Faceless

This has to do with what was written about psychological time(fear in movement), always moving from A (the fact), to B (the abstraction(of thought). Can that movement of time as “the i” be observed from moment to moment??

Out of thought is born “the i”, but the i acts by the notion that it itself stands independent of thought. Such action brings about the inevitable action-reaction response, which further feeds the illusion of i, and also perpetuates this sequential movement of thoughts that arise one after another.

As to identify implies psychological dependence on the known(thought). Impermanence in search for permanence, psychological insecurity seeking psychological security. Self feeding illusion. Thought implicitly sets the limit and continuously transcends that limit.

In the observation/seeing of this movement is the ending of that movement... Thought is movement(time), acting and reacting continuously... If there is no such movement, “the i” is not

Indeed.. As effort, motive, intent, are implicit within this conditioned movement of thought.

After this content is read it will be made into a concept. That’s not the point here. The point of this is to point to inward movement itself. To observe thought/self as a unitary movement from moment to moment. Content-thought/knowledge cannot do this, content-thought is only concerned with, and can only deal with content.

Freud? I don’t know what that is.. model? Well I would say we are not using a model as in accordance to some precostructed concept. We’re not expecting answers. We are not looking for solutions, but just to observe the fact-understand what is the case. The thread is to build interest in self understanding. Not understanding according to content but simply watching movement. When I look at thought-self I don’t look through the veil of content-thought, being knowledge. That would be content, which is static/old, which is then attempting to make sense of something that is dynamic and in an ongoing-continuous process of change. Therefore this is about observation of the movement of thought/self. We are using thought to write here on the forum, but to observe the movement of thought, thought as in past concepts, theory’s, philosophy is not used. This observation may be more difficult if we always look through the veil of conditioned thought. To observe ourselves in accordance to that content of thought is to not actually observe ourselves as we are, or what is actually happening, but to observe ourselves through the eyes-lens of another. Either way “my” or “your” lens or another’s lens, all lenses being content accumulated which responds as thought. Is that clearer, friends?

Anyway we are not concerned with truth or even order in this thread, but looking to discuss that which is disorder-(this movement of fragmentation). This can be seen directly in observation, or the book self-thought(the book of i).

In short. The old is the veil that acts as a barrier to truth or order if we are speaking of entropy. If I am even using that term correctly ?

what is meant by ‘truth is dynamic’ is truth is alive. Truth cannot be contained by that of memory/knowledge(thought), that which is dead, old, non-living. That which is old (of memory- being static) (as in content of thought) perpetually projects itself in place of each new dynamic happening. So we can never meet the new without limit. Limit being the past(thought-self). We also project that content onto each other in relationship. This causes this disorder in relationship. We impose our own image on the other. This is the same pattern of trying to meet the NEW (alive-active movement of the self, which is always changing, with that of the old (static content of memory-what has been). That which we have recorded about that individual. We then never meet that person actually. We then meet others with our idea, image, of them. Which is not meeting then, not being in relationship actually. Are we meeting?

I’m not sure what you meant by entropy as I am not familiar with many concepts as I have read no books. I have looked up entropy just now and got a slight glimpse at what is meant by that term. I wrote this in another thread a day or two ago. As of now I see a slight similarity to what I have said countless times from observation, in regard to the relation to this term entropy. I was hesitant to post this here, but it does is direct relationship with his phenomenon of fragmentation. What does it imply when we ask how to do this, or how do I do this? Is it the accumulation and response of experience, knowledge, memory(thought) “the i”? And isn’t thought always old, dead, static? If I ask (how to), isn’t that pulling what has been in the past (accumulation of thought, and “I”, also of thought, am looking to apply that towards Truth, which is dynamic? To ask how to implies the aquistiton & application of thought-self which is of the past, which is static, thought is never new/dynamic...So when I ask how to in order to get this, “sacred Truth”, which is always new, I am pulling from that which is old (thought). Therefore the old is simply carried over on top and in place of, that which would have made room for “the newness-aliveness of now”. So to pull from the old (static), is to project the old. Or as I have said to project ones own personalized (static), version of truth. This could be an example of this movement towards entropy-disorder. Like I said I’m not familiar with many concepts. But all of this can be Directly observed in the movement of thought-self.

Perhaps any movement of this “i” is itself a fragmented movement, and nourishes further fragmentation by continuing to move within the limitation of fragmentation. Can one see that any action by “the i” sustains the i? The question is can this be seen for ones self.

The contradiction of the center or “I”, moving from that fragmented state to wholeness. The means (the accumulation of knowledge, experience, memory), and the response-application of thought, (content-guidance), in the form of practices, routines, systems that pursues the goal. Is it possible that the utilization of the means, (content-guidance-path), actually nourishes the continuity of self(psychological time)? Is the accumulation-conformity too, and application of that content-guidance/path, with all its implications, actually one and the same movement? Interesting Questions to anyone interested

@MiracleMan I can see you have put some energy into this. That’s very important indeed. What you have written in response can really move along the thread. So if we can I would like to go one step at a time with what you wrote. If that is ok. This thread is mostly about understanding the reality of illusion/self deception or moving in accordance to incomplete or contradictory action. That being said, seeing the fact of all these traps and “the selfs” mechanical/habitual compulsion to be influenced by them, wouldn’t then a holistic understanding-attention/awareness to those traps as they arise be beneficial and therefore imply freedom to act without the burden of those traps? Would it be intelligent to say that awareness is freedom?

I stand behind everything I write here on the forum. If one reads very carefully with ‘actual attention’ to what I write, one will then understand that improving the practical-functional aspect of ones life is a necessity if they feel that way of course. Leo is great at this indeed. But what I share has to do with self improvement psychologically. To understand the illusion of psychological growth, psychological progression. I have said many times to cultivate thought in practical/functional affairs is healthy if that is what one wants, but to cultivate thought in the attempt to bring about psychological order, well, I feel responsible in sharing the falseness of that with fellow me’s. You can cut and paste away... I’m a roast, baste me?

It’s important to understand we are not offering another way of meditation here, but to understand (bring attention/awareness too), the entity that meditates. This way meditation is not reduced to mechanical/habitual dependence. Therefore a conflict breeder, and therefore the opposite of why one meditates in the first place.

@Feel Good first off you have specificity said you want nothing to do with me before. So why the contact? Second, actually read what was written above. I never said don’t meditate, but simply sharing how the self seeks security in thought. If ones sees the significance of this, meditation is effortless, a joy, and beautiful in and of itself. Also, after seeing the whole of this psychological becoming in time, all other mechanical behavior ceases instantly in ones daily life.

Even meditation can become a mechanical process of the self seeking security in thought. A movement of psychological becoming by “the illusory I”. Any time there is this attempt to evade the fact of psychological insecurity, implies that the entity as “the i” is stil deeply identified with thought and therefore is nourishing the false division between the meditator and the process of meditation. Can there be an attention of this movement to evade the fact of insecurity and chase the idea of security? And can we see that to indulge in this mechanical pattern actually feeds this action-reaction pattern of psychological time, and therefore the illusion of self?

Ok

Attention ??‍♂️

Thought happening now is the response of the past(experience, knowledge, memory). So what this movement of thought/thinking “now” is of the old. Thought is conditioned from the past. That’s for you to look into more. You must be able to see it yourself. It all goes together. My intention was to show that we must understand the reality of illusion. As your tittle was, “How do I know if I am manipulating myself”??

What does it imply when we ask how to do this, or how do I do this? Is it the accumulation and response of experience, knowledge, memory(thought) “the i”? And isn’t thought always old, dead, static? If I ask (how to), isn’t that pulling what has been in the past (accumulation of thought, and “I”, also of thought, am looking to apply that towards Truth, which is dynamic? To ask how to implies the aquistiton & application of thought-self which is of the past, which is static, thought is never new/dynamic...So when I ask how to in order to get this :sacred Truth, which is always new, I am pulling from that which is old (thought). Therefore the old is simply carried over on top, and in place of the new. So to pull from the old (static), is to project the old. Or as I have said to project ones own personalized (static), version of truth. Are we closer to meeting here?

@B_Naz can you see the reality of all this? To understand the reality of illusion? Illusion is very subtle.