Why we fight.

I take it as a given that ones ordinary consciousness conceived of as a self continues to have the problems associated with being a self. One can get rid of the self by meditating or dropping acid, but eventually we return. Therefore, it makes sense to return with some solutions/relief, not just come down to a state dissociated from where we've been.

I further take it as a given that the ordinary self is multiple--a collection of partially dissociated selves, mostly sharing memory but often unaware that the other selves are not quite the same "me." We use the term "integration" to refer to the process wherein different selves become less at odds with one another and cooperate as a single self. The alternative to integration is internal conflict--fighting with oneself. The ability to resolve these fights in a peaceful, i.e. loving, way is how we integrate.

I conclude that the injunction not to fight the acid (given to trippers having a hard time) is really in error. The fighting is necessary--a manifestation of pre-existing internal conflict. The alternative, is not really not fighting but submission which always leads to resentful resumption of hostilities later. What you really want to do is to resolve the conflicts as much as possible by having them out in the open.

continued be To

What I called the bootstrapping problem is what is else where called the Hermeneutic circle. I didn't know that earlier so I'm saying so now. Knowledge/understanding is a building process and is ultimately built on sand. That shouldn't be daunting. We're all in the sandbox together. This one, not that other one occupied by those we can barely recognize, much less talk to. But let's wave to them and be friendly since the alternative is to create just that much more duality.

Until next time.

Why I'm enlightened and you're not.

The you who's not enlightened will never be enlightened. "You" have to stop being him and instead be who you actually are, as you would know yourself to be were you enlightened.

Starting over.

I have this idea in my head of what I want to say, but I'm not quite sure how to say it. For one, how can I have an idea independent of its expression? In what form is this idea? Maybe I just think I have an idea but am wrong. But, for now at least, I will assume I'm right and continue.

The idea is self-referential. That is, the idea is about itself. That is, the idea is about how one expresses an idea and what is gain or lost (if anything) in that expression. What I want to say is that what is gained and lost is more important than the idea itself. Capturing the additions and subtractions somehow, or at least characterizing them, is the idea.

An idea, to be communicated, needs to take form. Does it exist before then? I'm going to say that it does, but saying so is part of the form I'm giving it. Others have taken the opposite view and they are no wrong, but doing it differently.

As for these others, and the other others who took my approach, I will occasionally try and refer to them. I say try, because I don't know that I will be successful. I expect to fail because, for one, I'm not sufficiently familiar with the literature, and for two, I'm not sure I understand it.

Also, I want to say this in a new way so I need to keep the old/other ways at a distance. The way will, I hope, be new but what I'm saying will not. But, the way is the more important part.

Among my topics are: what does it mean to understand something, what does it mean to misunderstand something, what is meant by an explanation, what is a model or a theory or a paradigm or a language.

I want to say all this in a new way, because novelty is the key to explaining. What is said in an old way is a cliche and thus fails to communicate much more than its own familiarity. This, in itself, is an important part of my thesis. Add to my list of topics above: how does something become a cliche? Can it be avoided?

We understand something by adding it to an already existing understanding. That is, we don't start from scratch. We build on previous understandings. What do we start with? For now, we're going to ignore the problem of bootstraping.

These previous understandings are made up of models and analogies and language and metaphor and theories and systems and structures. These necessary ingredients will both embody and prejudice our new understanding. These medias of our understanding, when they are working properly, are invisible. Otherwise they would distract from and interfere with the thing understood. There is also a feeling of understanding that goes along with the process. The feeling may be erroneous. In that case, we misunderstand.

Sometimes, if what we are understanding is complex or to distinguish them from competing explanations, we need to make the underlying theories and models explicit.

To be continued.

Self & Other

We like to think we can easily distinguish between what's part of us and what is not, but attachment gets in the way. What I am attached to, or, what I identify with, is not-me (by definition of 'attachment'/'identification') but it taken (cognitively or otherwise) as part-of-me.

If we consider the distinction meaningful at all, we ignore the process with which we encounter the not-me (the totally other.) You don't need to be Heisenberg to see that your form of contact with the not-me (e.g. perception) blurs the boundary. Sometimes this is described as mediation, interpretation, or preconception. Can this me-ness be removed from the equation? Could you clap one hand without the other?

When looking for meaning, the meaning must be part of you. Otherwise, why is it meaningful? But if it's part of you, why are you looking outside for it?

I remember when I first became enlightened. I was struggling inside my head, and then I just stopped and everything became clear. A moment later I was feeling proud of myself for my accomplishment. What was it again? I had lost it. Why didn't I write it down!

In praise of death

I was just reading about the situation in Iran--in particular, about the corruption and jockying for power and its history. It's easy to dismiss them as religious wackos until you remember our own political situation in the US of A. I have to wonder, is our situation all that better or just more familiar which allows it to hide its bizarreness in plain sight. Is the opposite of "nutso" not "sensible" but merely what we're used to?

When we look for meaning, are we looking for something we expect to recognize? And if not, how will we know when we've found it?

When I see the omnipotent power heirarchies out there and wonder how they could ever be toppled, I understand why death was built into the system. It adds an expiration date to that which would otherwise refuse to ever leave.