Vacancy
I'm pretty bored lately. If anyone's around and wants to hang out, give me a call. My number's on facebook. I don't have many numbers in my new phone.
I've been thinking lately that there seem to be boundaries within people that just seem impenetrable. It's like they just can't process information beyond a certain point. Certain aspects of the world are just so fused with the way it is perceived that there isn't anything outside of that way of thinking and being. So there seems to be no way to address this issue within them any moreso than one can deconstruct a house by pushing on the foundation. There's a mental block - a stop rule - that is a divide by zero error. It does not compute that the world is not this way or could possibly be seen outside of the way I've always seen it.
I suppose I wrote that and seem like it's actually an impossibility. My belief is firmly that anything is possible within one's mind, so nothing is so fixed that it cannot be...fixed. This makes me wonder, though, how to get past these mental blocks that are really just excess baggage. I suppose I already have some answers from my research in psychology. In practice though, things are more difficult.
----------------
Hmmm...That brings me to some other thoughts I've had regarding judgment. My psych teacher brought this up in our research. He noted that there's all this language within Buddhism about being non-discerning, non-discriminating, and non-judgmental. But when he came down to it, he still had to decide what projects to work on, what papers to read, and how to prioritize his days. That seems to require judgment. So how do we resolve that issue?
Well, one thought I had was in regard to something that Will once said. He went to a lesson or two at goju karate with me. Mike was giving him "the talk" as he says, and was pretty critical of Randy (my old teacher). Will thought he was too critical afterwards. I told him a teacher has to be.
I am thinking that this has to obviously be very true, even in our own lives. There are two ways in which we can view things that I can think of - philosophically or practically. A good way to understand this, I think, is in religion. Philosophically, we can debate religious concepts and accept all views as valid and so forth. However, when it comes down to the practical aspect, judgment is necessary. We have to discern what it is we want to do. It's nice to talk the talk, but when it comes down to what you do with your life you are necessarily discerning and judgmental. Even if you do something and don't criticize others, you are necessarily judging other alternatives as lesser to the one you perform.
----------------
I've always (to the best of my memory) disliked language that explains that someone doesn't know "you," or something to that effect. Anything that explains, "I have this thing self over here in my pocket and I will only take it out if I think you're cool enough, otherwise we're going to be distant." It seems so artificial. And clearly not in touch with what it is to be a person. Who we are as people is not some nebulous idea that we have that's somewhere privately stored in our brains or something that you choose to reveal or not. You reveal who you are in what you say, in how you act, and in what you love. (And these may be the only ways we have to understand our "selves" ourselves.)
Now, there is such a thing as not being comfortable with another person, or not telling another person your deepest, darkest secrets, or things of that sort. But I think that's different and should be reflected in how we think and speak. Make the language more precise (in order to protect the truth). Maybe there's a comfort level that hasn't been achieved in a relationship, or simply time hasn't been spent in the proper context to get ideas across. But that's not, "You don't know me."
I think this is probably a symptomatic way of looking at the world through the lens of the egoic self. I'm thinking that probably most people will only ever see the world through the ego, and never be outside of it, really. Last semester I read a paper (which I need to re-read) explaining that the egoic self is basically a defensive structure of the mind which projects anxiety onto things in the world ("I'm worried about our relationship" "What will I do without my car?" etc.) when, in reality, the egoic self is merely afraid of its own lack of existence. Without that egoic self, people would have to face nothingness in their own lives, which can be frightening. I'm also thinking that this view is probably correct.
So, saying "You don't know me," becomes in this case more of a defensive reaction helping to keep that egoic self in place and to give some sense of me vs. the world to experience, though it's probably incorrect.
Whatev. Just some thoughts.
I've been thinking lately that there seem to be boundaries within people that just seem impenetrable. It's like they just can't process information beyond a certain point. Certain aspects of the world are just so fused with the way it is perceived that there isn't anything outside of that way of thinking and being. So there seems to be no way to address this issue within them any moreso than one can deconstruct a house by pushing on the foundation. There's a mental block - a stop rule - that is a divide by zero error. It does not compute that the world is not this way or could possibly be seen outside of the way I've always seen it.
I suppose I wrote that and seem like it's actually an impossibility. My belief is firmly that anything is possible within one's mind, so nothing is so fixed that it cannot be...fixed. This makes me wonder, though, how to get past these mental blocks that are really just excess baggage. I suppose I already have some answers from my research in psychology. In practice though, things are more difficult.
----------------
Hmmm...That brings me to some other thoughts I've had regarding judgment. My psych teacher brought this up in our research. He noted that there's all this language within Buddhism about being non-discerning, non-discriminating, and non-judgmental. But when he came down to it, he still had to decide what projects to work on, what papers to read, and how to prioritize his days. That seems to require judgment. So how do we resolve that issue?
Well, one thought I had was in regard to something that Will once said. He went to a lesson or two at goju karate with me. Mike was giving him "the talk" as he says, and was pretty critical of Randy (my old teacher). Will thought he was too critical afterwards. I told him a teacher has to be.
I am thinking that this has to obviously be very true, even in our own lives. There are two ways in which we can view things that I can think of - philosophically or practically. A good way to understand this, I think, is in religion. Philosophically, we can debate religious concepts and accept all views as valid and so forth. However, when it comes down to the practical aspect, judgment is necessary. We have to discern what it is we want to do. It's nice to talk the talk, but when it comes down to what you do with your life you are necessarily discerning and judgmental. Even if you do something and don't criticize others, you are necessarily judging other alternatives as lesser to the one you perform.
----------------
I've always (to the best of my memory) disliked language that explains that someone doesn't know "you," or something to that effect. Anything that explains, "I have this thing self over here in my pocket and I will only take it out if I think you're cool enough, otherwise we're going to be distant." It seems so artificial. And clearly not in touch with what it is to be a person. Who we are as people is not some nebulous idea that we have that's somewhere privately stored in our brains or something that you choose to reveal or not. You reveal who you are in what you say, in how you act, and in what you love. (And these may be the only ways we have to understand our "selves" ourselves.)
Now, there is such a thing as not being comfortable with another person, or not telling another person your deepest, darkest secrets, or things of that sort. But I think that's different and should be reflected in how we think and speak. Make the language more precise (in order to protect the truth). Maybe there's a comfort level that hasn't been achieved in a relationship, or simply time hasn't been spent in the proper context to get ideas across. But that's not, "You don't know me."
I think this is probably a symptomatic way of looking at the world through the lens of the egoic self. I'm thinking that probably most people will only ever see the world through the ego, and never be outside of it, really. Last semester I read a paper (which I need to re-read) explaining that the egoic self is basically a defensive structure of the mind which projects anxiety onto things in the world ("I'm worried about our relationship" "What will I do without my car?" etc.) when, in reality, the egoic self is merely afraid of its own lack of existence. Without that egoic self, people would have to face nothingness in their own lives, which can be frightening. I'm also thinking that this view is probably correct.
So, saying "You don't know me," becomes in this case more of a defensive reaction helping to keep that egoic self in place and to give some sense of me vs. the world to experience, though it's probably incorrect.
Whatev. Just some thoughts.