Telepresent

Hi all, I know this is basic and intellectually obvious, but sometimes we need visceral reminders. I've just been watching a docu-drama about the Sept. 11 attacks from within the WTC. The moment at 54:45 minutes caught me. You don't know what today will bring. Make sure you are doing what you want. Know what it is and find out how to get to it

Something I've not seen/heard anyone talk about before is object permanence: the idea that we learn to conceptually understand that an object, despite being out of our sight, still exists. We're not actually born with this - children below a certain age don't have it, and have to develop it. Now, in purely existential terms, permanence is not true. If you look at a cup then look away, as far as your direct conscious-experience goes, the cup does not exist any more. Look back, there it is again. Same cup? I'll leave that debate alone for now. Suffice it to say that a concept of object permanence is crucial to our navigation of existence. But, ultimately, it's a concept. Just another concept: an idea, a story in the mind. Now, let's turn inwards for a moment. There are two areas this seems to relate to: patterns found in the 'negative space' of reality, and the permanence of the sense of self. First, the negative space of reality. Much of what we 'know' is in fact an inference we are generating from a few points of data. Much like the optical illusions where you see a shape that doesn't 'actually' exist, the majority of our understanding of the world is formed from shapes we're interpreting from the 'negative space' of life. We get a few data points, and infer the rest (often calling upon prior experience) - which is how two people can interpret the same circumstance extremely differently. However, there seems to be a parallel to object permanence here - something we might call 'concept permanence': that once a particular pattern has been identified, it is EXTREMELY difficult to shake, and often becomes set in the mind as 'true', rather than an interpretation of negative space. We often then find further patterns to reinforce it. This seems to be particularly true of patterns relating to one's self-identity: a belief in the concept permanence that nobody likes you, for example, will lead to identification of negative space patterns 'proving' that belief. Other patterns may potentially have been seen, but the permanent concept of your unlikability DEFINED what pattern you saw. The idea of concept permanence is at its strongest when it relates to the sense of a permanent self. It's a lot like looking at the cup: you look away, look back, and it's the 'same' cup. I-thoughts appear to be the same. We move from one thought calling itself 'I', to another, to another, to another, and make the foundational assumption that they are all the same thing, coming from the same source. A permanent I. Concept permanence. But where's the evidence for this? Isn't the I contradictory? Doesn't it believe multiple, irreconcilable things at the same time? Doesn't it want one thing one moment, and another the next? Perhaps it's not that there is a constant I at all, but that our propensity to conceptualise permanence is pulling off a hell of a trick... This is still an area I am exploring, but it's proving very interesting to question what patterns are being inferred from negative space, and particularly to question the apparent permanence of the conceptual I. All thoughts, reactions, responses etc. welcomed and valued!

Oh, God, Journey is incredible. Gaming - as we've just seen - has this stigma of being a waste of time, a distraction, blah blah blah. And yeah, a lot of it might be. But then some of it is ART. And this absolutely is. It's no more a waste of time than going to a gallery, or a concert. It's gorgeous, heartbreaking, meaningful on so many levels, and it's a shame to see people instantly dismiss it without even investigating what it is.

From my experience - which is incomplete - the issue here is that you're approaching questioning with the intent of finding 'the' answer. So you're intellectually approaching your enquiry, with the hope of finding an intellectual solution. So you've been given a pre-packaged answer. You've landed on the problem when you say "I already THINK I'm nothing or awareness..." You think, rather than experience. The thing is, this is a very nuanced and progressive work, and it involves depth and subtlety. As you've mentioned sensations, let's start there. Have you sat down to really, deeply, investigate what a physical sensation IS? What the texture, tone, shape of it is? What part is actually being felt, and which parts are accompanying thoughts (for example, your finger hurts. It's the whole finger. So the pain is in the shape of a finger... is it? Or are you PICTURING a finger because you know that this sensation corresponds to the visual/mental image you have of finger?) Where do thoughts happen? In the plane of experience you have, where do thoughts exist? Where does pain exist? Is it even possible to talk about "where" as if there is a 'true' space within which everything occurs, or is space simply a reference system used to codify the contents of awareness? You have an emotional reaction - is that reaction the deepest truth of itself (for example, yesterday I briefly got angry. I could believe the anger if I wanted, but digging through it, it became clear that I was angry because I felt ashamed, because somebody said something that made me feel stupid, and I have a programmed need to NEVER appear stupid, so the anger rose as a defence mechanism against the vulnerability that was being exposed...) What is sound? What is colour, or shape? And here's a big one: what is nothing? I mean, you've used the word - do you know what it means? Really? Picture nothing right now: you're wrong. That's not it. You CAN'T picture nothing, but you can get a taste of it: click your fingers. Wait a moment. Where is that sound now? Partly it's a memory-thought, and partly... What about with your vision: what is JUST out of your range of sight? You know, that bit that we never really pay attention to, but just in the corner of our eye, the SOMETHING we are seeing disappears into... (You'll know when you hit this for the first time, because it will scare the crap out of you). I hope this helps in some way - I realise it's a bit of a rambling incoherent thing, but there we go. If you struggle with doing this mentally, I suggest writing it down. I find it much easier that way.

Reminded me of this: and then I found this: Fantastic!

This is really important. Frankly, to most people, what we're talking about here sounds kind of nuts - and if you're coming out of a depressive episode, starting to talk about cultivating consciousness or higher awareness or anything like that IS going to sound like you're trying to avoid reality, or looking for magic pills . You can't drop people in the deep end here: I think back to my mindset two years ago, and I'd have thought you're nuts too. But getting to where I am now wasn't one big leap, but lots of little steps. So if you're aiming to reassure people who are worried about you after a depressive episode, I'd suggest you need to talk in their language. I often use mindfulness or CBT (cognitive behavioural therapy) as a starting point: both have the advantage of being 'respectable' in established terms, while containing essences of what we do here. And sometimes I may leave it at that, sometimes I may take things deeper - depends on the person, my relationship with them, and how the conversation naturally progresses. Like Arik said, I've been surprised at the amount of friends I have who are open to these ideas, but you have to feel your way along that path in each conversation, and respect how far other people are willing and able to go. If it's primarily about reassuring people you're ok, though, a lot of the time I'd recommend leaving 'spiritual' stuff at the door and finding a more straightforward way of saying "I'm ok, I know it seems like I haven't been, but I know why that is and I'm working on it: it just takes some time"

@Travis This is something that has run me around in circles a lot as well, and it seems to me the problem comes down to what your idea of 'you' is. You know people say there's no such thing as an 'enlightened person'? It seems that's because the 'person' is the thought-construct, the collection of ideas, impressions, etc., that you mentally carry around with you and designate "I". So when you say "I like this, I don't like that, I want this, I don't want that", it's actually coming from this collection of thoughts, ideas, worries, desires, etc. That's the I, the person, the ego. Then there's enlightenment, which is (broadly and roughly speaking) transcending that / not believing in it any more. I'm starting to see glimpses of this: how a lot of the time when my mind talks about "I, I want, I like, I need..." it's little more than a thought, and doesn't have any real substance. Which taken to an extreme suggests the whole person has no substance. Doesn't exist. So how can that collection of ideas - that person - want to not be believed in any more? To not exist? And to top it off, a great deal of our emotional attachments - whether goals, or relationships, or whatever - are directly tethered to that idea of 'I'. So once it's surpassed, how can you guarantee the things you like/want/need now, will remain that way? So I think that's the issue: they're literally talking about two different beings. The one that can never be enlightened, which cannot want what enlightenment really is. And if you're more or less content in your emotionally-attached life, why should you want to mess with that? You're going to die anyway, right? It's not going to last forever. So why not enjoy it while it's here? All of it, all of experience, the ups and the downs? It's a privilege to have them. The other being, the one that is enlightened - which is not the you who is translating and interpreting these words - well, that's a whole different state of affairs. But it seems like it can never believe in the trials and tribulations of 'normal' life ever again. And maybe, despite whatever goodies enlightenment may bring, that might also seem like a bit of a wasted opportunity? All of this is supposition, of course, but that's the sense I've managed to make of it!

@Pablo Neirotti I've been wrestling with similar issues: I'm in the third quarter of an immensely long and difficult project, which has been a huge emotional burden and now realise I first went into it (three years ago) because I thought it would make me important and special and clever and blah blah blah. However, it's also in a field I love, and I've often said to people that if I was given all the money in the world, I would still want to work in this area, simply because it fascinates me and I find so much beauty in it. So now I'm trying to orient my exit from this project so that I'll still be working in this field (as Mal says, got to eat!) but not nearly with such hyper-intensity, or such ego-driven goals in mind. Just to work in it to play with it, explore it, and enjoy the opportunity to do so while I'm here. Yeah, there's ultimately no point to it: that doesn't mean that it can't be enjoyed while it's happening!

There's a really important question here that you need to answer - for yourself - about why you're meditating. Everyone will have their individual reasons, and those reasons are what will keep you going in harder periods. BUT, in order for that to really keep you going, your reasons have to be strong enough to keep you slugging through when it's not smooth. So if you're into it because you're curious about some cool or interesting insights, maybe that's not enough for you. Or maybe you pictured a fast turn-around in terms of results, and you're starting to feel frustration that it doesn't seem to be happening (if that's the case, I completely get it - I've been plugging away at various self-improvement areas for YEARS and it sometimes feels like I haven't taken a single step. That can be immensely frustrating, and yeah I sometimes want to throw in the towel. It's countered, though, by moments when I suddenly realise how far I've come!) So I think the answer has to come from you, in terms of how important the potential pay-off could be for you. If you haven't already watched it I'd recommend Leo's 'Be Fucking Patient!' video - certainly helped me out last time I was flagging

As we all know, discussion of this stuff is massively hampered by the problem with the word 'I', and its relatives: you, me, my, etc. And I've (ha) come to realise that this is a much more important and difficult hurdle than I've been giving it credit for. In fact, it may be pivotal. The big problem is that we're hearing someone say "your true nature is...", and we translate that through the matrix of our own internal "I". But the "I" doing the translation is not the "you" being referred to. And this is a major issue, because no matter how much one meditates, no matter how much one contemplates or journals, no matter how many articles are read or videos watched, if the "I" re-interprets things in its own terms, everything will remain concept and everything will not be true. And the thing is that we seem to have it ass-backwards. We conceive of this "I" somewhere behind the eyes, between the ears, which does the watching and the listening and the thinking and all the rest, which makes decisions and blah blah blah. But where is it? Where is it? Where is behind the eyes? Where is between the ears? Point it out to yourself. Find it, right now, in your experience. Where actually is it? And now, where is everything else that you experience? It's right there. You don't have to try, you don't have to search or look or anything - it's just there. And yet we tell ourselves we are not that stuff, but somehow we are this thing that we can't find. That, right there, is - I think - the crux of this "you/I" problem. The message refers to one, but is received and interpreted through the lens of the other. The I that I think I am is not awareness. It is not one-ness, or god-mind, or infinite. It's even weirder than that: it's not there at all. I believe I am it and yet it doesn't exist! Except - and this is crucial - as concept. But what concept? Why? As best as I can fathom right now, it's a reference point. THE reference point. Everthing we understand is understood in relativity, and all relativity ultimately leads back to "I". It's the lens through which the body/mind can interpret, understand, and abstract. Can learn "this feeling means I'm hungry", "if I put my finger in fire I'll get hurt", or "if I go over there and try to take that guy's stuff, he'll hit me in the face". Through which we understand past, present, future. Through which we can empathise with others. It's very necessary to the functioning of the organism. But the crazy thing about evolution is that it doesn't favour truth, it favours fitness for survival (there's a really interesting TED talk about that - he's talking about vision mostly, but you can extrapolate the concept out to the very notion of self). What this is leading me towards is two very interesting conclusions. The first is that I have so far mostly been attempting to resolve ideas, concepts, and experiences through a conceptual relationship with this imagined "I", in the realm of "behind-the-eyes": it's a deeply ingrained habit which is extremely tricky to break, because all references lead to "I". So everything that I've come to recognise, even some fascinating experiences I have had, have ultimately been interpreted back into the imagined I. If it's not now, if it's not simply and directly experienced, it ain't the thing. The second conclusion has to do with effort, and resistance. I've been trying, and trying, and trying to see through the illusion of I. And that seems so, so foolish: reality is right there. Right there. Don't have to try. Where is this effort going, then? Understanding, understanding, conceptualising and bargaining. Trying to reconcile direct experience with conceptual self. The silly thing is, the more effort I'm putting in, the more I'm digging into the realm of imaginary concepts. Madness. If anything, I now have to learn how to do, while dialling back the effort... Everything is backwards: the interior "me" is not, while the exterior experience (which I currently still designate "not-me") is. Effort, which I am so used to being the path to results, is pulling me further away from reality. The I that wants cannot have, and the I that is does not want - it already is. Madness!

@Leo Gura Hi Leo. Thanks for this reply - it's really helpful encouragement. It's that eternal trap of trying to understand, isn't it? Trying to turn this awareness thing into an IDEA, because I seem to think that's the only way I can grasp onto it... And I suppose maybe that's the point - "I" can't grasp onto it. Ah, got lots of nothing to do!

@Travis If you can allow the time for this without damaging your life circumstances, I expect it will be hugely useful. I put that caveat in there as, if your life is anything like mine, we have commitments and responsibilities and so on which may bring problems if we neglect them. It's all well and good talking about what is real and what is not, but while I still physically and psychologically rely on my work, I'd better do my work! I've had a couple of periods in this journey where I've become really excited about something, and neglected to keep on top of my work and social/relational obligations for a week or two, and it's always come back to bite me: more stress, more upset, more running around trying to pick up pieces. So I'd say beware of that! The other thing I've come to realise is that practice does not have to involve epic sitting and nothing else. This certainly has its place, and if you can make the time (or recognise when it might be a more valuable use of your time than, say, playing computer games or watching crappy tv) then I expect it can only be positive. But there's also something to be said for recognising the constancy of experience: that it's always there to be noticed, no matter what. I've certainly noticed that I can fall into a habit of focussing very deliberately when meditating/contemplating, and then as soon as I get up all that goes out the window and I'm right back in the middle of monkey-mind-ego. Which is a bit silly really. So I suppose I'm talking about the need for a kind of witnessing: certainly in the last couple of days as I've been feeling around this area, I've been keeping an eye focussed on this idea of effort while going about my daily routine - that if I'm feeling strong resistance or emotional effort, then that's worth stepping back and witnessing and just questioning where my psychological energy is going. And yeah, just trying to softly observe without defining, without relating to rules or ideas or boundaries. I'm becoming very wary of words like 'presence', 'non-attachment', 'non-judgement', as each of those brings forth an idea in my mind, and if I'm not careful I become more focussed on that idea than the reality it attempts to represent (and ultimately fails to). But on the other hand, they're decent words for communicating that free, gentle observation, which is clearly of central importance. I suppose so long as we keep ourselves oriented towards the doing, rather than the idea of the doing, then we're doing ok... I have no idea if that last bit makes any sense!

My head is not my head My hands are not my hands Sensations within a sensory world Corresponding to something 'out there'? Perhaps, but not the thing. The greatest trick the devil ever pulled was convincing the world he did exist And here I am the devil Slamming an imaginary head against metaphorical walls While the walls are made of sensation of skull and skin But not really there because My head is not my head. And talk of all-as-one and I-am-all Useless while playing with the sensory me The me of perception and imagination and metaphor Glued together with emotional bonds This body is not a body These thoughts are not in this head And the suggestion that all I see is within my head Is useless while my head is not my head. My head, my not-a-head Contained within the sensory world itself With thought-words ascribing that this is my head And thoughts and imaginations trying to connect how All I see and all I feel is in my head While my head is within all I see and feel And so my head is within my head? No. My head is not my head My hands are not my hands My body is not my body And if there is an 'out there' It is not here And if there is a real body It is not here. And perspective is a key An artificial perspective Drawn of lines in the sand 'Me' and 'not me' Lines of thought Lines of habit Lines of learning. But 'out there' is also 'in here' The same sensory place Even if all in my head, my real head Then the walls the limits the ends are invisible (Or not there?) And my head, my false head Is a trick sitting within my real head. My head is not my head My hands are not my hands My body is not my body And whether or not there is an 'out there' A 'real body' or a 'real world' This is not it.

And that's really the fight right there, isn't it? The constant attempt to recognise to really feel that this is all sensation and therefore not real this is all perception and therefore not real that there may be a real but this is not it and all the thoughts and all the imaginings and all the feelings and all the rest are just perspectives just interpretations that's all they all are just interpretations given meaning because that's what we do given patterns because that's what we do but overall and all not true not the thing never the thing And I cannot stay this body if I want to move on I cannot stay this identity if I want to move on The precious imiginings that 'I' might survive Might be somehow made bigger and better And connected with all And negative feelings and emotions And positive emotional identities Will have to be put aside. For as long as I identify with my not-me Then I will be restricted and small and believing non-truth Contained and restrained as a tiny point within a large and separate other. And yet having ventured out and returned I find 'myself' wanting The thoughts once again demanding Return! Return! We must try and struggle and fight to get back But the thoughts cannot go The I cannot go It still clings still fights to its imagined salvation. And fears arise "Wasting time! Wasting time! All the things you have to do!" Clawing like harpies grasping at my back Dragging me in, in, into the head the head that is not a head but the more inside the more solid the more real it all feels inside the thoughts the fears the have-to's and need-to's and time ticking away tick tick tick and another objective between lunch and emails cannot be treated as such Locked in time is locked in false Locked in fear Locked in locked in locked in. A whole world, a whole world around the 'me' A whole world ready to be felt If 'I' just let go Just release that grip Just calm that fever to cling to cling To be in control. 'I' claiming it wants to be free but the freedom is restricted the freedom to control to only have what is wanted to not accept and not allow to demand and to cry out "THIS IS NOT RIGHT!" and be heard. But what but who is there to listen? Only 'I'. Screaming at itself, over and over. Thirty-one years of screaming And never one of listening. Believing thoughts believing divisions Believing lines drawn in imagination Believing Believing Believing.

Ok, this is fresh and I'm writing it pretty much to clarify it for myself! So apologies if it doesn't make sense... The mind is essentially a pattern-creating machine. It gets small pieces of data, and creates hypothetical models based upon them. Case in point, the Necker Cube: The cube doesn't exist in that image, right? It's a hypothetical cube, created by our mind's tendency to create patterns from raw and incomplete pieces of data. And it's actually really hard to look at and not see the cube: that's how intrinsic our pattern-making machine's operation is. It actually takes more focus to see what's really there, than to see what isn't there. Now, expand this concept out. Connect it to how you experience life. You have a few 'data points': sight, sound, smell, taste, touch, internal sensation, emotional energy, and thought. And from these, oh boy... EVERYTHING ELSE. But look closely, look really closely, and something odd starts to become apparent: almost everything we think about, act upon, fear, love, engage with - in short, everything we think we experience - exists in the gaps. In the negative space between the data points. Very little is actually what IS: it's the thoughts and judgements about what is, the projected/imagined future consequences (often established from patterns interpreted from past events). It's the "what does this mean?" instinct, rather than "what is this?" In other words, it's an incredibly complicated hypothetical pattern. In other words, I'm living in a hypothetical world. A hypothetical person, living a hypothetical life, in a hypothetical world. Blimey.

I'm also spending a moment here to extend this thought experiment out: turning mug/table into "mugetable", then adding the book next to them, and the remote control next to them - hell, let's just do the whole room - and now we've done that let's go for the whole house... and before too long everything becomes one thing. Of course it does. One big jumbled dance of whatever. In all kinds of colour and sound and scent and all the perceptual elements you can think of, but it's all one cat (to pinch a phrase from Alan Watts). But funnily not the universe as is commenly thought of: not a huge space 'containing' everything. Containment doesn't fit here. I like this experiment.

Dammit @StephenK, you're good at this! This is all connecting to a TED talk I saw recently which provided a real 'aha!' moment. The gist is that this guy has modeled that evolution not only doesn't guarantee that our sensory interpretation of the world is 'accurate', but that it actively works against accuracy: that shortcuts, simplifications and symbolic representations are selected-for, and that organisms that see things more accurately go extinct. In other words, our perception is most likely the product of millions of years of evolution geared towards fitness for survival, rather than truth. Makes sense. And I wonder if this talk stops short of the biggest implication. Because he talks about how we don't see the world accurately, but doesn't talk about how we THINK. The possibility that our entire mode of conceptualising, understanding, pattern-making, etc., may be entirely at odds with objective reality is hugely liberating. It seems we mostly go about imagining that, ok, we might not quite see accurately (i.e. "how can I know your red is the same as my red?") but that's it's mostly accurate. And this shit goes frighteningly deep. Because there comes a point where you have to start asking whether any of the basic principles we take for granted - including matter and energy - are true. Which is where it gets really tricky, because again dropping them leaves a hole, and we don't have anything to fill that hole with (of course, the question is "does it need to be filled?") But using the analogy from that TED talk, if we percieve matter and energy as being constituent elements of the universe, but everything within perception is the equivalent of a computer's GUI compared to its source code... how do we know that the source code of the universe has anything remotely close to 'matter' or 'energy' running the show? It's back to that idea that all I can know for certain is that experience is. Everything else, drawn back far enough, becomes an interpretation. And yet, I'm so deeply enmeshed in these interpretations, I KNOW there are many more to be worked through!

Thank you for this reply, @StephenK - I've been trying to deal with relativity and what I'm calling 'heirarchical/relative mapping' for a while now, and the visceral application or reality of perspective/context, but this simple description summarises it perfectly. But the step I hadn't taken yet was your next point. Instead, it seems, I have been attempting to establish a 'deeper truth' of each something I see, hear, etc. - some kind of absolute that I can hold onto (i.e. some more 'advanced' version of 'the mug is hard') Of course the really interesting thing here is that without perspective, there is no absolute. Wait... hang on... [at this point I go off on a bit of a stream-of-consciousness. Sorry if it reads a bit weird, but I needed to write out what I was working out, and it felt best to leave here] Extrapolation: "I" is a perspective. It is also a product of perspective - self-defining particular sensory attributes to itself as an absolute thing. God, what even is a thing? I've been tied up in knots trying to understand something/nothing, but they're both objective approaches aren't they? Both definitions, both bordered with start and end and perspective and definition. Mind stuff, not true, can't be true, only the extrapolations from the negative space... Ok, wait. I is a self-perpetuating, self-referencing, and self-constructing objective perspective? Perspectival object? Things, there's something important in things. What is it what is it what is it? WAIT! Objective reality. Always believing things have objective reality. Rejection of one objective reality with the expectation of a replacement. What do I mean, what am I saying? Ok, let's say I'm English. Part of my identity, right? Not an absolute truth, of course, but a label used to categorise and stereotype and put me in a particular box with particular expectations and... and what? And we reject this notion and we say that it's just an idea just a thought a concept and we throw it aside all proud of ourselves. But there's still a hole there, isn't there? A hole where it used to be. A hole of identity, and on a very deep level we're waiting for something better, something bigger, something else to come and fill the hole. Another thing. Another bloody thing. Only... all the things are mind-objects, aren't they? All relative definitions in one way or another. All false. In absolute terms, all false, because they all rely on relativity to be considered anything. Everything sodding everything full of these MADE of these. Object, object, even just looking at the mug and thinking OBJECT. What is object? Isolated, culled from what is around it by mental lines edges beliefs assumptions shit. Always this idea this idea that there is SOMETHING. Of course cannot deny experience that is but the SOMETHING: sneaky little mind-objects. Sneaky little buggers. Just the word: some thing. Thing. In isolation, in separation. Ah, man, I need to sit with this a bit.

Brilliant @Buld, thank you - I'll look into that! A quick search brough this series of lectures up: having neither read the book nor watched these yet, I have no idea if they expand further on the ideas in the book, but I figured you might want to have a look too!

Ok, fair warning: this post is a little long! I've had a very interesting morning so far. I have an autolysis practice which I do (at least) every morning. Today something lifted for a little bit. I've considered trying to summarise or explain it, but I think the best way to share it is actually to copy the raw text that I was writing as it happened; a kind of real-time documentation of my attempt to work through it. This hasn't been edited, so please excuse any proofing errors, etc. Also, it's not exactly written to be read, so might be a bit incoherent at times! *** So there’s something happening other than thought. This space (for want of a better word) within which thought arises. Also the same space within which sight, sound, the rest, arise. Easy to think of sensations as more real than thought, or as prior to thought, to hierarchise them, but they’re all arisings (something in me wanted to say ‘energetic’ arisings then – and my thinking stopped it). So there’s a something – that something is these sensations arising. Any interpretation of them – even the most basic, this is a body, this is my body – come from and through thought/mind. Constructs, concepts. Useful, but mind stuff. Contents. So what actually are the sensations – what are they made of? Where do they come from, where do they go? We’ve fobbed ourselves off by saying ‘colour, shape, tone, pitch, texture, temperature, etc.’, but those are descriptions, labels, more mind-stuff. Shortcuts meaning we don’t need to look closer. Dismissals. And here the mind chips in with pre-ready answers: awareness, consciousness, energy, the ocean. All names for things that I don’t know, haven’t experienced directly. Avoidances. What actually are these sensations? What are they made of? So full of myths. So full of ideas. Writing in the hope that it’s not a distraction, but a getting out of the system. Trying to align my experience with the ‘path’ laid out by McKenna (what would he say to that? Kill Jed McKenna, probably). Constantly wondering if I’m nearly ‘there’. About to launch into an imagined something. Imagining being seen, adored. The movie of my life, right? Interesting how thought pulls me back into a position of being ‘inside’ body. Whereas when thought is not thought, there isn’t… it’s not even that I’m ‘outside’ body. There just isn’t that dynamic at play. It’s a non-issue. And of course not how the mind imagines. Because the mind tries to locate. The mind tries to place this and that. Drawing boundaries, drawing barriers. Now imagining other people reading this – want to suddenly be seen as great or smart or wise or some other crap. Filtering filtering Constantly, constantly, feel that? Over and again: expand, thought, SUCK! back into body-mind. I, I, I, I, I, all the thoughts all of them each one predicated on central I figure even if not saying I each one pulling sucking back inwards inwards rebuilding the concept the structure every single time “What is this song?” reduces sound to defined structure of song spatio-temporal object being listened to by body-mind ‘me’ Reducing it reducing it Still imagining a future of being great Particular section of visual sensation called ‘fly’ – separated from the rest and defined, observed in relation to my separate body Where does this come from? What is it made of? What the hell is it? “What’s the name of this song?” See the division there? The sounds changed and you’ve given them a barrier. The end of one thing and the start of another. All one stream of sound, demarked by rules of where song starts where song stops what song is named. Don’t fall into excitement. Excitement lives in future, in thought. “Am I about to?” Irrelevant See the separation there? Now and future. I am no not and I am about to. Where is the line between now and about to? The same as the line between two songs? But the line between two songs is man-made: the sound-stream just continues. What is it made of? Misleading question. Suggests substance. Suggests an ‘underneath’ that it’s possible to break through to. Not quite, not quite. In and of raw truth. Raw is. Too conceptual. Trying to define Back into “I” thinking “I” building “I” through thought identification each thought saying “I” called “I” calling itself “I” and linking to every other thought calling itself “I” as if there is a constant as if there is an ongoing “I” and not just this fucking pile of thoughts all calling themselves “I” all holding hands with one another and pretending they’re one big booming monster Every thought a definition a separation inherent lines and boundaries and separations and concepts and constructs and objects and dividing and splitting and breaking breaking breaking everything apart Five senses. Five senses. Five senses. Right? Right? Really? One field. One ‘space’. Different qualities, different types, different forms. But are they five or are they all part of the same thing? (Thoughts, as well!) Phasing back and forth back and forth into mind out of mind. Mind is not happy. Mind is bothered and confused and wants to get into petty dealings of the day. Something else is happy or maybe happy isn’t the right word but it is right it is raw it is Indefinable But kind of wants to cry Look at this. Just look at it. How cool is this? Just stop believing the “I”. Just for a minute. What a trick. What a clever fucking trick. “I” is not just me, is it? Not just thoughts and body, but every piece of separation. For “I” to exist, there must be separation. So the printer, the laptop, the mug, the song, the ache in my foot, the pillow, the bag, the television, the wall, the tree – in all these things being separate things, there must also be a ‘me’. Separate, separate everything, and separate me at the centre. Even trying to name this thing this process this experience is separating it through defining it. Making it a spatio-temporal finite experience, which by definition will end and return to ‘normal’ or to ‘me’. Still imagining futures constantly imagining futures. So easy, so easy and tempting to fall back into. So easy and tempting to believe the fear, the fear of need to have to got to must do must do this thing time ticking away going to mess everything up got to get on with work got to do all the things or the world will end Doing doing doing the doer always doing. I the doer. Without doing, without thinking about doing, without planning doing, without avoiding doing, what am I? Lost it. See – now in the past, in the past, only a thought a memory where has it gone? Not gone, not gone, can’t be gone; the layers have come down and obscured it again. The boundaries. Boundaried objects, boundaried time, boundaried definitions, boundaried me. Treating as bad. Not bad, no such thing as bad. Subjective. Thought-game. Just is.

Something that demonstrates this, that people generally don't consider, is that clocks don't actually measure time: they measure other clocks. That is, time experienced is not an absolute or a constant, but it is relative. So you can't actually 'measure' time, because it's a subjective experience. So what do you do? You have one clock somewhere, which you call 'correct', or 'absolute', and all other clocks then measure time relative to that central clock. But - actually - how long is a second? Ask a fly, ask a tortoise, ask someone who is bored, ask someone who is sitting on a hot stove, ask two lovers together, ask someone who is leaping out the way of a speeding car...

I think there's a problem people come across, which is effectively trying to do everything at once. Trying to take one giant leap, when you may need many small steps. So, in this case, I see people who hear about this idea that the 'real "I"' is awareness, and they try to break straight through into that. Problem with doing that is that you have a very strongly reinforced pre-concept about what "I" is, and so you may be trying to bring that with you... trying to make the two fit together. Certainly I have spent a lot of time doing that. Perhaps another approach is to spend some time just gently questioning what exactly you think "I" is, right now. Don't worry about outcomes, or enlightenment, or anything like that: just pay attention to what is happening every time you think "I". Something like: "I need to go to the shops". Ok, what just happened? There was a thought, the thought referred to some kind of concept or idea of a central being, attached to that thought, called "I". It also stated that "I" needs to do something. So what is the "I" concept to which it refers? Do I actually know for certain? If not, how might I begin working it out? What do I believe I am, and what evidence for that belief is there? Is there any evidence which contradicts it? Etc. If it sounds like a slow process, that's because it is. It's not going to result in a sudden flash of realisation. But, like the turtle, slow and steady wins the race, and if you keep interrogating yourself and your "I" thoughts/understandings, you'll slowly come to a much, much clearer understanding of what you (and other people) mean when they say "I", and what it might mean in different contexts.

If I can throw in my two cents on this: I'm not a fan of the term 'enlightenment'. I'm not 'seeking enlightenment'. The reason being that the term enlightenment is such a convoluted mess of concepts and ideas that it's impossible to even say without conjouring up all kinds of (often contradictory) mental constructs, images, and abstractions about what it really is. What I consider myself to be doing is trying to work out what is absolutely true in my experience. Maybe that will lead to what people call enlightenment, maybe it won't. But whether or not I 'reach' it (another tricky term), what this process has done is given me a far, FAR greater understanding of my sense of self, how my mind works, how I react emotionally to all kinds of things, how my emotions relate to thoughts and actions (both mine and others'), how I relate to and understand other people, how I understand the world around me... Now, I consider that to be of IMMENSE value, whether or not I 'reach enlightenment'. It makes daily life easier to deal with, it makes difficult situations easier to deal with, it helps me to be much calmer and have far fewer negative emotions, and I often feel absolutely great for no external reason: I just feel great. However, the process is also very hard. I've said elsewhere that I am primarily focussed on Spiritual Autolysis as described by Jed McKenna, who describes it as 'like a zen koan on steroids'. It is a rather extreme form of self-enquiry, and it leads you to question very, very fundamental things about how you understand the world, and yourself. And that can at times be very emotionally difficult. A lot of the time you feel stuck, or frustrated, or like you're smacking your head against a brick wall. And it takes time, and committment, and quickly turns into a drive so that it's the only thing you want to focus on (which means you need to be disciplined enough to do it alongside work, personal commitments, etc.) I had a lot of emotional issues a few years ago, which is what led me to start on the self-development road. I agree that I would not have been able to do this when I was in that part of my life. Meditation and mindfulness would have been extremely helpful, but the places the deep self-inquiry take you? I'm not sure I would have been emotionally ready for that. So... what's my point? I guess that whether this leads to an ulitimate somewhere or not, it comes with its own benefits that I think can't be achieved through more foundational self-development work or meditation practices, but that it is HARD WORK, and absolutely I think that you need to be in a sturdy place emotionally before embarking on it. At least, that's my opinion!

I'm going to struggle to articulate this correctly, so bear with any rambling. I've been focussing on two questions recently: what is emotion, and where does sensation come from/go? So I've played with a little thought-experiment, which for a moment felt like it opened a door to something important, but I'm still trying to recognise it properly. Throwing it out here... I'm not sure why. To see. Emotion appears to be a name we give to states of energy - some high, some low, some intense, some calm, but it all seems to be various waves of energetic sensation. Which leads to the question, does the energy ever go away? Answer: no (or at least I've never experienced it, and doubt that it's possible to and still be alive). So we've got a permanent something (metaphorical ocean, perhaps) we call energy, which rises and falls and manifests in different ways and we call that emotion. What happens if we extend the manifestations of the metaphorical ocean to include other forms of sensation? Light and sound and friction and thought... arisings and fallings and eddies and flows and peaks and crests and troughs of this metaphorical ocean we call energy? (Or perhaps it goes by other names too) Where does a wave come from, and where does it go? The permanence, the ocean. Where do sensations come from, and where do they go? Into the ocean. I feel like I'm on the edge of something big, but I haven't got quite there yet...

@Saarah No idea! And I wouldn't want to speculate until I have a better sense of it. @99th_monkey Thank you. There's a hell of a something here to dip into: it's good to get encouragement to feel my way into it! @HereNowThisMoment Tracing back as far as I can, and stillness... there's something extremely potent there. Ties into that sense of constancy, what we were talking about elsewhere about the core of Now; how all the manifestations, all the sensations and thoughts and perceptions, are inherently temporary and therefore can't be the absoluteness of the present. It's all the same thing: the waves, the manifestations, compared to the constancy, the stillness... And here's me trying to put into words something that seems like it can't really be conceived in thinking. I think I have some sitting to do!