Observation must begin from the beginning

[Palinurus]

Here it is, I don't know how the link got chopped up.

EDIT: wrong link!

http://cassiopaea.org/forum/index.php/topic,33064.msg461494.html#msg461494

Thank you for correcting that link (twice, I believe), monotonic. I agree it's relevant in this context. It makes perfect sense and sounds awfully familiar too here and there. If you didn't read it yet, I think you could benefit greatly from this topic: Splitting as a Symptom of Internal Considering. Just a thought, fwiw.

I had read The First Initiation. I read it again though and took more from it. I'm close to the end of ISOTM and I'm looking forward to reading all your suggested texts. Thanks, Palinurus. The G teachings/knowledge is what I have been thirsting for for decades. At last someone who really knew the mechanics of existence. I'm beginning to understand how Laura, you and others felt when G's work came into your lives.

Reading something again in different circumstances invariably yields something extra according to my and many others' experience.

Gurdieff didn't make all that much difference at first though, because I was trained from childhood in the ins and outs of contemplative and mystic Christianity (Roman Catholic denomination) as described by Boris Mouravieff in his Gnosis trilogy, or something eerily similar from other equivalent sources.

I know you already have a gigantic pile of reading ahead of you but I wouldn't feel adequate if I weren't to suggest to you another source about this: a four part series of Laura about that work; and eventually the work itself, of course.

By all means, take the time you need and navigate through the plethora of suggestions as YOU see fit and according to YOUR needs. That's the main point of all of this, I think. There'll always be plenty of feedback available if you just ask for it when necessary.

EDIT: Added a reference and one line.

 

[Deleted member 4320]

I remember G. in the ISotM when he described functions of the mechanical man opposite to the conscious man.

The first one (analogously):

"Automation working by external influences" -> "Desires produced by automation" -> "Thoughts proceeding from desires" -> "Different and contradictory "wills" created by desires"

The second one:

"1 Ego Consciousness Will" -> "Thinking functions obeying consciousness and will" -> "Emotional powers and desires obeying thought and intelligence" -> "Body obeying desires and emotions which are subject to intelligence"

The way to transform from mechanical man to conscious man is self observation, self remembering. But what it means actually? Self-remembering allows for embedded oneself in the body, which requires proficiency in self-observation at all levels of aggregate existence (body, emotions, thoughts). We can suggest to somebody in order to self-observing or self-remembering, but how to really induce it into life. I think the first step is to direct our attention to the observation of process of thinking and then suppress thoughts which don't apply. To recognize which thinking is valuable and eliminating unnecessary thoughts, but suitable knowledge is required to gain recognition of which is which. This can do people with developed lower intellectual center. In other words it is does not make sense to impose discipline on themselves, for example, to self-remembering, but start observing the one part of the human being, thought center.

As in the G.’s description in the conscious man thought center reigns over the other aspects of being. The acquisition of the control over intellectual center is the effective beginning to take control over the one’s behavior and the only to real Work on themselves, as I understand it.

I am considering the emotional center(/subconscious mind/System 1) and behavior as something which for the mechanical man is unavailable, true motives and desires are hidden to the thought center(/conscious mind/system 2), behavior is hidden to the our conscious mind and seen by people outside. Thoughts, even if thoughts are ruled from the level beyond our control, thoughts are what is real to us, it's what we meet face to face in our mind.

I thought an allegory where I compare pedals in the car to the centers/systems. Accelerator correspond to System 1/desires, brake pedal System 2/thinking and clutch to the will of observation and control of the thought center. Some cars has automatic gearbox and this correspond to the people without center of gravity at the thought center. Some cars has manual gearbox and this correspond to the people with center of gravity at the thought center.

While pressing clutch foot is removed from brake pedal and is hearing the roar of the 'engine'. This is the moment when the 'engine', heart of our being comes to the fore and is possible to take another step, the observation of the emotional center.

The true art is cooperation between gas and brake pedals and using clutch when it is need. When usually, in the man machine, the gas and the brake pedal are used at the same time, and the clutch isn’t used at all.

I think The Work starts from though center. I would say that if somebody lived his life and through life never be able to recall what was thinking a few moments before or thoughts, on daily basis, only ran freely jumping from one to another, then person wasted their life.

BTW, I saw on the forum that some people associate self-remembering with work of the System 2, but I think (being more specifically) self-remembering is self-observation of the thoughts, emotions, and behaviour and caring of the proper order of working of the centers (keeping the information without losing part or all of the, in other words, remember the information and binding the whole cumulative existence of human being), however System 2 also takes part in the whole “business”.

I remember the man who admit that he is doing The Work in the 4th Way. Conversation has come to the self-remembering and I asked about whether he remembering himself. He said: “Of course!”. That what I was seeing, he was saying fast/involuntarily and he made a grimace of slightly indignant that I ask him for something like this. System 1, headquarters of various beliefs, (in this case) contain belief: “I remember myself” create self-defense reaction and imprint into mind though pattern. While if he really remembering himself, answer wouldn't be so reactive, the time for processing the question and make answer would be higher, the predator wouldn't be allowed to appear, etc

Anyway.

Take care The Strawman. Wish you success.

 

[beetlemaniac]

I remember the man who admit that he is doing The Work in the 4th Way. Conversation has come to the self-remembering and I asked about whether he remembering himself. He said: “Of course!”. That what I was seeing, he was saying fast/involuntarily and he made a grimace of slightly indignant that I ask him for something like this. System 1, headquarters of various beliefs, (in this case) contain belief: “I remember myself” create self-defense reaction and imprint into mind though pattern. While if he really remembering himself, answer wouldn't be so reactive, the time for processing the question and make answer would be higher, the predator wouldn't be allowed to appear, etc

I think it has been said in Mouravieff's work that "passive constatation" is a form of self-remembering that is automatic -- system1 thinking. In myself I think it is triggered by a system1 impulse which seems to come on its own accord throughout the day. Here's the excerpt which also in Life is Religion:

In this factitious life, ruled by Illusion, yet strewn with 'B' influences, we must reaffirm our values almost every day if we are not to fall into another trap. We generally agree to recognize the existence of the danger of Illusion, but rather theoretically; most often, we see its action on those round about us, but not on ourselves. We continue to live day by day in the same old way, so that the power we know as the Devil still triumphs. Whatever name we give it, it remains ever-present. We live in an artificial, illusory world. It is interesting in this context to quote the words of a Buddhist monk. Asked: "How do you describe the creation of the world?," he answered: "The world is created anew for each newborn person." This is exact.

The power of illusion which chains us exerts its action individually on each one of us, as well as collectively. Each mind is falsified in a way peculiar to it. What can be the outcome of such a situation? If we keep quietly to our place, human careers open to us ... just as long as we stay far away from the void. We may have a happy or unhappy life; a family life; a life of loves; we may make discoveries, travel, write. Then comes the end.

Our reasoning starts to become more realistic if our attention is concentrated on this end. Everything can happen to us in life; or nothing. Our aspirations can be fulfilled or unfulfilled, but there is a sure end, which is death.

{snipped}

Constatation can take various forms, appropriate to the chosen object and attitude. But doubled attention is always obligatory. The exercise of presence is an effort of watchfulness; as we have seen, it is the principal element in this. When done daily, in the form of passive constatation, it leads to knowledge of oneself. But because presence must as far as possible become permanent—and we emphasize this point because of its importance—the seeker must practise doubled attention as much as he can during all his activities. He will notice in time that this effort of memory, of presence, not only does not hinder his activities, but on the contrary it helps greatly in carrying them out.

Please correct me if I'm mistaken on this concept.

This however probably has nothing to do with the man's behaviour -- he seemed to be clearly attaching his self-importance to Work ideas which is antithetical to the endeavour.

 

[Vic]

I just spent well over an hour writing in response to the feedback I received here, and also detailing stuff I am experiencing relating to self-observation, including personal details relating to my mental processes, emotions etc. I was excited at the prospect of receiving, hopefully, further feedback and mirrors, and clarification on certain phenomena. I then clicked on 'preview' and lost it all because I had only been logged in for an hour. I almost sobbed. I then got mad. Now I'm knackered. I'll have to try again when I get the energy.

I almost sobbed - got mad - knackered. Hmm. That's worth looking at

 

[Mr. Premise]

I just spent well over an hour writing in response to the feedback I received here, and also detailing stuff I am experiencing relating to self-observation, including personal details relating to my mental processes, emotions etc. I was excited at the prospect of receiving, hopefully, further feedback and mirrors, and clarification on certain phenomena. I then clicked on 'preview' and lost it all because I had only been logged in for an hour. I almost sobbed. I then got mad. Now I'm knackered. I'll have to try again when I get the energy.

I almost sobbed - got mad - knackered. Hmm. That's worth looking at

That's very annoying when that happens, but don't worry, the path you are on is a long process. It's seems like you're rushing a bit in a somewhat manic state, so maybe take this as a sign to slow down, at least with soliciting feedback. To me it seems like you are on the right track. The difficult part comes after the initial enthusiasm wears off, and you have already "fixed" the easy things to "fix" and what's left are the tough issues. And I'm sure you'll be able to re-write the stuff you lost.

 

[Vic]

Now I feel nothing. Thanks Mr Premise. The insight on this forum can be very sobering at times.

*Edit: changed 'scary' to 'sobering'

 

[Vic]

I'll try again, but in a different way following Mr Premise's comments.

I just want to say that I feel guilty at not directly responding to everyone's posts. There are reasons for the guilt that centre on my belief that every person should be acknowledged for the energy they give to someone. It also relates to the needs of one of my 'I's. This particular I is a dominating one. It feels small, but it isn't small in the demands it has made on my energy throughout my life. Any positive energy directed towards it is met by a gratitude that says thank you, I am now your loyal friend. I will fight your enemies wherever they are and am prepared to die doing so - worryingly I am not exaggerating. If 'I' don't express such gratitude you may not come again and firm me up. Then I'll get smaller and wither and die.

At the moment though I seem to be spinning in terms of my mental and emotional processes. Self-observation is at the heart of this, and there are two 'technical' aspects that I feel I need clarification on quite urgently.

I think I am self-remembering, albeit for very short periods of time - a second or two. I remove my focus from everything external, as well as thoughts relating to the external - including memory and imagination. For that second or two I am totally aware of being aware. I experience the fact that 'I am' but the 'I' involved does not consist of a person with my name, or the experiences and memories of that person. I can only hold it for a second or two. I then struggle for three or four seconds with my focus until I get it back again. This is achievable when I am alone only. Obviously my aim is to achieve it in all environments.

During those seconds I have no identity whatsoever. It is peaceful and without emotion about, or association with, anything. At the risk of repeating myself, I experience consciousness without identity. There is no past, present, or future. Yet I still feel it's 'me' - is this self-remembering? Is this the same state that Ouspensky experienced for a much longer period of time in the forgotten journey from the tobacconist to his apartment.

There is one element to it that I would say is negative. My physical eyes follow my direction of intention - inside. This produces a mild discomfort which I suspect is the eye muscles trying to perform a movement that they are not designed for - looking backward basically. Has anyone else experienced this, or does anyone know anything about it?

The other thing I am wondering about is related to energy. Or at least I think it is. When I am self-remembering (if that's what it is) I sometimes experience the sensation of my body being full of energy. I have had this before over the years, especially when I have read or heard about something new that resonated with me in the context of being a revelation.

Now I can produce this sensation at will. I focus in the solar plexus area and sort of open up and I feel the 'energy' up to my neck and down as far as my upper legs. If I go somewhere quiet, where I can concentrate, I can direct the energy into any part of my body, including my brain/mind.

My question on that one is do you think it is something worth looking into and developing, or is it a mere psychological phenomenon that can't go anywhere, except as a distraction?

Has anyone experienced these things, or anything similar?

Thanks.

 

[monotonic]

I've had experiences a lot like these, but really the proof is in the pudding. What does the state of mind or the energy feeling do for you? I rate an act very highly when it is clear to me that it causes me to realize things and notice things I did not before - especially things I would have dismissed or denied emotionally, or simply overlook when things seemed "obvious".

For instance, I always breathe in through my nose and out through my mouth. Since the time years ago I read about this concerning Eiriu Eolas I started that experiment and only stopped to sleep or when it was impossible. I do this because it makes me less likely to overlook things; it makes me more aware and makes it harder to daydream. To breathe out through my nose now is unpleasant, and feels like I'm drifting into a daydream.

For every one thing I find that seems to make a real positive difference, there seem to be hordes of neat "special effects" that come to my awareness, but really are a result of my doing something funny like holding my breath a certain way. Here is what I've found: The things that are really valuable leave little question - their effects can be tested and verified; the proof is in the pudding and there's lots of it every time you are able to apply the idea. You may feel timeless and whatever but are you really? Or are you just cutting off blood to your brain or pinching a nerve? Does it actually make you think better and provide insight into your programs that you did not have before?

 

[Menna]

I just want to say that I feel guilty at not directly responding to everyone's posts.
IMO I don't think you should worry about that but at the same time it's good you are analyzing the motivating forces (Program) behind it

 

[Buddy]

I just want to say that I feel guilty at not directly responding to everyone's posts. There are reasons for the guilt that centre on my belief that every person should be acknowledged for the energy they give to someone. It also relates to the needs of one of my 'I's. This particular I is a dominating one. It feels small, but it isn't small in the demands it has made on my energy throughout my life. Any positive energy directed towards it is met by a gratitude that says thank you, I am now your loyal friend. I will fight your enemies wherever they are and am prepared to die doing so - worryingly I am not exaggerating. If 'I' don't express such gratitude you may not come again and firm me up. Then I'll get smaller and wither and die.

Sounds like this "I" might be just a programmed entity - a role that has come into existence in your past; perhaps because it had some kind of survival value to you - like preventing a punishment? You still have not acknowledged everyone individually, yet as far as I can tell you still live, so I guess that you do see that you are merely being manipulated from inside?

So, speaking semiotically, you perceive that someone has directed positive energy to you; cognitively, that's a "sign". You then experience a physiological reaction that must resolve itself into "acknowledging" that person; that's the "signification". That is programming at the level of embodied cognition and if it is the way you describe, then perhaps you might benefit from some recapitulation directed towards remembering instances in your past when such programming may have been absorbed via force or threat of force? Maybe you might also recall whether there are instances when you owed someone something for which they might have acknowledged you, yet for whatever reason you withheld it from them? It's a place to start, I think.

BTW, I'm not suggesting who you should acknowledge, when or for what...I'm just saying that ultimately such an action should most likely originate from your own inner being when you choose and for reasons that are meaningful to you which includes your aim and your being a member of a group with similar aims - not some authority figure from your past or due to the "authority" of a concept like a programmed "duty". That's how I understand being mechanical.

I think I am self-remembering, albeit for very short periods of time - a second or two. I remove my focus from everything external, as well as thoughts relating to the external - including memory and imagination. For that second or two I am totally aware of being aware. I experience the fact that 'I am' but the 'I' involved does not consist of a person with my name, or the experiences and memories of that person. I can only hold it for a second or two. I then struggle for three or four seconds with my focus until I get it back again.

This description resembles how Mihaly Csikszentmihalyi describes a certain aspect of "Flow" experience. I'm not suggesting you're in a "flow"; I'm just meaning to draw attention to a perceived correspondence with a temporary disconnect from certain metadata about yourself (a cognizance of an autotelic self) that appears to be necessary for self-consciousness. Here's that description:

The loss of the sense of a self separate from the world around it is sometimes accompanied by a feeling of union with the environment
[...]
The absence of the self from consciousness does not mean that a person in flow has given up the control of his psychic energy, or that she is unaware of what happens in her body or in her mind. In fact the opposite is usually true.
[...]
loss of self-consciousness does not involve a loss of self, and certainly not a loss of consciousness, but rather, only a loss of consciousness of the self. What slips below the threshold of awareness is the concept of self, the information we use to represent to ourselves who we are.

...so there are times and circumstances when we may indeed temporarily lose consciousness of our own personality and it may be an inevitable response to certain kinds of disturbance to our normal psychic balance. I can't speak to an exact source for you. I am personally familiar with "Flow" phenomena, and for me it only lasts as long as the initial conditions for it is fulfilled, just like Mihaly describes. A relevant question here is this: when you "return to yourself", so to speak, do you feel like you've gained something of lasting value or in any way experienced an addition to 'Being'?

This is achievable when I am alone only.

That would make sense seeing as how our self-other cognition is as tightly interwoven as observer-observed, or subject-object. IOW, a conceptual awareness of another can associatively stimulate recall of all conceptual data about self as well.

During those seconds I have no identity whatsoever. It is peaceful and without emotion about, or association with, anything. At the risk of repeating myself, I experience consciousness without identity. There is no past, present, or future. Yet I still feel it's 'me' - is this self-remembering?

If it were me saying the above, I would be describing my experiential self and cognition and I would say that emotion is present but unlinked to anything in terms of cause-effect; it's just happening. This is distinct from the structure of personality with it's conceptual or symbolic representations and linguistic-based perception and self-talk. From my perspective, identification with personality's ego prevents me from seeing how the experiential self which thinks analogically in terms of relationships is surrounded or enveloped by personality to the extent that personality or ego believes it owns and commands all the resources of that organism which is me.

Is this the same state that Ouspensky experienced for a much longer period of time in the forgotten journey from the tobacconist to his apartment.

Did you notice that it was one or the other for Ouspensky? Why do you think he couldn't have done all that thinking while also being aware of his environment, in which case he wouldn't have had any blank spots and nothing to realize in retrospect?

Most of us have no experience thinking analogically or relationally and while in direct contact with our emotional self. If we did, we'd know that negation has no place in that mode. We did think like this as little children, but we quickly traded it in for the ease of thinking and speaking in a language we were being taught from the first cooing of our parents and the reinforcements we got from the effort of making verbal noises. Mostly we do our thinking dualistically or with the binary-based logic we were taught. One major characteristic of thinking strictly with the intellectual or language center is the "excluded middle". And what is being excluded when we concentrate our conscious attention onto our mental stage if not the environment which also includes all the rest of us and associated cognitive abilities?

In effect, the more we concentrate on our inner thinking (which can also involve internal considering), the more real the symbolic world seems to become and the less real the external world. Conversely, the more we concentrate our consciousness onto our environment, the more real the outer world seems to become and the less real the inner stage.

Ideally, I think we should be learning to use our under-educated, under-used or latent cognitive faculties combined with the intellect and reduce or minimize instances when it's "one or the other but not both." This comes closer to what I feel is self-remembering and is, I believe, also what Laura refers to in the Wave about bringing the King and Queen together.

There is one element to it that I would say is negative. My physical eyes follow my direction of intention - inside. This produces a mild discomfort which I suspect is the eye muscles trying to perform a movement that they are not designed for - looking backward basically. Has anyone else experienced this, or does anyone know anything about it?

That you question this indicates you might be thinking there should be separation and/or independence between your "parts"?

The other thing I am wondering about is related to energy. Or at least I think it is. When I am self-remembering (if that's what it is) I sometimes experience the sensation of my body being full of energy. I have had this before over the years, especially when I have read or heard about something new that resonated with me in the context of being a revelation.

Now I can produce this sensation at will. I focus in the solar plexus area and sort of open up and I feel the 'energy' up to my neck and down as far as my upper legs. If I go somewhere quiet, where I can concentrate, I can direct the energy into any part of my body, including my brain/mind.

Revelations and insights can feel liberating at times and what it is being liberated could be blocked energy held in place by misunderstandings, confusions, or some memory charged with emotion pehaps?

My question on that one is do you think it is something worth looking into and developing, or is it a mere psychological phenomenon that can't go anywhere, except as a distraction?

My opinion is that, at this stage, just observe and record and remember. This could be a piece of a puzzle that needs more pieces before you will understand its meaning. I don't know. Maybe someone else does.

These are just my thoughts, so I'm just offering them FWIW. Others may have much better insights and feedback and corrections to my own views.

 

[Vic]

I've had experiences a lot like these, but really the proof is in the pudding. What does the state of mind or the energy feeling do for you? I rate an act very highly when it is clear to me that it causes me to realize things and notice things I did not before - especially things I would have dismissed or denied emotionally, or simply overlook when things seemed "obvious".

For instance, I always breathe in through my nose and out through my mouth. Since the time years ago I read about this concerning Eiriu Eolas I started that experiment and only stopped to sleep or when it was impossible. I do this because it makes me less likely to overlook things; it makes me more aware and makes it harder to daydream. To breathe out through my nose now is unpleasant, and feels like I'm drifting into a daydream.

For every one thing I find that seems to make a real positive difference, there seem to be hordes of neat "special effects" that come to my awareness, but really are a result of my doing something funny like holding my breath a certain way. Here is what I've found: The things that are really valuable leave little question - their effects can be tested and verified; the proof is in the pudding and there's lots of it every time you are able to apply the idea. You may feel timeless and whatever but are you really? Or are you just cutting off blood to your brain or pinching a nerve? Does it actually make you think better and provide insight into your programs that you did not have before?

You asked in a previous post whether my experiences related to suppression of emotion were similar to yours, Monotonic. I followed the link and read your post describing it - absolutely, I could have been reading about myself. The 'telling people what was wrong with them' part struck home for me. Was it a desperate attempt at self-validation? Or an attempt at validation of the belief system of the day. In my christian evangelical phase I must have irritated the hell out of many people. Th emotional thinking mentioned by Obyvatel was clearly at work all along.

In response to your comments on state of mind and energy I would say that I am not aware of any lasting benefits - just temporary ones. Unless the fairly constant 'hope' of lasting benefits accruing from them is a lasting one. The peace I gain from that state of mind remains with me to a certain degree, until I am back in normal3D existence, at work etc., at which point the peace goes out of the window, so to speak. The energy phenomenon gives me a feeling of great physical and mental strength whilst active, but that goes the same way as the peace from the state of mind when inactive.

In terms of the energy my hope is that it might have a healing property to it. I'll have to try it out on my wife :)

 

[Vic]

I just want to say that I feel guilty at not directly responding to everyone's posts.

IMO I don't think you should worry about that but at the same time it's good you are analyzing the motivating forces (Program) behind it

Thanks, Menna. I have also started taking those 'photographs' G talks about. Decades of self-consciousness (the human kind borne of fear, rather than the kind taught by G, I think) has left it fairly easy for me to take these snapshots. Strangely, or maybe not so strangely, during a snapshot I feel so peaceful and whole. Would a constant snapshot be constant self-consciousness, leading to objective consciousness I wonder?

It's 04:00 so time for me to get ready for work. I find it's good to come on the forum before work. I will be doing my damndest to self-observe at work today, despite the heirarchical, ponerised system in place there.

 

[Menna]

I think a better way to reach objectivity is to learn from the snapshots learn about your different states and see how subjective they are. Such as your feeling about not responding to each person individually you have noticed all these subjective emotions being fueled by subjective thinking. I think the snap shots help us see ourselves clearer see what works and what doesn't. If I was constantly taking snapshots of myself I could never have a conversation or play basketball It's tough to be in a constant snap shot state but if you learn from the snapshots then you can work on not feeding the things that lead to subjectivity and intern slowly become more objective...This would be my take on it

 

[Vic]

I just want to say that I feel guilty at not directly responding to everyone's posts. There are reasons for the guilt that centre on my belief that every person should be acknowledged for the energy they give to someone. It also relates to the needs of one of my 'I's. This particular I is a dominating one. It feels small, but it isn't small in the demands it has made on my energy throughout my life. Any positive energy directed towards it is met by a gratitude that says thank you, I am now your loyal friend. I will fight your enemies wherever they are and am prepared to die doing so - worryingly I am not exaggerating. If 'I' don't express such gratitude you may not come again and firm me up. Then I'll get smaller and wither and die.

Sounds like this "I" might be just a programmed entity - a role that has come into existence in your past; perhaps because it had some kind of survival value to you - like preventing a punishment? You still have not acknowledged everyone individually, yet as far as I can tell you still live, so I guess that you do see that you are merely being manipulated from inside?

So, speaking semiotically, you perceive that someone has directed positive energy to you; cognitively, that's a "sign". You then experience a physiological reaction that must resolve itself into "acknowledging" that person; that's the "signification". That is programming at the level of embodied cognition and if it is the way you describe, then perhaps you might benefit from some recapitulation directed towards remembering instances in your past when such programming may have been absorbed via force or threat of force? Maybe you might also recall whether there are instances when you owed someone something for which they might have acknowledged you, yet for whatever reason you withheld it from them? It's a place to start, I think.

Definitely, Buddy. So many of my programs are bubbling to the surface. This gratitude one sprang into view as I read your comments about it. It's about saying 'thank you' - this was made a very big thing of in my early programming. To a degree it's healthy. But I am aware of it being over the top. There were hurt faces, and a demand for guilt, if I didn't make damn sure certain people were aware of my gratitude for, and pleasure in, even minor gifted items.

BTW, I'm not suggesting who you should acknowledge, when or for what...I'm just saying that ultimately such an action should most likely originate from your own inner being when you choose and for reasons that are meaningful to you which includes your aim and your being a member of a group with similar aims - not some authority figure from your past or due to the "authority" of a concept like a programmed "duty". That's how I understand being mechanical.

Understood. This particular program is a mix of both those elements - authority and duty. Even now I feel a twinge of guilt about referring to the shortcomings of one of my parents (I can't even reveal which one) - but that's because he (whoops :)) has come a long way since those days and has tried successfully to compensate for the early years. I don't expect him to do that, but I'm happy for him because he is happier.

But yes, I understand what you are saying about the 'aims' and I realise that there's no room for pussyfooting around. Nothing could be more serious/important than the Work. I am realising that it is of cosmic significance, taking into account the Law of Octaves, the ray of creation, and the influence of organic life on this planet in relation to other planetary bodies. I don't pretend to have the full understanding of these aspects of reality yet, but I sense a basic grasp of them.

I think I am self-remembering, albeit for very short periods of time - a second or two. I remove my focus from everything external, as well as thoughts relating to the external - including memory and imagination. For that second or two I am totally aware of being aware. I experience the fact that 'I am' but the 'I' involved does not consist of a person with my name, or the experiences and memories of that person. I can only hold it for a second or two. I then struggle for three or four seconds with my focus until I get it back again.

This description resembles how Mihaly Csikszentmihalyi describes a certain aspect of "Flow" experience. I'm not suggesting you're in a "flow"; I'm just meaning to draw attention to a perceived correspondence with a temporary disconnect from certain metadata about yourself (a cognizance of an autotelic self) that appears to be necessary for self-consciousness. Here's that description:

The loss of the sense of a self separate from the world around it is sometimes accompanied by a feeling of union with the environment
[...]
The absence of the self from consciousness does not mean that a person in flow has given up the control of his psychic energy, or that she is unaware of what happens in her body or in her mind. In fact the opposite is usually true.
[...]
loss of self-consciousness does not involve a loss of self, and certainly not a loss of consciousness, but rather, only a loss of consciousness of the self. What slips below the threshold of awareness is the concept of self, the information we use to represent to ourselves who we are.

...so there are times and circumstances when we may indeed temporarily lose consciousness of our own personality and it may be an inevitable response to certain kinds of disturbance to our normal psychic balance. I can't speak to an exact source for you. I am personally familiar with "Flow" phenomena, and for me it only lasts as long as the initial conditions for it is fulfilled, just like Mihaly describes. A relevant question here is this: when you "return to yourself", so to speak, do you feel like you've gained something of lasting value or in any way experienced an addition to 'Being'?

I think you've nailed it there. Csikszentmihalyi's account describes my experience exactly, at least as I perceive it. I can't say whether or not I experience an addition to 'being' when I return to my self - the metadata self. I do feel as though I have gained something of lasting value, but this may be a mere 'idea' as to the value of that flow experience, and a belief (or hope) that it is an achievement in evolutionary terms that can only be positive. What I base that idea on is not clear to me at this time, so I need to look at it properly.

This is achievable when I am alone only.

That would make sense seeing as how our self-other cognition is as tightly interwoven as observer-observed, or subject-object. IOW, a conceptual awareness of another can associatively stimulate recall of all conceptual data about self as well.

During those seconds I have no identity whatsoever. It is peaceful and without emotion about, or association with, anything. At the risk of repeating myself, I experience consciousness without identity. There is no past, present, or future. Yet I still feel it's 'me' - is this self-remembering?

If it were me saying the above, I would be describing my experiential self and cognition and I would say that emotion is present but unlinked to anything in terms of cause-effect; it's just happening. This is distinct from the structure of personality with it's conceptual or symbolic representations and linguistic-based perception and self-talk. From my perspective, identification with personality's ego prevents me from seeing how the experiential self which thinks analogically in terms of relationships is surrounded or enveloped by personality to the extent that personality or ego believes it owns and commands all the resources of that organism which is me.

I am stumped now. The idea of emotion that is unlinked to cause and effect is incomprehensible to me at this point. What is emotion in this context?

Is this the same state that Ouspensky experienced for a much longer period of time in the forgotten journey from the tobacconist to his apartment.

Did you notice that it was one or the other for Ouspensky? Why do you think he couldn't have done all that thinking while also being aware of his environment, in which case he wouldn't have had any blank spots and nothing to realize in retrospect?

Most of us have no experience thinking analogically or relationally and while in direct contact with our emotional self. If we did, we'd know that negation has no place in that mode. We did think like this as little children, but we quickly traded it in for the ease of thinking and speaking in a language we were being taught from the first cooing of our parents and the reinforcements we got from the effort of making verbal noises. Mostly we do our thinking dualistically or with the binary-based logic we were taught. One major characteristic of thinking strictly with the intellectual or language center is the "excluded middle". And what is being excluded when we concentrate our conscious attention onto our mental stage if not the environment which also includes all the rest of us and associated cognitive abilities?

In effect, the more we concentrate on our inner thinking (which can also involve internal considering), the more real the symbolic world seems to become and the less real the external world. Conversely, the more we concentrate our consciousness onto our environment, the more real the outer world seems to become and the less real the inner stage.

Ideally, I think we should be learning to use our under-educated, under-used or latent cognitive faculties combined with the intellect and reduce or minimize instances when it's "one or the other but not both." This comes closer to what I feel is self-remembering and is, I believe, also what Laura refers to in the Wave about bringing the King and Queen together.

Okay, that goes some way to answering my previous question on emotion. Yes, now you mention it I remember the fact that Ouspensky had the one consciousness, rather than both. Or he remembered only the one consciousness. I'm struggling here. I need to mull this over. Obviously self-remembering should be in conjunction with consciousness of the external environment. I am thinking now that Ouspensky experienced deep meditation. Or was it an episode of disassociation - as per the example of driving to a destination and forgetting the journey. I need to go back to that part of ISOTM, Buddy.

There is one element to it that I would say is negative. My physical eyes follow my direction of intention - inside. This produces a mild discomfort which I suspect is the eye muscles trying to perform a movement that they are not designed for - looking backward basically. Has anyone else experienced this, or does anyone know anything about it?

That you question this indicates you might be thinking there should be separation and/or independence between your "parts"?

That cut me like a knife. Not in a wounding sense - more like a machete chopping away palm fronds to make a path :) I can't even comment on it. I can see what you are getting at and I need to explore it. Why does that particular suggestion about separation/independence and parts ring a loud bell in me? I will find out.

The other thing I am wondering about is related to energy. Or at least I think it is. When I am self-remembering (if that's what it is) I sometimes experience the sensation of my body being full of energy. I have had this before over the years, especially when I have read or heard about something new that resonated with me in the context of being a revelation.

Now I can produce this sensation at will. I focus in the solar plexus area and sort of open up and I feel the 'energy' up to my neck and down as far as my upper legs. If I go somewhere quiet, where I can concentrate, I can direct the energy into any part of my body, including my brain/mind.

Revelations and insights can feel liberating at times and what it is being liberated could be blocked energy held in place by misunderstandings, confusions, or some memory charged with emotion pehaps?

Maybe. I'm not convinced of that because of the way it's activated. From the intention of summoning the energy, to activation, takes less than a second. I perceive it as instantaneous. Wouldn't there need to be some prior mental process relating to the original causes of the blocked energy? I don't know.

My question on that one is do you think it is something worth looking into and developing, or is it a mere psychological phenomenon that can't go anywhere, except as a distraction?

My opinion is that, at this stage, just observe and record and remember. This could be a piece of a puzzle that needs more pieces before you will understand its meaning. I don't know. Maybe someone else does.

These are just my thoughts, so I'm just offering them FWIW. Others may have much better insights and feedback and corrections to my own views.

Your thoughts are valuable and welcome, Buddy, and it makes sense to me that I should observe, record and remember, rather than try to nail everything down as quickly as I can. Mr Premise mentioned this above, or rather that's what I took from what he said. I commented in another thread about the potential downside of concentrating on one piece of the jigsaw for too long. I'll apply that to myself.

 

[Buddy]

I am stumped now. The idea of emotion that is unlinked to cause and effect is incomprehensible to me at this point. What is emotion in this context?

I meant that while in Flow or at certain times while practicing my particular version of Mindfulness when the narrator seems absent and internal dialog is off or otherwise quieted. Without a narrator, there is no running 'story' explaining everything (story which naturally involves perceived cause-effect); there is just Being which includes what I feel as I'm feeling it. IOW, I feel what I feel without consciously telling myself why or assuming where emotion comes from or what stimulated it, etc.

Yes, now you mention it I remember the fact that Ouspensky had the one consciousness, rather than both. Or he remembered only the one consciousness. I'm struggling here. I need to mull this over. Obviously self-remembering should be in conjunction with consciousness of the external environment. I am thinking now that Ouspensky experienced deep meditation. Or was it an episode of disassociation - as per the example of driving to a destination and forgetting the journey. I need to go back to that part of ISOTM, Buddy.

Maybe it was closer to the latter? According to Ouspensky's own statements, he was doing fine until he thought of cigarettes and proceeded to the tobacco shop. What do you think the mental image sign of cigarettes signified for him? Think in terms of the Wave chapter on Addiction, rather than in terms of the objective information we have on tobacco and its consumption today. And by 'addiction', I refer to a wider context than a proposed chemical dependency - I mean the whole-self experience which also involves the do-it-again pleasure center and any self-reinforcing self-talk.

So, as his luck went, it seems that by the time he thought of cigarettes and 'called' at the tobacconist's shop he had fallen into a trance-like state. I imagine this state was deepened further with all the sights, sounds, aromas and sundry paraphernalia that can be associated with cigarettes, his habit of smoking and the whole internal milieu associated with this. This state must have been normal for Ouspensky considering the effort he had to expend in order to stay above it and how easily he sank back into it.

He remained in this state for two hours and did lots of routine stuff and we can also imagine his ordinary narrative thought processes were still there to maintain a running internal commentary and to guide him in his activities.

What he seems to have lost during this time he was not self-remembering was an additional cognitive feedback loop that allows for a self-observer via a "divided" attention that can not only be aware of his mental map - but be aware of this map which would also include himself and his activities in relation to his environment and other people as seen from the self-observer vantage point.

So, basically you are asking if what you experienced was O's ordinary daily awareness of himself and his environment while in his trance state during that period of time you refer to as: forgotten journey from the tobacconist to his apartment, right? Or were you referring more to how he describes "waking up"?

Personally, I didn't see a one-to-one correspondence between your description of your experience and what Ouspensky described, so I used an example of "Flow" to offer another comparison. And please note, I'm not wanting to define your experiences or make any value judgment - just offer information and a point of view or two that may or may not be helpful, so just consider this FWIW. I do think that self-remembering needs to take account of all that is available to be accounted for though.