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

[Guest guest]

Nisargadatta , " billrishel " <illusyn

wrote:

 

 

> 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.

 

 

 

Nothing is ever true by definition, Bill.

 

 

 

 

> 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.

 

 

 

 

You´re talking about self-protective conditioning of the body.

 

 

 

 

 

> 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?

 

 

 

 

The thought of " me " taken for an entity, with attached qualities,

belief systems, which has to be protected from " harm " .

 

 

 

 

 

 

> > " 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 " .

 

 

 

 

The idea of " me " is a thought mistaken for a psychological entity

which can be harmed and therefore must be protected. As if it was

the body. But it is not a body, but a thought, connected to other

thoughts, a thought-system, not necessary for the body/mind´s

functioning.

 

 

 

 

 

> > 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.

 

 

 

 

No, this is body. Body can be hungry. But can you be important when

you is not? Where are you going to hang the quality of " important "

if there is no peg?

 

 

 

 

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

yes?

 

 

 

Psychological centre is an idea taken for an entity.

This idea may be there or not.

 

 

 

 

 

 

> 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.

 

 

 

 

It´s a whole belief system, a network of connected thoughts and

reactions (feelings), which seems real as long as it isn´t observed

for what it is, " deconstructed " . But this observation is not an

intellectual business, it´s factual.

 

 

 

 

 

> 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

 

 

 

Yes, big part of conditioning is simply necessary to function

properly, and it doesn´t need a centre other that the object of the

body with all its needs and functions, also social functions, like

name, address, job...

What I was talking about is, that psychological defence system is

not working without a psychological centre, so there is no annoyance

without the " one " who´s annoyed because wat´s happening threatens

his defence-system. Many Advaitins, some of whome tend to

consider themselves as teachers,(and we have plenty of them in

Netherlands ;-)) seem to believe that one can experience frustration

or anger without this psychological center. This is not the case

though.

 

Len