The phenomenon of fragmentation

[now is forever]

50 minutes ago, tsuki said:

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?

only our limits

[Faceless]

9 hours ago, now is forever said:

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

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. 

9 hours ago, now is forever said:

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?

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?

Edited September 14, 2018 by Faceless

[Faceless]

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. 

 

 

 

[robdl]

1 hour ago, Faceless said:

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. 

 

 

 

The content of this thread can be re-contextualized after actual observation of thought-self has taken place.   It goes from conceptual-theoretical to factual-observational-insightful.  But the latter won't happen until this unitary movement of thought-self is directly/wholly seen-understood for oneself.

Something can make sense intellectually but that is inherently limited because it's still through fragmentation --- through the "I"-fragment lens.  The intellect will understand certain concepts about thought's operation but it can't wholly understand the thought-self movement because it is a perpetuation of that very movement.  Understanding the concepts should not be mistaken for total insight.

Edited September 14, 2018 by robdl

[Faceless]

[now is forever]

i guess i give up. 

 

Edited September 14, 2018 by now is forever
did you ever try to catch a fish with your hands? it’s easier than making sense of men contradicting themselves.

[now is forever]

8 hours ago, tsuki said:

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?

thank you @tsuki for making that clear again.

control implies division = control effects division

 

[robdl]

17 minutes ago, now is forever said:

i guess i give up. 

 

It's not about absorbing-understanding all of this content-information.  It would only be partial/conceptual understanding at best, anyway.

It's to watch the movement of thought, without effort, motive, or intent  -- without the lens of prior knowledge, conclusions, or beliefs.  Unconditioned, whole observation.  Understanding flows (like water from a faucet) from that unconditioned observation.  

 

Edited September 14, 2018 by robdl

[Faceless]

29 minutes ago, robdl said:

It's not about absorbing-understanding all of this content-information.  It would only be partial/conceptual understanding at best, anyway.

It's to watch the movement of thought, without effort, motive, or intent  -- without the lens of prior knowledge, conclusions, or beliefs.  Unconditioned, whole observation.  Understanding flows (like water from a faucet) from that unconditioned observation.  

 

Indeed..

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

 

[tsuki]

1 hour ago, now is forever said:

thank you @tsuki for making that clear again.

control implies division = control effects division

@now is forever You're welcome 

[abrakamowse]

7 hours ago, robdl said:

It's not about absorbing-understanding all of this content-information.  It would only be partial/conceptual understanding at best, anyway.

It's to watch the movement of thought, without effort, motive, or intent  -- without the lens of prior knowledge, conclusions, or beliefs.  Unconditioned, whole observation.  Understanding flows (like water from a faucet) from that unconditioned observation.  

 

When I do that there's no thought. Just observation. Thoughts disappear completely.

[DrewNows]

@abrakamowseYeah it is weird right? Almost paradoxical. it is like if you "try to" maintain  unconditioned whole observation, the mind takes over and makes it a seeking habit, or task still subtly through a lens. You keep thoughts away but the experience is still being held by the mind 

And the minute you start actually "being' without any lens, your mind creeps in to try and identify the happening. 

There can be no seeking, desire, or focused state, only the natural flow life offers 

 

[Faceless]

1 hour ago, abrakamowse said:

When I do that there's no thought. Just observation. Thoughts disappear completely.

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

 

 

Edited September 15, 2018 by Faceless

[Faceless]

15 minutes ago, DrewNows said:

And the minute you start actually "being' without any lens, your mind creeps in to try and identify the happening. 

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. 

Edited September 15, 2018 by Faceless

[Faceless]

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. 

Edited September 15, 2018 by Faceless

[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??

Edited September 15, 2018 by Faceless

[Faceless]

On 9/9/2018 at 5:46 PM, Faceless said:

Again, thought-self, (illusion) will escape the fact (fear), and seek psychological security in the abstraction. Movement from A TO B. Thought does not like to just stay with A. Thought-self is very tricky and tells itself “I” want to get to B, but doesn’t see that by doing so, that action nourishes it’s own movement of psychological time(fragmentation). 

 

 

Edited September 15, 2018 by Faceless

[abrakamowse]

2 hours ago, DrewNows said:

@abrakamowseYeah it is weird right? Almost paradoxical. it is like if you "try to" maintain  unconditioned whole observation, the mind takes over and makes it a seeking habit, or task still subtly through a lens. You keep thoughts away but the experience is still being held by the mind 

And the minute you start actually "being' without any lens, your mind creeps in to try and identify the happening. 

There can be no seeking, desire, or focused state, only the natural flow life offers 

 

True Drew. Being all the time just aware or mindful is like if falling from a cliff Lol... because there's no attachments, just being and the mind likes something where to stand. Maybe is just a matter of being in that state most of the time until... BOOOOM!

Lol

:-P

[abrakamowse]

13 hours ago, Faceless said:

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

The true "I" is and is not.

Some time ago I began to think about the I. If in reality the true self cannot be conceptualized, to say that is a self or it is "I" is a conceptualization.

Maybe the I thought is just a creation, and illusion that the absolute creates to experience separation and diversity. But in reality there's nothing.

No I.  There isn't something that can be comprehended or conceptualized.

 

 

 

Edited September 15, 2018 by abrakamowse

[Faceless]

Psychological Movement from A TO B...

 

This moving away from the fact to the abstraction is to stay caught in endless cycle of action/reaction(which arise as thoughts). 

When we move away from the fact this implies a movement of fear itself in resistance to what-is... The i that moves from sorrow(fact), to its idea of non-sorrow, is a movement of fear. This is where the division between the thought and the self is strengthened. Thought (moving towards the abstraction) brings about fear, and fear perpetuates this compulsive thought. 

Going from A TO B = psychological time. A movement from this to that. 

If there is a staying with A, time, (psychological becoming) in movement ceases.

This means thought psychologically (the movement of i), has come to a hault. 

No thought movement in time as the i, (psychological becoming), no fear. 

No fear, no compulsive thought, no compulsive thought reaction, no fear. 

 

Can we for now, observe this movement of this to that, here to there, A to B? 

This is the movement of the i, and it is pretty much always in movement, so it just takes observation of that movement. 

I am this, I will be that.

i am sad, I want to be happy. 

I am violent, I shouldn’t be violent. 

I am stupid, I will become smart. 

 

Such movements are all movements of fear. As long as there is movement from the fact to the abstraction there is fear. No movement as time from this to that there is no fear. 

And as long as there is fear this compulsion to escape to more abstraction continues. This movement of “i” is born of fragmentation, and this movement keeps this false division alive. The burden of psychological thought (enslavement-psychological evolution/progression), then keeps feeding its own movement. 

 

 

Edited September 16, 2018 by Faceless