimpse, papers get written and arguments ensue). If you talk about harmonizing with this energy instead of battling against it, people start using the word Zen, accuse you of mysticism, and start demanding empirical evidence. Then you get into fancier terminology, which means less and less, until it is an argument of semantics and the basic point gets lost.

Any comment on this work-in-progress, Mr. B?

 

[novella]

If you talk about harmonizing with this energy instead of battling against it, people start using the word Zen, accuse you of mysticism, and start demanding empirical evidence.

Who are you trying to convince and what are you trying to convince them of?

Quanta are propagated as waves in the physical universe and absorbed as particles. By their very nature, they are in conflict with other quanta in the physical universe. That's a fact. You cannot "harmonize" with the "energy" in the way that you describe. The motion of quanta is continually in conflict, by nature. There are no arguments about this. It's really not a problem. It's just how the physical world works.

It's not as if the rest of the universe, bar humans, is in "harmony."

 

[RitalinKid]

is there no way to avoid trapping yourself in a cult or some kind of ideology?

If everyone in the world were to start doing exactly what is being done here in this thread, this nameless search that is not a search, temples would be built, monasteries would pop up, and there would be teachers (more experienced people) and followers (less experienced people). I think it's just ingrained in the way humans interact.

Take this board for example. Have you noticed how the same roles are filled as they would be in a classroom when you were in school. We seem to group ourselves together in a similar way online as we do in traditional (Traditional was all I could come up with. I didn't want to use "the real world" because this is just as real as interacting at work.) social settings.

A common theme in Krishnamurti's book is that we keep trying to shake off something that's a part of us. Is it possible that humans consistently organize themselves, not as a conditioned response, but as a natural response into hierarchical groups with a pattern? In the way that seeds in a sunflower do? Or atoms in an epitaxial growth do? Or cells in a body? Maybe we're unhappy with the current dominant ideologies, identify the organization that goes along with it, and reject the organization as a manifestation of the ideology. We might find that the social patterns may have preceded the ideologies that we associate them with.

I'm not trying for mysticism here, but I believe as someone mentioned above that there is some tie in to everything. One day, the workings of the mind, social sciences and physics will all be linked. How could they not be? Physics allows for the mind, and the mind creates the social patterns. A barrier to understanding it all is that the mind has perceptions to see through, like viewing a matrix (representing what is) that has been encoded with another matrix (representing a set of perceptions) in linear algebra. We have to remove that encoding, the perceptions, to gain better understanding.

However, right now, some mathematicians aren't sure that the way we describe the world with numbers is the only way. The way we currently count and manipulate quantities may just be the way our minds perceive quantities. Mathematicians are trying to prove whether or not there is another way, and they'll do it by doing the same thing Krishnamurti talks about: removing the goggles of perception, forgetting the known.

 

[Irene Wilde]

I'm not trying to convince anyone of anything. However, I notice that if I start wondering aloud about such things, that's the immediate reaction (thank you for providing it, I mean it, honestly, it illustrates what I was trying to put into words).

And no, I'm not saying all things work in harmony, save the human species. I think I said all the universe is energy, including the human species. Perhaps harmonizing is the wrong word, perhaps equalizing, as in balancing an equation. I recall that from the "Physics for Complete Idiots" course I took in college -- when dealing with energy, my very lovely Austrian professor insisted that all energy be accounted for on both sides -- like I said, this is a work-in-progress process of thinking.

I'm not claiming to have reached conclusions. I am only pondering, and sharing what I have pondered, which was what Mr. Burns asked of me several days ago.

 

[novella]

I'm not trying to convince anyone of anything. However, I notice that if I start wondering aloud about such things, that's the immediate reaction (thank you for providing it, I mean it, honestly, it illustrates what I was trying to put into words).

What's the immediate reaction? Asking a question? Nobody is putting any labels, like Zen or mysticism, on this concept. I am merely asking for claritification of the basic idea, as I have been doing all along.

How can you be in equalization with the energy of the universe? Do you conceive of this "equalization" as an action or as a meditative state?

I know that the entirety of what is is essentially energy. Let's say we accept that as fact.
Where do you go from there? Again, your post is all about what the idea is not. I'm trying to figure out what it is.

In other words, how can you be in the state that you are describing? It it a process or a realization? Is it an action or an idea? What part of the known universe has this thing-without-a-name quality or state?

It's not enough to just have the rhetorical sleight of hand that is "If you don't know, then I can't explain it." or "If you have to ask, you don't understand it."

 

[Irene Wilde]

Aha! We have understanding! You are asking me those questions expecting answers when those are the questions I'm asking myself for which I don't have answers! If I had the answers, I'd supply them gladly; I'd give them away on street corners. But I'm a simple, flawed, barely crawling Irene Wilde, just learning to ask the questions, and contemplating them in whichever way my mind takes me. And that, I think, is what this thread's about.

 

[novella]

I guess then the question is: why do you think this is a legitimate question? What will the answer yield?

Do you think there's a possibility that this question is nonsense? That there is no answer because the question itself doesn't make any sense?

In other words, I am asking these questions as a skeptic. I think that you are asking them as a believer, with your faith in the fact that there is no answer.

It is that implication of a privileged, inexplicable belief that gives this thread its cliquish, pedantic quality. There is a tone throughout of a private club and a private discussion that others may listen to but may understand nothing about, because they are not part of the belief system. And that belief system is based on the paradox: you see this thing? You can't because there's nothing there. Only we believers can see it, because it doesn't exist.