Faceless

I’m not understanding your response. Not talking about belief. I am asking if there is no capacity to remember then you don’t know who you are as an ego. Right?

If you had no capacity to recollect past experience, knowledge, through memory would you know who you are?

Without all of that, would you know who you are as the self?

The you, the i, the accumulation of experience, knowledge, memory

Would you say thought is experience, knowledge, memory? What you think is a response to all that memory content, right?

So interpretation (of thought) Is the self different from thought? And isnt thought a reactionary process? can you choose what you think? Is what you think “your thought”?? hello by the zoey

First... Can we find out as to what causes this depression? Where does depression come from? How does it arises, and what nourishes this movement of thinking?

Have you gone into the nature of thinking and its relationship with the self?

Indeed, words/thought cannot touch TRUTH. But communicate we use words, to points to something. And yes thought/words are imposed on to a experiencing, which implies an experience. But I was referring thought itslelf, and usiing thought to communicate. And philosophy (of thought) has noting to do with “TRUTH”...This is obvious. But we are simply communicating, or that is the point is here.

I mean we can say that ones nuanced conceptual systems are only as orderly as one’s order of thinking right?

You have gone into the nature of thought I assume, right?

Yeah, thought cannot touch upon that which is TRUTH/reality, I said that. I didn’t ask about your systems, I was asking if you saw that thought was old, of the past. And that thought is not free, and is determined. Again relatively.

Indeed, (TRUTH) is beyond that which is relative, or causality. That which thought operates on is relative. This is a statement made in the correct and incorrect field. Conceptual truth is not truth at all. We know this buddy. What did you think of the thought being old, never new, and therefore not free, therefore determined? Relatively of course

This is interesting tsuki, I’ll check it out when I get some more time.

Right, free-will ultimately implies there is no freedom at all, But when we cease to act according to will/thought, which is not free, there is FREEDOM.

Here is something i have thought about, let me know what you think.... Thought which is conditioned is one and the same movement of will/the thinker...And “our thought”, which is the result of past thought, implies that “our thought” and the direction in which “we” direct “our will”, is determined. No thoughts are “yours” or “my” thoughts actually. They are the result of past conditioning...In this case thought, will, choice, is determined by collective and personal conditioning, which is followed by action. So that action is not action born of freedom. That action would be determined by the program (conditioning) in which we as “the thinker” responds to. Are we free as the chooser who chooses? The chooser implies division/duality, therefore that chooser acts in accordance to the inevitable contradiction, confusion, and conflict in that concluded notion as the illusory thinker....As long as there is conflict there is fear. So if action is influenced by fear, illusion will always follow. Doesn’t this not imply that all action influenced by thought/will is both determined, and not free at all? To conclude this nightmarish post, if we are seeking security as the i, through identification with thought (desire-will), which is influenced by past conditioning, doesn’t all that ultimately imply determined action? The extent that we are free of thought-time, is the degree in which we are free of will-desire, and therefore free of determined action. Only in this we wouldn’t include the use of the word “will” at all. It would just be FREEDOM. If that makes sense. Lol ?

Yes, great question friend. Hold on give me a sec. toddler is going nuts right now. Lol

The you is an illusion, but that illusion is a fact as well.

Bottom line, we seek security psychologically, we believe in freewill

Right but if you are acting in accordance to the illusion you are still bound by it. This distinguishes the difference between one who embodies no self and one who does not. we may have a conceptualized understanding of the doer is the doing, but we dont see it as a fact. The problem of embodiment

I am just pointing to how we will say one thing and contradict that notion by our action. The subtlety of illusion.

Seeking enlightenment for example implies one is acting in accordance to the illusion of freewill.

If you seek security you see yourself as an independent entity. Action is then influenced by that notion. Make sense? You may not believe in freewill, but your action says otherwise

Even if we say there is no freewill and we seek security in that conclusion that implies we still are caught in the illusion of freewill. For the simple yet subtle fact that we are seeking security. If we were not caught in this illusion we wouldn’t seek psychological security at all. You notice this? I know many ex-Christians who say there is no free will yet seek security in that conclusion. Pisses them off when I point that out. Lol Eventually they appreciate it though. I think ?

Will, volition, desire, the thinker, time, all necessitate the dualistic illusion of freewill.