05.19.2011 - Nisargadatta II [Notion of Self]

Gaya Ethaniel: Hello everyone :)
Violet (ataraxia.azemus): And Ags!
Aggers (agatha.macbeth): Hi Atari
Aggers (agatha.macbeth): Hello everybody :)
Chi Aho: hi, agatha
Aggers (agatha.macbeth): By everybody I mean all three of us...
Aggers (agatha.macbeth): Ah Gaya
Aggers (agatha.macbeth): Hello, didn't see you
Gaya Ethaniel: :)
Gaya Ethaniel: Guess we give a couple more minutes?
Aggers (agatha.macbeth): /me nods
Violet (ataraxia.azemus): Mm, I guess it's a slow day
Aggers (agatha.macbeth): Is eliza coming?
Violet (ataraxia.azemus): Hi Cal :)
Aggers (agatha.macbeth): Hello Calvino
Gaya Ethaniel: Hello Calvino :)
Calvino Rabeni: :) Hello
Chi Aho: Hi, Cal
Violet (ataraxia.azemus): Hi Gilles :)
Calvino Rabeni: Chi , long time
Aggers (agatha.macbeth): Bonsoir gilles :)
Gaya Ethaniel: Hello Gilles :)
Chi Aho: Yes, it has been
Gaya Ethaniel: Links to reports are here while you are waiting - http://waysofknowing.kira.org/
Gilles Kuhn: good evening
Gaya Ethaniel: Shall we start then?
Gaya Ethaniel: So the quote was ...
Gaya Ethaniel: You cannot possibly say that you are what you think yourself to be! Your ideas about yourself change from day to day and from moment to moment. Your self-image is the most changeful thing you have. It is utterly vulnerable, at the mercy of a passer by. A bereavement, the loss of a job, an insult, and your image of yourself, which you call your person, changes deeply. To know what you are you must first investigate and know what you are not. And to know what you are not you must watch yourself carefully, rejecting all that does not necessarily go with the basic fact: 'I am'. The ideas: I am born at a given place, at a given time, from my parents and now I am so-and-so, living at, married to, father of, employed by, and so on, are not inherent in the sense 'I am'. Our usual attitude is of 'I am this'. Separate consistently and perseveringly the 'I am' from 'this' or 'that', and try to feel what it means to be, just to be, without being 'this' or 'that'.
Gaya Ethaniel: All our habits go against it and the task of fighting them is long and hard sometimes, but clear understanding helps a lot. The clearer you understand that on the level of the mind you can be described in negative terms only, the quicker you will come to the end of your search and realise your limitless being. - Sri Nisargadatta Maharaj
Gilles Kuhn: sqo this gentlemant re invent powder about the distinction between essence and accident and apply that to the concept of self in resume?
Gaya Ethaniel: ?
Gaya Ethaniel: Can you say a bit more Gilles?
Gilles Kuhn: Socrates has a sunburn that sunburn will fade but even if not it will remain socrates thats an accident in Aristoteles terms
Gilles Kuhn: Socrates is a conscious human thats if you take of socrates is no more socrates its part of his essence again in aritotles terminology
Gaya Ethaniel: Hello Wol :)
Violet (ataraxia.azemus): Hi Wol :)
Aggers (agatha.macbeth): Hi Wollie :))
Wol Euler: gah
Gilles Kuhn: hello wol
Wol Euler: hello eveyrone, I'm stuck :(
Aggers (agatha.macbeth): Gah?
Aggers (agatha.macbeth): Hello Stuck
Gaya Ethaniel: I'm cloud again ...
Violet (ataraxia.azemus): hehe
Aggers (agatha.macbeth): I see you fine Gaya
Gilles Kuhn: now apply that elemental distinction to the quote .....
Wol Euler: don't mind me, pls continue
Gaya Ethaniel: oh ok
Aggers (agatha.macbeth): What have you been drinking Wol?
Wol Euler: tea
Aggers (agatha.macbeth): Oh
Wol Euler: and a shot of lag juice
Aggers (agatha.macbeth): Evidently
Gaya Ethaniel: Well Gilles at least I'm confused ... maybe you could put what you mean by 'self' in some more plain words?
Violet (ataraxia.azemus): I think what Nisargadatta is pointing out is that our identity isn't essential; we're changing all the time, so we shouldn't get stuck on one particular aspect of our lives
Gilles Kuhn: its not first the problem of self its a problem of language the guy who said that apparently had not read aristoteles or is unable to see a difference between a detail and an essential characteristic or both.....
Gilles Kuhn: and that i contest ataraxia
Chi Aho: So as a practical matter, we have more than one identity?
Gilles Kuhn: i can be insulted harm hurt tortured but i will struggle to remain me in my essence remember kipling poem
Gilles Kuhn: chi your phrase is contradictory in its very own terms
Wol Euler: IMHO yes, many identities. Consider your secret inner fantasy life, for example :)
Violet (ataraxia.azemus): Hi Anya :)
Anya Heberle: hi ;)
Gilles Kuhn: identity dont mean its necessary public wol
Chi Aho: Please explain, gilles.
Gaya Ethaniel: This is not a debate ... just sharing what each of us see :)
Gilles Kuhn: please explain chi as i claim you said a contradictin
Gilles Kuhn: which i call a debate gaya
Chi Aho: Well I don't understand how having more than one identity is a contradiction at all.
Gilles Kuhn: and its not about seeing its about commenting a text i am wrong?
Gilles Kuhn: identity mean the same
Gilles Kuhn: and it is not if you are pathologically mentally ill thats call multiple personnality disorder
Gaya Ethaniel: We're using the quote as a focus to centre our discussion, not necessarily a critique ...
Chi Aho: Identity is being used here to refer to how we identify - our answer to the question Who am i?
Gaya Ethaniel: Anyway, I will stop interrupting :)
Gilles Kuhn: i am who i am to remain in quote.....
Chi Aho: hi, Anya
Anya Heberle: ❤ Thank UUU!!  ❤ again ;)
Aggers (agatha.macbeth): Hello Anya
Anya Heberle: <waves>
Gilles Kuhn: the quote try using accidental things to demonstrate that the sense of identity of self is a fallacy i can accept that idea is worth of discussion but the arguments used by that author to make his point are childish
Chi Aho: Isn't the idea that our identity shifts, is changing. So the question is Who am I?
Wol Euler: the arguments used to make your point are ad hominem
Gilles Kuhn: too the idea you can define yourself only in a negative manner (what you are not) its displaced as it is only necessary to define god in western theology for very different reason
Anya Heberle: how are our Identity shifts changing
Gilles Kuhn: ad hominem ? wol please i say an argument is incorrect i have not saiud the author had a scar on his nose
Violet (ataraxia.azemus): When we talk about identity...in this context, I think we're talking about specific ways of framing our relationships to the world, which are all situational....they don't entirely define us, and if we can't be entirely defined....
Gilles Kuhn: definition is external the feeling of self and of identity is internal and i will venture to say its almost qualic
Gilles Kuhn: which i agree is heavily discutable
Anya Heberle: I feel I have a difference of body to my mind
Anya Heberle: makign self a more solid interpretation than reality
Chi Aho: ?
Gilles Kuhn: actually Anya your body feeling is a creation of your mind/brain so you are i think right
Anya Heberle: *.*
Anya Heberle: ❤ Thank UUU!!  ❤
Anya Heberle: It is the better idea I could find to consider the question !
Anya Heberle: I appologise for the emotes too ,!
Aggers (agatha.macbeth): Sorry, I'm being called
Aggers (agatha.macbeth): Take care
Violet (ataraxia.azemus): Take care, Agatha :)
Gilles Kuhn: bye agata
Gaya Ethaniel: Bye Agatha :)
Gaya Ethaniel: Why I can't see Wol anymore?
Violet (ataraxia.azemus): Wol left, just a second ago
Chi Aho: Well, I see this as a question about how a person identifies, how he/she answers the question "Who Am I"? Is this correct?
Gaya Ethaniel: Helllo Zen :)
Gilles Kuhn: Gnoti Seauton know thyself.....
Gaya Ethaniel: ah ok ...
Violet (ataraxia.azemus): I think what Nisargadatta is getting at is...when we try to pin down these definitions of who we are, they slip away. We have to begin defining ourselves in the negative--we are not wholly our job, or our social roles, or our relationships to others....and in doing that, we can reach an awareness without laying our filters over that.
Violet (ataraxia.azemus): Hi Zen :)
Zen (zen.arado): Hi all
Zen (zen.arado): sorry for lateness..had trouble logging on
Gilles Kuhn: as i said your job social role lenght of arm and nose scar are accidental and not essential
Violet (ataraxia.azemus): Glad they got resolved, Zen :)
Anya Heberle: a plant does not dissasociate itself from its growth spree as far as I know , or do other things yet Self is a trait that is completely more human than most anything else in the case that we have a word for it,
Gilles Kuhn: BUT that dont mean that when you take out all the accidental nothing remain as that author imply
Violet (ataraxia.azemus): Hi Dao :)
Gilles Kuhn: well we are not plant
Gaya Ethaniel: Hello Dao :)
Gilles Kuhn: and those have not sense of self that we are aware of to put it mildly
Dao Yheng: Hi all, sneaking in :)
Zen (zen.arado): Hi Dao :)
Anya Heberle: no but does that make my subposition correspond with anythign surrounding the aspect of a more truer being and relation than actual reality
Violet (ataraxia.azemus): Hi Livegame
Calvino Rabeni: Do I take it that basically you all basically assume that there IS something essential to be found, in an investigation of "self"?
Gilles Kuhn: anya could you rephrase that please?
Anya Heberle: through self than , effect
Chi Aho: Well, if we kept "peeling the onion" and kept up saying we are not this and not that, in the end we would only be a changing uncertainty in the face of nothingness.
Gilles Kuhn: calvino the sense of self for me at least for Descartes aswell is the only thing we can negate
Gilles Kuhn: Chi the non being is not and his way is labyrinth and there is notruth ever to find in it to paraphrase Parmenides
Anya Heberle: I was wondering that even though my self was more real to me than the aspect that I had a pysicla deviation of that , make me more aware than a plant which doe not deny is pure and true function of being its organsiesd structure
livegame: hi guys can i sit?
Calvino Rabeni: Sure, the peeling is a thought exercise. It seems to be interepreted to say that some essential will be found. But what about the contrary, that at some point self disappears, like Hal being turned off in the 2001 movie Anya Heberle: its pure *
Gilles Kuhn: anya the platn as no idea of anything so is unabl to deny......
Anya Heberle: exactly :)
Gaya Ethaniel: I will IM you livegame with group intro :)
Anya Heberle: so am I less awarwre of self or more
Gilles Kuhn: yes Calvino we die eventually....
Zen (zen.arado): I find this hard to discuss in philosophical terms
Zen (zen.arado): it deesn't make any sense that way
Anya Heberle: dont be affraoid, Im sure that self is the definition behiind evolution
Violet (ataraxia.azemus): Well, when Nisargadatta talks about not being this or that, he's referring to netti netti I think, which is less about negation as much as leaving specific qualities behind....in advaita, the self and the absolute are identical, and can only be defined by what they aren't--the moment we define something, we limit it, and there is always something deeper to the self than what definitions we place on it
Gilles Kuhn: the only thing we have is our self and to hold on it permit us to have relation with other selves even if they fleeting and eventually die thats what we are and that permit us to create to be conscious and to have relations
Calvino Rabeni: the quote seems to imply that some essence will be found by peeling off the contingent parts of identity
Anya Heberle: or at least being
Anya Heberle: liek DNA is actually a Giant codex of your historical lineage
Anya Heberle: its more a gift that a structur!!.. perhaps to tjhose who may understand
Zen (zen.arado): we can hold the two awarenesses together can't we?
Dao Yheng: Gilles, if other selves are fleeting and die, then certainly one's own self is fleeting and dies?
Zen (zen.arado): we need the relative dimension in everyday life
livegame: ok guys thank you very much
Anya Heberle: it is saturated vocally as the awareness the egop and the will and being
Gilles Kuhn: Ataraxia if we are god and the asolute then in creating us he wanted to forget his absolutness and have some fun in being limited and selfish for a change dont you think?
Violet (ataraxia.azemus): We can define ourselves by our work or our relationships, but that's only a piece of who we are. If we want to define what we absolutely are, there's only an absence of specific qualities.
Violet (ataraxia.azemus): Yeah, I've always liked that view :p
Zen (zen.arado): we know we are part of some vast awareness underneath
Gilles Kuhn: Dao yes but its the time between those two absolute void and senseless darkness this time that is our live that is all and all we can have
Zen (zen.arado): yes Violet
Gaya Ethaniel: :)
Gilles Kuhn: (good heaven after sounding aristotlecian i sound nietzschean now i need to change of wine brand....)
Zen (zen.arado): senseless hmmm...
Zen (zen.arado): not logical but...
Gaya Ethaniel: Many brands to choose from hey? :)
Gilles Kuhn: Ataraxia may i point that the very concept of absolute is a creation of us?
Dao Yheng: I was going to say, maybe we're rubbing off on you :)
Dao Yheng: So then that having or that contact as you put it later on is part of the value, rather than the notion of anything permanent
Chi Aho: Gilles, there is a difference between the concept of the absolute, i.e. the "absolute" as an idea, and the *experience* of such mystically or in meditation.
Anya Heberle: with it and with a greater understanding, we might understand complex thought forms beyond what we know
Gaya Ethaniel: Apparently 'self' can't understand the absolute but it hasn't stopped any of us talking about it :)
Gilles Kuhn: yes chi at least the idea and concept we can talk about and it has some substance due to that the other.....
Chi Aho: is outside of your experience
Violet (ataraxia.azemus): Well, like the quote says, it kind of goes against our habits to let go of our ideas and turn our attention to our amness
Anya Heberle: such as pre arranged marriage,meeting/ certains tasks to achive , or even places to be sure of rebirth of the next edevloping initiative
Gilles Kuhn: and then is impossible to know or even prove to exist chi yes
Chi Aho: for those not having had the experience, there is no convincing
Anya Heberle: it may be a complex guidline tto a host of activity we are unwaware exists in our more aware state. or at least. in a place to help us achieve some order over a chaos
Anya Heberle: flash being claw , awareness beeing the will and teh shaping element
Chi Aho: its like the taste of an orange or a lover's kiss - how can such be described?
Gilles Kuhn: so as i deem metaphysic as a intellectual masturbation that is pointless but for having fun (which is not pointless as it is nice per se but is not to be taken ever seriously...)
Anya Heberle: the combing being the sole
Anya Heberle: soul!
Anya Heberle: combination being the soul!
Gilles Kuhn: Chi by analogy or by giving a kiss or a orange depending if you need to demonstrate to a beautifull girl or a old witch your point
Anya Heberle: flesh being Clay.... awareness being will and the shaping element of self awareness , I meant...sorry for the spelling errors!
Gilles Kuhn: but to show the absolute good luck....
Gaya Ethaniel: Gilles ... you're sometimes too dramatic for me ^^;;;
Gaya Ethaniel: We can talk about stuff ... you know, it doesn't have to be something grand or totally useless.
Violet (ataraxia.azemus): Well...I think we're drifting, somewhat... We're talking about the opposite of metaphysics, I think...just learning to focus on the experience of being
Dao Yheng: To me, Gilles' point is well-taken --- recognition that permanence is not strictly necessary to find value is often the first issue in investigating the self
Gilles Kuhn: well gaya i must confess when i heard about buddhist wanting to go out of passion and suffering i say i would prefer a good (and yes absurd) cavalry charge feeling my hairs blowing in the wind and hearing my banner flying jus behind me than passing 20 years to meditate to find a enlightmenent that is only an act of faith and probably not even there
Zen (zen.arado): it's an experiential matter to me..ypu can't grasp it using philosphical theories
Zen (zen.arado): it just isn't on that level
Violet (ataraxia.azemus): Mm, I agree, Zen...I'm stumbling :p
Gaya Ethaniel: That's not really Buddhism Gilles ... one does want all to be free from suffering, which requires a strong passion of another kind.
Gilles Kuhn: passion imply to suffer gaya would you not risk suffering in order to feel love well te buddha say you need to refuse that
Dao Yheng: suspect that I would need to be a better philosopher to make that investigation work for me personally -- philosophy = abstraction for me
Gaya Ethaniel: Yes, I think here we'd like to discuss how this self issue can be seen in our daily life.
Gilles Kuhn: daily life which not include cavalry charge sadly and war reporting is less fun.....
Zen (zen.arado): the quote isn't Buddhist Gilles
Dao Yheng: but I do appreciate it when someone has a way of using philosophy as a real tool (rather than a source of misdirection)
Gilles Kuhn: i was not speaking anymore of the quote zen
Chi Aho: Perhaps we can agree that the "self" is really our own "self concept" and that it changes and not really who we are at all.
Gilles Kuhn: and i suspected that as buddhist are way more subtle i think
Violet (ataraxia.azemus): Yes, Chi
Dao Yheng: Chi, that's been a useful working definition for me
Chi Aho: It changes and is sometimes illusionary; it is constantly fleeting as we come upon different experiences.
Dao Yheng: just noticing that my concept of self is a concept and not "A REALITY"
Chi Aho: But that is not who we are at all.
Calvino Rabeni: The question is, what distinction is being made by that peeling process
Gilles Kuhn: but Chi it remain you and if you have will your experience will only enrich your self and make it more
Chi Aho: Well, the peeling off is to rid ourselves of false notions about who we are.
Calvino Rabeni: Perrhaps it separates one kind of not-really-self from another kind of not-really-self
Violet (ataraxia.azemus): The distinction between being a self defined by the world, and just being I think, Cal
Calvino Rabeni: Why should we assume that it distinguishes a false self from something less false
Gilles Kuhn: and what the hell can we but ourself? god perhaps? then i repeat i we athman then the brahma want to feel and in order to feel you need to be limited
Calvino Rabeni: or that after the peeling there is anything left that can be called self in a different way
Zen (zen.arado): thr selves aren't false to me...just convenient roles
Gilles Kuhn: if we are athman*
Zen (zen.arado): but we identify with them
Dao Yheng: Hmm, interesting point, Zen!
Violet (ataraxia.azemus): I don't think that being illusory makes our "self concepts" ( I'm stealing that, Chi :) ) wrong or useless or anything, though
Gilles Kuhn: indeed ataraxia and what is illusory and what is not?
Violet (ataraxia.azemus): Yes, I agree, Gilles
Chi Aho: /me agrees with atari adding that we must recogniaze though that we are not our self-concept
Chi Aho: which means we are not who we might think that we are
Violet (ataraxia.azemus): Yes. That's why it's helpful to realize what we aren't, and focus on that we are.
Gilles Kuhn: we are good lord i dont care what i am in a absolute way i just care what i feel i am and what i construct as myself because i know that i cannot ascertain more
Chi Aho: I am unwilling to be either a personal construction or a social construction.
Dao Yheng: "No Truth" is probably the closest thing we'll ever get to an accurate statement
Zen (zen.arado): really you have to put some faith in the process and practice it...you will never figure it out on the level of the mind I think
Chi Aho: Another accurate statement: I AM.
Gaya Ethaniel: Almost time to go ...
Gilles Kuhn: again chi for me what you say is pratically useless and i never spoke of a social construction dont be as childish as the author
Zen (zen.arado): that's as hominem Gilles
Chi Aho: lol
Gilles Kuhn: at the reverse what is splendid is our capacity to constreuct ourselves
Zen (zen.arado): what is splendid about it Gilles?
Gilles Kuhn: what you say impeach ad hominem zen
Gilles Kuhn: " what you say"*
Chi Aho: so people can become deluded into believing they are something that they are not, then.
Calvino Rabeni: that certainly is splendid Giles
Zen (zen.arado): it is about being open
Gaya Ethaniel: mm ... continue onto next week on same topic then?
Dao Yheng: Hee, Gaya, you're a trouper!
Chi Aho: May I say one more thing?
Gilles Kuhn: everything Zen ! art ! poetry even metaphysic bullshit all of that is the product of our contructed self !
Gaya Ethaniel: ^^;;;
Gaya Ethaniel: Of course go ahead Chi :)
Zen (zen.arado): not closed into menta constructiokns and concepts
Calvino Rabeni: /me listens for Chi's one more thing
Chi Aho: I AM what I have been looking for.
Dao Yheng: thanks, Chi -- that's a good one :)
Zen (zen.arado): it is a product of what we are..our deeper being
Chi Aho: Adyashanti said that.
Gaya Ethaniel: :)
Zen (zen.arado): not from logical thought or reasoning
Gilles Kuhn: they are something they are not sorry chi but HOW can you know what we are in an absolute way as you fancy?
Gaya Ethaniel: Well we can discuss topics in the email group. Chi if you want to join, please IM me your address.
Violet (ataraxia.azemus): Well, we are what we are....that's sort of what it comes down to, I think--we are.
Chi Aho: Adyashanti also said: "Existence is seeking to become conscious of itself."
Dao Yheng: I suppose I like Chi's quote because it accurately reflects a situation I find myself in -- looking for something that I already am
Chi Aho: so it really isn't us.
Gilles Kuhn: Adyashanti was apparently very egotist......
Zen (zen.arado): adhominem again Gilles
Chi Aho: Krisnamurti said it this way, Dao: "You are the world."
Dao Yheng: Me too! but It depends on how you define "I"
Gilles Kuhn: alterity is somlething i seldom see in oriental thinking
Dao Yheng: (re egotist)
Gilles Kuhn: Zen you dont want me to really become ad hominem......
Zen (zen.arado): no
Gilles Kuhn: then dont use that argument when it is not the case
Calvino Rabeni: certainly not :)
Gilles Kuhn: "Existence is seeking to become conscious of itself." is IF it is only that a view of existence that is totally egotist
Chi Aho: Through us the universe looks back upon itself" Like that one?
Gilles Kuhn: and i assumed perhaps wrongly that that was about a man thought as i cannot conceive a concept being conscious
Gilles Kuhn: and for precision i cannot say anything about the ontological independance of concepts but that it is not acceptable in a rationnal argument
Violet (ataraxia.azemus): Even in a purely physical sense, it's true....life is the universe experiencing itself...whether there are individual minds and egos in all of that, I don't know...
Chi Aho: Gilles, this is not philosophy. It is an exchange of ideas about our own personal experience, how e view ourselves and the world.
Gilles Kuhn: ah and as my personnal experience is a rationnal philosophical one where i use my mind....
Gilles Kuhn: and how we view ourselve and the world is not a bad definition for philosophical thinking btw
Gaya Ethaniel: I have to go I'm afraid. Please feel free to send me the rest of the log to post.
Zen (zen.arado): so anything outside that framework is unintelligible and a waste of time Gilles?
Gaya Ethaniel: Thanks again :)
Violet (ataraxia.azemus): Take care, Gaya :)
Zen (zen.arado): bye Gaya
Chi Aho: bye Gaya
Dao Yheng: Bye Gaya!
Chi Aho: I must go too.
Calvino Rabeni: Bye Chi, Gaya