A Rational Discussion.

[Mathew James]

Top verse Tzu, this should be real good

To settle on the format, Tzu and I will be more focused on the interaction between us. Others are free to do as they please, we may respond or not to others. Our discussion will be framed under the context of a single question at a time, but we are free to explore within that context to understand it better so long as the searching is for a satisfactory answer to the original question. Tzu has proposed at most a 5 day interval between responses, I do not feel like there needs to be a minimal interval so long as we take the time to sit with our response before we submit it. Since this is a back and forth between two, we can use a talking stick format. Our responses will be in two parts. Part 1) an exposition part in where we answer the other's questions and elaborate on our thoughts, and part 2) a question part which may contain one or more, but not more than a few, questions for the other. The asking of questions of the other is to signify the release of the talking stick. If there is any response to the shellings from the peanut gallery, it will be contained in the exposition part of our response. Perhaps it would be best to compose a response in a single post, compiled offline, and then posted all at once. This may lead to some lengthy posts, but it will keep things more organized into the tick-tock progression of this dialectical inquiry.

The format having been agreed upon, we now move to the entertainment of the question we seek a solid understanding for. I posed the question "What is self?" and Tzu responded agreement with the topic of "Self". So I will reframe the question. "How are we to understand self/Self and the penchant for some to harp on no-self?"

Since I am writing now, I will begin my exposition:

This is to be a rational discussion with the goal of obtaining a mental understanding of our true relationship to our selves. As I am not able to experience Tzu's experience as he experiences it, including the experience of himself/herself/itself. (yes I am allowing the possibility Tzu that you might in fact be inhabiting the body of a bearded lady who is also a kung-fu master. I frequently find myself checking to verify my own gender.) As we are not able to share experience and understanding directly, we are left to the craft of word-use to cast images in each other's minds.

I would like to put forward the image of a prism or a crystal. That of a rock or lattice which allows light to pass through its internal structure. If the crystal is like pristine glass, the light shines through without any deformation. If the crystal is like milky quartz, then there is some opacity and much coloring of the light shining through. If there are cracks or aberrations in the crystal then the light is bent and skewed as it travels around these fractures and deformities.

From this image I will propose an analogy to our Mind and Psyche. The light is a standard symbol for the essence of life flowing through and expressing through us. Our mind, body, psyche are the crystal through which life flows, through us and out into the world. Content within the mind colors and deforms the light as it passes through and thus the quality and character of our expressions in the world reflect the quality and character of the content within our minds. Trauma in our youth often fractures the psyche, severely deforming and coloring the light until the fracture is healed. It is the nature of light deformed by fractures to induce fractures within other crystals which have weak internal integrity or are just forming and are highly impressionable.

Let us call the crystal "Self" and the light shining through the crystal the "Expression of Self". Let us call the fractures and internal aberrations "self" and the light warping around and through these the "Expression of self". Let us call the state of a crystal being free of internal fracture and aberration a state of "no-self". Let us call the activity of healing these fractures the process of becoming filled with "less self" or "becoming self-less".

And so when we try to think and reason about our selves significantly, we have created mental content which skews the way light moves through us. In this presentation there is a clear definition of Self, which is the natural expression of who we are when we are unconditioned by belief, thought, pain, trauma, etc. There is also a clear definition of self and no-self. Lower-case self is all the mental ideas and thoughts about who and what we are built up over the years. Thinking about our selves is not the same as expressing the character of Self, the unskewed light of the universe flowing through our particular type of crystal. I prefer to not talk about Self significantly because it clutters and accumulates in the mind as another self. As does being overly-focused on no-self, creating another self within the mind. Being the crystal itself, we cannot really see our Selves, but we are able to be our Selves. What we can see when we look is our accumulated self or lack there of.


Questions:

1) Would you prefer I filter our my humor in our endeavor to have a rational discussion?

2) Is this definition suitable to you? How would you alter it or replace it to ground the meaning of self/Self?

1) I think humor is great in threads. It's good to laugh. I would say your good on that part.

2) I would say there are different aspects that MAKE UP self. But self is the unmanifested. Everything else is aspects that make up self.

Topologys leading the revolution, lol.

hehehe, Moke...



Topology, are those questions directed to Tzu?


Because I have the idea of including this idea of Self-actualization/Self-realization into the discussion, I feel it is a pertinent part of the discussion of Self, kind of the like the other side of the coin to no-self.


Blessings,

E

Greetings..

Originally Posted by Topology

To settle on the format, Tzu and I will be more focused on the interaction between us. Others are free to do as they please, we may respond or not to others. Our discussion will be framed under the context of a single question at a time, but we are free to explore within that context to understand it better so long as the searching is for a satisfactory answer to the original question. Tzu has proposed at most a 5 day interval between responses, I do not feel like there needs to be a minimal interval so long as we take the time to sit with our response before we submit it. Since this is a back and forth between two, we can use a talking stick format. Our responses will be in two parts. Part 1) an exposition part in where we answer the other's questions and elaborate on our thoughts, and part 2) a question part which may contain one or more, but not more than a few, questions for the other. The asking of questions of the other is to signify the release of the talking stick. If there is any response to the shellings from the peanut gallery, it will be contained in the exposition part of our response. Perhaps it would be best to compose a response in a single post, compiled offline, and then posted all at once. This may lead to some lengthy posts, but it will keep things more organized into the tick-tock progression of this dialectical inquiry.

The format having been agreed upon, we now move to the entertainment of the question we seek a solid understanding for. I posed the question "What is self?" and Tzu responded agreement with the topic of "Self". So I will reframe the question. "How are we to understand self/Self and the penchant for some to harp on no-self?"

Since I am writing now, I will begin my exposition:

This is to be a rational discussion with the goal of obtaining a mental understanding of our true relationship to our selves. As I am not able to experience Tzu's experience as he experiences it, including the experience of himself/herself/itself. (yes I am allowing the possibility Tzu that you might in fact be inhabiting the body of a bearded lady who is also a kung-fu master. I frequently find myself checking to verify my own gender.) As we are not able to share experience and understanding directly, we are left to the craft of word-use to cast images in each other's minds.

I would like to put forward the image of a prism or a crystal. That of a rock or lattice which allows light to pass through its internal structure. If the crystal is like pristine glass, the light shines through without any deformation. If the crystal is like milky quartz, then there is some opacity and much coloring of the light shining through. If there are cracks or aberrations in the crystal then the light is bent and skewed as it travels around these fractures and deformities.

From this image I will propose an analogy to our Mind and Psyche. The light is a standard symbol for the essence of life flowing through and expressing through us. Our mind, body, psyche are the crystal through which life flows, through us and out into the world. Content within the mind colors and deforms the light as it passes through and thus the quality and character of our expressions in the world reflect the quality and character of the content within our minds. Trauma in our youth often fractures the psyche, severely deforming and coloring the light until the fracture is healed. It is the nature of light deformed by fractures to induce fractures within other crystals which have weak internal integrity or are just forming and are highly impressionable.

Let us call the crystal "Self" and the light shining through the crystal the "Expression of Self". Let us call the fractures and internal aberrations "self" and the light warping around and through these the "Expression of self". Let us call the state of a crystal being free of internal fracture and aberration a state of "no-self". Let us call the activity of healing these fractures the process of becoming filled with "less self" or "becoming self-less".

And so when we try to think and reason about our selves significantly, we have created mental content which skews the way light moves through us. In this presentation there is a clear definition of Self, which is the natural expression of who we are when we are unconditioned by belief, thought, pain, trauma, etc. There is also a clear definition of self and no-self. Lower-case self is all the mental ideas and thoughts about who and what we are built up over the years. Thinking about our selves is not the same as expressing the character of Self, the unskewed light of the universe flowing through our particular type of crystal. I prefer to not talk about Self significantly because it clutters and accumulates in the mind as another self. As does being overly-focused on no-self, creating another self within the mind. Being the crystal itself, we cannot really see our Selves, but we are able to be our Selves. What we can see when we look is our accumulated self or lack there of.


Questions:

1) Would you prefer I filter our my humor in our endeavor to have a rational discussion?

2) Is this definition suitable to you? How would you alter it or replace it to ground the meaning of self/Self?

If I may, prior to the formal beginnings of this rational discussion, there are several issues that might best be agreed to ahead of the discussion:

1) I am of the opinion that the use of language has morphed over the last few decades, especially in the field of ‘Spirituality’, to surround some words with nearly impenetrable ambiguity.. I would like to suggest that, in the event the interpretations of meanings of words becomes so intractable as to present an obstacle to the progress of the rational discussion, that the Wikipedia definition, specifically the first paragraph prior to the etymology and discussion, be the resolution for meanings presenting an impasse.

2) In reframing your question, “How are we to understand self/Self and the penchant for some to harp on no-self?”, you have asked two somewhat divergent questions. The question, “How are we to understand self”, seems like an appropriate question for this format, and perhaps a segue into the second question you asked. The second question, a function of grammatical placement, is “How are we to understand the penchant for some to harp on no-self?” The second question is more of a subjective study of the psyche, and likely by my accounting to impede the progress of determining how we are to understand self. If you are in agreement, I will agree to ask ““How are we to understand the penchant for some to harp on no-self?”, once we have concluded the discussion about, ““How are we to understand self”.

3) The format seems reasonable, I would like to ask that you rephrase the exposition and question to account for a single version of self. The dual versions, Self/self have already caused a level of confusion as I consider the appropriate structure of a reply. Please be advised that you are dealing with a fairly simplistic thought process in the character of Tzu, and I had hoped the rational discussion might be building blocks for a more sophisticated understanding. I am not opposed to multiple versions of ‘self’ developing as the discussion evolves, but similar to developing the characters in a novel, I am suggesting we create rational reasons for each version and introduce them to the discussion by agreement.

4) Aside from the above, if you wish to rephrase your questions assuming that we may both employ humor to keep a rational discussion sane, please do so.

Thanks for the opportunity, I look forward to the discussion.

Be well..

Greetings..

As an addendum to my previous post.. in no way do i sense this discussion as a conflict or even a debate.. i sense a couple of friends sitting down under a shade tree on a warm summer afternoon with their favorite beverages to discuss a topic respectfully.. to look for common understanding rather than defending or asserting a belief.. to do so, we agree to a format so that we can avoid some of the less productive encounters we have witnessed recently.. i am hopeful others will be equally patient, respectful, and thoughtful in their contributions..

Be well..

I really want to see this dialectic unfold under the shade tree between the two of you without our peanut gallery interruptions, but I admit, it's hard to resist the peanut gallery contributions. Perhaps we could start a concurrent thread titled "peanut gallery to a rational discussion" and anyone who wants to make comments could do so there?

I'm thinking that way you two could read the side commentary as if it was comments appended to a blog that you two are writing together? And you could comment to that thread as you want, without derailing the flow of your dialog here?

Just a humble suggestion...

SQ,

The Mob does as The Mob wills. If you build it, they may come or they may not. Who knows if many others will stick around and be interested enough to want to comment. But i don't see any harm in starting a sister thread for a less formal and less rational discussion than what shall take place here. :)

Enlightener,

the questions were for Tzu. He wanted to have a malleable discussion and less an argument or debate with anyone. At least within this thread I will be more focussed on interacting with Tzu than with anyone else. Perhaps SQ's suggestion would be best to allow me and Tzu to interact with everyone else directly and not derail the focus on the discussion between Tzu and I within this thread. The term of self-actualization has yet to come up, and we shall see if it ever does. I'm afraid this discussion may be slower and more methodical than what most people are used to. :)

Originally Posted by TzuJanLi

Greetings..


If I may, prior to the formal beginnings of this rational discussion, there are several issues that might best be agreed to ahead of the discussion:

1) I am of the opinion that the use of language has morphed over the last few decades, especially in the field of ‘Spirituality’, to surround some words with nearly impenetrable ambiguity.. I would like to suggest that, in the event the interpretations of meanings of words becomes so intractable as to present an obstacle to the progress of the rational discussion, that the Wikipedia definition, specifically the first paragraph prior to the etymology and discussion, be the resolution for meanings presenting an impasse.

If we are focussed on a single definition of terms, I am not comfortable with taking the dictionary or wikipedia as an authority over one's own linguistic map. I would reserve the right to disagree with the usage of the words. But I will also be happy to continue the discussion using the "authoritative" definition provided that I get to repeatedly qualify that it is not how I understand or think of things for myself. I think your proposal in point 3) is adequate. If either one of us feel there is something missing about one definition of self, we can introduce and motivate another. We can then discuss the different definitions, their validity and application. Taking a gander at wikipedia's main page for self, there seem to be three major contexts (Philosophy/Psychology/Religion) which have their own sense and definition of the word.

Originally Posted by TzuJanLi

2) In reframing your question, “How are we to understand self/Self and the penchant for some to harp on no-self?”, you have asked two somewhat divergent questions. The question, “How are we to understand self”, seems like an appropriate question for this format, and perhaps a segue into the second question you asked. The second question, a function of grammatical placement, is “How are we to understand the penchant for some to harp on no-self?” The second question is more of a subjective study of the psyche, and likely by my accounting to impede the progress of determining how we are to understand self. If you are in agreement, I will agree to ask ““How are we to understand the penchant for some to harp on no-self?”, once we have concluded the discussion about, ““How are we to understand self”.

I am in agreement, let us start with the simple and direct question of "How are we to understand self" first and we shall see if it is even worth our time to contemplate the other question afterwards.

Originally Posted by TzuJanLi

3) The format seems reasonable, I would like to ask that you rephrase the exposition and question to account for a single version of self. The dual versions, Self/self have already caused a level of confusion as I consider the appropriate structure of a reply. Please be advised that you are dealing with a fairly simplistic thought process in the character of Tzu, and I had hoped the rational discussion might be building blocks for a more sophisticated understanding. I am not opposed to multiple versions of ‘self’ developing as the discussion evolves, but similar to developing the characters in a novel, I am suggesting we create rational reasons for each version and introduce them to the discussion by agreement.

Sounds good to me.

Originally Posted by TzuJanLi

4) Aside from the above, if you wish to rephrase your questions assuming that we may both employ humor to keep a rational discussion sane, please do so.

Thanks for the opportunity, I look forward to the discussion.

Be well..

Under the adjustments to the format and rephrasing of the initial question, I would like to discard what I've written so far. I may revisit the analogy in the future. But let us start anew and I yield the space to you to begin.

Adolescent self psychology:

As a part of the long and complex process of establishing a separate identity, early adolesants begin to evaluate their own thoughts and perceptions of themselves as well those around them-that is, the "self" becomes the object of examination as well as anxiety and concern. The term SELF will be used to refer to the whole person of an individual-that is, to ideas and feelings one has about ones thoughts, body, appearance, and personal characteristics. The sift to formal operational thinking is a critical cognitive development of adolescence and enables the adolescent to "discover the privateness of his thoughts and social isolation of his reflective self.". Together with the bodily changes associated with puberty, the intensification of sexual and aggressive drives, the influences of parental and peer evaluation and approval, and eventually the need to make decisions about the future, these cognitive changes contribute to the self becoming a crucial focus of awareness. Daydreaming, diaries, and preoccupation with physical apprearance during adolescence all speak to the heightened egocentrism and narcissism of the early adolescent period. The adolescent is typically self-conscious, self-critical, self admiring-in other words in many ways preoccupied with various aspects of this self.

The impelling forces of the need To establish independence and to be free of attachment to parents provide a context of understanding these as well as other narcissistic phenomena which are so much a part of adolescent experience. The adolescents' over-evaluation of the self is at least partially determined by the efforts made to gain emotional independence and represents an adaptation to the disengagement from the parents. Investmentvin the self occurring during adolescence is unattachments by childhood experiences. Never before has it been possible to conceive of oneself to conceive of oneself in terms of a past, present, and future-to view ones life in terms of larger existential issues.


All in all through internal and external stimuli, throughout our life do we create an identity. Adults may face an issue they have not dealt with before, but psychology shows that they solve the arising issue based on past memory. It's a conceptual abstraction. A new way to solve a problem based on past experience even if it is a new issue. There are three theorie. S-R theory or non-mediated view. S-O-R theory or mediated view. And cognitive view. R stands for external stimuli. Our identity is created throughout a lifetime of memory. Spiritually speaking, I'd say what I've created of myself through past experience or my personality, would make up aspects of self. But self is the unmanifested, spiritially speaking.