Guest guest Posted May 16, 2006 Report Share Posted May 16, 2006 kipalmazy wrote: > > >Kip there is some conceptual difficulty with the notion that > language, > >as defined previously, has agency, that it does something. Language > is > >passive, it is an object. Language is learned and then used and > becomes > >part of ego's subjectivity and can, through reification of words > and > >concepts constitute a factor or factors that influence ego (also a > >creation) to be or do something. Such as language behavior, > particularly > >speech and concept formation and manipulation. This is said above: > > > In effect, language is a skill. It has no agency. It precedes and > determines subjectivity. Subjectivity is nothing but a tool. > > > > " Entering language we begin to generate unconscious " items " imbedded > >and imbedding them in the discourse of the Other. " > > > > " Agency " as " we " or " I " enters and generates. But language itself, > as a > >concept, has no generating power. Even ego ( " I, " " we, " " you, " " me " ) > does > >not have generating power. Ego imagines that it has power, a will > to > >generate, to create. How could a concept do this? It cannot. > > > Exactly! Even unconscious or the discourse of the other has no > magical nor divine texture. It cannot create and it does not > generate ex nihil patterns, forms and figures. It is more like > transformation, like reassembling itself continuously, moment to > moment, comparable to a kaleidoscope. Subjectivity is the rotating, > driving force behind this optical illusion, projecting a pattern of > cause and effect. Once the movement stops nothing disappears, the > kaleidoscope remains but, it is identified as what it is, an > artefact generating illusions. > > > > Ego can be seen as a " thief " a " usurper. " The mind/brain/body is > > machinery that generates all these, including ego, which emits a > > mental/physical sensation (in the forehead, eyes, chest, or belly) > of a > > " driver of mind, " " A thinker, a person, a name, an identity, a > subject, > > an experiencer. " This is the greatest illusion. Ego can seen as an > > " illegal claimer " of the mind's products and " appears: > as " director " of > > mental focus and attention, " a thinker, " a feeler, " " an > entity, " " an > > individual. " There is no agency, that is, there is no one doing > anything. > > > > Oh, I agree almost completely, Lewis! But I don't confer to the ego > any kind of dignity. > It isn't the " fall of man " , a thief nor an usurper. It is simply an > illusion. I could call the dream I had last night an usurper, a > thief of high spirits but, why should I give dreams such an > importance? Yes. It is a phantasm an illusion. Calling it, an " ego " or a " thief " is trickery. > > > >The discourse of > > > the Other, as said, is a transpersonal affair. You and me were > > > actually here before we were born, so to say. Your parents chose > > > perhaps the name, Lewis, many years before you were born. Your > > > grandfather dreamed and spoke perhaps about of having a daughter, > > > who would be anthropologist and, that's the reason why you now > > > became an anthropologist and so on and on and on. There was a > unique > > > and singular mold of conditionings waiting for you and me since > the > > > beginning of culture, or language, and, if we go a little > further, > > > since the beginning of time. > > > > What is meant by " me " and " you? " > > > Just, what it means, it is actually only that what it means, in this > case. The meaning cannot be fathomed. It points to what other other concept? > Ego disintegration is neither personal nor comparable, so no > heroics are > > involved. Ego disintegration is not achieved by ego, even though > ego > > " thinks " it is doing something. The practices, process and > outcomes > > leading towards " realization " " enlightenment " and other illusions > are > > all an immense labyrinth of trickery and skullduggery emerging > from > > different " symbolic and imaginary worlds " that moves upon ego to > > dissolve it so that the full undistorted expression and flow > of " desire " > > to give and give (respond), is. " No one " is involved. There are no > > heroics. > > > Yes, to believe also that someone is able to see through it is > equally skullduggery. Yes. That said is lovely. > > > > Yes. A search for the ancient story, the " fall of man. " It is a > futile > > search Kip. There is no duality or seed of it, though it is fun to > > create new myths or to express new " revelations. " The concepts of > > duality and non-duality are part of the labyrinth of symbolic > ontologies > > and trickery. Ego, a concept imagines it deals with duality, a > concept, > > and non-duality, a concept. Concepts encountering concepts is > illusion. > > The vivid experience of duality remains because of the emotional > > attachment to the physical sensations of " individuality " the > sensations > > from a discrete mind/body. It is is easy to see that " I am not > this > > mind/body. " It is far more difficult, though possible, to become > > unattached to the physical sensations of mind/body in space time. > So " I " > > " me " " you " " my " " mine " " yours " continue. Yes. we can see through > it but > > seeing is not being and being is not doing as it is. > > > In effect, the concepts of duality and non-duality are part of the > labyrinth of symbolic ontologies and it is possible to become > unattached to the physical sensations of mind/body in space and > time. You could expand, if you like, on what you mean with, seeing > is not being and being is not doing as it is. Ok. Here is the skullduggery. " Seeing " is " light " on concept as illusion revealing it " intellectually " as vapor. " Being " is " non-attachment " to the illusion. " Doing " is movement among sensations without effort. Seeing is easy in that the ego can " see " illusion and even conceive itself as an illusion and " pretends " (artificially constructs) that all is vapor. But it can only do this conceptually. If ego holds the concept that " all is illusion " then all that is conceptual can be vaporized in word play without contradiction, a mere intellectual feat. But there is no " being " what is. The next illusion ego has is that it is " being " that it is not attached to illusory concepts, that it is resting in " what is. " The ego lets the illusions pass and watches them, not holding these vaporous objects in attention in any way, following the dictums, and those similar to it in one way or another, of the " Hsin Hsin Ming. " But this to is an illusion for ego is aware that it is aware of the objects and is making effort however slight to be non-attached to them as they appear and disappear in the filed of consciousness. It tricks itself and " being " in this way is an illusion, delusion. But the ego goes further knowing that the ultimate state is " apperception, " awareness without being aware and thus seeks to use this trickery to trick itself and begins " doing without effort " that is acting without thought ( " being " ) and guided and responding to sensations and perceptions that appear in front of it (non-doing). However, ego is simply hiding itself in the darkness of " no thought " or " emptiness " (to which it is ardently attached) thereby tricking itself into sensing " awareness without awareness. " All of this, " seeing, " " being, " " doing without awareness " or " non-doing " is conceptual and self trickery, a conceptual achievement. It is " rising above the gunas " but still bound by them. How can this be demonstrated? Slap the face of any mind/body, verbally or physically, (humiliating acts), have the experience total loss of material, status, possessions, etc. be cheated, lied to, betrayed, tricked and deceived repeatedly, be told how stupid and idiotic, and foolish one is, to be a laughing stock of all, to be unloved and uncared for, to do what is unpleasant, to experience repeated failures, be threatened and/or experience physical injury, disease, and death, in short, be tested out to see if the illusions rise and command action, to experience " I " yet again and again. " Ego dissolution " is trickery for ego and it is not something " achievable. " It is a bold faced lie. All the trickster sages want you to die. In the Tao Te Ching it says " To die but not to perish is to be eternally present (33). Jesus said, " Except a corn of wheat fall into the ground and die, it abideth alone: but if it die, it bringeth forth much fruit. He that loveth his life shall lose it; and he that hateth his life in this world shall keep it unto life eternal. (John 12:24-25). If one agrees with this trickery and tries to do it, one will die, but not by one's own hand. No one will kill you. If one disagrees with this and ignore it, you are already dead by your own hand. No one still will kill you. If one is indifferent, dispassionate, or neither agreeing or disagreeing, just being there, it does not matter. No one kills all. Sometimes it occurs very slowly and painfully sometimes swiftly and cleanly, sometimes...... All around the killing goes on. Are the woeful cries and moanings and wailings and the silent screams of ecstasy, joy and freedom experienced? ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ > > > > > Round and round and round it goes, > > > And where it stops, nobody knows, > > > Round and round is our love, > > > Let's blame in on the stars above > > > > > > (Gil) > > > > > > " When the end draws near, there no longer remain any remembered > > > images; only words remain. It is not strange that time should > have > > > confused the words that once represented me with those that were > > > symbols of the fate of he who accompanied me for so many > centuries. > > > I have been Homer; shortly, I shall be On One, like Ulysses; > > > shortly, I shall be all men; I shall be dead. " > > > > > > (Jorge Luis Borges) > > > > > > > > > Song of Childhood > > > > > > When the child was a child > > It walked with its arms swinging, > > wanted the brook to be a river, > > the river to be a torrent, > > and this puddle to be the sea. > > > > When the child was a child, > > it didn't know that it was a child, > > everything was soulful, > > and all souls were one. > > > > When the child was a child, > > it had no opinion about anything, > > had no habits, > > it often sat cross-legged, > > took off running, > > had a cowlick in its hair, > > and made no faces when photographed. > > > > When the child was a child, > > It was the time for these questions: > > Why am I me, and why not you? > > Why am I here, and why not there? > > When did time begin, and where does space end? > > Is life under the sun not just a dream? > > Is what I see and hear and smell > > not just an illusion of a world before the world? > > Given the facts of evil and people. > > does evil really exist? > > How can it be that I, who I am, > > didn't exist before I came to be, > > and that, someday, I, who I am, > > will no longer be who I am? > > > > When the child was a child, > > It choked on spinach, on peas, on rice pudding, > > and on steamed cauliflower, > > and eats all of those now, and not just because it has to. > > > > When the child was a child, > > it awoke once in a strange bed, > > and now does so again and again. > > Many people, then, seemed beautiful, > > and now only a few do, by sheer luck. > > > > It had visualized a clear image of Paradise, > > and now can at most guess, > > could not conceive of nothingness, > > and shudders today at the thought. > > > > When the child was a child, > > It played with enthusiasm, > > and, now, has just as much excitement as then, > > but only when it concerns its work. > > > > When the child was a child, > > It was enough for it to eat an apple, … bread, > > And so it is even now. > > > > When the child was a child, > > Berries filled its hand as only berries do, > > and do even now, > > Fresh walnuts made its tongue raw, > > and do even now, > > it had, on every mountaintop, > > the longing for a higher mountain yet, > > and in every city, > > the longing for an even greater city, > > and that is still so, > > It reached for cherries in topmost branches of trees > > with an elation it still has today, > > has a shyness in front of strangers, > > and has that even now. > > It awaited the first snow, > > And waits that way even now. > > > > When the child was a child, > > It threw a stick like a lance against a tree, > > And it quivers there still today. > > > > (Peter Handke) > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You are posting as a guest. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.