Conscious Attention

[edgitarra]

When fatigue sets in, attention is almost not possible anymore, unless one is already well exercised; it is better in that case to abandon oneself, to search for a break, and to start again a little later, to ungrasp oneself and grasp oneself like one inhales and exhales.

I think this may not be true. I am not well exercised with attention, but after 7-8 hours of working as a runner, only standing up during this period, i can tell you that it feels amazing. Attention is placed easily on the body and the mind is clear(sometimes there is long inner silence). Vision becomes brighter and sharper, hearing is more precise. My guess is that one has to do some intense physical work, to make it easier for him to divide his attention.
But i might be entirely wrong.

 

[Nick_A]

When fatigue sets in, attention is almost not possible anymore, unless one is already well exercised; it is better in that case to abandon oneself, to search for a break, and to start again a little later, to ungrasp oneself and grasp oneself like one inhales and exhales.

I think this may not be true. I am not well exercised with attention, but after 7-8 hours of working as a runner, only standing up during this period, i can tell you that it feels amazing. Attention is placed easily on the body and the mind is clear(sometimes there is long inner silence). Vision becomes brighter and sharper, hearing is more precise. My guess is that one has to do some intense physical work, to make it easier for him to divide his attention.
But i might be entirely wrong.

Hi edgitarra

You seem to be describing a heightened state of conscious awareness which intense physical work can produce. Conscious attention as distinct from identification as I understand it requires a quality of consciousness and will necessary to sustain divided attention which is really the first step towards self remembering. Identification seems to be a quality of attention that isolates. For example the will to win is an isolation distinct from the effort to consciously witness the impartial experience of the wholeness of truth. The quality of attention they represent are not the same.

I remember reading of an exercise Ouspensky described in divided attention. As I remember it A person tries to remember their name as they watch the movements of a pocket watch. The attention is divided between these two efforts. A person cannot sustain this conscious effort. Fatigue also creates negative emotions which interfere with the effort towards conscious attention.

Conscious attention can create "presence" in a human being which opens a path towards self remembering as opposed to fantasy. Self remembering is impossible where inner lies dominate so is a form of protection. I know I'm in awe of the implications of all this the more I become aware of its potential.

 

[Amy]

Hi all , firstly it's the title " Conscious Attention " that attracted me here !
And it's nice to see Buddy and PaddyJohn's commenting here as well.
I also recognize you Nick A , Miras and Buddy Paddy are having similar 'frequencies '
which is why you are attracted here to each other in this thread.



[quote author=Nick_A]

Anyone familiar with the basic ideas of the Work has read on
the importance of "attention" including divided attention.
It does seem easy intellectually
but in practice many experience the need to avoid it in favor of self justifying imagination.
Have you ever wondered why it is so?
Have you experienced it and if you have,
what does it say about our rationalizations?

[/quote]

Nick A has provided a great topic to discuss here.
I agree that Attention is really really damn hard to practice.


Now let see what has distracted my attention from making a pure observative response/comment to Nick's words/ questions for
the last 5 minutes !

Now I am recalling all of the distractions in my mind during those period which have NOTHING to do with Nick's questions/words.

Firstly, it's what I have read/told about, were being recalled , and my mind was attempting to use those 'information'
to support for what I was going to say. [ NO, this is NOT of observative response ]

Secondly, it's the 'self justifying imagination' that telling me :
" I am going to give people a great advise "
" Oh ! I must make myself look good and feel good by saying 'wise words' "
" well Do I really need to respond/ comment here? Why should I? Why shouldn't I ? What made me hesitating
what made me keep going? " Don't you have anything else to do" ? Why make yourself busy? "
" Maybe it's destined ? "


After all those flashes of thoughts, finally I have to make a DECISION - including of choosing my own definitions
of things to suit my purpose and intention ,
of what and how is an truthful helpful response should be
of what is TRUE Attention to be and what is self justifying imagination to be not
I really can not measure it by other people's standard, except by my own self made boundaries.
[ and so I told myself perhaps I should imagine that I am responding to myself - then it's easier to
deal with mind chattering ]

For the past month, I had many unpleasant dissatisfied results , which resulted from being
fluctuated from going with the flows ( my attention ) and to being IMAGINING/expecting the flows myself .

Instead of spending time and energy to be without noise and distraction
I went on creating them, by imagining things out without reasoning .
When I went through my diary to read back what I wrote, I realized
I did try to create problems and then going busy to find their solution,
and try to reward/pride myself for that...( such a justifying imagination how silly )

And one morning when everything was so clear, when my mind was in such a silence
there the clarity came, and I could see all the 'solutions' are already there... I need not to go on imagining one up.


I recall some Tao's words : Tao is to eat when eating, to do when doing, to play when playing, to hear when hearing, etc ...
I wonder how can this be done, when we are all the time without ATTENTION ;
We can't even manage to have our awareness in the Present. There are always NOISEs/distractions.
So how to have attention without being in the present .
You see , this is problem of our moderntimes - where Silence has lost its value.


Have you ever wondered why it is so?
Have you experienced it and if you have,
what does it say about our rationalizations?

I hope I have truthfully responding to these questions .




[quote author=Nick_A]


Simone Weil provides important input.
She wrote:


"Attention is an effort, the greatest of efforts perhaps,
but it is a negative effort, and as such does not include fatigue.

When fatigue sets in, attention is almost not possible anymore,
unless one is already well exercised;

it is better in that case to abandon oneself, to search for a break,
and to start again a little later,
to ungrasp oneself and grasp oneself like one inhales and exhales.

There is something in our soul that loathes true attention much more violently
than flesh loathes fatigue.
That something is much closer to evil than flesh is.
That is why, every time we truly give our attention,
we destroy some evil in ourselves.

If one pays attention with this intention,
fifteen minutes of attention is worth a lot of good works."
[/quote]


Again, this is perhaps the author 's experience , conclusion and self - definition/boudaries.
We never know how true and false these statements are until we are in her perspective,
or at least experience something similar.

Also Flexibility is the main factor in everything, negative or positive , as long as we are flexible enough
to see 'distractions' as lesson, attention NOT as stress and burden , justifying imagination as
a letting go of resistance , ...

After all , if we see living life is like playing a mind game, perhaps things are whatever we make/think/feel them to be.

 

[SeekinTruth]

When fatigue sets in, attention is almost not possible anymore, unless one is already well exercised; it is better in that case to abandon oneself, to search for a break, and to start again a little later, to ungrasp oneself and grasp oneself like one inhales and exhales.

I think this may not be true. I am not well exercised with attention, but after 7-8 hours of working as a runner, only standing up during this period, i can tell you that it feels amazing. Attention is placed easily on the body and the mind is clear(sometimes there is long inner silence). Vision becomes brighter and sharper, hearing is more precise. My guess is that one has to do some intense physical work, to make it easier for him to divide his attention.
But i might be entirely wrong.

This may be related to what Gurdjieff said about the "small accumulators and the Large accumulator in the organism." If one can connect directly to the large accumulator, instead of the small one of each center, then a whole other quantity and quality of energy can be used. And intense physical exertion could be one of the ways to draw directly from the large accumulator that feeds the small ones ordinarily. G does say that any valuable work (perhaps other than experimentation and practice) can only be accomplished by connecting to the large accumulator directly.

 

[Nick_A]

Firstly, it's what I have read/told about, were being recalled , and my mind was attempting to use those 'information'
to support for what I was going to say. [ NO, this is NOT of observative response ]

Secondly, it's the 'self justifying imagination' that telling me :
" I am going to give people a great advise "
" Oh ! I must make myself look good and feel good by saying 'wise words' "
" well Do I really need to respond/ comment here? Why should I? Why shouldn't I ? What made me hesitating
what made me keep going? " Don't you have anything else to do" ? Why make yourself busy? "
" Maybe it's destined ? "

Join the club. It is the same with me. It is the human condition keeping us confined to conflicting attachments to the shadows on the wall of Plato's Cave. But what actually is conscious attention? Are we its source?

I know for example that I have the potential to receive the world through my senses without habitual judgment. This requires conscious attention. It is the antodote to dominant imagination.

I also believe in addition to offering the ability to receive the external world, Simone was right when she wrote: "Absolute unmixed attention is prayer. "

In other words prayer from the depth of our being is possible when it initiates from a part of me that is real as opposed to the habitual nature of my personality. So what is this quality that is both so important and rarely experienced?

 

[Amy]

[quote author=Nick_A]

But what actually is conscious attention? Are we its source?

I have the potential to receive the world through my senses without habitual judgment.
This requires conscious attention. It is the antodote to dominant imagination.

the ability to receive the external world, "Absolute unmixed attention is prayer. "

In other words prayer from the depth of our being is possible when
it initiates from a part of me that is real as opposed to the habitual nature of my personality.
So what is this quality that is both so important and rarely experienced?

[/quote]

To me, at-tention is a fuel of in-tention and pur-pose,
I see the word 'tention' here is as 'tension' ...
Tension is always way of being conscious...

As I understand, tension is happening when we , through the power of our mind,
condense the energy of certain quality , and through that creating a force for physical manifestation.

When we want to have certain ideas or beliefs to come into reality, AT -Tension or IN - Tension ,
( focusing, pur-posing , aiming, targeting , condensing etc... )

is absolutely NEEDED .


---------------------


And you are right that PRAYER is one of these kind of mind manifesting reality.
when we pray/wish sincerely, honestly to ourselves...

This is the power of the MIND, that TPTB doesn't want people to know...

I recall the Cs' words ... that even the existence of humankind
is also as result of someone's imagination/ belief/ prayer/ intention.

You will notice that the more mental distractions we clear off,
the more we are being able to focus and concentrate is NATURALLY coming out,
and what we want to manifest in our life will become so much easier.



---------------------------

Of 'habitual judgement' - maybe you meant "prejudice " ?
As judgment is not of habitual, but as a result of past experiences.
If we didn't have past experiences with certain things, we wouldn't be able to judge ...

Prejudice to my definition, is an indication of myself being lazy to take time to look at things in the new ways,
new perspectives; lazy to look at the same thing but deeper larger and more wholly ...

When I caught myself thinking the same thing about same problem,
I , by my definition, calling myself LAZY - that's my own discipline.

Also , by that way of thinking, I find myself being stronger when dealing with people's Prejudice.

Another way to deal with 'habitual judgement' is to keep your mind clear from past experiences
by practicing of using more of your ears, less of your eyes , use more of your senses, less of analysing , ...
that is one way to increase NEW experiences through improving/using more of your senses ( feeling, smelling, hearing, ...)


--------------------

Of the 'personality' that you hate ,

I would like to say this : " Hate " is another way of saying " Creating Tension " ,
when you give something more 'tension' , you are making it bigger,
you are giving it more of your attention, focus , ...

I don't know why you dislike something that is of yourself naturally,
but if you want to get rid of something, you first have to understand why is its existence?
who created it? what's its character? and how to NEUTRALIZE it ... like how we use water to neutralize heat,
instead of heating it up further.


But don't 'hate ' anything, just use them all when they are needed...
personality is something that can be created , and can be changed , transformed, balanced , ...
"positivity and negativity are only two sides of a coin "

 

[Nick_A]

Hi Amy

Thanks for your reply. I'd like to gradually get your opinion on several questions concerning ideas you brought. I'd like to begin by clarifying what you mean by our acquired personality. Do you share Jacob Needleman's question on p.59 of Lost Christianity? If so, does the struggle with the limitations of acquired personality require the help of blind hatred or is it better served through conscious attention and a different quality of emotion the practice invites? If it is, why is the practice so repulsive that we avoid it?


Acornology

I began my lecture that morning from just this point. There is an innate element in human nature, I argued that can grow and develop only through impressions of truth received in the organism like a special nourishing energy. To this innate element I gave a name - perhaps not a very good name - the "higher unconscious." My aim was to draw an extremely sharp distinction between the unconscious that Freud had identified and the unconscious referred to (though not by that name) in the Christian tradition.

Imagine, I said, that you are a scientist and you have before you the object known as the acorn. Let us further imagine that you have never before seen such an object and that you certainly do not know that it can grow into an oak. You carefully observe these acorns day after day and soon you notice that after a while they crack open and die. Pity! How to improve the acorn? So that it will live longer. You make careful, exquisitely precise chemical analyses of the material inside the acorn and, after much effort, you succeed in isolating the substance that controls the condition of the shell. Lo and behold, you are now in the position to produce acorns which will last far longer than the others, acorns whose shells will perhaps never crack. Beautiful!

The question before us, therefore, is whether or not modern psychology is only a version of acornology.

 

[Amy]

Hi Nick

Firstly you should read back what you wrote
and opinions from the posters there
as exactly the same questions you asked in that forum.

http://www.ilovephilosophy.com/viewtopic.php?t=144290


See if you have new way to approach the same self created problem
See if you have tried to get the answers by yourself
or you merely keep looking to researching data...

Then we will discuss further ᆞ

You know what different between the librarian and the
pioneer ....
You know what different between reading others ideas trying
to understand them ...and having first hand knowledge and hence comprehend
all ideas behind their words ...

 

[Nick_A]

Hi Nick

Firstly you should read back what you wrote
and opinions from the posters there
as exactly the same questions you asked in that forum.

http://www.ilovephilosophy.com/viewtopic.php?t=144290


See if you have new way to approach the same self created problem
See if you have tried to get the answers by yourself
or you merely keep looking to researching data...

Then we will discuss further ᆞ

You know what different between the librarian and the
pioneer ....
You know what different between reading others ideas trying
to understand them ...and having first hand knowledge and hence comprehend
all ideas behind their words ...

You are right Amy, it is the intolerable question. It is extremely offensive. Yet I'm always interested in sharing with the minority that have truly felt it. I know I have and it changed my life since before my experiences I had never experienced this vertical direction and the human organism within its structure. So I have asked similar questions in many settings. I learn from questions.

I admit to being strange. One of my ancestors was capable of depicting the interactions of universal forces within nature in his paintings. Another was an archbishop in the Armenian Church who appreciated what in many cases now is considered absurd in secular religions.

I agree with Thomas Merton when he wrote concerning Simone Weil that "without her non-conformism and mysticism we remain not human." He knew that she was able to convey levels of reality not from her head exclusively but from her being which is why she is so valued amongst the minority willing to open to the difference. My experiences have verified this.

I know in May I will give a presentation on Simone's appreciation of the dual purpose of the human organism and why its recognition is vital for human survival. She wasn't in the Work but the Work was within her. My efforts in a small part can serve what I believe to be a valuable initiative not only for oneself but for society as a whole. It can since I can blend her observation in the context of a painting to vivify it. It is a small effort but a unique one creating a powerful experience so should be done. I've received honest responses but they include the growl which seems to be an essential part of the reaction.

I tried. It bombed. No harm, no foul. Life goes on.

 

[obyvatel]

I tried. It bombed. No harm, no foul. Life goes on.

Nick_A, when I go through your posts, it is apparent that despite making references to the Work, your agenda is bringing in Simone Weil at any pretext. Also, it is not the first time you have entered an online forum with the agenda of proselytizing about Simone Weil.

We ask members here to read some recommended books so that we have some common ground for discussion. Some links were provided to you in some of the threads along with suggestions to read the Wave which seem to have been ignored.

Are you interested in having meaningful discussions with members here based on topics of interest here beyond Simone Weil? Or is it your intention to simply proselytize about Weil?

 

[Nick_A]

I tried. It bombed. No harm, no foul. Life goes on.

Nick_A, when I go through your posts, it is apparent that despite making references to the Work, your agenda is bringing in Simone Weil at any pretext. Also, it is not the first time you have entered an online forum with the agenda of proselytizing about Simone Weil.

We ask members here to read some recommended books so that we have some common ground for discussion. Some links were provided to you in some of the threads along with suggestions to read the Wave which seem to have been ignored.

Are you interested in having meaningful discussions with members here based on topics of interest here beyond Simone Weil? Or is it your intention to simply proselytize about Weil?

Obyvatel


I've tried to discuss idea. It is impossible to proselytize Simone because there is no School and nothing to follow. Simone IS ideas. Her life and personal dedication to experiencing truth is what it is. Hew value is in awakening people to open themselves to the personal questions which awaken a person to the reality and prison of the human condition. How can anyone proselytize this. Did Plato do so with his cave analogy? this is just silly.

I intentionally refer to Simone to avoid any sort of school proselytizing. The last thing I want to do is push such delights as Scientology of a Course in Miracles. I know the inner harm they can cause. Yet the worst a person can do concerning Simone is become insulted and growl. No harm is done.

There apparently is an agenda here which is to associate the Work with the Cs. For me the Work is perennial. It always was so no agenda is necessary. Conscious attention can be verified through attempts to "Know Thyself" or it cannot.

I know through my experiences on the Internet that it is virtually impossible to find people willing to discuss ideas without an agenda. The agenda creates the friction making it impossible. It is unfortunate but that is my experience. Yet I know that I now have this responsibility in May to invite just such a discussion through the unification of fine art and philosophy which includes levels of reality which allow it to live. It is my personal contribution since my heredity provides the means to do it. So I ask questions hoping certain answers can be used to further the cause of the presentation. There is nothing to proselytize. A person either feels questions not limited by acquired perceptions of right and wrong or they won't. It is not for me to judge. So I ask questions here and it is the same ol same ol. I'm not being critical but just know that discussion I once thought possible is not possible since the Work is being used to further an agenda.

It is just the way it is. Life goes on. No harm, no foul.

 

[Cyle]

Nick_A

I tried. It bombed. No harm, no foul. Life goes on.

Nick_A, when I go through your posts, it is apparent that despite making references to the Work, your agenda is bringing in Simone Weil at any pretext. Also, it is not the first time you have entered an online forum with the agenda of proselytizing about Simone Weil.

We ask members here to read some recommended books so that we have some common ground for discussion. Some links were provided to you in some of the threads along with suggestions to read the Wave which seem to have been ignored.

Are you interested in having meaningful discussions with members here based on topics of interest here beyond Simone Weil? Or is it your intention to simply proselytize about Weil?

Obyvatel


I've tried to discuss idea. It is impossible to proselytize Simone because there is no School and nothing to follow. Simone IS ideas. Her life and personal dedication to experiencing truth is what it is. Hew value is in awakening people to open themselves to the personal questions which awaken a person to the reality and prison of the human condition. How can anyone proselytize this. Did Plato do so with his cave analogy? this is just silly.

I intentionally refer to Simone to avoid any sort of school proselytizing. The last thing I want to do is push such delights as Scientology of a Course in Miracles. I know the inner harm they can cause. Yet the worst a person can do concerning Simone is become insulted and growl. No harm is done.

There apparently is an agenda here which is to associate the Work with the Cs. For me the Work is perennial. It always was so no agenda is necessary. Conscious attention can be verified through attempts to "Know Thyself" or it cannot.

I know through my experiences on the Internet that it is virtually impossible to find people willing to discuss ideas without an agenda. The agenda creates the friction making it impossible. It is unfortunate but that is my experience. Yet I know that I now have this responsibility in May to invite just such a discussion through the unification of fine art and philosophy which includes levels of reality which allow it to live. It is my personal contribution since my heredity provides the means to do it. So I ask questions hoping certain answers can be used to further the cause of the presentation. There is nothing to proselytize. A person either feels questions not limited by acquired perceptions of right and wrong or they won't. It is not for me to judge. So I ask questions here and it is the same ol same ol. I'm not being critical but just know that discussion I once thought possible is not possible since the Work is being used to further an agenda.

It is just the way it is. Life goes on. No harm, no foul.

It appears from reading this post that you are buffering around the questions that were asked by Obyvatel. You are expressing your opinion based on past experience and claiming there is an agenda here, which from observation there is not, and by claiming that this discussion that you appear to not be getting about conscious attention is not possible to have.

It appears that this is true, yet the discussion that you wish to have is muddy due to the fact that you are unable to share any of your own personal experiences about conscious attention and choose to utilize the WORDS of Simone Weil to get your point across. How do the WORDS of Simone Weil appear to manifest in your life? Obviously what was said in her work resonates with you, why? Can you give us all examples from your work on the self that may bring this discussion that you appear to so eagerly looking for back into a forum based context?

 

[obyvatel]

Nick_A, have you wondered why you get the response you get while promoting Weil? You seem to have the idea (so it seems to me) that people get offended because Weil raised uncomfortable questions about human existence which you have grasped but others cannot - so they "growl". The reality could be different and maybe it is your self-importance that keeps you from seeing it. In other words, it may have little to do with Weil and more to do with how you come across to others.

Maybe starting a website or a blog promoting Weil's work would be more in keeping with your aim? At least then you can be clear about your agenda and people who are attracted to it would have the choice to participate?

 

[Nick_A]

Nick_A, have you wondered why you get the response you get while promoting Weil? You seem to have the idea (so it seems to me) that people get offended because Weil raised uncomfortable questions about human existence which you have grasped but others cannot - so they "growl". The reality could be different and maybe it is your self-importance that keeps you from seeing it. In other words, it may have little to do with Weil and more to do with how you come across to others.

Maybe starting a website or a blog promoting Weil's work would be more in keeping with your aim? At least then you can be clear about your agenda and people who are attracted to it would have the choice to participate?

Again you are thinking in terms of an agenda. But I am referring to the value of reality that must be offensive. As is said in Christianity In the presence of the Word, Hell rises up in fury" This is by law.

Gurdjieff's grandmother on her death bed whispered into the ear of the young Gurdjieff: "Eldest of my grandsons! Listen and always remember my strict injunction to you: In life never do as others do. Either do nothing or do something nobody else does."

The individuals she refers to are used. Their ideas must be distorted. I prefer to talk to people who respect these individuals and awakening influence rather than use them for the purposes of their agenda. The only two I know of who fit into Gurdjieff's grandmother's injunction are Gurdjieff and Simone. Of course there are others but since Simone is both so vital and little known regardless that she is gradually becoming more known, I will serve the process of introducing the results she achieved as a seeker of truth. She is unimportant though what she brings is. A person can either ponder what she means by the results of imagination, detachment, and conscious attention or they can avoid it. But at least it is out there. No agenda's, just the need for truth which is the most offensive need in Plato's cave. Open minded people are rare and deserve a chance. I will not be part of what denies them for the sake of an agenda.

I can see I don't belong here and there is nothing wrong with that.

 

[Vic]

Nick_A, have you wondered why you get the response you get while promoting Weil? You seem to have the idea (so it seems to me) that people get offended because Weil raised uncomfortable questions about human existence which you have grasped but others cannot - so they "growl". The reality could be different and maybe it is your self-importance that keeps you from seeing it. In other words, it may have little to do with Weil and more to do with how you come across to others.

Maybe starting a website or a blog promoting Weil's work would be more in keeping with your aim? At least then you can be clear about your agenda and people who are attracted to it would have the choice to participate?

Again you are thinking in terms of an agenda. But I am referring to the value of reality that must be offensive. As is said in Christianity In the presence of the Word, Hell rises up in fury" This is by law.

Gurdjieff's grandmother on her death bed whispered into the ear of the young Gurdjieff: "Eldest of my grandsons! Listen and always remember my strict injunction to you: In life never do as others do. Either do nothing or do something nobody else does."

The individuals she refers to are used. Their ideas must be distorted. I prefer to talk to people who respect these individuals and awakening influence rather than use them for the purposes of their agenda. The only two I know of who fit into Gurdjieff's grandmother's injunction are Gurdjieff and Simone. Of course there are others but since Simone is both so vital and little known regardless that she is gradually becoming more known, I will serve the process of introducing the results she achieved as a seeker of truth. She is unimportant though what she brings is. A person can either ponder what she means by the results of imagination, detachment, and conscious attention or they can avoid it. But at least it is out there. No agenda's, just the need for truth which is the most offensive need in Plato's cave. Open minded people are rare and deserve a chance. I will not be part of what denies them for the sake of an agenda.

I can see I don't belong here and there is nothing wrong with that.

Nick, have you honestly considered the possibility that you are currently sitting in Plato's cave - facing the back wall, without even the shadows to awaken you?

You appear to evade every attempt to give an honest answer to questions put to you. As the questions have persisted you are becoming progressively aggressive in your defence.

And it all comes back to 'simone' every time. You worry me, Nick.