The phenomenon of fragmentation

[MiracleMan]

14 minutes ago, robdl said:

Thought creates a division out of its movement: "thinker" vs. "its" thoughts. 

The thoughts sustain-reinforce the "thinker" and the "thinker" feeds-sustains-projects the "thoughts."   A type of co-feeding happens. 

Thought needs this thinker|thoughts division (fragmentation) because it's the fuel for thought's movement. 

When there is no "I" fragment, i.e. no division, thought is deprived of its fuel.

And I would ask you how it's done, It's such a mind fuck.  It can't be done.  It's a total paradox!  How does a rabbit pull itself out of a hat?  How does one pull ones self up by their own bootstraps?  The sound of one hand clapping?  

Undo!  Undo!  Go back!  

[robdl]

1 hour ago, MiracleMan said:

And I would ask you how it's done, It's such a mind fuck.  It can't be done.  It's a total paradox!  How does a rabbit pull itself out of a hat?  How does one pull ones self up by their own bootstraps?  The sound of one hand clapping?  

Undo!  Undo!  Go back!  

“How it’s done” — can you see how that could imply invoking a method, an effort, a “doing” — the very operation-perpetuation of the “I”-fragment itself? 

If there’s nothing to do, no effort to exert, no knowledge or method to employ — can there be passive, effortless awareness-attention?  Investigate this.

Edited September 13, 2018 by robdl

[robdl]

1 hour ago, MiracleMan said:

 It's a total paradox!  How does a rabbit pull itself out of a hat?  How does one pull ones self up by their own bootstraps?  The sound of one hand clapping?  

 

Thought/ego thinks there's some role for it in all of this.  Something for the thinker to do.

Unconditioned, whole awareness simply sees-understands. 

Call it observation without the "observer."  

There is nothing for the "I" to do.

[Faceless]

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

[Faceless]

32 minutes ago, robdl said:

There is nothing for the "I" to do.

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. 

Edited September 13, 2018 by Faceless

[now is forever]

33 minutes ago, Faceless said:

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

mhhh very interesting question. i bought a book in india - from an us author: david christian. just because the title triggered me: origin story. and i‘m really happy i‘ve bought it because he introduces entropy, as a general universal law. (what would support my model of constant defragmentation)

he basically explains, that in our world (earth) nothing is truely chaotic but it tends to go that direction. so everything that builds a structure will stick out from entropy (that’s my conclusion). truth will remain while false will vanish over time.

(question is just: how much time...and: every thing is as it is because it happened as it happened.)

Edited September 13, 2018 by now is forever
sry red wine philosophy

[Faceless]

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.  

 

 

 

 

Edited September 13, 2018 by Faceless

[now is forever]

26 minutes ago, Faceless said:

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.  

 

 

 

 

whaaaa - well i didn’t read books on that until now - either. well i maybe didn’t get it yet, too. 

guess i need a little to answer to this...

 

if you didn’t read books where you born with it then? are you able to devide yours from the knowledge of others?

 

Edited September 13, 2018 by now is forever

[now is forever]

15 minutes ago, now is forever said:

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? 

truth is the unchangeable essence, dynamic is just truth in movement aka time?

[Faceless]

2 hours ago, now is forever said:

truth is the unchangeable essence, dynamic is just truth in movement aka time?

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? 

Edited September 14, 2018 by Faceless

[Faceless]

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 ?

Edited September 14, 2018 by Faceless

[Faceless]

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). 

Edited September 14, 2018 by Faceless

[now is forever]

3 hours ago, Faceless said:

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). 

ok, now we are meeting. why didn’t you say so in the thread title? 

to go back to the model we are very quickly at freuds model of the self, aren’t we?

but you are not saying the model is a wrong model, you are saying to see oneself in that sense is fragmentation? that’s why i said we need more organic models...like in skandhas.

you are also using fragmentation as a model of thought. in oneself and in a conversation. basically saying we have to see them always in the context of an unity, to not see them fragmented.

you are also using fragmentation in the sense of time, but here in the sense of social time. (i have a little different model for that).

and in this you are also using fragmentation with a link to society and the fragmentation of unity in a political context, where you were pointing at the greater social disharmony.

but it was a question, not an answer! so why are you treating it like an answer already.

is this why you talk about control? how can you expect answers if you are treating the question as if it was an answer already?

[Barry J]

What is the difference between letting go of seeking and not seeking in the first instance? In terms of the result 

[DrewNows]

sorry to chime in but you seem confused. I feel as if i have some understanding. @now is forever

2 hours ago, now is forever said:

you are also using fragmentation as a model of thought. in oneself and in a conversation. basically saying we have to see them always in the context of an unity, to not see them fragmented

fragmentation between one's identity/the self and thoughts which is ultimately an illusion of what your mind sees you. 

 

2 hours ago, now is forever said:

you are also using fragmentation in the sense of time, but here in the sense of social time.

psychological time is identification with thoughts or stories for past and future (experience and projection) 

8 hours ago, now is forever said:

truth is the unchangeable essence, dynamic is just truth in movement aka time?

truth = awareness or being = dynamic        (my understanding anyways) 

(correct me if i have some misunderstandings) 

Edited September 14, 2018 by DrewNows

[DrewNows]

@Barry J  

Determining the purpose for seeking. If there is no purpose, there will be no seeking. Maybe the realization or letting go of seeking has to do with not having expectations.

why does one seek? Who is this seeker? 

 

[now is forever]

1 hour ago, DrewNows said:

sorry to chime in but you seem confused. I feel as if i have some understanding. @now is forever

fragmentation between one's identity/the self and thoughts which is ultimately an illusion of what your mind sees you. 

 

psychological time is identification with thoughts or stories for past and future (experience and projection) 

truth = awareness or being = dynamic        (my understanding anyways) 

how did you come to the conclusion i was confused? i am confusion that’s a difference. 

thank you though. that’s another fragmentation  to add to the list.

(it’s very close to freud’s iceberg model though, can be understood with it, if you add the factor time - but it’s not the solution it’s the question)

Edited September 14, 2018 by now is forever

[tsuki]

Fragmentation = separation = difference = identification = self.

Is there a difference between self and no-self?
is there a difference between time and timelessness?
Is there a difference between pre-enlightenment and post-enlightenment?

[DrewNows]

@tsukiThank you! The answer lies above right? 

22 minutes ago, tsuki said:

Is there a difference between self and no-self?

Thought? 

23 minutes ago, tsuki said:

is there a difference between time and timelessness?

focus or lack of? 

 

24 minutes ago, tsuki said:

Is there a difference between pre-enlightenment and post-enlightenment?

understanding = freedom? 

[now is forever]

11 minutes ago, DrewNows said:

focus or lack of?

you could say the chance for multifocality!