Conditioning and the notion of center /Len (((The ONLY

[Guest guest]

> L:

> > > Conditioning needs a centre, the idea of the one who is

> conditioned.

> > B:

> > You make an assertion here. What is the basis for your assertion?

>

> L:

> Observation.

 

You are saying you *observe* that " conditioning needs a center " ?

 

Looking at your, " The idea of one who is conditioned, " I can

infer that you mean that conditioning inherently implies " one

who is conditioned " . If so, that is a grammatical statement,

not an empirical statement. It is not true by *observation*

but by definition.

 

So if you want to say that conditioning *by definition* entails

" one who is conditioned " , than you would be right per that

definition.

 

But I don't accept that definition.

 

A baby chick will go into some kind of protective behavior

if the dark shape of a hawk is projected overhead. That

doesn't mean the chick has a sense of " center " . That is

just a reflex mechanism being triggered. Ocam's Razor:

you don't need to bring in a notion of center to explain

all conditioning. A puff of air provokes a reflex in the

eye. No " center " need to be invoked to explain that.

 

So your statement: Conditioning needs a centre

is a) *not* in fact supportable by observation

b) there are many examples of conditioning that

are explainable without invoking the notion of a " center "

 

Finally, what do you mean by " center " ? How do you define

that?

 

 

<snip>

 

> > > L:

> > > It is this idea which is being protected by conditioned

> reactions,

> > > like annoyance, for instance. All conditioned reaction is meant

> to

> > > protect the idea of the centre.

> > B:

> > You were the one talking about theory!

> > Again, what is the basis for your statement: " All conditioned

> reaction

> > is meant to protect the idea of the centre. "

>

>

> L:

> Observation.

> B:

> > That is not something that could be a direct " observable " .

>

>

>

> L:

> Of course it is. If something is not observable, nothing at all can

> be said about it.

>

>

> > B:

> > Now don't get me wrong, as I am basically with you on the notion

> > of " center " . I consider the false sense of self to stem from a

> > false sense of " center " .

> >

> > But please, let's get this ironed out a bit better.

>

>

>

>

> " Me " is an idea, right?

> Does this idea exist in the void?

 

The idea " me " is not an entity. The notion of " existence "

does not properly apply to an idea. To consider so is what

is commonly called " reification " .

 

> Or is it surrounded by other idea´s, which are expressing the

> qualities, the convictions, the memories of the " me " .

> This can be easily seen.

> We have a central idea of " me " to which all imaginary qualities and

> beliefs are attached.

> Without the central point " me " , to which some quality is

attributed,

> does any quality exist?

Yes.

 

> Look at the statement:

> I am important.

> What´s left of the statement when the I is not?

> Important? What is important? Nothing, right? There is nothing left

> to be important, there´s nothing left of the quality if the object

> to which then quality is pointing isn´t there.

 

Well, look at the adjective you chose! " Important " An adjective

that oozes with egoistic significance.

 

Try " hungry " . There doesn't have to be an " I " for " hungry " to

be operational.

 

>

> > > When the idea of the centre is gone,

> > > the absurdity of protection, of reacting to whatsoever, (except

> of

> > > natural body protection) is obvious.

> > Agreed. No (sense of) center, no sense of " me " , and so nothing

> > for the " stuff " to hang onto.

>

>

> Exactly.

 

So you agree that the " center " need not necessarily be the case, yes?

 

>

>

> > But note that I speak of a " sense of center " . I don't concur if

you

> > wish to affirm there *really is* a center.

>

>

>

> I´m saying that there is a thought of a centre, which one takes for

> reality. This misunderstanding creates self-defence, through

> idelogies, beliefs, opinions...

> When it´s obvious that the centre is no more than an idea, the

> defence becomes absurd.

> And therefore there are no emotional reactions when the centre is

> not there.

 

OK. You are making more sense to me here.

 

But I don't boil it down to " an idea " . The " center " itself is

conditioning, in my view. For example a sense of center can be

" felt " as when someone notices their " feelings inside " etc.

So it will seem absolutely real. What is not realized is that

the very feelings of " inside " (vs. outside) are conditioning.

 

So I basically agree that the " sense of center " is a kind of

" collector " (I call it a strange attractor) that memories

etc. accumulate around. But where I differ from you is that

I see conditioning as more fundamental than the " center " .

Conditioning is neither good nor bad. It just is. (Actually

you could say it is like fire: it serves an important purpose

but also is dangerous.)

 

You seem to be thinking of conditioning as at a strictly

higher level than I am. I include all the tiny fragments

of conditioning. For example, to take a drink of water from

a drinking fountain is a very complex process. There are

quite a number of " mini programs " (mini-conditionings)

that go into making up the complex conditioning that entails

responding in a particular way to get a drink from a fountain.

 

If you look at conditioning in a " systems " way as opposed to

a psychological way then perhaps you will see how conditioning

doesn't necessarily ential a " self " or " center " . The psychological

view already presumes a " person " as " who is conditioned " from

the outset. So the psychological view will have the " center "

as built in to its framework of interpretation.

 

*If* you can consider that what we call an individual is

capable of functioning without a so-called " center "

then isn't it clear that such an individual will still be

able to get a drink from a drinking fountain? I.e.

there will still be conditioning, but the system will be

" open " rather than constrained around the " false center " ,

which is what introduces the bizzare and debilitating

distortions that appear as " angst " and other forms of

pathological functioning.

 

Bill