i understand more clearly now, what you mean about not being so invested in assumptions.
well, its the association with the assumptions that is the problem
assumptions in themselves can sometimes be alright, but when we define ourselves by our
associations then we feel the need to defend them and that causes problems
that's what i meant by invested in the assumptions.
you have something riding on them, emotionally or intellectually, i guess.
well, its a bit more than that
we mistake ourselves as those assumptions
and most action is based upon defending those assumptions as coherent and relevant
right. like 'i believe in this idea and that says something about the kind of person i am, and i have to
stand by that"
so one looks upright, or respectable or whatever in others eyes
well screw that.
why don't we focus on finding out what is true together instead of worrying about being wrong because
we've aligned ourselves already?
not sure what you mean by that
i mean 'we' in general, not you and me.
isn't that dialogue? talking with eachother instead of defending our assumptions?
right, like meaning flowing between 2 people, finding out together...
what do you mean by aligning?
aligned ourselves with assumptions
"this is what i think and i need to stand by it because it's part of me'
i think some people close themselves down to new information because they're so identified with what
they think they already know. that seems very limiting.
like, man. there's always more to learn.
well, if we truly believe that we are our associations, our ideas, then we dont want others
but we aren't. what is, is, but it isn't anything or anyone else.
do you think there is such thing as objective truth?
well of course
i mean you could philosophize it and say that 'the sky is blue' is only true if you aren't colorblind.
but that's pretty impractical.
you know, like, 'if a tree falls in the forest and no one hears it does it make a sound?"
right, well, thats where some of the new agers take this and say, 'everything is relative'
there is a reality
how do you know?
i'm playing devil's advocate.
i believe in reality.
but i do think it is a belief.
one cant know reality
you ask, 'how do you know?'
that is just coming from the program
the program is asking 'how do i capture it?' It wants to come first
by first i mean... we think the thought is 'what is', but the thought is only the 'what was'...
it doesnt perceive its own backside, so it runs in circles chasing its own tail so to speak
it puts thought first, as most important, so it is confused and says, 'yes, but how do i know reality...
how do i capture it?'
and so it gets faster and faster at being reactionary, and continually disguising itself as the
'what is' in order to remain coherent to a dynamic environment... but thats the thing, its thought
and thought is memory, which is the past as it was percieved and recorded, and therefore it is limited
it can never be rational when it is first
when the cart is in front of the horse
but how can we have dialogue without thought?
i guess what i'm saying is we perceive a reality. how can we be sure our perception of that reality is accurate?
we can't, can we?
yes, well you see, this is where many people are confused. although it has already been established
in our conversation that the problem is not thought in itself, but the mistaken identity as thought
being the center, or central to the makeup of an 'individual'
It believes it is the ideas it associates with and so it tries to defend ,
the associations are the ideas it has created from memory
thought has its place, but it is not primary
we may have mistaken it as primary and, as we can see it leads to this whole mess
putting the cart in front of the horse
can we define 'thought'
i'm not asking that rhetorically
well i think thats pretty simple
i mean define it for me so i know what we're talking about specifically
thought is based on memory
thought is the active process of awareness mixing various memories in orders that appear coherent
my mind just went in 15 different directions
it can also maintain its creations, what we call 'ideas', and in a way sort of 'overlay' these
ideals/ideas in our perceptions... actively
so really it is just our previous conscious and/or subconscious perceptions, represented
in a sort of theatrical way to awareness in the present moment.
alright, tell me if I've got this straight
are 'the present' and 'reality' the same thing?
in the sense that all that really is is what is now
well, reality only exists in the present, there is no past
and everything before and after is thought,
memory or prediction
right, i would say that
so to question reality is to question the present, which is the only thing that is, at all?
we have this distorted view of time, as if there is a past and future... of course, this is useful
in a certain field, but when it is used as becoming (the psychological becoming) it is just
meaningless, it has no place cause this implys escaping from 'reality', the present, to this image
we have of the future, this ideal...
this only causes conflict and prolongs our suffering state by 'suppressing' it... we say, "i feel hurt,
i will become happy"
and now we are just where we started, we are caught in the whole mess of chasing our own tails...
our tails being the past, which is limited and can not be the 'solution' psychologically, to freedom...
it puts us in a state of ignorance, cause we are ignoring what is and 'striving' for what we
desire to become
hate to use the word ignorance cause it is such a loaded word, but we are using it in the true
sense of the definition
we are taught to go have fun when our mates hurt us or break up with us; to strive when
we are feeling down.
you don't have a lot of people to talk about this with, do you?
well, not many people are interested in this, they are so caught up in creating their pet monster
that they believe is them (as if they can) and in one sense they can, but as we see its just
causing all this conflict in the world
this is why its such a dangerous thing... it is exactly not what appears to be what it needs to escape.
(laughter), that may be a difficult sentence to understand
if it is aware of the process... like it is aware of the fire that burns the hand, there is no confusion then
but you see, it doesnt see this whole process cause it is ignoring purposefully that very thing
that may be capable of freeing itself
but i think if the mind is capable of seeing, by some means, the whole workings of it, it may
then be free of the incoherence.
when there is enough discomfort it seems that then the mind starts to question...
or if by some other means it happens to be sensitive enough to get a clue as to
what it is doing; chasing its own tail
too many "it's"
let me try to rephrase this back to you
* i meant if the mind is capable
nice catch, though. that could've been taken pretty badly
what is "the process"?
the process of trying to create oneself by identifying with our thoughts?
the whole process of identification issss the 'my mate broke up with me, i will become 'happy' thing
the whole of it... the becoming
well, yeah, please dont accept what i say, or believe me, you must find out if its true and see it
yourself if you are so interested ('must'
i mean that you will find out
if so interested)
(laughter), you know what i mean? it is difficult to say
that last part
i am definitely interested