More on "Conceptual Pointlessness"
I posted this at Batgap, but thought I'd repeat it here, for my NNH cohorts who don't play in that playground. Also perhaps elaborates on Peter's original "Conceptual Pointlessness" thread, whose title I've shamelessly plagiarized.
More thought/wave forms re: why do we bother with all this seemingly pointless, yet playful, conceptual gamesmanship?
I suspect that most of us who end up here in the batgap forum using concepts and language to discuss esoterica such as non-duality, no-self, Cosmic Consciousness, Awareness, the ground of Being, or even just the fundamental nature of human experience, etc, are speaking from a level of understanding that tells us concepts, words, labels, etc, are symbolic representations of a state of existence that exists independent of all such interpretations, and which due to their inherently relativistic and dualistic limitations can never hope to unambiguously capture or convey that transcendent reality. We also no doubt understand, if only in an abstract way, that in the realm of boundless, spaceless timelessness, all of this seemingly linear conversation is essentially happening simultaneously, with no actual back and forth, because ‘back and forth’ requires time and space. And yet we do it nonetheless.
Perhaps the reasons why can be expressed in a relative sort of way as follows:
(a) While we are existing as this particular human/body-mind expression of Consciousness, we are predisposed to be conceptually creative and linguistic by nature, and as such, we are compelled to conceptualize, verbalize, poeticize, and even just shoot the crap -- notwithstanding the occasional vow of silence, or brief periods of meditation -- because we are the mouth-pieces of consciousness, so to speak, and it is what we are perfectly designed and intended to do.
(b) We do it because we derive pleasure from it. As Rick likes to poetically quote a friend: “We are the sense organs of the infinite.” I would only add that we are the pleasure seeking sense organs of the infinite. As such, we naturally focus on activities that are pleasurable, and so ‘chatting,’ discussing, debating, etc, is just another form of recreation and entertainment, however much it may pale in comparison to the ‘Reality’ that inspires it ... much like foreplay and pillow talk are no substitute for the Big “O,” but nonetheless play an important role in the intensity of the overall experience.
(c) We innately ‘know’ or intuit that it has a vital and valid role and function to serve in the play of conscious creativity, without which our whole cultural environment, never mind batgap or NNH, could not exist, but which nevertheless may exceed our current intellectual ability to comprehend or explain.
Disclaimer regarding the above: Why after writing such stuff, do I always get the queasy sea-sick feeling that any glimpses one might have of the infinite mystery through the fog of our knowing are just the infinitesimal tip of a Cosmic iceberg of Mystery floating in the oceanic abyss that awaits our titanic ship of beliefs?
P.S. Peter, your royalty check is in the mail ;-)
- 841 reads
-
Ah yes, it all comes down to that -- the love of stories and telling them. Indeed, you’ve hit upon the one word that sums up all of the above: storytelling. It’s all a story created anew in every moment ... every last bit of it, from the most seemingly banal, to the most profound universal Truth. And it all begins with the original thought.
My particular storyline seems to be a preoccupation with the meaning behind it -- realizing of course that any meaning one’s mind ‘supposes’ can only be just another story.
And ironically enough, that simple realization may be the key to freedom. Because then one understands that a story isn’t necessary, and one can pause the story, or change it all together, or as Ben Smythe puts it: at least hit the mute button, now and then.
And Life goes on just fine without it.
Thanks again Peter
That "original thought", as you say, may be "I". The motherlode of our volume of stories.
Here's an interesting experiment that I sometimes invite some of my friends to play: remove the "I" word from your thoughts and comments.
Or "I don't feel good today", becomes "not feeling good today", or "I'm disappointed at you for not meeting my expectations" becomes "feeling disappointed....".
I won't prognosticate re. how your stories may or will change. It's more fun to find out for yourself.
Yeah, oddly enough, I've tried that experiment myself, and it does produce intriguing results, as to its impact on that so-called "I" and its story.
Another trick to play "I" like to play on "myself" is to substitute "One" for "I" ...
its more All-encompassing, One might say ;-)
Some common plot lines in storyspeak:
following a guru: "I like his/her story of who I really am much better than I like my own. Now if only my story could proximate his/her";
parental discipline: "You're not evidencing the story of you that I have in mind for you, so it pains me to pain you to conform to that story", and;
marriage: "Hey, I love how you dig the story of me that I have for myself. I also dig the story of you that you have as well. Can we dig each other's stories for as long as we can?".
It's an interesting lens to peer through. Storyspeak, that is.
Nice observation. It is interesting how the storyspeak factors in to just about all human relationships. They're all about 'sharing' stories, and when the stories are compatible and resonate, the relationship works, but when the stories conflict, and expectations are not met, the relationships 'suffer.'
Your first example of the guru story, reminds me of -- you guessed it -- another story:
Seeker goes to a guru and asks: "Master, how can I find Enlightenment?"
Guru say: "Go to Hell!"
Seeker, looking shocked, asks: "What do you mean?"
Guru says: "Go to Hell and you'll find Enlightenment."
Looking even more perplexed, the seeker asks: "But isn't Hell the opposite of Heaven, the antithesis of Nirvana, where one suffers for eternity."
Guru says: "That is correct."
Seeker says: " OK, I guess you must know best ... So how exactly do I get to Hell?"
Guru says: "That's easy! Just keeping searching for Enlightenment ..."
Here's a common dynamic in circles like this one.
If your story of awakening/enlightenment doesn't include an appreciation of my story of it (i.e. one that includes an element of spiritual progress), that makes you a questionable storyteller in my eyes.
When a story is a story is a story.
Yes, one sees that all the spiritual stories, in that regard, are inherently incomplete partial truths, because there is no other way to express them except through the lens of our own limited human perceptions and interpretations.
Again, as always, the both/and paradox must be applied, and one must always take into account the perspective of the storyteller -- i.e. where is their story speaking from?
Which reminds me of a particular personal truth that I enjoy remembering whenever I can.
"Every point of view receives its legitimacy and validity from the unique viewing point that it issues from. If you find a particular point of view to be dis-agree-able, then it's likely that you have yet to find its unique and originating viewing point."
Or, "every point of view is true from its unique viewing point"... if you're feeling particularly succinct.
Hmmm ... from that POV all POV's become perfectly suited to the viewer ... Go figure!
We're all perfect ... end of debate, conflict and suffering!
What's wrong with being a Christian or Buddhist? Their story works for them, and Realized people have come from these traditions. Just like a river bed is sufficient to the water that runs within it. Neither river-bed nor the water are attached to each other, yet, they support each other. I do not see a problem with the stories, rather, it is the conscious relationship the body/mind forms with those concepts that causes the issues.
S.B.
Stories are rarely problematic. But our relationship with them, however, can be.
Particularly if we IDENTIFY ourselves with our stories. Or believe them to be who we are. That's when problems ensue.
I say create whatever story you like. Just keep a loose grip on it.
Gripping it with a clenched fist... or this, not that... only intensifies the experience of separation and apartness.
Siddha, I think the 'point' one is trying to make is that there's nothing inherently 'wrong' with any story. As long as one realizes its relative conceptual limitations. As stated, they are all equally valid and perfect from the individual's relative POV, and all equally incomplete from any theoretical absolute POV.
Which brings us back to the topic of conceptual pointlessness. If all stories/POV's are equally perfect and/or imperfect, what is the point of clashing over them?
The stories we create have correlations in reality or not. Some take longer to validate their facts, some are never validated, thus, lack validity for common use.
Moving from here, the clashing over concepts has a justified expression if we are capable of this adventure without violence. The following statement is completely untrue based on reality and completely useless for common or practical purposes: "We are ruled by invisible pink elephants." This is the place where we need to be concerned for accepting certain ideas as valid. All ideas have equal validation only if you are living without a body/mind. We are forms of the One, therefore, all ideas are not equally valid, and careful consideration is necessary to weed out the non-sensible verses the sensible. At this point defining the word 'clash' would seem beneficial to the conversation.
EDIT:
Consider that many people like to claim all this is a game or a dream. If it is a dream/game kill yourself and prove the results. Not one of you will, and that is because you will not come back to prove your concept true, thus, it is false. I have literally died many times in dreams, and on purpose - in a vast number of ways. I always end up waking up to the fleshy life. Concepts are dreams and games, not people.
S.B.
"Think about the person that is insane to the degree of killing their own body. How valid is their point of view? How much would it be in their/our best interest to allow them to do this? How valid is their point of view to us? Our points of view intersect, and no point of view is really independent. Remember no point of view is Actually independent."
The MOST important question that you ask here, IMO, is "how valid is their point of view to us?".
You would have to assume their viewing point to dis-cover the validity of their point of view in this regard.
To assume that you can from another viewing point... is to play... God.
Well "clash" is just another word/concept and so is also open to relative interpretation.
In my case, I was referring to the following:
verb
1 [ intrans. ] meet and come into violent conflict : protesters demanding self-rule clashed with police.
• have a forceful disagreement : Clarke has frequently clashed with his colleagues.
Not necessarily implying physical violence, but certainly 'forceful,' if it's scornful and abusive, could apply as psychic violence. I was definitely not referring to strong but respectful, rational debate, conflicting invitations, or even to just agreeing to disagree.
Again, to re-quote Peter: "Every point of view receives its legitimacy and validity from the unique viewing point that it issues from. If you find a particular point of view to be dis-agree-able, then it's likely that you have yet to find its unique and originating viewing point."
Keep in mind, that we're specifically here, in a forum designed for the purpose of discussing rather esoteric metaphysics, referring to differing spiritual POV's, wherein one assumes a certain level of rational sanity.
So one would trust that there aren't too many of our NNH cohorts who believe in "invisible pink elephants" (although, who knows, some may believe in virgin births). But even if, for example, in the case of a schizophrenic patient who believes that the world is ruled by pink elephants, and he/she actually sees and hears those pink elephants, despite being invisible to everyone else, and viscerally responds as such, then from that unique perspective, for all intents and purposes, those pink elephants do exist, within their body-mind framework. So in that limited, unique, relative way, that POV is valid, and must be respected as such. And while one may hope to change that point of view through therapy, surely clashing with that point of view would be pointless.
But to return to the current context, if one believes that everything has its reason for existing, then as unique individual human expressions of One Consciousness/Awareness, whatever POV/story one is expressing at any given time -- even those of psyche patients -- must have their valid reason for expression. IMO, nothing exists without reason and purpose.
In my experience, humans change their POV/stories, or buy into a different story, when they're good and ready, usually as a result of some personal revelation derived from life experience, and almost never as a result of the sage advice, or moral persuasion of others, no matter how much suffering those stories may be causing themselves and others. And until then, clashing points of view often only extent and expand the suffering. Hence, in that case, rather pointless -- though suffering too has its purpose.
Hope that clarifies it somewhat :]
Galaxies are colliding. Whether we define these events, whether those involved in the events can get what is happening right as far as why they are dying from inter-galactic events does not matter. Reality happens. Civilizations are destroyed, planets of people are destroyed. This is nature.
Think about the person that is insane to the degree of killing their own body. How valid is their point of view? How much would it be in their/our best interest to allow them to do this? How valid is their point of view to us? Our points of view intersect, and no point of view is really independent. Remember no point of view is Actually independent. If you want we can explore this, and this may be a point of debate for some.
Is the idea that the 12th Madhi is on Earth, and the has time come for some sort of Muslim world revolution something people need to accept as valid. This process presented before you only leads to even the most realized considering violence. Reality has real form, and a real presence, Reality has a real science, and it is up to us to get past our fear of not knowing. We can know, this also high lights a fundamental issue in religion verses atheism. It seems that all forms of conceptual knowledge claim that we cannot Know the Truth, or Know Reality. That delusion is far from reality revealed.
As a baby I could not walk, and I learned.
S.B.
"Once the quote ends the interpretation begins."
Tangentially speaking...
if the substance of all quotes are interpretation...
then wouldn't this be equally the case:
"once an interpretation ends, another one begins."
Great question. It raises another one.
To use the familiar zen adage of "the finger pointing at the moon is not the moon"...
and when we quote someone like Ramana...
are we pointing at the moon as well...
or are we pointing at the finger which is pointing at the moon?
They are totally two different experiences, it seems to me.
And it may be significant to recognize that.
Of course, not all stories or POV's are going to appear universally valid.
To reiterate, IMO, all POV/stories have there valid reason or purpose for existing, even if that purpose is not always knowable from another limited human perspective, and does not conform to one's given cultural worldview. So again, that does not mean that they will appear or be accepted as valid from all perspectives and conform to all expectations. Hence, the source of conflict and suffering.
Agreed, no stories or POV's are independent. However, all stories or POV's are relative, and by definition incomplete -- as in Einstein's theory. In the absence of the whole picture, which no one human perspective can pretend to comprehend, then IMO no story or POV can be unilaterally declared inherently invalid, however it seems to conflict with another relative, incomplete story.
If someone's story causes them to suffer so severely that they choose to end their life, how can anyone, in the absence of the whole picture, and not having anyway to feel that individuals subjective experience, make a definitive statement that their POV was invalid? Again, IMO, as unique individual expressions of the same Cosmic Source, every one's life and death and story has an equally valid meaning and its reason for existing.
A little birdie once told me that as long as you have an interest in validating/invalidating the thoughts or actions of another person, the illusion of separation remains intact.
I disagree. Can two Realized people disagree? They sure can, one might like ice-cream and other may not. Both are One, and they disagree. Sounds like these things are simply happening in the context of a Unified Reality, for if there was Real separation, they could not disagree. Reach out and touch something, that is not a demonstration of separation, but of unity.
S.B.
Preferring one flavor over another... in contrast with someone else's varying preference... is not a disagreement. It is a variance in preferred choice.
Speaking only from personal experience, I have never met an awakened person who needed anyone's view of X... to be in alignment with his or her view of it.
To the contrary, all of the awakened people whom I have met... have blessed all views and perspectives... as equally deserving of their blessing.
And when I say blessing, I mean it in a secular sense. When I bleess something or someone, I honor and bow before it.
One doesn't presume to answer for Peter, but a different take on the above could be that while one realized person resonates with a particular flavor, and the other resonates with a different flavor, doesn't mean that there is any belief that one sense of taste is inherently more valid than the other. So if both agree on that point, why would one call it a disagreement?
It is not important to deeply explore what I meant about the ice-cream. Realization is free of conceptual boundaries, but life dictates that we learn and use concepts. There are examples for this, consequently, Realization is about a communication. So, truly Realization is the communication of Truth without words. It is effortless, there are no disagreements in Communion. It is ok to disagree and still live in communion.
Again... finished with this thread. It has been sucked dry.
S.B.
Hey my friend, when it no longer resonates, I say let it go and move on, equally without attachment or regret. One does appreciate your valid input and insights.
"Conceptual Pointlessness" lives on as an invitation to debate and/or discuss, for whatever it's worth, and if only for the fun of it ;-)
later
One doesn't presume to answer for Peter, but a different take on the above could be that while one realized person resonates with a particular flavor, and the other resonates with a different flavor, doesn't mean that there is any belief that one sense of taste is inherently more valid than the other. So if both agree on that point, why would one call it a disagreement?
Which brings one back to the point of the original post. Aside from the sheer pleasure and human proclivity for creating, telling and sharing stories, because that is what we're perfectly designed to do, there is really little or nothing to be gained or derived from these conceptual discussions, in terms of validating, or winning, or proving anything.
And as far as invincible, impenetrable, intractable, iron clad belief in those stories is concerned, in the realm of separation, opposition, perpetual conflict and struggle, no matter how invalid, irrational or silly they may appear, they always seem to survive the sword of rational or empirical persuasion. If anything, they seem even more unyielding.
Go online and check out the seemingly endless, undying conspiracy theories, usually completely unsupported by any verifiable proof, as evidence of that tendency.
Hey Siddah, as far as your belief that Reality has a real science embedded within it -- or one could call it a Divine engineering/architectural blueprint -- that may indeed be the case. I would tend to resonate with that idea, as any reasonable observation of the incredibly diverse, coherent, mind-boggling complexity of the natural cosmos would seem to support it.
Human science of course is a constantly changing and evolving process of learning about and applying that blueprint to our own conceptual, cultural and technological endeavors.
So far, however, that grand unified theory of Everything seems to elude human science.
What we think we know, I suspect, is just the tip of that cosmic iceberg of mystery that I alluded to originally. It seems to always be more than we think it is.
After all, all scientific paradigms, past and present, remain relative incomplete stories. The paradigms that existed hundreds of years ago were vastly different, and often completely contradictory to those of today. But nonetheless they were considered completely valid in their time and place. -- even if by today’s standards they appear quite incongruous, and one wonders how they could have been so wholeheartedly believed. And no doubt the paradigms of tomorrow will make today’s paradigms seem equally as inadequate, by comparison. Thus, human scientific truth and validity may always be a moving target, until it ultimately understands, merges and conforms with that ever elusive original blueprint.
At which point, one wonders if we will be the virtual equivalent of gods, in our capacity to create with infinite novelty and potential. Maybe that’s is our destiny ... divine fully conscious and realized creators in the making, no longer focused in physical reality.
Edit: Whoops! Forgot the usual disclaimer. The above is, of course, yet another storyline, quite possibly a complete science fiction/fantasy. But I'm sticking to it for now, or at least until someone comes up with some other story I can resonate with.
The question is: Does an objective reality exisit? If no, then not wanting to play the game is just bad sportsmanship. The game will go on, regardless of our participation. How sad to just apparently sit on the sidelines and say "it's only a game, whats the point of playing?"
Interesting insight re: sportsmanship within gamesmanship. It does seem kind of unfortunate when it's dismissed as 'only' an illusory game, and therefore not worthy of taking seriously. After all, while consciousness is expressed as individualized spirit, or soul, still associated with a body-mind in the space-time world of apparent separation, it's still an important game with a valid function. The fact that after 'awakening' one knows it's a game, shouldn't negate its valid purpose and function, nor take away from its enjoyment, nor mean that our role within it shouldn't be taken seriously, in terms of our innate human need to interact, inter-relate and communicate -- i.e. share stories.
One supposes that retreating to a cave or ashram and spending the rest of one's days in this world meditating in blissful solitude, silence and emptiness may be a valid choice for some, but if the ultimate destiny is 'awakening' for all, I'm not sure how isolation and non-participation in the world is helpful.
But I suppose that nonetheless both the game-players and the side-liners have their valid parts to play. :]
If I subscribed to the idea that any idea can have its authorship in any single individual, I'd gladly accept your remuneration, danalomas. But I don't, so I can't. Please forward it to your favorite charity.
Regarding your question, "why do we bother with all this seemingly pointless, yet playful, conceptual gamesmanship?", I'm inclined to chalk it up to our proclivity to storytell.
In point of fact, I view all of our communications as storytelling endeavors. And I have yet to meet a dream that is not based on some story that is unfolding within it.
"Non-duality, no-self, Cosmic Consciousness, Awareness, the ground of Being, or even just the fundamental nature of human experience, etc" are just subjects of our storytelling efforts too.
My suspicion is that if your mind invites silence into it for a sufficient period of time... the storytelling machine reveals itself for what it is.