Subud Vision - Discussion

Discussion continued from this page

From Philip Quackenbush, May 3, 2008. Time 22:13

Hi, David and Sahlan,

DW: The third post down in this discussion summarises a lot of my cog sci background:
http://www.thescienceforum.com/viewtopic.php?p=119854

It also weaves some of the themes of our discussion together: tennis player, embodiment, metaphor, cognition...

PQ: The only problem with these views that I have is that the science they're based on is about a decade or two old, which in terms of current neuroscience is equivalent to a millenium or two, but it's the best I've seen from a book, so I've ordered it.

DW: For me, what I like about this path of enquiry is that it explains my experience of the latihan, which is:

- does not create superior human beings
- does not generate answers from God (unless God is amazingly ignorant)
- involves the body
- can create insight

PQ: Agree toe tally.

DW: PS: Here's a Subud question. How come Subuh never talked about latihan exercising your brain? How come all the 'body testing' is about arms and legs and such, and never about testing the brain? Is the activity of your brain no less important than the wiggling of your feet?

PQ: Not to mention the heart (of course there's the inherent confusion in what might be meant by that word, since Subuh may have had in mind his imaginary "inner heart" or the liver when he used the word, since the liver was thought in Ptolemaic times to be the organ of emotion; now, of course, it's clear that the brain is what's experiencing the emotions (or maybe the gut, since there are more neurons in the intestines than in the brain).

SD: I remember one testing session where he said, this was just body testing, but later, when we were more experienced, he would exercise our feelings and thinking also. Sorry, I can't remember the occasion. There was no "later", of course, because he died.

PQ: Well, I remember one "explanation" where we were tested in LA "Your brain. Where is your brain? Your brain moves." My mind instantly began racing, wondering how the brain could move by itself without muscles unless the head was moving and sloshing it around inside the skull. Hot Ma, Wha? Tea? (an extreme virgin of Indonesian-style misspelling, as was my name, coming to me with only one L instead of two [at least it had the H, maybe added by Western Onion because Pilip or Filip made no sense]) gave out a loud cry during the "test." It wasn't until years later that I realized that thoughts were the way the mind "moved", and I had apparently "received" "correctly" (for me and my whirl view at the time, anyway). That session may be recorded in the yellow book of tests, but I gave away all my Subud materials years ago, so I'm not sure. In any case, it was hardly very enlightening, except perhaps in a visceral sense. As usual, nothing "spiritual" about it, just a way of showing that "we are high, you are low", keeping the guru on a pedestal when he has to "explain" what you "should" have "received," as Subuh so often did.

Peace, Philip

From Merin Nielsen, May 5, 2008. Time 0:52

Hi, Philip,

You wrote:
>> Realizing that fact (of anatta, or no self) is one thing: to feel its reality, with the ego, or false self, constantly nattering away that yes it does, too, exist (well it does, or did, for a picosecond, maybe, before getting replaced by another false self, and so on and so on, in an endless parade of illusory selves that is so colorful and fascinating that the hypnotic effect is virtually inescapable) is another thing entirely. So, rotsa ruck on your quest to find out who you are. Maybe YOUR self exists. Who am I to say it doesn't? You could get lucky.

I think ‘self’ can be considered in at least five ways:

1) The colloquial socio-biological entity, involving a personal narrative construct, which can be more or less psychologically rigid.
2) The momentary motivational state of the biological entity.
3) The illusory owner of free will, incorporating associated motivations.
4) The universal self or no-self without boundaries.
5) That which the socio-biological entity is narratively motivated to preserve, encompassing possibly many components of experiential, emotional, cultural, ecological and other identities.

Based on (5), in acquiring further self knowledge, people’s motivations change, as superceding ones are born from the consequently broader, better informed perspective. (The measure of ‘better’ for this is basically scientific predictive power.) There’s a re-gauging of what they’re motivated to preserve, producing a more expansive, less specific sense of self. So, in a way, genuine motivation for self knowledge is also for identity transformation.

Hi, David,

No flashlight in Heidegger’s hands -- I simply recalled an image of parallel meaning -- horizons of disclosure, and yes, forest clearings.

I like the terminology of a-worlders and the-worlders. (Among philosophers of time, there are A-theorists and B-theorists.) Does QM allow everything to have a reason? Maybe not, depending on who you ask, but the QM world isn't effectively that of human life.

Lakoff is very cool. I don’t agree unreservedly with all he says in that website, but for sure the mind is a messy, hotchpotch thing!

Cheers,
Merin

From Philip Quackenbush, May 5, 2008. Time 6:27

Hi, Merin,

You wrote:

"I think ‘self’ can be considered in at least five ways:

Okay. I hadn't considered all of those. I think we can rule out 2), since a motivation would be a construct of the "self", rather than the putative "self" itself, biological or not. 4) can be ruled out also, since it's impersonal, and I'm looking (I dunno about you) for a personal "self" (having already experienced to a greater or lesser degree the impersonal one, which seems to appear to perception when the illusory personal "self" is at least subdued to some extent, if not set aside to clear a path to experience the impersonal One).

That leaves three others cited possibilities, as I see it. 1) is what is usually meant by the ego, IMO, but the "construct" consists of words, which, as soon as they are de-constructed, leaves no "self". 3) again is motivation-constructed, and therefore not a definable "entity" except by its motivational content. And 5) is constructed of both verbal and motivational components, which can be easily disassembled, negating any pretense to a permanent personal "self". Thus, even from the standpoint of logic (assuming I haven't made some horrible faux pas in the above analysis, the personal "self" doesn't exist.

"Based on (5), in acquiring further self knowledge, people’s motivations change, as superceding ones are born from the consequently broader, better informed perspective. (The measure of ‘better’ for this is basically scientific predictive power.) There’s a re-gauging of what they’re motivated to preserve, producing a more expansive, less specific sense of self. So, in a way, genuine motivation for self knowledge is also for identity transformation."

Another view of the illusory personal "self", which is also non-existent as a permanent entity because it's constantly in flux (but is perhaps "better" because of that: it's the standpoint that first (as I recall) allowed me to intellectually "see" the illusory nature of a personal "self"."

However, I have just read of a guy who claims to have worked out a physical/biological way in which the personality could survive medical death and is beating the bushes for sufficient cash to proceed with experimentation that he estimates will cost about 100, 000 bucks to substantiate his hypothesis, and he doesn't seem really crazy A-tall, if I understand his terminology, which is trans-discipline to a high degree (he's a research M. D.)

"...the QM world isn't effectively that of human life."

Tru enuf, but I doubt that anyone could effectively argue that it's foundational to human life. In fact, I would argue that the "random" effects of the uncertainty principle are found in our macro Newtonian world, often to the point of becoming clearly visible, as in "chaotic" ocean waveforms and fractals in winter tree branches. It's just not practical, usually, to concern ourselves with them until they result in pathology of some sort, like the loss of communication when the noise (static) to signal (on a radio, for example) ratio is too high to comprehend what's being said.

Peace, Philip

From Merin Nielsen, May 5, 2008. Time 23:57

Hi, Philip,

When a system is in a state of disequilibrium, it 'moves', so although motivations may well be oddly cognised and contorted, I don't see how they're constructs. No disequilibria -- no motivations.

I don't see any serious problem with defining a system or entity in terms of a localised bundle of particular motivations or dispositions, whether permanent or not.

Also, I must disagree if you say that 'no-self' is impersonal. Anyone who identified properly with it would still have a bundle of personal motivations -- normal human disequilibria -- albeit set in the context of a certain, apparently rare point of view.

Cheers,
Merin

From Philip Quackenbush, May 6, 2008. Time 6:7

Hi, Merin,

Let's take your three paragraphs (points) in reverse order:

" I must disagree if you say that 'no-self' is impersonal. Anyone who identified properly with it would still have a bundle of personal motivations -- normal human disequilibria -- albeit set in the context of a certain, apparently rare point of view."

Well, you said that the no-self is universal, without boundaries, which I would agree with. So that means the personal, or individual self or selves (all of them, yours, mine, the little green sentient beings with bug-eyes fantasized by science friction writers on Mars), if they exist, would be contained within it, but that doesn't make it personal, just the Source for the personal. The bundle of personal motivations would be (is, in my temporary experience) swept away or overwhelmed by the Vastness of All That Is, as well as its Nothingness (contains all things but is no thing because it encompasses all things which cannot be separated from It except by mental gymnastics, which, of course, are almost invariably illusion built on illusion, since, no matter how diligently one searches for the Prime Cause that "started" it All, it can't be found because of its primacy - the eye cannot see itself except by reflection [and the reflection is not the eye, as Korzybski spent 1200 pages reiterating in every possible way], as Shakespeare pointed out so long ago-- so we end up with a paradox upon a pair o' docs floating next to pair o' docks).

"I don't see any serious problem with defining a system or entity in terms of a localised bundle of particular motivations or dispositions, whether permanent or not."

Of course not, unless you're looking for an entity or system that changes every time you view it, or try to, which is what happens to "me" when "I" try to do that, the explanation for that phenomenon lying in the bowels of QM as the uncertainty principle as it operates on a macro level within the brain, which is the human organ that makes it possible to perceive and think. Not only is resistance few tile, as the Borg would say, but efforts to see an entity or system that "is" the "self as well, because if you know where it is, you can't figure it's speed of escape from your perception, cuz it's constantly on the move, only gaud nose where. Even the assumption that "I" have a body or am a body is nonsensical, because the "I" that's making the observation (or statement) can't be found, no matter how diligently it's looked for.

"When a system is in a state of disequilibrium, it 'moves', so although motivations may well be oddly cognised and contorted, I don't see how they're constructs. No disequilibria -- no motivations."

Well, the words in the above paragraph are constructs, and a close examination of the "ego", in my experience, shows it to be a huge complex of words that are mostly constantly changing their meaning according to the context of various experiences. Even practical applications of mathematics don't work: 2 gallons of alcohol plus 2 gallons of water do not equal 4 gallons of the mixture, and Reality is always dealing with mixtures of one sort or another. Therefore, the "common sense" of the "ego" is a chimera, and the "ego" itself when "chased down" is seen to be a chimera likewise.

The reality of the non-existence of a personal "self" can only be experienced to be convincing, however; no amount of argument will ever convince the radical empiricist of that, for example. IMO the "latihan" is one process that can offer that experience (since it's happened to "me", at least on a temporary basis, and is unimaginably blissful and carefree - it's always back to chopping wood and carrying water otherwise, though), but its practice requires giving up all beliefs and simply allowing whatever happens to happen, something that scares the crap out of most people because "they" are no longer in control of the Unknown by studiously denying its existence or running the other direction when faced with it, so, IMO, few Subud members will ever allow it to happen (and yet it happens to everybody in deep sleep; in the "latihan" one can remain conscious when it happens, a distinct advantage, one might say. So, as I often point out, everyone has the "latihan"; they're just not necessarily conscious of it).

Peace, Philip

From Philip Quackenbush, May 6, 2008. Time 6:36

Hi, Merin,

In rereading my post of May 6th at 6:27, I realized I made a major error in my presentation. The last paragraph started:

"Tru enuf, but I doubt that anyone could effectively argue that it's foundational to human life."

It should have read:

"Tru enuf, but I doubt that anyone could effectively argue that it's NOT foundational to human life.

Solly, Charry, I got caught up and confused in the double (triple? count 'em) negative. Could be the only mistake I ever made in my life, but who's counting? It might get boring after a while totalling 'em all up.

Peace, Philip

From Merin Nielsen, May 6, 2008. Time 9:21

Hi, Philip,

>> Well, you said that the no-self is universal, without boundaries, which I would agree with. So that means the personal, or individual self or selves (all of them, yours, mine, the little green sentient beings with bug-eyes fantasized by science friction writers on Mars), if they exist, would be contained within it, but that doesn't make it personal, just the Source for the personal.

Sure, since it isn’t a person, but someone's identification with it would still be personal. Eating, sleeping, laughing and crying go along with having the capacity for a sense of identity.

>> The bundle of personal motivations would be ... swept away or overwhelmed by the Vastness of All That Is, as well as its Nothingness ... - the eye cannot see itself except by reflection...

A model can’t completely incorporate itself, but a sense of identity doesn’t entail complete self knowledge.

>> "I don't see any serious problem with defining a system or entity in terms of a localised bundle of particular motivations or dispositions, whether permanent or not."
---- Of course not, unless you're looking for an entity or system that changes every time you view it, or try to, which is what happens to "me" when "I" try to do that, the explanation for that phenomenon lying in the bowels of QM as the uncertainty principle as it operates on a macro level within the brain...

I recently bumped into an old housemate from 20 years ago, we recognised each other immediately, and got along in just the same way that we used to. Also, I see no pertinent connection between QM and the brain's operation.

>> Even the assumption that "I" have a body or am a body is nonsensical, because the "I" that's making the observation (or statement) can't be found, no matter how diligently it's looked for.

Assumption not made. I think the “sense of self” , the version discussed here, comes from the sense of having free will. Even without this, though, there would still be an organism with body, feelings, thoughts and myriad relations to other things, and this organism can know about itself.

>> "When a system is in a state of disequilibrium, it 'moves', so although motivations may well be oddly cognised and contorted, I don't see how they're constructs. No disequilibria -- no motivations."
---- Well, the words in the above paragraph are constructs, and a close examination of the "ego", in my experience, shows it to be a huge complex of words that are mostly constantly changing their meaning according to the context of various experiences. Even practical applications of mathematics don't work: 2 gallons of alcohol plus 2 gallons of water do not equal 4 gallons of the mixture, and Reality is always dealing with mixtures of one sort or another. Therefore, the "common sense" of the "ego" is a chimera, and the "ego" itself when "chased down" is seen to be a chimera likewise.

Being a construct is not necessarily to be unreal. 2 + 2 = 4 is real. Change of meaning with context is expected, but systems still have real states. "Common sense" I like, but "ego" I don't understand.

Regards,
Merin

From David Week, May 6, 2008. Time 10:10

Hi Merin

"Does QM allow everything to have a reason? Maybe not, depending on who you ask, but the QM world isn't effectively that of human life."

I agree. Another way to look it is like this: a reason is a narrative constructed within a human mind. Human minds are limited (there are a finite number of us, and our heads are only so big.) There are therefore only a very small number of reasons possible.

And another way is this: it takes a long time to construct a good "reason" for something. (Why did the 9/11 hijackers do what they did? That takes about three years and 3 million pages of print by itself.) Meanwhile, events hit each of us at a million miles an hour. We can never keep up.

Of course, I am treating a 'reason' as a human construct, rather than some 'thing' that magically and invisibly exists 'out there', like the proverbial tree in the forest.

David

From David Week, May 6, 2008. Time 10:17

Hi Merin

PS: I think all of this is germane to my experience of the latihan, and not just a diversion into analytic philosophy. My thesis supervisor once quoted someone (I want to know who!), thus:

"We are, more than we know."

Note the comma. This doesn't mean "we're more than we think we are", but rather something like "being is far broader than thinking".

To me, the latihan is an existential exercise, for this reason. Surprisingly, "worship of God" may also be an existential exercise -- I caught a glancing reference to such from the Stanford lectures on the historical Yeshua. But if so, someone needs to make that clear, because "worship of God" on the face of it has too many connotations of "make signs of subservience to an invisible king."

Best

David

From Merin Nielsen, May 6, 2008. Time 11:59

Hi, David,

>> I would say that all of the important things in life don't need reasons.

>>... a reason is a narrative constructed within a human mind. Human minds are limited (there are a finite number of us, and our heads are only so big.) There are therefore only a very small number of reasons possible.

>> ...it takes a long time to construct a good "reason" for something. ... Meanwhile, events hit each of us at a million miles an hour. We can never keep up.

>> ..."being is far broader than thinking"

I'm HAPPY with all the above ('reason' being considered as a human construct)! Some clarification is called for.

My post at the top of this thread prompted your introduction of this word, but my post concerned choice, rather than reason. The relevant conjecture is that one may 'choose well', without reason, if the choosing is via 'flow'. The conjecture further suggests that, for this kind of flow to occur more fruitfully, it's valuable to acquire more thorough self knowledge. Such knowledge may be particular (to 'me') and/or general (via metaphor, inference, abstraction and so on), providing it contributes to a model of myself that proves its predictive power. Whereas the tennis player practices by playing, and may engage in tennis flow, the existential chooser practices by choosing, and may engage in existential flow. The tennis player's resource is the motor neurone system. The existential chooser's resource is knowledge. We don't need to know particular reasons, but it's very useful to know more about what sort of internal processes are involved and happening.

Regards,
Merin

Discussion continued on this page