9 ms·

I've been exploring these thoughts. I think the more we are lost in our own thoughts, thinking about the "I", the more unhappy we become. Every emotion stems fr

by roansh 4y ago

I've been exploring these thoughts. I think the more we are lost in our own thoughts, thinking about the "I", the more unhappy we become. Every emotion stems from the "I". When we let go of the "I", the ego, things calm down. So ultimately, to become happy, I think you could try to train your mind to let go of your ego. This is a hard thing to do, but not impossible. Psychadelics, and meditation help. This is not a mind trick either, it's the ultimate truth? There's no me & you. In 150 years, every human being alive today is going to die. We are all going to dissolve into the same thing. So, I can argue that, with time being the difference, you and I are the same! There's no us vs them. It's just us. It also fits in line with "doing something for others"[1]. The more we concern ourselves with others, the better we feel. Because we lose ourselves. I think it also fits in line with if you can get in "flow" states while doing some activity. If it is what you can concern yourself with. The end result is the same - you lose yourself in it, and feel calm. The comment[2] below raises a good question -- I used to think the same. That happiness is overrated, and we should rather go after suffering. But there's a flaw in that thinking. Suffering is not a necessary condition to do something useful. One can recognise a lack of something, work towards fulfilling a desire, and still be happy. [1] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=30787818 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=30787818 [2] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=30788318 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=30788318 By the way, could someone please write about these terms? "non-dual self-knowledge", "duality, multiplicity and relativity". I googled but I don't quite understand them.

chousuke 4y ago
One part of it is figuring out who you are and acting accordingly. However, a persistent problem I face with any approach to pursuing happiness is how to get my body to perform the things that would make me happy instead of the things some unconscious part of me chooses to direct it to do; those things are rarely the same. I quite literally and frequently feel like I have no or extremely limited conscious control over my actions, and to make myself do something I want to do that the unconscious executor strongly disagrees with due to anxiety or ADHD or whatever, I have to set things up so that there is literally no other option. That's pretty difficult to do, and quite stressful. I'm also someone who needs to be constantly doing things because when I'm not distracted, my brain tends to start generating thoughts that lead to severe emotional pain; again, something I don't have much control over.
- roansh 4y ago
  I think this is true for everyone? But not to the extent you describe I think. Man, this topic is hard. First off, how do you figure out who you are. What shapes up that? Is it a constant? Maybe we delude ourselves with a wrong image, and then we have these emotions that drive our behaviour, our actions which don't align with that image. I think simpler is, letting go of the rigid definition of "who you are", not even concern ourselves with defining it. Experiment with many things, and then do what you enjoy doing? Of course, legal & moral constraints should hold :)
- AnIdiotOnTheNet 4y ago
  > However, a persistent problem I face with any approach to pursuing happiness is how to get my body to perform the things that would make me happy instead of the things some unconscious part of me chooses to direct it to do; those things are rarely the same. I've certainly experienced what you're describing. I overeat if I don't work really hard to control myself. At one point in my life I was north of 320lbs. I eventually managed to lose half of that from very strict control of my environment and behavior that was, frankly, excruciating. The pandemic (and other life stressors before it) caused me to put more than 50lbs back on, which I've since managed to get down to only about 35 above my lowest weight, and I struggle every day trying to figure out how to come to terms with the part of myself that wants to constantly eat. It is, seemingly, a never ending battle. I tell you this because I want you to understand where I'm coming from when I say that it is a mistake to identify 'self' as the 'rational' and 'conscious' part of your being. Evidence suggests that we are actually a lot less conscious[0] and rational[1] than we like to believe, and that instead these are merely tools used by our mind to deal with certain circumstances. Rationality is more often a tool for justifying belief or action than deciding to believe or act. Perhaps you've experienced doing or saying something and not really knowing why? Pay attention and you can feel yourself filling in the line of reasoning afterwards. In fact, if you've ever experienced arguing with yourself you might have noticed that both sides are perfectly capable of wielding rationality against the other. Point being, part of you wants to do the thing, but clearly another part of you wants to do the things that make that difficult. You identify with one part over the other because, for some reason[2], we identify 'self' with the rational and conscious portion of our being and the desires of the part you identify as 'you' in this instance are able to use those tools to better justify themselves, but that part is not the whole being. Trust me when I tell you that treating the 'other' part of you as an enemy is not going to work out. My advice is to try coming to terms. Pay attention to what each part of you actually wants and try to find ways to satisfy them all. It isn't easy, and I'm certainly not very good at it, but the alternative nearly drove me to suicide. P.S. Oh, it is also important to recognize that the part of your mind that predicts future happiness exaggerates a lot. There are studies that show this effect, but it is easy enough to observe on your own. Think of a time you really wanted something, to attain a possession, relationship, or goal, and how much you thought it would increase your happiness vs how much it actually did. I believe you will find that consistently it affected your happiness significantly less than you believed. [0] https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/behavioral-and-brain-sciences/article/homing-in-on-consciousness-in-the-nervous-system-an-actionbased-synthesis/2483CA8F40A087A0A7AAABD40E0D89B2 https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/behavioral-and-brain... [1] https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-019-39813-y https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-019-39813-y [2] My roommate, who reads a lot of stuff about societies, beliefs, cultural worldviews, and consciousness, tells me that this is a feature of modern European societies and societies derived from them and is not actually the normal human condition. I am not prepared to vouch for the veracity of that statement, though.
fantasticshower 4y ago
Non-duality means that reality is not a subject (me or I) experiencing objects but a unity (as opposed to duality) of subject and experience. The sense you have of being a separate observer or experiencer of objects outside of yourself is an illusion or mistaken way of thinking.
- roansh 4y ago
  Aaah :) Basically everything is one. All objects, people, and I. All is one. Would that also be a right description of non-duality? Btw, thanks! :)
  - fantasticshower 4y ago
    That's the basic idea from my understanding but it's also an experience, not just a concept. Check out Swami Sarvapriyananda on YouTube to get a good guided experience of it.
    - roansh 4y ago
      Thanks :)
skinney6 4y ago
Here are a couple of my attempts are non-dual. You are not an object in a outside world of objects. You are consciousness. You are the infinite field of knowing that allows all experience to be known (Rupert Spira). The objects are conceptual layers added by the mind. The mind sees a certain pattern of color and has learned that it is a chair. You cannot know the chair tho. You can only know the activity of consciousness that lie below the mind and it's concepts and you are that field of consciousness. There is no duality or multiplicity. There is only the one, the consciousness. There is a man in a bunker deep below the ground. There are wires coming in from above attached to telegraph machines. He interprets the telegraph messages and draws maps. He doesn't actually know anything about the outside world where these messages are supposedly coming from. He only knows the data and the maps he draws from it. You only know the raw conscious data; color, sound, thoughts, feelings, sensations, taste. Does a physical objects actually exist outside of you? Maybe, but we can't know for sure. We only know the simulation and the stuff the simulation is made of is consciousness. We are that consciousness. Until one takes this first step in self-realization they are still stuck in the conceptual world. That world is constructed purely of thought. Arguing in this space is futile. It's just thoughts and thoughts are changing all the time and different for everyone.
- roansh 4y ago
  How do you define truth, and objective reality? With your argument, it means we can't ever experience the true reality -- or ever know if it even exists!
  - 5g_slump 4y ago
    What makes you think humans are wired to experience objective truth? Evolution is a process that builds agents capable of interacting with their environment in limited ways - specifically those ways that are beneficial for their reproduction and the maintenance of the species. If simpler (ie, subjective) degrees of truth are sufficient for humans to survive, doesn't it seem extremely unlikely that we would be given the keys to full objective truth? It can be very simply proved that even your sense data, the most direct and true-seeming aspects of our experiential reality, is subjective, rather than objective (eg, blind spots in your eyes that your brain paves over, various forms of visual and auditory illusions, phenomena like tinnitus and migraines that are responsive to feedback loops involving your attention, etc). And of course, we are as humans, subjective and biased observers of our experiential reality as well. If God himself came down on a mountain in front of 100 people, you would get 100 unique reports of how that encounter happened and what it meant. You can come at this from a sociology of knowledge perspective - what we call "objective reality" operates more like "consensus reality" - the set of subjective truths that are widely experienced by people. In most cases, we can act as if these things are equivalent, except of course, for this type of philosophic enquiry!
agumonkey 4y ago
It's a interesting trail of thoughts I rarely see mentioned. Similarly I had the realization that when left alone, you can rapidly lose track of reality. Your emotions will influence beliefs and nobody can rebalance your mind. These beliefs can make you suffer deeply and sometimes they're completely bogus.. yet you can't easily extract yourself from this mindset, while when with others they can bring you back closer to a centered view. I kinda see social groups as balancing devices now.
- AnIdiotOnTheNet 4y ago
  It is interesting that your description isn't too far away from saying "reality is a consensus built up between entities", which is itself not too far off from Donald Hoffman[0] hypothesizes, which could possibly be framed as "reality is a protocol conscious entities use to communicate". [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Donald_D._Hoffman https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Donald_D._Hoffman
  - agumonkey 4y ago
    Man, I've been wondering this for years .. I could never find the right terminology to discuss it. It also kinda means reality is a wave that we propagate down the lineage tree.
    - roansh 4y ago
      It indeed is! We are merely the vessels, and the agents. Information or the accumulated knowledge is the living entity. We are just adding to it, while also passing it down. We procreate to keep the information alive.
- roansh 4y ago
  >Similarly I had the realization that when left alone, you can rapidly lose track of reality. Your emotions will influence beliefs and nobody can rebalance your mind. These beliefs can make you suffer deeply and sometimes they're completely bogus.. yet you can't easily extract yourself from this mindset, while when with others they can bring you back closer to a centered view. I kinda see social groups as balancing devices now. I think I have experienced this. Also being among people constantly gives you these signals to process, which distract you from the self-talk. These external signals help you hook back into the collective thought?
macrolocal 4y ago
The Protestants talk about the light of God that shines within all of us; the Greek theologians talk about the World Soul; the Buddhists talk about the nature of the mind. I've always intuited my "I" as this foundation, but you've opted for a more social definition, which I find pretty fascinating. Also, part of your post feels like a rejection of the Logos, which is probably a mistake.
- roansh 4y ago
  Thanks. What is Logos? :)
  - macrolocal 4y ago
    Depending on who you talk to, what links reason with the structure of the world, a meditative principle that connects the nature of the mind with the organizing principles of physical reality, Jesus Christ, an outpouring from the Absolute or One to your essential being, etc. It's the source of lots of deep spiritual experiences.

by roansh 4y ago

chousuke 4y ago

One part of it is figuring out who you are and acting accordingly. However, a persistent problem I face with any approach to pursuing happiness is how to get my body to perform the things that would make me happy instead of the things some unconscious part of me chooses to direct it to do; those things are rarely the same. I quite literally and frequently feel like I have no or extremely limited conscious control over my actions, and to make myself do something I want to do that the unconscious executor strongly disagrees with due to anxiety or ADHD or whatever, I have to set things up so that there is literally no other option. That's pretty difficult to do, and quite stressful. I'm also someone who needs to be constantly doing things because when I'm not distracted, my brain tends to start generating thoughts that lead to severe emotional pain; again, something I don't have much control over.

roansh 4y ago
I think this is true for everyone? But not to the extent you describe I think. Man, this topic is hard. First off, how do you figure out who you are. What shapes up that? Is it a constant? Maybe we delude ourselves with a wrong image, and then we have these emotions that drive our behaviour, our actions which don't align with that image. I think simpler is, letting go of the rigid definition of "who you are", not even concern ourselves with defining it. Experiment with many things, and then do what you enjoy doing? Of course, legal & moral constraints should hold :)
AnIdiotOnTheNet 4y ago
> However, a persistent problem I face with any approach to pursuing happiness is how to get my body to perform the things that would make me happy instead of the things some unconscious part of me chooses to direct it to do; those things are rarely the same. I've certainly experienced what you're describing. I overeat if I don't work really hard to control myself. At one point in my life I was north of 320lbs. I eventually managed to lose half of that from very strict control of my environment and behavior that was, frankly, excruciating. The pandemic (and other life stressors before it) caused me to put more than 50lbs back on, which I've since managed to get down to only about 35 above my lowest weight, and I struggle every day trying to figure out how to come to terms with the part of myself that wants to constantly eat. It is, seemingly, a never ending battle. I tell you this because I want you to understand where I'm coming from when I say that it is a mistake to identify 'self' as the 'rational' and 'conscious' part of your being. Evidence suggests that we are actually a lot less conscious[0] and rational[1] than we like to believe, and that instead these are merely tools used by our mind to deal with certain circumstances. Rationality is more often a tool for justifying belief or action than deciding to believe or act. Perhaps you've experienced doing or saying something and not really knowing why? Pay attention and you can feel yourself filling in the line of reasoning afterwards. In fact, if you've ever experienced arguing with yourself you might have noticed that both sides are perfectly capable of wielding rationality against the other. Point being, part of you wants to do the thing, but clearly another part of you wants to do the things that make that difficult. You identify with one part over the other because, for some reason[2], we identify 'self' with the rational and conscious portion of our being and the desires of the part you identify as 'you' in this instance are able to use those tools to better justify themselves, but that part is not the whole being. Trust me when I tell you that treating the 'other' part of you as an enemy is not going to work out. My advice is to try coming to terms. Pay attention to what each part of you actually wants and try to find ways to satisfy them all. It isn't easy, and I'm certainly not very good at it, but the alternative nearly drove me to suicide. P.S. Oh, it is also important to recognize that the part of your mind that predicts future happiness exaggerates a lot. There are studies that show this effect, but it is easy enough to observe on your own. Think of a time you really wanted something, to attain a possession, relationship, or goal, and how much you thought it would increase your happiness vs how much it actually did. I believe you will find that consistently it affected your happiness significantly less than you believed. [0] https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/behavioral-and-brain-sciences/article/homing-in-on-consciousness-in-the-nervous-system-an-actionbased-synthesis/2483CA8F40A087A0A7AAABD40E0D89B2 https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/behavioral-and-brain... [1] https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-019-39813-y https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-019-39813-y [2] My roommate, who reads a lot of stuff about societies, beliefs, cultural worldviews, and consciousness, tells me that this is a feature of modern European societies and societies derived from them and is not actually the normal human condition. I am not prepared to vouch for the veracity of that statement, though.

fantasticshower 4y ago

Non-duality means that reality is not a subject (me or I) experiencing objects but a unity (as opposed to duality) of subject and experience. The sense you have of being a separate observer or experiencer of objects outside of yourself is an illusion or mistaken way of thinking.

roansh 4y ago
Aaah :) Basically everything is one. All objects, people, and I. All is one. Would that also be a right description of non-duality? Btw, thanks! :)
- fantasticshower 4y ago
  That's the basic idea from my understanding but it's also an experience, not just a concept. Check out Swami Sarvapriyananda on YouTube to get a good guided experience of it.
  - roansh 4y ago
    Thanks :)

skinney6 4y ago

Here are a couple of my attempts are non-dual. You are not an object in a outside world of objects. You are consciousness. You are the infinite field of knowing that allows all experience to be known (Rupert Spira). The objects are conceptual layers added by the mind. The mind sees a certain pattern of color and has learned that it is a chair. You cannot know the chair tho. You can only know the activity of consciousness that lie below the mind and it's concepts and you are that field of consciousness. There is no duality or multiplicity. There is only the one, the consciousness. There is a man in a bunker deep below the ground. There are wires coming in from above attached to telegraph machines. He interprets the telegraph messages and draws maps. He doesn't actually know anything about the outside world where these messages are supposedly coming from. He only knows the data and the maps he draws from it. You only know the raw conscious data; color, sound, thoughts, feelings, sensations, taste. Does a physical objects actually exist outside of you? Maybe, but we can't know for sure. We only know the simulation and the stuff the simulation is made of is consciousness. We are that consciousness. Until one takes this first step in self-realization they are still stuck in the conceptual world. That world is constructed purely of thought. Arguing in this space is futile. It's just thoughts and thoughts are changing all the time and different for everyone.

roansh 4y ago
How do you define truth, and objective reality? With your argument, it means we can't ever experience the true reality -- or ever know if it even exists!
- 5g_slump 4y ago
  What makes you think humans are wired to experience objective truth? Evolution is a process that builds agents capable of interacting with their environment in limited ways - specifically those ways that are beneficial for their reproduction and the maintenance of the species. If simpler (ie, subjective) degrees of truth are sufficient for humans to survive, doesn't it seem extremely unlikely that we would be given the keys to full objective truth? It can be very simply proved that even your sense data, the most direct and true-seeming aspects of our experiential reality, is subjective, rather than objective (eg, blind spots in your eyes that your brain paves over, various forms of visual and auditory illusions, phenomena like tinnitus and migraines that are responsive to feedback loops involving your attention, etc). And of course, we are as humans, subjective and biased observers of our experiential reality as well. If God himself came down on a mountain in front of 100 people, you would get 100 unique reports of how that encounter happened and what it meant. You can come at this from a sociology of knowledge perspective - what we call "objective reality" operates more like "consensus reality" - the set of subjective truths that are widely experienced by people. In most cases, we can act as if these things are equivalent, except of course, for this type of philosophic enquiry!

agumonkey 4y ago

It's a interesting trail of thoughts I rarely see mentioned. Similarly I had the realization that when left alone, you can rapidly lose track of reality. Your emotions will influence beliefs and nobody can rebalance your mind. These beliefs can make you suffer deeply and sometimes they're completely bogus.. yet you can't easily extract yourself from this mindset, while when with others they can bring you back closer to a centered view. I kinda see social groups as balancing devices now.

AnIdiotOnTheNet 4y ago
It is interesting that your description isn't too far away from saying "reality is a consensus built up between entities", which is itself not too far off from Donald Hoffman[0] hypothesizes, which could possibly be framed as "reality is a protocol conscious entities use to communicate". [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Donald_D._Hoffman https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Donald_D._Hoffman
- agumonkey 4y ago
  Man, I've been wondering this for years .. I could never find the right terminology to discuss it. It also kinda means reality is a wave that we propagate down the lineage tree.
  - roansh 4y ago
    It indeed is! We are merely the vessels, and the agents. Information or the accumulated knowledge is the living entity. We are just adding to it, while also passing it down. We procreate to keep the information alive.
roansh 4y ago
>Similarly I had the realization that when left alone, you can rapidly lose track of reality. Your emotions will influence beliefs and nobody can rebalance your mind. These beliefs can make you suffer deeply and sometimes they're completely bogus.. yet you can't easily extract yourself from this mindset, while when with others they can bring you back closer to a centered view. I kinda see social groups as balancing devices now. I think I have experienced this. Also being among people constantly gives you these signals to process, which distract you from the self-talk. These external signals help you hook back into the collective thought?

macrolocal 4y ago

The Protestants talk about the light of God that shines within all of us; the Greek theologians talk about the World Soul; the Buddhists talk about the nature of the mind. I've always intuited my "I" as this foundation, but you've opted for a more social definition, which I find pretty fascinating. Also, part of your post feels like a rejection of the Logos, which is probably a mistake.

roansh 4y ago
Thanks. What is Logos? :)
- macrolocal 4y ago
  Depending on who you talk to, what links reason with the structure of the world, a meditative principle that connects the nature of the mind with the organizing principles of physical reality, Jesus Christ, an outpouring from the Absolute or One to your essential being, etc. It's the source of lots of deep spiritual experiences.