LS Dynamic Selves

From: Robert Stillwell (Stills@Bigfoot.com)
Date: Sun Jul 25 1999 - 18:45:27 BST


John and everyone,

Your post made my day. I've had these ideas locked in my head for a long time and you are the firs
t to
communicate an understanding of where I am coming from. Ok, I'm getting a little emotional here an
d we
can't have that *LOL*! Back to business...

I start with one quick question. You quoted David B's post that said "The problem with SOM's Carte
sian
self..." As you can understand from my last post, I thought that SOM was not Cartesian. I've neve
r
really read Descartes and don't know -- is my notion of duality different from Descartes?

Anyway ... I brushed over so many things the last email that I only glossed over the dynamic/static

self. I would like to delve further into the "dynamic self" as I still think it is unambiguosly
better.

As explained, the self is from each person's perspective -- everything. One can't distinguish it
through any of the senses because the senses can't contrast it against anything. That solves the
mystery. The self does exist: The intellect puts it together when saying "There seems to be an
external reality so all these perceptions of it must be mine". In a sense, the self is the
intellectually derived focal point of experience.

In Krishnamurti-ish words the self is sensitivity to reality. To be more clear, it is
not *that which is* sensitive but the sensitivity itself.

With this dual explanation, East can meet West. Both are centered on one side of dual reality. Th
e
West is centered on the external form -- which is understood intellectually through abstraction of

patterns. The East -- through meditation and so forth -- knows the self/reality through becoming
tenderly sensitive.

The whole picture is not understood -- however -- until we do both. The West assumes there is only

form, and no separate sensitivity of it, and creates a SOM monistic materialism. The East consider
s
sensitivity, fails to hypothesize what is going on outside of experience and creates a monistic
idealism. There is experience AND and an external structure. These are mutually exclusive.

So the self is sensitivity to reality. I become a little more stuck, when I consider there is a se
nse
of participation with reality. There is will and attention, which William James explains are the s
ame
thing. I can't explain much about this participation -- only that it is there. (Any ideas -- can
we
know if there is freewill or can this only be assumed?)

With this participation, we have another East vs. West dilemma. Is it better to think about things
 or
to quiet the mind? I say it is best to be dynamic! This means not fighting or blocking reality --

including thoughts. A dynamic self moves with reality. Try to be more sensitive and attention wil
l
flow naturally to what is good. In particular pay attention to judgementalism: little verbages in
the
mind that detract from the rest of experience. (Any help of better explaining judgementalism -- in

this context -- would be greatly appreciated.)

People often confuse the intellect and observation as conflicting. They say when one is "in the
moment" one fails to consider consequences. An "in the moment person" parties all night and does a

poor job at work the next day. But the moment contains all the necessary information. The trick i
s
for the will to keep from judging experience. Back to the party example -- unless a person genuine
ly
forgot whereby nothing could have been done -- the mind at one point was probably queued into think
ing
about work the next day. The person should have paid attention rather than saying "Screw it! I wa
nt
to have fun and I'm not going to think about it". It is always better to be dynamic!

In solving the dilemma of what is judgment and what is knowledge, William James' notion of "recepts
" is
valuable. Suppose I am completely immersed in a movie. I am totally "in the moment" with no
judgementalism or fragmentation of myself from reality (the observer is the observed). At this tim
e, I
-- without any act of will -- completely understand the language used in the movie. I understand t
he
plot and remember who the characters are. In this moment, there is memory and intellect harmonizin
g
with sensory perception. These "recepts" feel as if they are *received* by me. That is the way a

dynamic self is, I think. There is an attitude that truth is always received.

A static self does not receive truth but creates its own truth. One may create misery by saying "I

deserve to be treated with more respect" when a very busy waiter at a restaurant is a bit late serv
ing
dinner. Intuitively, if this person was sensitive to the whole of experience, or was dynamically
flowing with reality, there would be no notion of disrespect.

I think examples as above are the source of 99% of our undue misery. People on the list might argu
e
that the person was putting social quality ahead of intellectual quality. I don't want to go out o
ff
topic so I will say this. It is time to take personal responsibility. The fundamental problem he
re
is insensitivity. And it is only the self that is capable of being insensitive.

MOQ.org - http://www.moq.org



This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Thu Jan 17 2002 - 13:08:47 GMT