Ah, the invincible optimism of the New World. If you're up shit creek without a paddle, plant roses.

There can be no return to the innocence of not knowing. — unenlightened

This may be the only part I disagree with your post.
I recognize everything you have said because it has been said through the ages from the people we call enlightened. And all those people spoke exactly of the return of the innocence of not knowing.
So if you deny this return then you deny their enlightenment and so the conclusions of your post.

And all those people spoke exactly of the return of the innocence of not knowing. — TheMadMan

You have my attention. A couple of quotes would be helpful.

Au Contraire. At that point, we chuck the pack of Gitanes and hike toward the tree line with a sharp tool and a foolish grin.

You have my attention. A couple of quotes would be helpful. — unenlightened

Well Tao Te Ching is basically about wu wei, no-knowing.
All the stories of Chuang Tzu deal with this state.
It is implied in many stories in Zen and Buddhism.
In the positive religions like Christianity and Sufism it is expressed in a positive manner as The Will of God, "I am no more, God is".

Matthew 18:3: "Truly, I say to you, unless you turn and become like children, you will never enter the kingdom of heaven."

Emperor Wu:
What is the first principle of the holy teaching?
Bodhidharma:
Emptiness, no holiness.
Wu:
The who stands before me?
Bodhidharma:
No knowing.

"In the time of the Yellow Emperor, humanity lived in a state of blissful ignorance, untouched by the burdens of ambition, greed, and power. They knew not of war or conflict, for their hearts were filled with love and understanding. It was an era of true enlightenment and unity, where the boundaries between individuals blurred and a collective consciousness emerged."

The whole point of true religion (not-organized) is bringing back the person to the Garden of Eden, the transcendence of dualism. Without the turn to the state of no-knowing there is no enlightenment.

I see your point, but the Bodhidharma clearly knows how to talk, and has not become innocent like the beasts, And likewise Lao Tzu and Chiang Tzu.

The emptiness of consciousness is the cessation of identification as the narrative self, not the forgetting of self and language and everything that characterises Alzheimers. I think it is appropriate to say that the transcendence is a moving forward not a return, certainly not a return to a prelinguistic awareness. But I'll give you the definitive answer when enlightenment is attained. :flower:

but the Bodhidharma clearly knows how to talk, and has not become innocent like the beasts, And likewise Lao Tzu and Chiang Tzu. — unenlightened

Enlightenment doesn't mean going back to animal but transcending it.

I think it is appropriate to say that the transcendence is a moving forward not a return, certainly not a return to a prelinguistic awareness. — unenlightened

Evolution to enlightenment is not a moving forward but a circle, yes you return but you are not the same.
The camel say yes the lion saysno and the child says the sacred Yes.

I think we are pretty much in agreement. Before enlightenment chop wood and post on philosophy forums; after enlightenment chop wood and post on philosophy forums.

A non-linguistic animal cannot form a narrative identity; they learn things - not to eat the yellow snow, but they never form the identity "I don't like yellow snow", they just avoid it when they see it. So they do not live in time, psychologically. they are always just here and now, with whatever they know, which is nothing of themselves — unenlightened

I would argue that a non-linguistic animal lives in the interface of past, present and future just as humans do. Watch a squirrel be interrupted in its pursuit of an acorn by a stray sound, and then return to its goal. This reorientation is only possible because animals interpret the present though a richly integrated web of memories that project expectations for the future The present ‘now’ is the interaction between this remembered history and anticipations that point to the future. It’s not that animals live more in the ‘now’ than humans, but the reinterpreted and reconstructed past out of which their anticipations deposit their ‘now’ is less complexly organized than in humans. But this is not solely due to linguistic narratives. Pre-linguistic infants are also goal-oriented anticipatory sense-makers. As far as self -knowledge is concerned, the self is just an ongoing correlation of events taking place in time. The idea of self as identity is just a construct, useful
for different purposes in different situations. For instance, correlating the changes in the position of perceived objects
in relation to the movement of one’s body produces the construct of self as body , as zero point of interactions with an environment A hawk has this pragmatic construct of self as bodily zero point. This allows it to maneuver so precisely in flight.

I would argue that a non-linguistic animal lives in the interface of past, present and future just as humans do. Watch a squirrel be interrupted in its pursuit of an acorn by a stray sound, and then return to its goal. — Joshs

Yes, they have memories, I said that. but the interface of past and future is the present. I'm not clear what you are saying different? I think I have made the time difference fairly clear. A cat sits by the mouse hole waiting for a mouse; there is anticipation but it is now. there is memory, but it is now. Now there is the acorn, now there is a sound, now there is the acorn. Never do you get the story of the pursuit of the acorn, an interruption and the return to the acorn - that is the human narrative, and resides nowhere in the squirrel.

Well, given Un's reply to me, it's clear that I did not fully understand... So... open mouth, insert foot. :confused:

My apologies Meta. For all I know, you understand Un's message better than I.

Once upon a time there was a god
And he was alone
And this was a wound.

Out of the wound came a child
who was born separated from her creator
And this was a wound.

To heal it, she built a stairway into the heavens
She built and climbed, and built and climbed
And one day, standing on the top step
She looked around to see that there had never been a staircase.

So she set about playing in the creek
Making friends with the crawdads
In the evening she would watch the sunset,
her heart filled with its beauty.

And one day she became tired and laid down to sleep
And as she drifted, she remembered a voice
But she couldn't remember if it was her own voice saying
"I want to live."
Or was it God's voice, saying
"I want you to live."

And now, she looked again into the darkness and said
"God. I hope this is what you wanted. I did the best I could."
And then, up from a deep, deep wound, came a voice.

"I know you did your best." said God.
"But be at peace now child and know:
"That you never cried, because you never smiled.
"You never lost your way, because you never left home.
"Look around you child: see that your world is gone.
"But it was just a world of dreams
"And there's more where that came from."

The child looked around herself and thought of her home.
She thought of the creek.
She remembered the crawdads
And the sunset, her heart filled with its beauty.
And then she remembered a statue she had made. A statue out of the clay.
A statue of a child.

She laughed now and turned to her God.
"You're right, she said.
"I never left home.
"And you, my almighty friend, were never alone.
"Because it's not me who is the dream.
"We are."

And in the silence she never noticed that the pain was gone. Because so was she.

Once upon a time, there was a god.

My apologies Meta. For all I know, you understand Un's message better than I. — creativesoul

Apology accepted, but I'm still trying to understand, maybe not even as well as you do. Unenlightened seems to talk about a losing of the self, I prefer to think of the same thing as a finding of the true self. So the self which gets ditched in what they call enlightenment was not the true self in the first place, and this allows the true self to emerge. And while Unenlightened and I seem to agree pretty much, we still manage to use words in opposing ways. What Un calls "completion", I think of as a beginning.

I don't recommend trying too hard to understand unenlightened on the topic of enlightenment. It's all projection and imagination on my part. Losing illusion and finding reality are kind of the same thing; from the pov of the self though, it is losing everything, so that's the aspect I have to face. Likewise if I have completed a story, I can put it aside and begin to live, but again, from here it is a completion, and an ending that I face.

To speak of what lies beyond the ending as a new beginning would be I think to imagine self continuing beyond its own end. * mumbles something about squeezing camels through the eye of a needle*

t the interface of past and future is the present. I'm not clear what you are saying different? I think I have made the time difference fairly clear. A cat sits by the mouse hole waiting for a mouse; there is anticipation but it is now. there is memory, but it is now. Now there is the acorn, now there is a sound, now there is the acorn. Never do you get the story of the pursuit of the acorn, an interruption and the return to the acorn - that is the human narrative, and resides nowhere in the squirrel. — unenlightened

The interface of past and future is past, present and future together as an indissociable structural unity . If you try and split off the present from retention and protention, the present vanishes. There is never just this acorn right now in this moment for the squirrel. The present acorn is only what it is right now in the context of what it just was and what the squirrel expects it to be. This reaching into the past and future is inseparable from the immediate ‘now’, and makes it possible for living systems to be goal-driven anticipative sense-makers. This is a central principle of time consciousness in phenomenology. If memory and anticipation are ‘now’ for an animal, this is just as true for a human being.

If memory and anticipation are ‘now’ for an animal, this is just as true for a human being. — Joshs

I disagree. The narrative is a retelling of what was present is present and will be present, that is available at any moment. there is nothing whatsoever in the animal that corresponds to —

a central principle of time consciousness in phenomenology. If memory and anticipation are ‘now’ for an animal, this is just as true for a human being. — Joshs

That is a narrative. and my thesis is that identity is narrative and that is where we live, not an extended present. "I was born at an early age..."

... it is losing everything...
... would be I think to imagine self continuing beyond its own end. — unenlightened

Why do you think it is a matter of losing everything? This is not the necessary conclusion. And this is the conclusion which makes you think that there is nothing left of the self, to continue after the narrative ends. The way I described it, it is a losing of the narrative self, but the narrative self is not the true self, that is an illusion. So the true self is allowed to continue after the end of the narrative self.

Consider what you said about how the narrator is not a part of the narrative. The true self is the narrator, , the self in the narrative is the illusionary self. When the narrative ends, so ends the narrative self, but the true self, as the narrator remains.

Consider what you said about how the narrator is not a part of the narrative. The true self is the narrator, , the self in the narrative is the illusionary self. When the narrative ends, so ends the narrative self, but the true self, as the narrator remains. — Metaphysician Undercover

Is a non-narrating narrator of a self-narrative not a straightforward contradiction? Your suggestion goes against anything i have read of spirituality anyway, so I will not go there myself. I think your contrivance here just continues the narrative and does not end it, just adding an extra identification "true".

To speak of what lies beyond the ending as a new beginning would be I think to imagine self continuing beyond its own end. * mumbles something about squeezing camels through the eye of a needle* — unenlightened

What evidence do you have for this? New stories crop up in the strangest of places...

Although, speaking of evidence, I once saw a spirit. But I couldn't provide you with evidence for that - not for the life of me.

I think your contrivance here just continues the narrative and does not end it, just adding an extra identification "true" — unenlightened

Yes, you can, very clearly, think of things in this way. What I described to you, is done so with words, so it is impossible for me to end the narrative in this way, and it will appear to you that I practise self-deception, because I am trying to deceive you by preaching other than what I practise. That seems to be unavoidable.

Is a non-narrating narrator of a self-narrative not a straightforward contradiction? — unenlightened

When our attempts to say what we want to say end up in contradiction, even though there is no contradiction in what is meant, there must be a reason for this. The reason in this case is the nature of temporal existence. The narrator has narrated, and continues to be the narrator of that narrative which has been narrated, despite no longer narrating. So, the self-narrative has ended, and through the separation you described earlier, the narrator continues to be the narrator despite no longer being in the operative mode of narrating.

Again, the nature of temporal existence is pivotal here. The only true narrative can be of the past. But we can make fictional narratives of the past just as well, like you explained, counterfactuals. Likewise, we can make fictional narratives of the future. The narratives of the future are all fictional because the future is as of yet undetermined. Yet, they are "fictional" in a different way from the way that the counterfactual is fictional, because some could turn out to be true predictions.

Now, since all narratives of the future are necessarily fictional, in that sense, despite the possibility of a true prediction, "narrative" is unsuitable for use in describing one's position relative to the future. And, as you yourself indicate, one's relation to the future, wants and desires, is what is primary, the animalistic aspect of the human being:

Psychologically, they do not live in time, but in the continuous present; memories they have, and habits, and these present themselves by association as appropriate to the present moment. Thirst provokes the memory of the way to the water-hole, but there is no story, so no particular individual, no self, and no time. Such is paradise, there is no death, because there is no narrative to end. There is no good and evil, because judgement requires time and there is no time, only the present. — unenlightened

So when we apprehend the fact that animals, plants, and other things have "an identity" just as much so as the human being has an identity, we see that the self-narrative is not the identity of the thing. And, when we apprehend that the thing's position relative to the future is just as much a part of the thing's identity as it's position relative to the past, we understand that narrative is insufficient for identity. Now the narrative as self-identity must end because it is determined as insufficient. But the self, with its identity remains. Identity, and self, are simply understood in a way other than narrative.

So when we apprehend the fact that animals, plants, and other things have "an identity" just as much so as the human being has an identity, we see that the self-narrative is not the identity of the thing. — Metaphysician Undercover

Anything is whatever it is, but to have an identity is not merely to be what one is, which any rock can manage., but to identify oneself as being some particular thing. This is what plants and other animals do not seem to do, by and large. At least that is my story, you may prefer your story.

What evidence do you have for this? New stories pop up in the strangest of places... — Changeling

None. It's a story; it resonates with you, or it doesn't. Make a new story if you like; tell it in a thread; see what odd questions people ask you.

At least that is my story, you may prefer your story. — unenlightened

I don't like your story, it doesn't make logical sense to me. I don't see why a thing must make the reflective action of self-identifying, in order to have an identity. Why would you think that identity is dependent on reflection? Put it this way, how do you think that reflection could create identity, when the nature of reflection is just to throw back on itself what was already there prior to being reflected?

Thats just what I mean by identity; that which comes into being by the process of identification. You do understand that this thread is about psychology, not physics? "What is there" is what is thought.

Hence I do not argue; you can think what you like.

Thats just what I mean by identity; that which comes into being by the process of identification. — unenlightened

I would say that your idea of identity, as identifying oneself, is one step better than identity as identifying another. Yours is the identity which one gives to oneself, while the other is the identity which others give to you.

However, there is another step yet to be taken, and that is the identity which one has, inherently, simply by having existence, without any act of identifying required by anybody. This is the ontological sense of "identity" referred to by the law of identity ('a thing is the same as itself'), which recognizes that no act of identifying is required for a thing to have an identity. Simply being is enough to have identity.

However, there is another step yet to be taken, and that is the identity which one has, inherently, simply by having existence, without any act of identifying required by anybody. — Metaphysician Undercover

Yes, i understand what you are saying, but I think you are conflating what one is and what one identifies oneself to be - being with idea of being, territory with map. one's idea of oneself can be realistic or unrealistic, but never real.

Make a new story if you like; tell it in a thread; see what odd questions people ask you. — unenlightened

It wouldn't be accepted by the mods lol

I've had no complaints - is your story obscene or antisocial or something?

None. It's a story; it resonates with you, or it doesn't. Make a new story if you like; tell it in a thread; see what odd questions people ask you. — unenlightened

:snicker:

it wouldn't be philosophically rigorous enough to make the cut