From: nospam@example.net   
      
   On Tue, 23 Apr 2024, oldernow wrote:   
      
   > On 2024-04-23, Richmond  wrote:   
   >   
   >>> Isn't it amazing how few understand that differentiating   
   >>> themselves from others - especially employing/embracing   
   >>> a label to emphasize that differentiation - invites   
   >>> the perception of the others that those differentiating   
   >>> themselves are *distancing* themselves from them - which is   
   >>> half a hoppy skip from the perception that the distancing   
   >>> is due to those differentiating themselves considering   
   >>> themselves superior to the others.   
   >>>   
   >>> Is that really such rocket science?   
   >>>   
   >>> Apparently.   
   >>>   
   >>> The sad hilarity is even greater when the distancers   
   >>> talk of wanting unity/oneness whilst insisting they are   
   >>> different!   
   >   
   >> Considering human evolution, how would you organize   
   >> yourselves to hunt and kill a woolly mammoth, without   
   >> such notions of self and other?   
   >>   
   >> Though we are many, we are one body, because we all share,   
   >> in one woolly mammoth.   
   >   
   > The idea that I believe is alluded to by non-dualist points   
   > of view is that the notions of self and other(-than-self,   
   > which includes impersonal "other" like "the world") appear   
   > part and parcel. In other words, as soon as any notion   
   > implying separation from the ineffable underlying reality   
   > is conceived, all the rest follows - or "magically appears"   
   > - as supporting conceptuality, because no concept stands   
   > utterly alone: they're mutually inter-defined.   
   >   
   > So, yes, of course it takes notions of self and other   
   > to organize a mammoth hunt once the notion of "the world"   
   > containing selves, others, and mammoths is accepted as a given,   
   > as "reality". What I refer to as absence of (the notion of)   
   > self actually refers to the absence of notionality altogether,   
   > sometimes described as a serene, peaceful awareness sans the   
   > madness of insisting that awareness be discriminated into   
   > an endless series/collection of separate notions declared   
   > to be "reality". The peace/serenity of raw, undifferentiated   
   > awareness winds up replaced with a representational reality   
   > that we try - as selves believing in ourselves and all the   
   > supporting conceptuality - really hard to consider "real   
   > reality". But it seems to me (read: "me" in the context of   
   > this message) the ensuing mostly peaceless madness thereof   
   > screams something about it necessarily goes horribly wrong.   
   >   
   > But, as usual, attempting to describe what can't be   
   > described quickly feels unsatisfying in the context of   
   > believing in one's self, in "the world", and all the rest   
   > of the supporting purely conceptual cast.   
      
   Also don't mix levels. The self is an excellent tool for surviving in the   
   material universe. If you want to go "beyond" and discuss transcending and   
   those kind of experiences, that's when this might (depending on your   
   philosophical position) hit you in the face. =)   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)