Pure consciousness isn't an experience. It's the capacity to experience.

I've gotten back to reading Thomas Metzinger's new book, The Elephant and the Blind: The Experience of Pure Consciousness. The title isn't entirely accurate, nor is it entirely inaccurate.

I say this because one of Metzinger's chapters is called "It is Not an Experience." He writes:

Here, what we are trying to approximate is that for some meditators, the phenomenal character of pure awareness also includes the self-evident fact that somehow, in a way that is very hard to express in words, what is occurring is not merely what philosophers call a "phenomenal experience" -- something that subjectively appears to us by coming and going in the mind.

Rather, pure awareness may feel like something that reveals the timeless possibility for all conscious experience itself, and, somehow, its true nature as well.

Makes sense. After all, how could consciousness or awareness (same thing, according to Metzinger) be an experience when consciousness or awareness obviously is required to have any sort of conscious experience?

I've been skeptical of the idea that it is possible to be conscious without some conscious content. I could be wrong, an ever-present possibility, but I find it difficult to imagine how someone could simply be conscious, period. 

No sensations. No perceptions. No thoughts. No emotions. No anything except being conscious. For someone to know that they were in a state of consciousness without conscious content seemingly would require, at minimum, a capacity of being aware that one is simply being aware.

Which would be pretty damn close to consciousness without conscious content, but that extra "aware that one is simply being aware" is a subtle addition to consciousness. And that, pleasingly, seems to be close to what Metzinger is saying in this passage.

Admittedly, it takes some effort to grasp what he's getting at, since Metzinger is a philosopher, and often writes like one.

All physical processes have certain conditions that make their existence possible. But only very few physical systems model and track these conditions. Self-organizing systems like ourselves exist by persisting in dynamic environments, following, as Hohwy explains, an inner norm by which they model the conditions that make their own physical existence possible.

...But what about pure awareness? Can we also internally model the conditions of possibility for knowing -- in meditation, non conceptually, without words, in a state of silence?

If we view the experience of pure awareness as an internal model of epistemic openness, and if the same principle of continuously tracking the conditions of possibility holds not only for whole organisms, but also for conscious processes unfolding in their nervous systems, then it is conceivable that the actual functioning of the principle can sometimes be detected by the model itself (e.g., in exceptionally clear and silent nondual states).

It could be detected by meditators in states of dual mindfulness, but it could perhaps also detect itself in what, in the preceding chapter, we called "reflexively aware mindfulness" or "self-knowing empty cognizance." The currently running model would be continuously tracking its own condition for existence -- epistemic openness, the very possibility of knowledge -- thereby autopoietically re-creating itself over and over.

If this physical process had a conscious correlate (or if it were not correlated with, but were simply identical to, pure awareness "coming alive"), then our predication would have to be that a bare and empty form of wakefulness emerges, a state that cannot be easily compared to any other kind of conscious experience.

The phenomenological prediction would be that it has the experiential quality of continuously refreshing itself, of autonomously holding itself in existence -- and, plausibly, of knowing itself. 

Our dog clearly is aware. But I doubt that she is aware of her own awareness. If she is, this is a much less sophisticated form of self-awareness, or of knowing herself, than we humans possess.

Metzinger seems to be saying that in addition to knowing ourselves as an object, from the outside as it were, humans also are capable of knowing ourselves as a subject, from the inside as it were. Which basically is pure awareness -- a non-conceptual knowing of our capacity to know.

It's temping to draw metaphysical conclusions from this capacity. Soul! Universal consciousness! Enlightenment! Buddha-nature! All that stuff that religions derive from conscious experiences that, in themselves, don't possess any inherent meaning along those lines. Metzinger warns about this.

Conclusions are also easily jumped to when it comes to "phenomenality per se" actually being something nominal, being the "thing in itself" behind all appearances. The C-fallacy arises whenever someone falsely concludes that just because something feels like the true and timeless nature of consciousness itself -- or not like an experience at all -- we have actually found some metaphysical bedrock or ultimately understood consciousness itself. 

...Intellectual honesty is an integral, indispensable part of spiritual practice and it is what connects such practice with modern philosophy and science. 

Comments

[Ron E.]

@Brian “I've been skeptical of the idea that it is possible to be conscious without some conscious content. I could be wrong, an ever-present possibility, but I find it difficult to imagine how someone could simply be conscious, period.”

I agree, it’s a bit of a paradox. I’d have to support the concept that consciousness and awareness are not the same thing. In deep sleep (or general anesthesia) we are not conscious though on awakening the usual contents of consciousness come rushing in – i.e. the conscious experience of being ‘me’, the automatic stream of data that knows that it is a work day and not a rest day, where my clothes are, the bathroom, turning on the shower and so on, the whole gamut of my particular conscious content.

Then, there are other times when all there is, is nothing – perhaps what Metzinger is calling pure awareness or consciousness? As there is no observer, no conscious movement or content (me) to witness this emptiness it doesn’t register as a conscious experience – until that is, after the event when the conscious ‘me’ resurfaces with its analysis and concepts trying to describe what just happened – or perhaps more usually, one doesn’t even notice it.

Perhaps, as some from the Buddhist, Advaita etc. people may say, this emptiness (or whatever term they use) cannot be grasped by the mind, by our conscious content, it can only be recognised after the event; and of course, they may have mastered certain practices to prolong such ‘emptiness’ moments naming it enlightenment etc.

Joan Toliffson puts it better; - “But what actually comes and goes are the thoughts, stories, ideas, experiences, sensations, perceptions – the forms that appear and disappear Here / Now, including both the expanded experience of “being here now” and the contracted experience of being “lost in thoughts.” Here / Now isn’t actually an experience. It is the experiencing that is equally present as every experience. Here / Now is beginningless and endless. And there is no one apart from this ever-present boundlessness who can find it or lose it – that “me” character is nothing but thoughts, stories, sensations, and images appearing Here / Now.”

[um]

@ Ron

Silence, or , as the second Patanjali sutra describes it, the cessation of the mental movements, can be perceived, experienced, be conscious of:
https://nomindsland.blogspot.com/2017/11/yolande-duran-power-of-silence.html

IF ever somebody comes across an PDF of the English translation ..PLEASE .. share the link.. The french and German translations are easily available

[umami]

Hey, um.

Is this it?

On the web...
https://books.google.com/books/about/The_Yoga_system_of_Pata%C3%B1jali.html?id=d2hOAAAAYAAJ#v=onepage&q&f=false
For the PDF click "Get Book."

[umami]

That link didn't behave as expected. Try this instead.

I Googled (literally the Google search engine) "Patanjali Sutra" on my phone. The first result has a shaded overlay that says 'Preview - 448 pages." Click on that to see "Get Book" for the PDF.

[um]

@ Umami

Not Patanjali's Sutras but, the english translation "" Silence heals" of the French "Le silence guerit" by Yolande Duran Serrana.

I found offers for the book of up to 700 Dollars. !!!!

[Ron E.]

So according to Toliffson, “Here/Now isn’t actually an experience. It is the experiencing that is equally present as every experience. Metzinger’s pure awareness is not something to experience’ it is more to do with – as Toliffson says – “present as every experience”. So, it is the here/now as she puts it that all sense and mental perceptions arise from – yet it cannot be experienced only sensed from the everyday ‘present moment sensory awareness’.

All anyone can do then – including renown teachers – is to be aware or sense the non-experiential emptiness or nothingness as Zen puts it. So apparently difficult for us being habituated to trying to work things out through experience or knowing.

[Appreciative Reader]

“If we view the experience of pure awareness as an internal model of epistemic openness, and if the same principle of continuously tracking the conditions of possibility holds not only for whole organisms, but also for conscious processes unfolding in their nervous systems, then it is conceivable that the actual functioning of the principle can sometimes be detected by the model itself (e.g., in exceptionally clear and silent nondual states).”

“Pure consciousness isn't an experience. It's the capacity to experience.”

……….Uhhh, no, it is not. It most emphatically is not. At least that does not follow from what we've read and discussed here so far.

Pure consciousness is not the capacity to experience: “Pure consciousness” is, seemingly, simply shorthand for ‘what appears as if it were pure consciousness”; and also, in this case, for ‘what appears as if it might be the capacity to experience’. A subtle difference, but a very important one, at this no-longer-basic-a-b-c stage of the discussion.

I haven’t the time to look it up just now, in order to reference his exact words that you’d quoted, Brian; but Metzinger himself, in one of your posts about this book of his, spells that out very definitively, by discussing the thing about the epistemic route. It is all good and nice to make a claim; and absolutely, such claims can always be the starting point for further investigation, why not, as can anything at all under the sun, no matter how outlandish; but for a claim to be taken seriously in terms of actually reflecting and explaining reality, we need to first clearly understand and evaluate the epistemic route via which that claim was arrived at. Which, I suppose, is another way of saying that claims need to be backed up by evidence --- except, to focus on the epistemic route of it is a very useful way of breaking that up into something we can actually see and evaluate for ourselves, and dismiss when that evidence clearly isn’t forthcoming. As is the case here, clearly, simply by looking at the epistemic route for that claim.

There’s no ifs and buts about this, I’m afraid: No, pure consciousness is not some mysterious and direct consciousness of the capacity to experience; pure consciousness is merely our shorthand for what appears to be pure consciousness; pure consciousness is merely what appears to us might be the capacity to experience. No more.

(Just like being able to fly in our dreams, or seeing vast spaces within while meditating, spaces that we can actually navigate --- both of which I’ve seen and experienced at first hand, as may have many others here, including you, Brian --- are not indicative of the potential within us of flight, or of microcosms within our macrocosm, or any such crap; all it is is merely the what feels like one is flying, and what feels like spaces within, is all. Hallucination, in other words, if one may bluntly refer to a spade as a shovel. And psychosis, when the subject comes to believe that that hallucination represents reality.)

(That said, we remain open, eagerly open, to bona fide explanations based in science of the whys and wherefores of this; and we also remain open to fully accepting and endorsing any explanation that science eventually does uncover, including such explanations as we are rejecting out of hand at this point as airy-fairy speculation. All of that goes without saying, the self-correcting nature of science and of a scientific worldview.)

----------

No, I’m not accusing Metzinger of inconsistency here! I’ve enjoyed reading him with you, Brian, and I’ve no doubt he knows what he’s talking about. Even though he seems to be unnecessarily mysterious in how he expresses himself in this chapter; but clearly he’s discussing different aspects of what he’s found reported in his study of his sample of meditators, is all. It wouldn’t be fair of me to seize individual portions of his entire book, out of context of the thesis he’s carefully building up here, and base a full-on critique of it. Let’s first wait till we --- till *you* --- reach the end of the book, and it finally stands clearly revealed who it is who the murderer is and how the body came to be found in the library. ...It will be VERY interesting to see what conclusions Metzinger draws finally from the whole study, and at the end of his book, and how --- if --- it actually adds to our understanding about these things.

(Thanks one more time for doing this series of reviews of this book, by the way. It’s pretty heavy, this stuff; and I love how we’re all getting to go along for this fascinating ride with you. Not just making fast food of the entirety of it, sans all nuance, which is what a regular review, even a very good review, would offer us; but this step-by-step exploration of how he lays out his ideas and builds up his overall argument.)

[Appreciative Reader]

I think it may be relevant here to bring in memories. Our consciousness, awareness, is a product of three things, it seems to me: of sensations we receive (filtered via our model-building thing); of how we process those stimuli after having accessed and digested them (which I suppose feeds back onto the model); and finally of our memory (which again feeds back into our model, so yeah, these are all aspects of our how our brain models stimuli we receive).

My point is, memories are a thing. Even when you stop all stimuli, all of them --- not that you can actually do that, I don’t think, but even if for the sake of argument you could do that, say by locking someone in a sealed container that is as completely isolated from external stimuli as it is possible to be --- even then your brain still retains memories of past stimuli. That I think is important to remember here. When you’re accessing memories, then you’re indirectly accessing stimuli (in this case, stimuli accessed in the past). That isn’t the same as no stimuli.

----------

I think we're seriously entertaining outlandish ideas about meditation only because this thing is so little understood so far. Kind of like how dreams used to be thought of as all manner of fantastic things, in times past. Today, while there's still lots of fascinating research still being done and lots of details still left to fill in, but we do have a fairly good idea of what dreams are exactly. I see no reason to imagine that a closer study of meditation and meditative experiences will not similarly yield mundane explanations for them --- very interesting explanations, fascinating explanations, useful explanations, sure, but explanations rooted in the mundane. There's no cause to assume otherwise unless and until there's extraordinary evidence backing up any such extraordinary claim.

[Appreciative Reader]

um, this may be what you'd been looking for: https://yolandeduran.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/05/silence-heals-sample.pdf. It's a short 24-page PDF by Yolanda titled Silence Heals.

Yep, this offers a detailed description of Yolanda's experience of pure consciousness. Which is what Metzinger is trying to generalize from here, and draw further inferences from and explanations about, by gathering 500 such subjects (500, wasn't it? I forget, whatever that exact number is).

Enjoyed reading it! (Speed-read through it, though, so I may have missed specific details in there. If you think there's any that's relevant, then do point them out.)

-----------

While this makes for a great first-account of what it is to have this fabled pure-consciousness experience; but as far as looking to this booklet for actual explanations, then I'd recommend a large pinch of salt.

Take this bit, for instance: "I was not reacting anymore because the silence, the
tranquility, had completely invaded me, and allowed me simply
to see the situation the way it was"

Do you see what I mean? I mean her assuming blithely that what she's experiencing is "seeing the situation the way it (is)". That's a huge leap, and a completely unsupported one.

(Unless she merely means that figuratively not literally, to mean only she's found herself less distracted by emotions. In which case it's a reasonable thing to say, but in that case it adds nothing to our understanding of what such experiences are about. Like I said, that's a cool hi-res view of one single data point, many of which Metzinger's trying to summarize on here; but I'm not sure how that adds anything, beyond that hi-res picture of her individual experience itself.)

(See my two earlier comments about this conflation of what we seem to be experiencing, with the belief that that represents reality. It might be, sure; after all that's what we're studying and discussing here, so it does behoove us to be open to that possibility, absolutely; but it's a huge leap from there to someone claiming that she's "(seen) the situation the way it (is)".)

---------

Not dismissing Yolanda's testimony, not at all. Like I said it makes for very interesting reading. Just, at this stage of the discussion (as opposed to a very basic exploration of these ideas and experiences), I think we'd be well advised to stay cognizant of this nuance, that I've just now tried to spell out.

[Appreciative Reader]

(Oh, just noticed, the link clearly spells out that this is a "sample". So, clearly not the entire book itself, but only a short excerpt from it.)

[um]

@ AR

As I wrote, the French and German versions are easily to be found and at very low costs.
But the english version has become so rare that people are aking up to 700 Euro for their copy.

That was the reason why I asked for a link that would have an. PDF-copy

It is strange that she seems completely to have completely disappeared in thin air.

She had no spiritual search as her background,. She had to deal with what happened to her. For a while she satisfied her self with answers that were offered to her from "existing" spiritual schools but as I understood reading her German translation, she left it also behind and had no interest, as it seemed, in any explanation by anybody nor had she any drive to make others understand, she was satisfied with what she had..

Normaly this doesn't happen. Take for example John Butler in the UK. He started out very simple years ago as he was "discovered" by someone that thought he had to give something to the world. He lend his ears to that invitation and by now it has become a complete movement.

I wonder what has come from Mrs. Duran ...and hope one day to hear about her.

[Appreciative Reader]

Yep, it's fascinating, her case. I remember, you'd mentioned her to me once before; and in fact shared some excerpts from her back then, maybe from this very website, or maybe a book, I forget which.

Agreed, she's very fetching, her words and ideas and her experience, I mean to say, and very inspirational. Has she only recently stopped writing and teaching, then? I hope she's well, and has simply chosen to retire from a more active life: such people are a great asset to all of the world.

[um]

@ AR

There are experiences and there are those that consume the experiences of others.

Most of the time the "painter" is just ONE but there is a multi fold of people that use his paintings for things that by itself has nothing to do with pairing and THAT what brought the paining into being.

Not all painters seek the public eye ..their appreciation is in the painting and not in the recognition.

Prof Aassagioli, made it clear in his therapeutic approach "psycho synthesis" that the same symptoms can tell about a so called mental disorder OR a spiritual growth process and unfortunately there are few psychiatrists that now the difference.

If one is in a growth process it is very bad luck if what a person goes through is attributed psychiatric labels.

We are so trained, indoctrinated, conditioned to look outside for answers while there are things in life for which what others have to say is the least asked for.

It needs courage to find ones own answers. and not be lured by the voices of the experts ..Christ called them not for nothing ..THIEVES

Yes it is related to what is going on here .
Hajhahaha

[Appreciative Reader]

"There are experiences and there are those that consume the experiences of others."

While Yolande would answer to the former category and not to the latter; but I'd say she's the exception not the rule. In general it's not so much an either-or proposition as a Venn diagram, and what's more one with a very bloated A∆B intersection. I doubt there's a single really great painter that did not first study and critique the work of other great masters. Likewise great writers and singers. ...In fact, I suspect that someone that's never ever studied and critiqued other painters, is possibly someone that's never ever painted themselves.

-----

No, I didn't mean to offer an armchair psychiatric diagnosis. I didn't mean to suggest that someone who mistakes his subjective take as objective truth is clinically psychotic. But that's kind of what hallucination literally means, perceiving things that aren't actually there; and that's kind of what psychosis means, inter alia, the belief that hallucinations are real.

Actually, most religious beliefs are psychotic in nature, loosely speaking. It's just that we have this convention that we give religious craziness a free pass. If a guy claims that he hears Agrippa speaking to him, and offering him currency trading tips basis his expert analysis of the Ukraine war; then, regardless of whether that individual is deemed clinically psychotic, definitely his weird visions of long dead Roman generals will be considered completely cuckoo. But substitute Agrippa with Jesus, or Jesus's daddy, and suddenly convention will have us treat this weirdness as sane and completely acceptable.

That's weird, to say the least, this mainstreaming of religion and this normalization of religious whackiness.

-----

To be very clear: I don't think Yolande is crazy. Not even remotely. My appreciation of her, that I was pretty clear in expressing, was sincere. I wouldn't have said it if I hadn't meant it.

But in the context of this discussion, that Brian's article and this thread is about: certainly the experiencing of perceptions that do not relate to the outer world amounts to hallucination; and certainly the conflation of hallucination with reality is, loosely speaking, the stuff of psychosis. But of course, as a layman I'd never venture to label some specific individual as psychotic; even if some aspects of what they perceive and believe qualify as such.

[um]

@ AR

We are all on our own in living this live.
We had no hand in what and who we are nor in the world we live in.

The way we are conscious and aware is not in our hands.
Humans have tried to get hold of it.
They came up with putting 4 poles in the ground, connecting them with wire and calling it an meadow but in nature there is not such an thing as a meadow.
Culture is just the same .. it is a game of attributing meaning and value ...meaning and value nature does not possess.

By labeling something an hallucination, those that do it, alienate themselves from reality.

Due to that labeling many were tortured, killed excluded from society etc.

He said:
Do live a natural live in a natural way
and
a simple life in a simple way.

He forgot to say what is natural and simple and I was to ignorant to ask.

It was a long way to understand that I was not born to be a man, son, father. husband, brother uncle, friend, neighbor,
nor to delve into the available information in the many fields of human interest; to be a scholar,
nor to take notice of the many tales humans have create to explain the world, to themselves etc the philosophers
nor the explanations of the scientists, that altough resticting themselves to the details of life allow themselves to make statements of the whole.
Nor the many mystic schools and practices etc.

Please do understand this.

One of the saints in sant mat got lost in Maha sunna and came to this discovery that there was no end to what was to be known ...and on realizing that simple truth .. he gave up and went home.

Those that think they can lay their hand upon it will end up adding the next book, get the next recognition, etc.

Live is a mystery .. what matters is to know how to make coffee. and that is not that complicated.

You see ..AR ...when younger I would read on advice of others books of famous writers. I started with their first book they wrote and then the next etc Most of the time I would not manage to go beyond book 3 or 4. In the middle of a sentence, I would stop reading close the book and never read a book of that author again. Why. Because I came to understand what he was writing as a human being and from there on everything was just boring repetition a

The greatest discovery I did was that all humans are human, irrespective of what they do. There is nothing they can do to change that simple fact.

And writing this I am reminded of the late MCS relating an tale about a king and a poor farmer and his wife, making the wife say to her husband: "you remember that man, that said he was a king" ...AR ..it is in the tone MCS said it.

[Appreciative Reader]

"Culture is just the same .. it is a game of attributing meaning and value ...meaning and value nature does not possess."

It's how we make sense of the world, and of ourselves, um. It's good to realize that this might get dysfunctional, and to guard against such. But to walk away from meaning altogether, just because it is sometimes misapplied, seems to me misguided, it's throwing the baby out with the bathwater.

-----

"By labeling something an hallucination, those that do it, alienate themselves from reality."

I don't see why that must necessarily follow. Sure, to mindlessly stereotype, that isn't wise; but why object to a descriptor when it is apt, and makes for understanding and clarity?

-----

"Due to that labeling many were tortured, killed excluded from society etc."

Sure, labels can become unthinking stereotypes; that can sometimes be used to demonize and oppress, absolutely. But it is a clear slippery slope fallacy to imagine that every time a descriptor is applied, then that is precursor to a nefarious unfolding of a wider agenda of stereotyping and mislabeling and demonizing and oppression. To criticize all descriptors, because sometimes some descriptors are misapplied, is to once again throw the baby out with the bathwater.

-----

um, you keep resorting to generalizations and oblique references, without ever clearly spelling out what you mean exactly. Is there anything specific, in what I actually said, that you disagree with? If so, just quote that portion of my comment, and clearly state your points of departure and disagreement. I'm perfectly happy to engage with that, and maybe end up learning from it.

And, heh, I find it ironic, your endless references to what MCS said, or what Jesus said, or what your father or grandmother had said, as if that somehow puts some indelible mark of wisdom on to those words --- I mean, given your complaint, earlier on, about "thieves" borrowing blindly from others while lacking the courage to think out things for themselves. ...You see it, don't you, the irony of it?

(That bit was unclear, incidentally. Who's the thief, that you'd referred to? Metzinger? Brian? Me? ...And what do you base it on, your opinion that they lack the courage to think for themselves, or the talent to produce work of their own --- even as they also critique the work of others, as many bona fide and established writers, for instance, and scientists as well, and chefs as well, often do? ...Just clearly say what you mean to say, um. Speaking for myself, I won't mind, as long as you make sense. Happy to learn from critique --- I mean it, really --- provided the critique is valid, and clearly conveyed, and clearly defended.)

[um]

@ AR

When Christ delivered the sermon on the mount, he did not said ..Brothers and sister I have spoken to you, now find yourselves a learned person that will explain what I said.

In the interaction with Mr. Tepper, I have tried again an agaiin tried to explain the " evil of wealth" I do not understand what is so difficult in understanding that evil.

It is the SUGGESTION, intentionally or unintentionally that in order to live a live as a human , the help etc of another person is needed.

NOTHING related to culture that has that suggestion is an EVIL

Those that intentionally or unintentionally spread that suggestion are the THIEVES.

There is nothing wrong with science ..what matters is how it is used.

As long as we attribute more value and meaning to a scholar and his work than to a bricklayer we go on to steal from the bricklayer.

[Appreciative Reader]

"Conclusions are also easily jumped to when it comes to "phenomenality per se" actually being something nominal, being the "thing in itself" behind all appearances. The C-fallacy arises whenever someone falsely concludes that just because something feels like the true and timeless nature of consciousness itself -- or not like an experience at all -- we have actually found some metaphysical bedrock or ultimately understood consciousness itself.

...Intellectual honesty is an integral, indispensable part of spiritual practice and it is what connects such practice with modern philosophy and science. "

Heh, we sometimes spend a great deal of effort spelling out our small, nuanced points of departure and disagreement, while leaving unsaid the much larger points of agreement and resonance even.

These two points, for instance, these two paragraphs from Metzinger. Agree with them wholeheartedly.

[Appreciative Reader]

Haha, um, this is the kind of thing I'd meant. You raised, yourself, the point about those that critique others' work never producing any work of their own; which I showed you is wrong. You objected to my describing hallucinations as such, by claiming that will remove me from reality; which objection and claim of yours, again, I showed you to be unfounded. You suggested that using descriptors leads to oppression and violence; which I showed you is a clear slippery slope fallacy, and therefore misguided, incorrect, unfounded. I further pointed out the irony in your repeatedly referencing to the words of Charan Singh, and Jesus, and of your own father and grandfather, as something so wise as to be beyond doubt, without ever defending their words rationally; and then complaining about others lacking the courage of making up their own mind and seeking their own answers. ...And you coolly ignore all of this, and move on to further, new points to discuss --- while leaving those earlier points of yours, that I'd showed you to be wanting, unaddressed, only to to return to saying those very same things another day (if the past is any guide).

But hey, no matter. Let's move on to what you're now saying, in this last comment of yours.

-----

"When Christ delivered the sermon on the mount, he did not said ..Brothers and sister I have spoken to you, now find yourselves a learned person that will explain what I said."

Hahaha, but why did those people need Jesus to explain that to them, eh? What else was Jesus, but that "learned person" who's explaining all of that stuff to those people there?

You see what I'm saying? Your example makes the exact opposite point, to what you were trying to argue!

-----

"t is the SUGGESTION, intentionally or unintentionally that in order to live a live as a human , the help etc of another person is needed.
(...) Those that intentionally or unintentionally spread that suggestion are the THIEVES."

That's ...sorry, um, but's that's nonsensical! Some things, as a human, you don't need help with. Some things, as a human, you always need help with. And most things, as a human, you do need help to begin with, but after you've mastered that skill you no longer need that help --- which does not gainsay the fact that to start you needed help for that last set of skills.

Had your parents and teachers not taught you to speak, or to read, you wouldn't have known how to speak or read. Had the chefs you apprenticed with not taught you how to cook, you wouldn't have learnt how to cook yourself (or at least, you wouldn't have learnt to cook a wide range of dishes, or, in general, to cook well). Had your swimming instructor not taught you how to swim, you wouldn't have learnt how to swim, or at any rate how to swim economically and well --- assuming you swim, as I do. Had you not been taught the basics of the technique of meditation by MCS (and whatever other meditation guru you learnt from, if any), then you wouldn't have learnt how to meditate.

How is it evil, to suggest that people (sometimes/often, even if not always) need others' help? And why are you referring to those that might suggest that as thieves? (I'm not asking that to you because I'm upset with your applying that label --- heh, ironically enough, given how you'd said applying labels lead to pillage and rape and genocide and so forth! I'm asking you because, in this case, that label simply makes no sense, for reasons I've just now spelt out.)

-----

"As long as we attribute more value and meaning to a scholar and his work than to a bricklayer we go on to steal from the bricklayer."

I've no idea what that means, or what that has to do with anything I'd said so far. Who is attributing more value to a scholar than to a bricklayer?

Taking that statement as stand-alone: sure, a bricklayer, as a person, has as much worth as a scholar. As humans, both possess equal worth and dignity. And as professions, both kinds of work as important for society, sure.

But here's the thing: When it comes to the question of actually laying bricks and building a house, then it is the bricklayer whose words will be of far more value than the scholar that specializes in neuroscience. On the other hand, when it comes to a question of literature or of some specific science, say, then the words of the scholar that specializes in that particular discipline will be worth far more than the words of the bricklayer.

Not sure where you're going with that last, um.

[um]

@ AR

Well .... Hmmm .... so many things ...to much.

Just one that covers some of the many.

Find yourself on the internet an translation of Chuang Zi's chapter 13, sub chapter VII.
Here the comic version:

https://www.reddit.com/r/taoism/comments/ju1ysu/zhuangzi_chapter_13_the_heavenly_dao_the_old/#lightbox

[Appreciative Reader]

Hey, um.

Hahaha, yes, as you say, it is indeed “too much”!! Each of those individual points, which I agree were very many, were separate points that you yourself raised, in your comments to me, within the duration of this short enough thread! You’ll appreciate now why it struck me, the other day, that you were simply saying one random thing after another, and cloaking them in wise sounding phrases taken from spiritual literature; and why I likened this mode of discussion to the children’s game of Chinese Whispers or Telephone!

Dear um, I do not mean to cause hurt to you when I say these things. I enjoy talking with you here, and should hate it if you take any of what I say amiss. Please don’t mistake my intent in saying all of this now, or take offense! I'm simply aiming for clarity, is all.

----------

As far as this link of yours, heh, that’s exactly the same thing that you’ve done again, one more time now! Leaving unaddressed those other errors that I’d pointed out in all of those other points you'd raised, you’ve now moved on to yet another thing, this Art of War thingy. (Which, let me hasten to repeat, is perfectly cool! I enjoyed the comic you’ve linked to, as well as thinking briefly about it now. Absolutely no issues, as far as I am concerned.)

But again, I’m afraid it’s not clear what exactly you’re trying to convey with that link. I wish you’d clearly spell it out, in context of what I’m going to say just now, below; else this will remain yet another one of those random items briefly touched on and moved on from, with no insights conveyed or gained.

I guess the point of that chapter is encapsulated in that last panel of the comic, which spells it out in these words: “A craftsman can only teach his student what round and square mean, but he can’t pass on the skill itself. (…) A person who knows how to memorize doesn’t necessarily know how to study.”

That’s a cool “moral”, and entertainingly conveyed in that comic strip, absolutely; but again, I fail to see what that has to do with anything we’ve said to each other in this thread. Specifically, I don’t see how that relates to our discussion in this thread on “thieves” and “help”.

I mean, let’s say that wheelwright has three sons: one of whom is very talented, in wheelwrighting terms; another who is middling, average, neither particularly brilliant (in this specific context) nor stand-out dumb; and a third who has absolutely no talent or aptitude for making wheels. True, the third will not be able to make wheels at all. But also true, without careful tutelage and “help” from their father, the middle child, who might have made a serviceable enough wheelwright in time, will be able to do nothing at all. And even the very talented one, even he, without help from his father, or maybe from some other wheelwright, will not be able to do anything at all, notwithstanding his brilliance and his potential.

Sure, it makes sense to realize that merely reading instructions won’t do, to pick up a skill, or to excel at it. But that’s such a completely obvious point; and no one here has ever suggested otherwise. To therefore discard all instruction and “help” and theory as meaningless "thievery", is, like I said, akin to throwing the baby out with the bathwater. That the apprentice sits in theory discussions with his wheelwright father, does not mean that he does not, therefore, work with his hands to perfect his craft. On the other hand, the student who dismisses all instruction as worthless, and never ever engages deeply with instruction, will not ever be able to make a wheel that actually works (or if he one day does, then that will be a far from streamlined job, literally a case of laboriously and imperfectly and completely unnecessarily reinventing the wheel).

----------

That’s what happens when we take twenty ideas, each thrown around only very cursorily, and overlain with wise-sounding words that don’t really mean anything. We go away thinking we’re on to something wise and deep, when actually that’s not the case at all. Which is why, speaking for myself, I always prefer an in-depth understanding of any matter we’re discussing, no matter how trivial --- provided the subject itself is important to us, that is to say, and provided we care enough about it to put in the time and effort. Else what’s even the point of it, at all?

(Not saying I’m always right, absolutely not! No reason why that should be so. This Sun Tzu thing for instance: by all means if my interpretation of it is wanting, then sort it out for me, um. I’ll be happy to acknowledge it fulsomely, as well as update my own thinking in this respect, if you can clearly show me otherwise. As you know from our past interactions here, I’ve zero hang-ups about that sort of thing.)

[Appreciative Reader]

Ah, it's Chuang Zu, I see, the Tao guy. I'd mistakenly thought it was Sun Tzu's Art of War, my bad.

But of course, that changes nothing about what I said in my comment just now.

[um]

@ AR

Maybe it helps to read the story.
Chuang Zi , chapter 13 sub chapter VII

In this link you will find the approach by different translators:
https://terebess.hu/english/tao.html

I just chose reandomly the translation of Ziporyn
https://terebess.hu/english/zipo.pdf
Start with the last paragraph on page 115 and continue on 116

There is little more I can do in this moment.
Forget about me, emerge yourself in that story.
If it doesn't ring a bell, it just doesn't and nothing can be done.

[Appreciative Reader]

“Maybe it helps to read the story.”

Helps? Helps how, um? Helps with what?

Look man, no offense, but this wild goose chase stops now. Either you know what you’re on about, and can clearly tell me what you actually mean to convey, as well as explain how that ties in with any of the earlier points you’d raised here, particularly in context of my last response to you; or you don’t, and can’t. There’s absolutely no reason why you shouldn’t be able to do this, if actually you do know what you’re talking about. (If language is an issue, like you’ve suggested once or twice already, then go ahead and write in Dutch, and use a translation software; or, for that matter, I could myself translate what you’ve written via DeepL or Google or whatever, checking back with you for accuracy if need be.)

Sorry, um, absolutely no offense intended; and I’m happy to engage with that link and that text separately if you like, and discuss it with you (I’ve already downloaded the PDF, although I haven’t read it yet); as well as engage with you on other matters separately from all of this. But I’m not playing along any more, as far as this particular discussion now. Either you drop the pose and directly and clearly say what you mean to say, or I bow out, as far as this particular discussion.

Absolutely no disrespect meant, um, but I don’t do pretense, sorry. Cheers, old friend.

[um]

@ AR

I wrote .. forget about me, ..
read the story.
Maybe there is something for you, maybe not.

And ..YES, ..AR I am quite aware of my own behavior here and how that might cause reactions. Reactions that I do not intent to provoke , but that nevertheless appear

It is not the first time in my life, that this happened...it was not so in the past and it will be so in the future

[Appreciative Reader]

Again, um, absolutely no disrespect intended! But it's not a question of simply your "behavior", or my "reactions", or anything surface and superficial like that. It doesn't seem to me that you actually know what you're talking about here, um --- so that you keep flitting from one random observation to another random topic, each touched on briefly (and often incorrectly) --- and, despite the flaws in them being clearly pointed out, none of them either defended, nor their flaws acknowledged and the corrections taken on board, but all of that merely glossed over, and the discussion simply shifted on to yet another random subject to discuss. And all of these cloaked in some spiritual cliche or the other.

I'm so very sorry to have to say this, um, but I simply don't know what to do with something like this. (And no, that isn't because what you're pointing muddy fingers at, like pointing to the moon, is something ineffable and beyond words. The Buddha did use that poetic illusion, but he was completely scrupulously crystal clear about each and every one of his actual observations and points. It seems to me that, in your case, it is simply because you don't actually know what you're talking about, quite literally.)

----------

So you're proposing now that I read that chapter, and that maybe we discuss it --- separately from anything we've said here so far, and as yet another separate topic, right? Fair enough, why not? On those terms, I'm happy to play along --- with the clear understanding that I stand by what I'd said in my last comment.

Just, before we start: What is this about, can you tell me? Why do you want me to read this, towards what end, in what context? Some introductory context might be useful, to understand what we're going about doing here now. (Without meaning to sound in the least brusque, this introductory context I'm going to have to insist on, because I've no wish to embark on yet another open-ended wild goose chase that leads nowhere at all.)

Also, as far as the PDF, like I said I've downloaded it already, and it's open in front of me right now. I've got everything here, including the notes to the translation --- all the pages numbered in Roman numerals --- but the actual chapters, that is to say the pages numbered in regular English numerals, they seem to be missing, it's all blank. Any idea about that? If you're getting all of the pages in your machine, then maybe it's a firewall issue, and I could try downloading it on another device. But if you're facing this issue too, then that might be an issue with the source material itself, or about the downloading permissions.

(And don't forget to tell me what this is in aid of, this chapter, and this new discussion of ours, before we actually start out reading it. )

[um]

@ AR
Duke Huan was in his hall reading a book. The wheel-wright Pian, who was in the yard below chiseling a wheel, laid down his mallet and chisel, stepped up into the hall, and said to Duke Huan, “This book Your Grace is reading—may I venture to ask whose words are in it?”

“The words of the sages,” said the duke.

“Are the sages still alive?”

“Dead long ago,” said the duke.

“In that case, what you are reading there is nothing but the chaff and dregs of the men of old!”

“Since when does a wheelwright have permission to comment on the books I read?” said Duke Huan. “If you have some explanation, well and good. If not, it’s your life!”

Wheelwright Pian said, “I look at it from the point of view of my own work. When I chisel a wheel, if the blows of the mallet are too gentle, the chisel will slide and won’t take hold. But if they’re too hard, it will bite and won’t budge. Not too gentle, not too hard—you can get it in your hand and feel it in your mind. You can’t put it into words, and yet there’s a knack to it somehow. I can’t teach it to my son, and he can’t learn it from me. So I’ve gone along for seventy years, and at my age I’m still chiseling wheels. When the men of old died, they took with them the things that couldn’t be handed down. So what you are reading there must be nothing but the chaff and dregs of the men of old.”

[um]

What went before the story:

Men of the world who value the Way all turn to books. But books are nothing more than words. Words have value; what is of value in words is meaning. Meaning has something it is pursuing, but the thing that it is pursuing cannot be put into words and handed down. The world values words and hands down books, but although the world values them, I do not think them worth valuing. What the world takes to be value is not real value.

What you can look at and see are forms and colors; what you can listen to and hear are names and sounds. What a pity!—that the men of the world should suppose that form and color, name and sound, are sufficient to convey the truth of a thing. It is because in the end, they are not sufficient to convey truth that “those who know do not speak, those who speak do not know.”[17] But how can the world understand this!

[Appreciative Reader]

Thanks for posting the full text of it, um. Read it just now. And, yep, it does ring a bell, sure. (Not very surprisingly, given that it isn't a particularly subtle bell, and in any case has been clearly spelt out, in so many words, in one sentence within that text.)

Cool story, enjoyed reading it. And agreed, the longer text does make the core "lesson" somewhat clearer, and somewhat broader, than the comic strip had.

...Now what, um? Would you like to spell out now, finally, how that ties in with anything we'd discussed prior, or why you brought that up? Or do we leave it as just another random point discussed, for no particular reason, and then left aside? (Your call, I'm cool either way. It was entertaining enough, and I suppose kind of wise as well.)

[um]

@ AR

What more can one wish than a ringing bell?!

[um]

@ AR

An echo pit makes never sounds of itself ...what is reflected is always related to what came in before.

That said that echo can be ....... [ attributes of choice] ..to the listeners.

[Appreciative Reader]

*AR holds up lotus flower, and points up towards the moon, his face beatific in his ineffable wisdom, that is so utterly wise that, where other lesser sages speak in cryptic riddles, AR speaketh not at all.*

[um]

@ AR

hahahaha ...time for well deserved coffee.

[Appreciative Reader]

*AR lifts his cup, and gestures a Cheers.*