Inflate or destroy self?

@Frank Apisa,

Sure he did like everybody else including me, but not "wrong" as a naive realist understands the term.
I'll give you this reference with little expectation that you will either read it or understand it.
http://www.jiddu-krishnamurti.net/en/commentaries-on-living-series-3/1960-00-00-jiddu-krishnamurti-commentaries-on-living-series-3-19-where-the-self-is-love-is-not

1 Reply

@fresco,

If you can't love yourself, you can't love others.
Olivier5 Smile

1 Reply

@Olivier5,

The semantic implication above is that "I love" is replaced by "love occurs" as an aspect of the realization of holistic co-extension. i.e, "love" is the negation of "isolation". That fickle changeable "I" has been transcended and so has the changeable "other".

2 Replies

@fresco,

fresco wrote:

Sure he did like everybody else including me, but not "wrong" as a naive realist understands the term.
I'll give you this reference with little expectation that you will either read it or understand it.
http://www.jiddu-krishnamurti.net/en/commentaries-on-living-series-3/1960-00-00-jiddu-krishnamurti-commentaries-on-living-series-3-19-where-the-self-is-love-is-not

So the "Where the self is, love is not." is nothing more than a bumper sticker for people like you...sorta like, "I'd rather be dead than Red!"

0 Replies

@fresco,

fresco wrote:

The semantic implication above is that "I love" is replaced by "love occurs" as an aspect of the realization of holistic co-extension. i.e, "love" is the negation of "isolation". That fickle changeable "I" has been transcended and so has the changeable "other".

I understand: Your religion forbids the idea of self.

I get it.

2 Replies

@Frank Apisa,

Speaking of bumper stickers, does that "I" still like its tattoo ?

1 Reply

@fresco,

fresco wrote:

Speaking of bumper stickers, does that "I" still like its tattoo ?

Yeah.

Had a funny incident with it, Fresco. Not sure if I told this on-line before.

It was late fall...I had on my GIANTS sweatshirt and GIANTS hat. I was on the golf course...when the need for a cigar hit. I opened by carry humidor...got out a stick...guillotined the end...and reached for my lighter.

Damn...no lighter.

But I saw a golf cart coming at me with a guy smoking a cigar...so a light was at hand.

When they rode up...I took a closer look. The guy was in EAGLE's green from head to foot...with Philadephia Eagle head covers on his clubs.

I smiled...held the cigar forward and said, "I forgot my lighter. Can I have a light?"

"I ain't givin' no goddam light to anyone wearing all that GIANTS ****," came the response without no hint of kidding around.

I backed up a bit...trying to see if a smile would crack...but not even a hint of a smile showed.

Then I thought of the tattoo...the big eagle on my calf.

I raised my pant leg...and showed him.

Finally a smile...and a light.

Whew!

1 Reply

@fresco,

Quote:

That fickle changeable "I" has been transcended and so has the changeable "other"

Or so your self allows you to believe...

I love you Fresco, and I mean YOU !

1 Reply

@Frank Apisa,

Isn't tribalism wonderful !

1 Reply

@fresco,

fresco wrote:

Isn't tribalism wonderful !

Yeah...a bunch of individuals working together as one. Wink

0 Replies

@Olivier5,

One of the frescos is worried !
But its not a question of belief its a matter of experience albeit an infrequent and brief one, yet one of a distinct quality.

1 Reply

@Frank Apisa,

Quote:

I understand: Your religion forbids the idea of self.

Your persistent demand for 'proof', knowing, prevents you from a lot of insight. There is a difference between religious dogma and ideas and understanding, or wisdom for that matter.

That's not to say that every 'a ha' moment leads to profound wisdom, but some of them do. There is nothing wrong with considering a point of view for illumination.

If you are comfortable with your position of not knowing, that is fine and a valid conclusion for you. Dismissing others points of view out of hand not so much.

2 Replies

@IRFRANK,

IRFRANK wrote:

Quote:
I understand: Your religion forbids the idea of self.

Your persistent demand for 'proof', knowing, prevents you from a lot of insight. There is a difference between religious dogma and ideas and understanding, or wisdom for that matter.

That's not to say that every 'a ha' moment leads to profound wisdom, but some of them do. There is nothing wrong with considering a point of view for illumination.

If you are comfortable with your position of not knowing, that is fine and a valid conclusion for you. Dismissing others points of view out of hand not so much.

No, Frank...Fresco is asserting (quite forcefully) that there is no self.

There MAY BE no self...

...but there MAY BE a self.

The "naive realists" that he dismisses...MAY BE correct.

I am not dismissing the consideration.

I AM dismissing the assertion as fact.

1 Reply

@IRFRANK,

An excellent point but in Frank's case water off a duck's back. A post by "fresco" (in particular) automatically triggers Franks "simpleton self" which has only two lay categories of analysis "knowing" and "guessing". He is very comfortable in that mode and has no way of getting out of its seductive clutches in order to indulge in troublesome brain work, He rationalizes such indolence in terms of a self-image as a bastion of " common sense" aginst a tide of "unsubstantiated speculation".

And I now note his rejoinder which uses the word "assert" instead of "making a case for". The binary simpleton mode has no chance of understanding functional paradigmatics.

0 Replies

The last exchange between IRFrank and Fresco has stimulated the observation that we all have, and have demonstrated, moments of "wisdom" and moments of stupidity. I have often regretted posts (after it was too late to edit or delete them). But consistent with my theory of no-self (or no-mind/mu-shin) and Fresco's multiplicity of selves, I've chosen to accept with equanimity the inevitability of all our sometimes smart and sometimes stupid "selves".
Let's see if I regret this post.

2 Replies

@JLNobody,

At least one of my "I"s does not regret it !

0 Replies

@Frank Apisa,

I think the point here is that a consideration should be considered. Sounds stupid to say that, but I don't get the impression that much consideration occurred. I don't know your thought process of course and it has to satisfy you, not me. It takes me some time to decide on these issues. Often during that phase I change my point of view.

1 Reply

@JLNobody,

I certainly have regretted posts too, hopefully not this one. That feeling of regret resulting from judgment, is what isn't necessary. I don't agree with this idea of multiple selves that behave in different ways. But our moods and responses do change significantly. Those emotional responses are what we strive to calm down. What's left may be the self or non-self as a matter of definition. I am not concerned with what it's called. I'd just like to reduce the noise that keeps it muffled.

0 Replies

@IRFRANK,

IRFRANK wrote:

I think the point here is that a consideration should be considered. Sounds stupid to say that, but I don't get the impression that much consideration occurred. I don't know your thought process of course and it has to satisfy you, not me. It takes me some time to decide on these issues. Often during that phase I change my point of view.

I have changed my point of view on some things 180 degrees, Frank. I have no problem with that.

Name the specific...and we can discuss it.

Fresco is asserting that there is no self.

I am asserting that I do not know if there is a self or not.

Think about that for a bit.

2 Replies

@fresco,

Quote:

its not a question of belief its a matter of experience

Well, I experience my self, as do billions of people, ergo the self exist...

That was easy!

1 Reply

Inflate or destroy self?

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know