Self Remembering

[go2]

The term has a reference both to Self-Observation and to Non-identification but it is synonymous with neither. The conscious act of Self-Observation is performed as follows: 1) a deliberately conscious distinction is set up between “I” and the organic body; 2) one consciously identifies oneself with the “I”-portion of this established dichotomy; 3) from the latter standpoint one observes, in the sense of being aware of, the defined phenomena proceeding simultaneously in the organism. There is thus a division of attention accompanying the observatory act; to the one hand one withdraws from the usual identification with his organism and is aware that he is the now separated “I” and, to the other, one is aware of the specific organic phenomena taking place, as it were, outside of “I”. Self-Remembering refers precisely to the first of the latter awarenesses, viz., it refers to that part of the attention which at the moment is focused upon the “I” and not upon the It or organism.

C. Daly King separates “I” and the organic body. I assume, by organic body, he means the instinctive-motor functions of the physical body. King's “I” observes strictly measureable manifestations of the physical body, such as posture, muscle tension, gesture, etc. King asserts that self-observation of the feeling and thinking functions are subjective introspection. Gurdjieff and Orage make no such distinction, as far as I know.

We further read from Gurdjieff that self-remembering begins with self-sensing and is done through the instinctive-motor centre and the emotional centre. Gurdjieff defines “I” as a “relatively-transferable-arising-depending-on-the-quality-of-the-functioning-thought-feeling-and-organic-automatism.”(Ladies of the Rope, page 95). “I” arises when “I” wish to be and do. “I” is an aspect of Will.

Self-remembering never becomes a habit. It is always the result of a conscious effort, very small to begin with, but it increases with doing. A moment of self-remembering is a moment of consciousness, that is, of self-consciousness-not in the ordinary sense, but a consciousness of the real Self, which is “I’, together with an awareness of the organism-the body, the feelings and thoughts.

About self-remembering, he said, ‘A man cannot remember himself because he tries to do so with his mind-at least, in the beginning. Self-remembering begins with self-sensing. It must be done through the instinctive-motor centre and the emotional center. Mind alone does not constitute a human being any more than the driver is the whole equipage. The centre of gravity of change is in the moving and emotional centres, but these are concerned only with the present; the mind looks ahead. The wish to change, to be what one ought to be, must be in our emotional centre, and the ability to do in our body. The feelings may be strong, but the body is lazy, sunk in inertia. Mind must learn the language of the body and feelings, and this is done by correct observation of self. One of the benefits of self-remembering is that one has the possibility of making fewer mistakes in life. But for complete self-remembering all centres must work simultaneously; and they must be artificially stimulated; the mental centre from the outside, the other two from inside. You must distinguish between sensation, emotions, and thoughts; and say to each sensation, emotion, and thought, “Remind me to remember you”, and for this you must have an “I”. And you must begin by separating inner things from outer, to separate “I” from “It”. It is similar to what I said about internal and external considering.

I admit to further confusion with C. Daly King’s Oragian Version. Is he self-remembering with his mind? Who makes the conscious distinction and conscious identification with the “I”? Something is missing in C. Daly King’s description of self-remembering. The possible deflection is king identifies with a strong intellectual “I” which presumes to do the Work. Identification is not impartial. Is it one center(intellect) watching another(organic body), rather than a real "I" arising from the Will wishing and focusing attention? "I" is established by effort and not a priori the effort.

Gurdjieff uses the word “arising”, which I find close to the experience of my efforts. “I” arises when attention is focused. I do not consciously divide and identify, it happens when “I” wish to be and to do. The persistence and clarity of “I” depends on the quality of thinking, feeling and instinctive-motor energy at the moment of focusing attention on self-sensing, self-remembering and self-observing. Thanks for the C. Daly King quote, AI. It gives me an outside stimulus to make an effort to clarify self-remembering for me and perhaps others.

 

[cubbex]

I also like what he says about the Oragean Version. By itself, Self-Remembering is not such a big deal. Anyone can work with their neurochemical balances and get into a state where the "watcher" turns on - where one can see for himself that he has reconnected with his single, big-picture, understanding-based memory - a structure much like an interconnected web in which anything that can be remembered can be right there with you, ready to suggest itself anywhere it might be useful.

I think that's an assumption. Can a psychopath be self-aware? Seems to me it's a function not everyone possesses, i.e. one of Dabrowski's "higher developmental dynamisms".

Indeed. The function as I see in the Oragean Version describes very well the way it works. It happens to me, I thought that self- remembering was difficutl, of course is difficult, when I began to barely do self-observation and that process I really didn't knew what I was doing, I just knew I was dividing my attention, and sometimes -I need to understand it better - when I do it, I am not really "Ok now self-observation, now self-remembering." Haha it would be more difficult, but lets try, now that I understand the process better than before. Thanks Approaching.

 

[forge]

Was reading Nicoll's commentaries book No1 somewhere in the 170pg. range i attempted self-remembering last week as an experiment. Hauling 18 liters of mineral water from the tram station on a ~500m track i always lit up a few prayers. POTS alternating with a modified Pater Noster. The exercise ran as follows

I attempted to empty my apron-stage of thoughts, drew back, watching if any I's come forward to take the bait only to be immediately silenced and brushed off. Then upon achieving some some relative peace of mind - which was helped by the relaxed trees and bird song filled living blocks environment - i sung up the first word onto the waiting empty screen of still water mirror that i accepted as an ideal projection of watching aware consciousness.

- Divine! ..

Psychic wind blew as the word thundered into the relative emptiness or stillness of my mind-screen being watched. The word being sounded created an effect of a chorus of bells ringing at the beach of my water-mirror tiny lake projection, which also felt as a room with awesome knowledge in it. This was not a feeling of high, like from a drug, just a surprised emotional acknowledgment of creative possibilities the bell-like vibrations (caused by utterance of prayer words) always inferred/carried. The sound effect was cheerful to the soul, invigorating, energizing, recharging, having a tone of celebration.

The sound coming from the perimeter of this mind-mirror-water surface & room around it was like these bells at 3:27:
_http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Tq6Ziu9yCZ4

I would like to emphasize the emotional exhilarating, elevating, energizing component of the experience being central to the whole state. Also, on preparing to utter:

- Cosmic!

The word cosmic came up from this stillness filled with feeling very joyful in preparing to be uttered in the space, - freed of petty thoughts - yet filled with bells and singing as the words of the prayer were repeatedly echoing before me being saying them reverberating like a non-linear echo appearing before the utterance of the word. Like this train sound:
_http://www.freesound.org/samplesViewSingle.php?id=38396
Sounding its echo before being said aloud.

Then i said the words of the prayer with several seconds between the words - in the stillness of my mind - every one of them was understood clearly, much more deeply as a CONCEPT embodying a lot more meaning as i was able to comprehend in my waking-sleep state, when i said the POTS just so.

Nearing the end of the POTS,

- Cleanse! became also filled with a lot more meaning about cleansing, what could be cleansed, how many ways cleansing could be used if i applied the concept actively in an ideal activated consciousness. Same way many meanings were heard in the chorus of bells, which were creative impressions, ideas, conveying a lot more depth to the Prayer of the Soul, that i was ever able to exercise. Even with contemplative prayer (thinking about each word with a hammer after uttering them, this way the whole prayer could last 45 minutes easily, while traveling to workplace on mass transport), i hope i described this in the past.

then "my heart" and joy increasing through "that I may know and love" elevated to a triumph, abundance of love and something like a pure eruption of love-consummation/fulfillment but not in the sexual rather in the spiritual sense "the holiness"...... "of true existence" all were accompanied with a lot more meaning, like this reverberating set of bell-instrument were built into a psychic room from where many creative thoughts and principles were raining on me like drops and it was very joyful to experience the touch of them.

So "true existence" was the blast, the epiphany, the top of joy. Then "Divine..........cosmic............mind" sounded powerfully as a stamp on the whole process, as i uttered them half with my mouth and very loudly and sternly/seriously inside my mind.

The whole experience is etched in my mind. Where i use dots above they indicate concentration required to still my mind and maintain the pure reflection of the mirror-pond where the prayer was projected.

Also all uttered words acquiring power quickly filled this internal psychic space and the mirror-surface that i consciously created as a receptacle felt also as being my face (mirror at the same place of my physical face) and the power of the words and carried many meanings were such that it felt i had a long hair and this hair was blown strongly by the power of the internal wind, blasting through the surface of the water-pond as it were natural that psychic wind can pass water, mind and "hair" easily.

I have a short hair, just noting, but in the experience i felt i have long hair reaching to shoulder blades.

During these water hauling trips i usually had to stop for 3 or 4 rests, moving my cramped fingers and hands/arms, because i quickly run out of strength.

Not at all so during the above experience. I didn't stop to rest at all, feeling the weight of water and the pain in my hands, but curiously my strength had not dissipated much (contrary to all other occasions) and the exercise lasted so long that i arrived home, put the water down, concentrated again in order to finish the one prayer that i began at the start of the 500m hauling track.


Thanks for reading.

 

[Buddy]

I admit to further confusion with C. Daly King’s Oragian Version. Is he self-remembering with his mind? Who makes the conscious distinction and conscious identification with the “I”? Something is missing in C. Daly King’s description of self-remembering.

Maybe this will help, or at least not muddy the waters any further?

I think that confusion sometimes arises when it is not clear in the material that the authors are attempting to describe the difference between the inductive state of "simply doing it" and the deductive state of "thinking about doing it" - a difficult task to say the least when the thinking center is defined the way it is.

Would it be a bit clearer if we think of "the mind and the thinking" they are referring to as being references to the internal thinking space (that we created or that was put in us) where all the "I's" present are simply analog models of Self (thus identifications) in a metaphorical reality space (as distinguished from the reality around us and what the Self and its awareness of the interconnectedness of everything, can inductively think, sense, intuit, acquire impressions from, and feel there?)

The internal thinking space seems based on the illusion that something can exist without context - like believing that a "painting of a scene" is a sufficient representation of the reality it depicts.

It's the Self's act of "clearing an area for viewing it's symbols" - eliminating context that creates the illusion that Self is separate from something (the things it is considering) and that it can consider the things separately from everything else...including background context and even Itself!


Or maybe as the C's put it: the illusion is that there is separation! :)

 

[thevenusian]

I don't know that I would recommend everything this author has to say as an important representation of Gurdjieff's work, but the following passage might be helpful with regard to the topic of this thread. It is from Gurdjieff - An Introduction to His Teaching, by Konrad Kulczyk and includes an excerpt from Nicoll.

Self-remembering

As we progress through the process of learning about ourselves, and begin to understand our habits,
emotional reactions, ways of thinking, our various 'I's, we might, from time to time, experience flashes of
other levels of consciousness. Gurdjieff calls this state 'self-remembering'. Self-remembering is a conscious
effort of perceiving oneself as a wholeness, sensing our unique 'I', while we are observing external events
and our internal states. It is a state of awakening, not only towards the world, but also towards oneself. Self remembering
has many levels, and therefore each person can individually, on his level, practise and
experience self-remembering. This process includes not only self-observation, but also the elements of
concentration and self-awareness, and therefore it is very difficult to describe. We know that it is equally
difficult to describe the taste of salt, but once we have tried it, we will know it for ever.

Nicoll said about the process of self-remembering:

"When a man remembers himself he seeks not to be identified with his Personality. He seeks another feeling
and sense of himself. He seeks to not know himself, as it were - to empty himself of himself. He makes
himself passive. He wishes to receive something that has hitherto not been granted to him. He seeks to lift
himself above himself- above the noise of himself-above the inner clamour of negative emotions,
grievances, fears, suspicious feelings, anxious thoughts, worries, money, professional and business
excitements, above odd vanities and conceits, and false self-valuation and, I might add, false valuation of
others. He seeks to distinguish something in himself that is not any of these things nor a thousand other
similar things created by life in him."

 

[Approaching Infinity]

Maybe this will help, or at least not muddy the waters any further?

Well, it looks kind of muddy with these eyes! ;) I can't really get a grasp on what exactly you're trying to say here. Maybe as an exercise, can you rewrite the following as if you were trying to explain it to a 7-year-old, maybe with some simple, practical examples? For example, "simply doing it" compared to "thinking about doing it" is clear, but what is an "analog model of Self in a metaphorical reality space"?

I think that confusion sometimes arises when it is not clear in the material that the authors are attempting to describe the difference between the inductive state of "simply doing it" and the deductive state of "thinking about doing it" - a difficult task to say the least when the thinking center is defined the way it is.

Would it be a bit clearer if we think of "the mind and the thinking" they are referring to as being references to the internal thinking space (that we created or that was put in us) where all the "I's" present are simply analog models of Self (thus identifications) in a metaphorical reality space (as distinguished from the reality around us and what the Self and its awareness of the interconnectedness of everything, can inductively think, sense, intuit, acquire impressions from, and feel there?)

The internal thinking space seems based on the illusion that something can exist without context - like believing that a "painting of a scene" is a sufficient representation of the reality it depicts.

It's the Self's act of "clearing an area for viewing it's symbols" - eliminating context that creates the illusion that Self is separate from something (the things it is considering) and that it can consider the things separately from everything else...including background context and even Itself!

Or maybe as the C's put it: the illusion is that there is separation! :)

 

[Approaching Infinity]

C. Daly King separates “I” and the organic body. I assume, by organic body, he means the instinctive-motor functions of the physical body. King's “I” observes strictly measureable manifestations of the physical body, such as posture, muscle tension, gesture, etc. King asserts that self-observation of the feeling and thinking functions are subjective introspection. Gurdjieff and Orage make no such distinction, as far as I know.

I'm pretty sure King's presentation is based almost solely on Orage's presentation (Orage looked over King's original notes). So any flaws in it are Orage's (except where King interjects his own thoughts, which are differentiated in the text), and it's open whether Orage's views were confirmed by Gurdjieff or just his own conclusions. Here is one of Orage's aphorisms quoted by King:

"75. Christianity has always insisted upon the Mystery of the Incarnation, viz., how
does a spirit which is the son of God, have the use of a physical body? Self-Observation
is only a survey of the body; Participation is practice in making it work; Experiment is
seeing what you can do with it; and all of these are the preliminaries of Incarnation.
Reincarnation is a problem which can arise only subsequently to the accomplishment of
Incarnation.

Here are a couple more quotes that might clarify his position:

But there are internal phenomena also which are not, for a long period, [of course, this can be taken too rigidly, which Daly seems to do in his book; he comes across as an OCD Orage disciple wanting exact codification of the "Method"] the proper
objects of Self-Observation, either. Self-Observation is not observation in the usual sense
or in the usual meaning of the term; it is a specific kind of awareness. By the same token,
and as a rational corollary, unless it is a pure awareness without intermixture of thought-
processes and/or emotional processes, it is not Self-Observation. For this reason thoughts
themselves are excluded as objects of Self-Observation. To be aware of one’s thoughts
impartially and objectively is a very difficult and advanced exercise; if one tries it, he finds
as a matter of course that he is thinking about his thoughts. Thinking about thought or
about thoughts is introspection, it is not Self-Observation. The same is equally true of
emotions; and neither are these the proper objects of Self-Observation. To self-observe
either thoughts or emotions objectively is to be accurately aware of the neurological
phenomena which are their physical bases and which give rise to them; and to do this
within one’s own body is so obviously beyond the abilities of the pupil, on his introduction
to the self-observatory technique, as to be worth no further discussion. [some assumptions here, I think] There is, however,
an indirect way in which a beginning can be made in the Self-Observation of thoughts and
emotions and this will be indicated a little later. ...

But as to both thoughts and emotions there is a preliminary and indirect way in
that they may become the objects of Self-Observation even at the present period of the
work. Since the various subdivisions of the body are closely connected intra-organically,
i.e. since close interconnections exist between Centres #1, #2 and #3, various thought-
processes are accompanied by symptomatic muscular tensions in one or another part of the
body and different kinds of thought-processes are also associated with typical bodily
postures, even sometimes with an habitual series of gestures or local movements of hands
and feet. The same is true of emotions; indeed the latter are so closely conjoined with
corresponding postures and facial expressions, for example, that they may be artificially
instated by a deliberate assumption of these bodily phenomena. Thus the Self-Observation
of different categories of physical behavior is already a kind of indirect observation both of
mental and of emotional states and provide, as always, that analysis, formulatory processes
and judgements be resolutely excluded from the technique, just as a by-product of such
observations the true nature of his thoughts and emotions will gradually become clearer in
the subject’s consciousness without his own specific efforts to that end. For the present that
is enough. No direct approach to thoughts and emotions as such is yet feasible and Self-
Observation is to be confined strictly to the definite categories previously listed. ...

The activity of Self-Observation is exactly the eating and digestion of the third
food, sensory impressions, viz., the bringing into an active, detailed awareness of the
sensory input continually arriving both from without and from within the body itself. This
active effort of consciousness must, and does, have two complimentary effects: first. It
actually “eats” the incoming impressions and thus initiates their own digestion within the
organism; second, this initiation of digestion of the third food thus provides the necessary
shock to the second food evolution to assist it across its ‘mi-fa’ interval and to continue its
own digestion. ...

The beginning of Voluntary Suffering is the deliberate suppression of the symptoms
of negative emotions in the presence of others. Examples of such emotions are anger, fear,
jealousy, hatred, annoyance, exasperation and so on. An acquaintance with the organic
symptoms of such emotions has already been obtained through Self-Observation; and some
ability in their manipulation must have been acquired during the exercises of Experiment
and the playing of roles. ...

Correct Self-Observation of emotions, including negative ones, is the non-
identified observation of their organic symptoms in one’s own body. In respect of negative
emotions it will be found that such Self-Observation in fact leads to the alterations of the
symptoms and very shortly to the disappearance of the emotion itself.

 

[go2]

AI, thank you for the C. Daly King quotes, making clear that self-observation of feeling and thought is best approached through the indirect physical manifestation in gesture, posture, facial expressions, tone of voice, etc. in the beginning Work. I have learned much from the different lines of the Work's unique presentation of these concepts. It seems each man or women hears and transmits what they understand, within the limits of their capability and development. This thread is particularly useful for me, as I consider the variations of understanding from those whose Work is derived from Gurdjieff's teaching from 1918 to 1924 and those who Worked with Gurdjieff in his later years and/or derived their understanding from All and Everything. He buried the dog deeper, so we might take the journey rather than study too detailed a map. It is possible men and women must individually tailor the Work to their unique type and experience. A universal method may be a guideline, useful for each of us as we struggle to practice and understand the Fourth Way method of awakening. Perhaps, the results of these methods are only fully revealed by persistent effort by each individual and too much knowledge of the method is a temptation to avoid years of effort and struggle. Thank-you-everyone-who-made-this-effort-possible.

 

[obyvatel]

I think that confusion sometimes arises when it is not clear in the material that the authors are attempting to describe the difference between the inductive state of "simply doing it" and the deductive state of "thinking about doing it" - a difficult task to say the least when the thinking center is defined the way it is.

Hi Bud,
Why is "doing something" an inductive state and "thinking about doing something" a deductive state?

[quote author=Bud]

The internal thinking space seems based on the illusion that something can exist without context - like believing that a "painting of a scene" is a sufficient representation of the reality it depicts.

It's the Self's act of "clearing an area for viewing it's symbols" - eliminating context that creates the illusion that Self is separate from something (the things it is considering) and that it can consider the things separately from everything else...including background context and even Itself!

[/quote]

An "internal thinking space" seems related to individuality - at least to me. A consciousness unit is likely to have such an internal thinking space. That space can contain a picture of reality based on the current level of knowledge of the consciousness unit. It is not a complete picture that can capture the totality of reality (all there is). A complete understanding is possible at the 7th density level - osit.

This internal thinking space can have views which do not conform to reality - which may include the idea that something exists without any context as you state it. I may not be understanding what you wrote correctly but the idea I got was that you are saying that an internal thinking space is necessarily connected with isolation. My current understanding is that it is very much possible to be an individual and also recognize that it is a part of a bigger whole. Like members of this network are individuals who probably have a sense of being a part of a bigger entity.


Self-remembering is about divided attention where one is able to simultaneously consider the "self" and the "other". The "self" and the "other" are separate - but connected. At least that is what I think self-remembering in 3D existence is about. Striving for a complete removal of all separation where everything is "Self" does not appear as a goal of self-remembering or the Work as far as I understand it. At our 3D level, we are trying to learn the lessons related to this level of existence (3D). It does seem possible for us at 3D level to learn to discern between the calls of "being" and "non-being" and choose to align with one or other. Self-remembering is a practice that helps us build the foundation from which we can approach the lesson of discernment. If we are not self-remembering, we are usually lost in identification - which seems to be a state where there is no awareness of separation and we lose our individual identity. There is nobody home to choose. And in such a state, we are aligned with the default choice at our current 3D level - which is STS or non-being.

It helps me to periodically remember why I wish to self-remember when I seem to get lost in the trees and not see the forest. Don't know if this was helpful for others - fwiw.

 

[cubbex]

C. Daly King separates “I” and the organic body. I assume, by organic body, he means the instinctive-motor functions of the physical body. King's “I” observes strictly measureable manifestations of the physical body, such as posture, muscle tension, gesture, etc. King asserts that self-observation of the feeling and thinking functions are subjective introspection. Gurdjieff and Orage make no such distinction, as far as I know.

We further read from Gurdjieff that self-remembering begins with self-sensing and is done through the instinctive-motor centre and the emotional centre. Gurdjieff defines “I” as a “relatively-transferable-arising-depending-on-the-quality-of-the-functioning-thought-feeling-and-organic-automatism.”(Ladies of the Rope, page 95). “I” arises when “I” wish to be and do. “I” is an aspect of Will.

When I did something similar, was like well I am here, is like this is not part of me, I was in an airport, and at my school and home, but it happened rarely, and is not just your body, is like an alienation as describes it, you are that man/woman there but at the same time you are not lol, it is so difficult to describe it that I don't find the words in english, even in spanish. Its like when you are dreaming and you see yourself but you are not yourself, you are outside your body, but in this case is like this but inside your body, but your conscience is like observing it as just a movie or a short scene.

I don't know if this is correct, but has any other member experienced the process described in AI's post?

 

[Nević Nenad]

I think that maybe it would be interesting to talk what are the consequences, the products of self remembering. Maybe two people can more easily recognize, see and agree on the products of self remembering in their lives, than self remembering itself.

 

[Buddy]

Hi Bud,
Why is "doing something" an inductive state and "thinking about doing something" a deductive state?

Why not? One can be busy getting things done without having to deduce anything - possibly because that plan was already created - and now being implemented.

When "thinking about doing something" involves holding a picture in mind while going through the motions to bring it about it could be called inductive, but if the thinking is about planning or explaining, it is a linear step-by-by laying out of stuff (even viewing from the linguistic angle) and therefore deductive, as I'm seeing it (not that my understanding can't be improved on, mind you).

This internal thinking space can have views which do not conform to reality - which may include the idea that something exists without any context as you state it. I may not be understanding what you wrote correctly but the idea I got was that you are saying that an internal thinking space is necessarily connected with isolation.

Yeah, but only when a person is fixed there and can't step back or can't step out of himself at all.

My current understanding is that it is very much possible to be an individual and also recognize that it is a part of a bigger whole. Like members of this network are individuals who probably have a sense of being a part of a bigger entity.

My understanding also, but the question is what does this recognizance consist of? Intellectual understanding or "feeling it". The difference between those is more what I'm talking about - or trying to.

Self-remembering is about divided attention where one is able to simultaneously consider the "self" and the "other". The "self" and the "other" are separate - but connected. At least that is what I think self-remembering in 3D existence is about. Striving for a complete removal of all separation where everything is "Self" does not appear as a goal of self-remembering or the Work as far as I understand it.

If separateness is illusion, what is there to remove? Seems to me the effort would be directed to understanding the illusion, OSIT. Sort of like how the bogus observer in classical physics was discovered and how science in general has progressed with a bit more care from that point.

At our 3D level, we are trying to learn the lessons related to this level of existence (3D). It does seem possible for us at 3D level to learn to discern between the calls of "being" and "non-being" and choose to align with one or other.

There is more to life than that (which also includes that). Do you not also feel calls for unity or to unify - to "look deeper"? Is there any deeper experience of life than polar opposition?

Self-remembering is a practice that helps us build the foundation from which we can approach the lesson of discernment. If we are not self-remembering, we are usually lost in identification - which seems to be a state where there is no awareness of separation and we lose our individual identity. There is nobody home to choose. And in such a state, we are aligned with the default choice at our current 3D level - which is STS or non-being.

As I'm recognizing it, you mostly just said the same thing I did, but as you have a better grasp of the material, it sounds better - even to me. :D

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

Its like when you are dreaming and you see yourself but you are not yourself, you are outside your body, but in this case is like this but inside your body, but your conscience is like observing it as just a movie or a short scene.

I don't know if this is correct, but has any other member experienced the process described in AI's post?

Maybe not exactly, but what happens to me when I'm in a area with a bunch of people, is that sometimes I get a sense that everything around me is programmed and that most everyone is too drugged to notice.

At that time it occurs to me that if Universe were to drop a bit of novelty in the environment, the majority of folks would either just stare with glassy eyes or scream and run for cover. :)

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

I think that maybe it would be interesting to talk what are the consequences, the products of self remembering. Maybe two people can more easily recognize, see and agree on the products of self remembering in their lives, than self remembering itself.

First, my feeling, or sense of Self is as connected with the space all around us. Self is 'the undefined one' necessarily, in order to be always open for growth of knowledge and being. However, it seems when the predator's mind rules, this state is not acceptable because then Self is afraid it doesn't exist unless it is identifying with something - it feels that in order to do (something), it must feel itself being something (an identity).

In programming terms, Self is more the 'object broker' of the context, rather than any of the bits in the program. In story terms, Self is more the 'man behind the curtain' in the personal reality.

And that leads me to an example of 'product' of my Self-remembering efforts.

As Self is the undefined one, the reciprocal cognitive feedback loops are put in service to remember as much as is possible to remember. While in the present moment, I'm making the effort to recapitulate the previous moment, the moments before, the hour before, day before, week before, month and year before, etc., as much as I can remember about as much as was actually there. I'm remembering in material/sensory terms as well as abstracting general truths or principles (lessons) from my experiences.

This is real effort and when Self-remembering is this involved it does not automatically sustain itself. This is part of what I meant in a recent post when I said "Oh. Self is doing the remembering".

In this experience, even though I have a sense of myself as 'something', I can only recognize 'me' through recapitulation - seeing Self in the patterns of change throughout my linear history in this life.

If any clarification is needed, please ask.

--------------------------------------------------------
Edit: additions for a bit more clarity of meaning

 

[obyvatel]

At our 3D level, we are trying to learn the lessons related to this level of existence (3D). It does seem possible for us at 3D level to learn to discern between the calls of "being" and "non-being" and choose to align with one or other.

There is more to life than that (which also includes that). Do you not also feel calls for unity or to unify - to "look deeper"? Is there any deeper experience of life than polar opposition?

I strive towards an unified Self as far as my individual consciousness unit is concerned so that my choice of alignment becomes firm and stable. And my current understanding is that developing discernment (so that one can see the choice in different situations of life) and will (to consciously serve the dynamic of choice) are the lessons of 3D life. Personally I think that a true understanding of the "all is one" idea (or "separateness is an illusion") is beyond the grasp of my 3D consciousness. At least that is where I stand at present.

 

[Psalehesost]

Regarding the above exchange on seeing "unity" and the Work:

Seeing unity includes seeing that one's false "self" consists of (is one with) various external influences, either manifesting directly or having gotten "stuck" in (become part of) oneself. We are one with nature, and nature includes the control system that eats us, and so all the garbage inside of us that runs our lives.

Seeing unity goes well with seeing one's nothingness in this way:

Man has no permanent and unchangeable I. Every thought, every mood, every desire, every sensation, says 'I.' And in each case it seems to be taken for granted that this I belongs to the Whole, to the whole man, and that a thought, a desire, or an aversion is expressed by this Whole. In actual fact there is no foundation whatever for this assumption. Man's every thought and desire appears and lives quite separately and independently of the Whole. And the Whole never expresses itself, for the simple reason that it exists, as such, only physically as a thing, and in the abstract as a concept.

There is no Whole of the individual - it is a lie - one is "nothing", there is no self - and there is on the other hand all the A influences, programming, and entropic garbage of the world. One is one with this until one changes one's nature.

OSIT.

 

[Buddy]

Seeing unity goes well with seeing one's nothingness in this way:

Man has no permanent and unchangeable I. Every thought, every mood, every desire, every sensation, says 'I.' And in each case it seems to be taken for granted that this I belongs to the Whole, to the whole man, and that a thought, a desire, or an aversion is expressed by this Whole. In actual fact there is no foundation whatever for this assumption. Man's every thought and desire appears and lives quite separately and independently of the Whole. And the Whole never expresses itself, for the simple reason that it exists, as such, only physically as a thing, and in the abstract as a concept.

There is no Whole of the individual - it is a lie - one is "nothing", there is no self - and there is on the other hand all the A influences, programming, and entropic garbage of the world. One is one with this until one changes one's nature.

OSIT.

Indeed. Thank you so much, Psalehesost. :)

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

Edit:

~Added later~

Maybe this will help, or at least not muddy the waters any further?

...what is an "analog model of Self in a metaphorical reality space"?

Analog model of Self is just one of the 987 (or more) "I's" or perhaps whatever way the Self is identifying at the moment.

Metaphorical reality space is a concept from cognitive psychology derived from Bateson's work. It's how these I's define reality as far as they are concerned. Examples would be all the situations in which I is in opposition to others, the universe, engaged in narcissistic exchanges or believing lies - a big one being how Universe has nothing more to do than arrange things to make his life some kind of hell.

In a therapeutic setting, the classic example is the guy whose really bad day culminates in slipping on some ice while trying to make his way to his car. As he experiences rage and frustration - practically shaking his fist at the sky, he looks around and notices others slipping on the ice too. Nothing was about him - it was just the self-referencing interpretations he was programmed with.

Hope that helps clarify. :)