Self and other

[Dedbeet]

This will probably be deleted for not being conversational enough, but if the moderator doesn't mind being kept busy, I don't mind .

> > This is not to say that you're not reading my words. But the actuality of
the situation is that they're *your* words, because they're appearing in/as your
own thoughts. They were mine when they were in mine, and now they're in the
reader's thoughts. See the danger in the mental forcing of separation? A portion
of your own reality is "other-ized" and taken as absent, "not here", belonging
to another, even "out there with another" despite being read directly on-screen.
> >
>
> Put this way, it makes absolute sense, and is not anything that
> none of us here don't understand. Nobody here has ever argued with
> these points, as they are presented, and nobody here does not
> understand them.

Indeed... that's true.

And yet, a feeling of "other-ness" and corresponding sense that the other is egoic, or is insulting me, or needs to be corrected -- is taking the mental content to be real, and ignoring the fact that the content is one's own, as are the thoughts arising.

Self-and-other is taking what the mind says to be true, and ignoring what's always happening this moment, right before one's very eyes.

Is it too much to call it delusion?

Peace...

 

[B9]

I'd call it individual perspective, others might call my perpective delusional if they see fit.

Dedbeet I would think you'd be considered a "fit & proper" person, that being so am I delusional ?

 

[Dedbeet]

One's individual perspective is composed of perspectives gleaned from others -- the self is an amalgam. Not to mention, the self-image requires the assumption that "everyone tends to see me the way I see myself" -- which is pure silliness.

The mailman has never seen me the way that biker riding down the street has, nor the way the little old lady next door has.

Dedbeet I would think you'd be considered a "fit & proper" person, that being so am I delusional ?

Perspectives related to fears of "being a non-person in the eyes of another" don't trouble me at all. One can't get away from being seen as a person, even if one *wanted* to be a non-person.

All are troubled about the way they see themselves, and I suggest that they're all troubled in a similar way, for similar reasons.

 

[B9]

One can't get away from being seen as a person, even if one *wanted* to be a non-person.

You could wear a bear suit & see how it panned out, given a suitably forested enviroment, some "people" & poor light you might manage to be seen as a bear. The question is that if bears are conscious beings they might consider themselves people - in a bear type way if you follow me.
Given other odds & sods I've seen that I/You have typed I'd wager that a bear is equally as much a part of the consciousness as say You?I are

 

[Dedbeet]

You could wear a bear suit & see how it panned out, given a suitably forested enviroment, some "people" & poor light you might manage to be seen as a bear. The question is that if bears are conscious beings they might consider themselves people - in a bear type way if you follow me.
Given other odds & sods I've seen that I/You have typed I'd wager that a bear is equally as much a part of the consciousness as say You?I are

I meant socially, of course, not out in the woods with the bears.

The human being sees other human beings as they see themselves, only sort of reversed. The world-view of others is, by necessity, the opposite of one's own -- as one's own is all one ever had to go on.

Everyone is my mirror, just as I'm everyone else's.

It's only when the sense that "others are out there, and are they MAD" (or "others are out there, and I *need* them) goes away that one no longer sees ego in the mirror called "other".

 

[B9]

I'm not sure what you mean by "socially"?
I'd have thought society was comprised of values & actions & even bears have some influence on society.
Woods are places where social interactions can take place, if one has a dog as a companion is that dog other or self ?
The same point applies to the bear but with a dog being seen much more frequently in this "social" ( somewhat oddly exclusive IMO) enviroment I hope it serves as a better vehicle.

 

[Dedbeet]

I'm not sure what you mean by "socially"?
I'd have thought society was comprised of values & actions & even bears have some influence on society.

I meant that talk of bears headed straight away from what I thought we were discussing, and all I can do is assume that there were too many uncomfortable things to see.

"Looking into the truth" is very unpleasant stuff -- highly undesirable to a 'separate self' devoted to maintaining a sense of itself.

My own 'looking' only occurs in the absence of the looker, for what it's worth -- but I enjoy it, because what's present doesn't need someone separate from it to enjoy it

The truth does hurt -- but in the end, it hurts much less than falsehood.

 

[B9]

The talk of bears was invoked by me to try to geat a clearer & bigger picture, the dog then replaced the bear as it's more familiar. I wasn't aware of trying to avoid anything in particular.

Maybe I just misunderstand on a spectacular level.

 

[Dedbeet]

The talk of bears was invoked by me to try to geat a clearer & bigger picture, the dog then replaced the bear as it's more familiar. I wasn't aware of trying to avoid anything in particular.

Maybe I just misunderstand on a spectacular level.

Well, I (the "I" typing these words, anyway) was talking about selves and others. It's hard to see how bears are associated with how one sees others, and how others see oneself. That's cool, though... just noting. It's sort of my hobby to look at what my mind thinks while it's thinking, and enjoy seeing what it comes up with . My association with dream is now really with dream, not re-presented reality.

 

[Dedbeet]

Want convincing that "self" is an illusion?

The "self with free will and achievements" that freaks out when told to go f** itself, and suffers agonies when it's ignored.

Helplessly.

Peace...

 

[Jabberwocky]

i already believe this to be true so need no convincing.

self to me is like a synonym for soul. we're just distributed high level information processors, i'm sure as science moves on the formal 'self' will unravel into an intricate set of layers of abstraction. some parts of that may function more like what we call self than others but ultimately we wont be able to disconnect some part of our mind/bodies from the rest and point to it and call it the 'self.'

however 'self.' 'I,' etc asre useful grammatical objects that I continue to use.

 

[Vader]

This will probably be deleted for not being conversational enough, but if the moderator doesn't mind being kept busy

I will strike you a deal. This thread is about self and other, which seems to be your favourite topic. Pleae feel free to discuss the issue in here; please do not create any more threads on the subject. Is this fair and satisfactory?