Skip navigation

Category Archives: On Experience

I think everyone should ask themselves this…

If we, as everyone tends to assume, are changeable; then what would have to be the core of our Being?

Let’s say the core of our being was decided. That we “knew” who we were….would we then be able to change?

If a tree were to become hard and inflexible in the middle…would it be able to bend and not break under a strong wind?

Really dislike people trying to figure me out…Ie. put me in a box from their limited experience and narrow consciousness.
If you really want to see someone, drop your Self; your ideas, your judgements, your built up experiences, assumptions….in short free yourself from your knowledge and conditioning. Then and only then can you see someone for who they really are…and not through the narrow limited window of what you think you know.

I had a general “feeling” one could say, that something like this has, is, and probably will happen so I decided to voice my dislike. I mean, doesn’t everyone share this feeling at least once?

Be like an Uncarved Block:

The Chinese word “Pu” is often translated as “the uncarved block,” and refers to a state of pure potential which is the primordial condition of the mind before the arising of experience. The Taoist concept of Pu points to perception without prejudice, i.e. beyond dualistic distinctions such as right/wrong, good/bad, black/white, beautiful/ugly.
But this should apply to everyone. If everyone attempted this and remained open it would help a lot in getting everyone to turn towards wholeness.

“There is truth, my boy. But the doctrine you desire, absolute, perfect dogma that alone provides wisdom, does not exist. Nor should you long for a perfect doctrine, my friend. Rather, you should long for the perfection of yourself. The deity is within you, not in ideas and books. Truth is lived, not taught.”
― Hermann Hesse, The Glass Bead Game

What I am attempting here is to bring something up into consciousness. To help it into our sight.

The core of our Being, unknowable, speaks and shows.

We don’t have to be stuck or limited, in the normal sense of the word. Holding onto the I, me, mine causing nothing but separation, division does not lead to the open field of play.

And in this sense, and pretty much only this sense, can “I” judge. Can I “dislike”. Because I put the Open first, and only because I put the open first, can I judge that which is not open and dislike it.

For I must always acknowledge, within myself, that I am unknowable, beyond words, thoughts, ideas, and that this extends to everyone, everything. So how can I, with my labels and ideas about you, ever really hold them to be true?

Wouldn’t I be selfish if I did? I mean, am I for the open? Do I want to play or do I want to rule?”

solitudinus

Advertisements

If you are irritated by every rub, how will you be come polished? – Rumi

Most people will not be at all prepared for this…education says and does nothing for it and emotions are, in general, too powerful….
re-think how one could go about getting into the deep with others and consider the potential fact that everyone else experiences boredom where you experience the highest truths and your longing for perfection. Also do not be afraid to lose people…you can’t realize the fullness of your personality by remaining attached to the superficial.

This is where it seems wisdom starts…and by wisdom I mean this:

Knowing others is intelligence;
knowing yourself is true wisdom.

Mastering others is strength;
mastering yourself is true power.

– Tao Te Ching

This is where it gets tough and where I feel most alive:

The fact that you don’t want to go into this, says to me, that there is a judgment taking place here and therefore we are not experiencing the present moment free of like or dislike. Meaning that if we are not free of judgment then we are operating in the realm of the ego or superficial self. which then also means that the truth is not being seen; it is being blocked, obstructed, and hence we are irritated by a rubbing that seeks to polish and it would seem, by the above quote from the Tao, that we would also then be missing our opportunity to gain true wisdom by not going through an experience that would show us ourselves.

solitudinus

Sometimes I wonder what we think about books and quotes and “thinkers” and concepts or ideas.

Take this quote for example:

The Greek word φιλόσοφος is put together from σοφός and φίλος. A σοφός is someone who understands something, who has reliable knowledge in a particular area, who understands the matter at hand and who enacts an ultimate decision and law-giving, φίλος is friend,φιλόσοφος someone whose Dasein is determined through φιλόσοφία(Philosophy): not someone who pursues ‘philosophy’ as a matter of general ‘education’, but someone for whom philosophy is the basic character of the being of man and who, in advance of his age, creates this being, lets it originate, drives it forward. The philosopher is someone possessed of the drive and inner necessity to understand beings in the whole, φιλόσοφία , φιλόσοφεῖν(to philosophize) does not mean science (research within a delimited region of beings and with a restricted problematic), nor is it primary and fundamental science, but is an openness to the questioning of being and essence, wanting to get to the bottom of beings and of being as such. In short, the philosopher is the friend of being.

– Heidegger (The Essence of Truth, p.66-67)

Where is this thought?
And I don’t mean physically within your brain or physical being.

Where does it lay within the whole of what can be thought?

I mean thinking and thoughts take us places. We travel, by ultimately coming to conclusions based on our more or less immediate reactions and our interpretation of our, much too personal, gatherings of experience.

But if we can actually take a moment to ‘look back’ upon our decisive moments of answer creation…to experience Religio, so to speak, and become religious. Then we could see more clearly where we’ve come from and therefore see more clearly into where we are in the present.

That right there is a travelling. And even φιλόσοφία could here be said to be the way to seeing Being and Man. Ie. the Philosopher notices what is essential in the being that is undergoing the experience of religio. And then seeks to establish the –how–it comes to be by its “law-giving”.

And contained herein is a possible path into the essence of φιλόσοφία.

In short, in the above passage, I see a way to the beginning of thought. To seeing the whole of thought so as to see how it is best done. And to seeing the importance of History and of being historical.

If we can come look and see, we shall notice that every concept or idea or institution is invariably attached to man, him or herself. To his/her actual being.

Therefore History can not be accomplished without someone actually becoming the being that is capable of thinking, and therefore being, the way that can create history. Either in the form of a book or in a more direct physical action.

The same applies to all “systems” of thought. Ie. the institution of science. It requires a person to be a particular way. Although science is not the way to look-back, religio, nor the way to seeing Being, as a whole, φιλόσοφία.

This then can also become another train of thought into the depths of the essence and Being of Man. What is the essence of Man? What allows him to become able to have or take on “other” ways of being?

 

And even later, through Psychology, we can even make a trip to a distinction between the sexes, by seeing how Feminine and Masculine development differs substantially in how they tend to comport themselves to the overcoming of Fear.

The great, to some extent ultimate, task posed here is that of understanding fear in all its forms as an instrument of the self. Fear of the unknown and of all that is ego-alien turns out to be fear of the unknown aspects of “one-Self” and of “one-Self” as the unknown. In this sense the transformation process of becoming one-Self again and again embraces new unknowns, indeed, ever-new worlds of fear-inspiring unknowns.

In development through the archetypal stages, the individual must overcome fear with each transition from one phase to another, which, of course, always means the new phase of an existence unknown until that time. In this context we cannot take up the various ways in which men and women overcome fear, nor can we address the striking and as yet not well understood fact that the manner in which the ego overcomes fear is symbolically “genital,” i.e., is coordinated with the specific form of the genitals. Thus the male form of overcoming fear is active, intrusive, and pugnaciously heroic just as the typical form of fear appears as “castration” fear. Conversely, women’s fear is the fear of rape, and her way of overcoming fear is not actively heroic but passively heroic, accepting and incorporating it in her surrender to fear.

– Neumann (Fear of the Feminine, p.278-9)

With all of these possible places to go, all this seemingly infinite ability to travel; to imagine, combine and create, why do we still remain stuck in a singular way? Where is our Heroic tendency towards conscious, continuous development? Why do we not see all the possible ways one could think or exist? Why do we destroy that which we fear and do not understand? Isn’t the real point to travel freely through all thoughts, to never stay too long in one view as things should be in consciously constant flux to remain, even remotely, tied to reality?

 

solitudinus

The great, to some extent ultimate, task posed here is that of understanding fear in all its forms as an instrument of the Self. Fear of the unknown and of all that is ego-alien turns out to be fear of the unknown aspects of “one-Self” and of “one-Self” as the unknown. In this sense the transformation process of becoming one-Self again and again embraces new unknowns, indeed, ever-new worlds of fear-inspiring unknowns.

In development through the archetypal stages, the individual must overcome fear with each transition from one phase to another, which, of course, always means the new phase of an existence unknown until that time. In this context we cannot take up the various ways in which men and women overcome fear, nor can we address the striking and as yet not well understood fact that the manner in which the ego overcomes fear is symbolically “genital,” i.e., is coordinated with the specific form of the genitals. Thus the male form of overcoming fear is active, intrusive, and pugnaciously heroic just as the typical form of fear appears as “castration” fear. Conversely, women’s fear is the fear of rape, and her way of overcoming fear is not activately heroic but passively heroic, accepting and incorporating it in her surrender to fear.

But always and independently of any of its forms, overcoming fear represents a specific form of integration in which something alien to the ego, some piece of Not-I, is recognized and realized as one’s own. Thus the man experiences the Terrible Feminine in its character of anima and transformation as belonging to his own psyche, just as he experiences the maternal and elementary character as “his own,” and only after assimilating all these aspects of the feminine will a man attain to his own authenticity as a human Self that is male and female simultaneously. Only when the “pure masculinity” of the patriarchy has been overcome through this process of transformation does a man overcome the fear in which his “pure masculinity” screened itself from the otherness that appeared symbolically as feminine. The same holds true for woman and her fear of the Masculine, which she has only concealed by her identification with the animus world demanded by the patriarchy.

In this experience of transformation the human individual becomes conscious of the relentless power of the Self, which recasts all phases of development as well as all ego-conquests of the outer and inner worlds into aspects of Self-realization that manifest from the very beginning as automorphism, as a tendency at work in the psyche. When the personal Self that manifests as a fear-inducing world assaulting the ego from within and from without is integrated, not only the one who fears and the one who overcomes fear but that which arouses fear can be seen as belonging together. Just as the good and evil gods in Bardo Thodol are one and turn out to be only projections of an underlying third thing, here we are led to experience the unity of Self and world. Destiny in its unity of inside and outside that arouses fear from without and from within turns out to belong to humankind and to be the living experience of the personal Self. World events appearing from outside as much as inner, fear-inducing phenomena of the psyche prove to be disguises of the Self. Inner and outer realities that at first appear strange and hence frightening are later experienced and “unmasked” as belonging to one’s very own authentic being, and thereby lose their foreign as well as their fearsome character. In this transformation the ego experiences that it belongs fundamentally to the Self, and that, in the form of the ego-Self axis, this “belongingness” has determined the entire development of personality on a new level. When the ego grasps the degree to which the Self directs fear and uses it as a “tool for transformation,” it also experiences itself embraced by the Self’s demand for transformation. In this way, however, the ego unmasks its own annihilation through fear and recognizes it as a process of negation brought about by something unfamiliar that proves itself to be one’s most essential nature, and one gains a paradoxical security in the Self that creatively forces the ego into continual transformation. As the ego becomes the transparent exponent of the Self, this agent of transformation, the Self, becomes one’s most treasured essence that remains fearlessly creative throughout all transformations. Only in this way does fearlessness arise for the ego that no longer clings to itself but rather in transformation surrenders and devotes itself to the Self as to its “own.” Thus the ego-Self axis becomes humankind’s guarantee of a creative existence, i.e., of an existence of transformation. Despite this ego-Self unity, however, the opposition persists in which the ego, as a smaller part, is subjected to a Self that is existentially superior to and more than a match for the ego. This means that the ego must necessarily continue to experience fear. Fear disappears only when the ego has come to that stage of the conquest of fear in which the human being’s sense of security lies in existing not only as an ego but, in a mysterious and numinous way, also as a Self that guides the personality through all ego-phases and turns all of the ego’s fear-constellations into stages of transformation in which existence reveals itself as an unending metamorphosis of aspects of the creative.

– Neumann (The Fear of the Feminine, p.278-281)

No one rises above himself who has not turned his most
dangerous weapon against himself. One who wants to rise above
himself shall climb down and hoist himself onto himself and lug
himself to the place of sacrifice. But what must happen to a man
until he realizes that outer visible success, that he can grasp with
his hands, leads him astray. What suffering must be brought
upon humanity; until man gives up satisfying his longing for
power over his fellow man and forever wanting others to be the
same. How much blood must go on flowing until man opens his
eyes and sees the way to his own path and himself as the enemy;
and becomes aware of his real success. You ought to be able to
live with yourself but not at your neighbor’s expense. The herd
animal is not his brother’s parasite and pest. Man, you have even
forgotten that you too are an animal. You actually still seem to
believe that life is better elsewhere. Woe unto you if your neighbor
also thinks so. But you may be sure that he does. Someone must
begin to stop being childish.

– Jung (The Red Book, p.310)

If there is some end of the things we do, which we desire for its own sake, clearly this must be the good. Will not knowledge of it, then, have a great influence on life? Shall we not, like archers who have a mark to aim at, be more likely to hit upon what we should? If so, we must try, in outline at least, to determine what it is.

– Aristotle

Book I, 1094.a18

…There is no morality that alone makes moral, and every ethic that affirms itself exclusively kills too much good strength and costs humanity too dearly. The deviants, who are so frequently the inventive and fruitful ones, shall no longer be sacrificed; it shall not even be considered infamous to deviate from morality, in thought and deed; numerous new experiments of life and society shall be made; a tremendous burden  of bad conscience shall be removed from the world–these most general aims should be recognized by all who are honest and seek truth.

– Nietzsche (The Dawn, 164)

I mention all this just to illustrate the order of magnitude to which the anima/animus projections belong, and the moral and intellectual exertions that are needed to dissolve them. Not all the contents of the anima and animus are projected, however. Many of them appear spontaneously in dreams and so on, and many more can be made conscious through active imagination. In this way we find that thoughts, feelings, and affects are alive in us which we would never have believed possible. Naturally, possibilities of this sort seem utterly fantastic to anyone who has not experienced them himself, for a normal person “knows what he thinks.” Such a childish attitude on the part of the “normal person” is simply the rule, so that no one without experience in this field can be expected to understand the real nature of the anima and animus. With these reflections one gets into an entirely new world of psychological experience, provided of course that one succeeds in realizing it in practice. Those who do succeed can hardly fail to be impressed by all the ego does not know and never has known. This increase in self-knowledge is still very rare nowadays and is usually paid for in advance with a neurosis, if not with something worse.

– Jung (Portable Jung, p. 158)

Should the personal experience of an individual be taken as a fact to be considered by others? I am leaning towards no and I think Aristotle would agree with me as he said (loosely): Truth is objective. For example, a true proposition does not depend upon the mind of the individual man for its existence. Truths exist in nature and are discoverable by the reason of man.

So the truths of the Educational System and ‘systems’ in general are therefore found in their very nature and do not require the experience of anyone to be able to be seen. We simply have to be open and look and this requires us to be ‘uncertain’ or else we will not be able to look, because we will assume from the beginning. What we have been told and what we experienced previously will inform our conclusion before we can even begin to freely look again at the systems with which we are apart.

An example of this would be our fear of the dark. I am not sure if you, personally, had a fear of the dark when you were young but I sure did. I had a recurring dream where I would float down the stairs of my house and enter into the basement where the bogey-man from Ghostbusters would pop out and I would wake up. So my first “experience” of the dark usually brought up in me a fear of that darkness, unknowingness but as I grew up and came to see that within the darkness/unknown there really wasn’t a “bogey-man” hiding and going to pop out and get me. That I was, in a certain respect letting my imagination get the best of me….but it was also this same imagination that allowed me to come to see and understand my fear of the dark and to overcome it. And so my “experience” has changed or rather I have had multiple experiences of the same thing and if experience changes and we can have more than one depending on how or if an individual looks into things more or less deeply by looking into themselves then how can we take “experience” as seriously as we usually do?

“If one observes, fear basically is related to authority; the word `authority’ is heavily loaded. There is the authority of law, the policeman, and the authority of tradition and the authority of experience; and that authority insists that we obey. Obeying is a form of violence because we obey out of fear; if man were not afraid there would be no need to obey at all, he would function sanely and rationally. But human beings are so afraid that their whole activity is irrational, contradictory and imitative. So, to really understand and therefore be free of violence, one has to go very deeply into this question of fear.” – J. Krishnamurti Talks in Europe 1968 Rome 1st Public Talk 10th March 1968

Now taking this into account. If I had not stopped and taken the time to look into myself and therefore to have been uncertain and questioned my original experience of the dark I would still be afraid of the dark…this is not to say that I do not experience fear what-so-ever but that I acknowledge my fear and I look into it when it comes so as not to be taken over and enslaved by this emotion. My experiences do not have an authority over me that, making me obey, keeps me from looking again and again every time they come up. In short, if I remain uncertain, I am always free to re-see, re-think, and re-question for even if this moment resembles another moment from the past, this present moment is not the past but is alive and vibrant now and asks of me to look anew at whatever it is that is being presented to me right now.

So if I had not stopped and checked my path into education I would not have been able to look deeper into myself but would have simply continued along with everyone else. And so I am definitely much happier on the outside because I have been able to go completely with the flow of my own impulses and questioning…For example: I am going to be going back into Plato and re-learning the difference between opinion and fact…I had previously gone into that in college but I was not ready I had other things to learn before I could come to see properly the real distinction between them. In other words I have my own, in a certain sense, path or way that I have needed to follow so as not to be so imitative of others. ie. my own mind.

Now this quote here is great and I seem to find that most “educated” people are incapable of this:

“It is the mark of an educated mind to be able to entertain a thought without accepting it.” – Aristotle

But obviously my experience could be wrong or I could be being cynical or something and therefore corrupting my experience of educated people but I am sure you are more than capable of entertaining all that I have said here.

 

solitudinus