Self

[Tmac]

Now, I think you are superposing illusion over illusion.

Whatever that means? You do realize that an illusion doesn't imply that something doesn't exist but that it isn't what it appears to be?

 

[Tmac]

Nothing will change. Since congenitally blind people don't show any speciality regarding their view of self.

Interesting, they have a "view" of self and in the world in which they exist, even though they have never seen it.

 

[atanu]

Whatever that means? You do realize that an illusion doesn't imply that something doesn't exist but that it isn't what it appears to be?

I think I know that.

Why should you take a physical model of self and try to blow it up in order to imagine the Big Bang situation? I do not understand that.

 

[Tmac]

If I wasn't curious, I wouldn't ask.

The bully can fain interest.

 

[Srivijaya]

The bully can fain interest.

Bully? On what basis do you make that assumption?

 

[Tmac]

I think I know that.

Why should you take a physical model of self and try to blow it up in order to imagine the Big Bang situation? I do not understand that.

Because it is not a true image of self and it can only come together under these condition; we were and are before these conditions, we exist even before all that we have come to believe that we need to be in order to exist.

 

[Tmac]

Bully? On what basis do you make that assumption?

Huh?

 

[ajay0]

At present we give the self properties, length, width and weight because we identify with what we see as our body. It as been proven at "X" magnification that the lines that allow for these properties begin to blur, to the point of non-existence. An illusion does not mean that it doesn't exist but that it isn't what it appears to be. We are spirit/space/whatever and matter at the same time. If you were born and the first visual awareness of yourself was at a magnification that didn't allow for the properties of length, width and weight how would you see yourself?

The egoistic identification with the mind-body complex may be a necessary part of growing up in the world which needs spatial awareness of the things around you for ensuring material security. It is part of our evolutionary animal heritage.

But when you are grown up and well-established, a time comes when you obviously grow out of the egoistic identity or psychological self seeing its superficiality and falseness, due to the stress and tension it creates on account of its unnaturalness, for an authentic one.

This conflict between the authentic self and psychological self also manifest as conflict at the personal and collective level among humans resulting in crime, divisive mentality, disharmony,war and other errors of judgement leading to personal and collective regression.

This is why many spiritual masters are calling for a quantum leap in consciousness for humanity as part of its further evolution and survival as a species.

 

[atanu]

Because it is not a true image of self and it can only come together under these condition; we were and are before these conditions, we exist even before all that we have come to believe that we need to be in order to exist.

I agree. But imagining body to be infinitely large is an intellectual effort and is, imo, piling up illusion upon illusion.

 

[Tmac]

I agree. But imagining body to be infinitely large is an intellectual effort and is, imo, piling up illusion upon illusion.

The idea is not to think of the body as being infinitely large but to relax the attachment in the belief that this, "the normal view" is all that we are, which happens to be prevalent.

 

[Srivijaya]

Huh?

Okay, I get the game.

 

[Nakosis]

At present we give the self properties, length, width and weight because we identify with what we see as our body. It as been proven at "X" magnification that the lines that allow for these properties begin to blur, to the point of non-existence. An illusion does not mean that it doesn't exist but that it isn't what it appears to be. We are spirit/space/whatever and matter at the same time. If you were born and the first visual awareness of yourself was at a magnification that didn't allow for the properties of length, width and weight how would you see yourself?

The self is more or less a fictional character the brain creates to identify as. Really, what brain identifies as a brain? We never see our own brain so there's not a lot of imagery to connect to.

Folks at one time identified with the heart assuming the soul resided there.

I guess most realized we are not the physical body cause you can lose parts of it and still be you. So they create another identity, spirit, soul that controls the body. That's just another fictional identity the brain creates to identify as.

 

[blü 2]

At present we give the self properties, length, width and weight because we identify with what we see as our body.

Yes, although you could also argue that one's 'self' is in one's head, the aware entity processing one's sensory input and, as it were, looking out through one's eyes. "I" can mean just that eg "I love maths" &c or both that and body eg "I play football"&c.

It as been proven at "X" magnification that the lines that allow for these properties begin to blur, to the point of non-existence.

Do you mean the proposition that the Planck length is as small as we can meaningfully refer to? If so, the Planck length is about 1.616x10^−35, vastly smaller than an atom at about 10^~12 m. Or do you mean something else?

An illusion does not mean that it doesn't exist but that it isn't what it appears to be.

I don't concede that reality is an illusion.

We are spirit/space/whatever and matter at the same time.

We can be shown to be material. We can't be shown to be anything else. (Space is material in that it's not empty, but contains the energy of the vacuum, and indeed, say some, is the gravity field itself.)

If you were born and the first visual awareness of yourself was at a magnification that didn't allow for the properties of length, width and weight how would you see yourself?

If you're talking about Planck lengths, then since you'd be some 23 orders of magnitude smaller than an atom, 'you' wouldn't exist, so you wouldn't be doing much seeing.

If you mean something else, I await your clarification.

 

[Trailblazer]

I appreciate your effort but it doesn't even come lose to answering my question, the image of which I'm talking about predates all this complexity.

Sorry, but as I said, "I am not really sure what you are asking."

 

[Tmac]

The self is more or less a fictional character the brain creates to identify as. Really, what brain identifies as a brain? We never see our own brain so there's not a lot of imagery to connect to.

Folks at one time identified with the heart assuming the soul resided there.

I guess most realized we are not the physical body cause you can lose parts of it and still be you. So they create another identity, spirit, soul that controls the body. That's just another fictional identity the brain creates to identify as.

I'm having trouble getting past, "We never see our own brain so there's not a lot of imagery to connect to", is not the brain in charge, according to you it can see itself but that it chooses to create a fictional character so that "we" have something in which to identify. Too many circles here for me.

 

[Tmac]

Yes, although you could also argue that one's 'self' is in one's head, the aware entity processing one's sensory input and, as it were, looking out through one's eyes. "I" can mean just that eg "I love maths" &c or both that and body eg "I play football"&c.
Do you mean the proposition that the Planck length is as small as we can meaningfully refer to? If so, the Planck length is about 1.616x10^−35, vastly smaller than an atom at about 10^~12 m. Or do you mean something else?
I don't concede that reality is an illusion.
We can be shown to be material. We can't be shown to be anything else. (Space is material in that it's not empty, but contains the energy of the vacuum, and indeed, say some, is the gravity field itself.)
If you're talking about Planck lengths, then since you'd be some 23 orders of magnitude smaller than an atom, 'you' wouldn't exist, so you wouldn't be doing much seeing.

If you mean something else, I await your clarification.

Let's take this one sentence at a time, Okay? It would be difficult to read anything beyond this sentence with a degree of objectivity if the first sentence sends you off in a tangent.

In my first sentence, I wrote, at present we give the self properties, I didn't say that the self is in these properties but that it identifies its self as having these properties so I don't understand what you hear in my words in that first sentence that would provoke your response?

 

[blü 2]

In my first sentence, I wrote, at present we give the self properties, I didn't say that the self is in these properties but that it identifies its self as having these properties so I don't understand what you hear in my words in that first sentence that would provoke your response?

I simply noted some things about what I think the self is.

 

[Infernum]

This reminds me of the question: why am I me and not someone else? Why am I in this body and not in the other guy's body. Its because I can only be me because I am a product not a cause. I am a product of my brain function regarding my experiences and the record thereof in memory. The self is a product of a dimensional system, therefore records or registers these dimensions as self.

 

[Nakosis]

I'm having trouble getting past, "We never see our own brain so there's not a lot of imagery to connect to", is not the brain in charge, according to you it can see itself but that it chooses to create a fictional character so that "we" have something in which to identify. Too many circles here for me.

Well, do you see yourself as a brain walking around in a meat suit?

I think ultimately, that's all we are.

 

[Tmac]

Well, do you see yourself as a brain walking around in a meat suit?

I think ultimately, that's all we are.

I'm sure at one time I might have but that thought is so inadequate now.