tsuki

I should rename the journal to:

I'd very much appreciate if people stopped posting sexual content in my journal. Now, I want to practice calligraphy!

Let's synthesize: What is the conceptual framework of separate senses? The experience that reality is partitioned into dimensions of perception such as senses (aristotelian and other). It refers to the first-person perspective of the world and my everyday understanding of reality. What is the short-circuit of senses? The recognition that several dimensions of perception interact (even though I assume them to be separate). It is the experience of falsehood/paradox of the conceptual framework of separate senses. What is obviousness? Look at the monitor. Even if you have doubts about its existence - you still know what to look at. That is what it means for something to be obvious. What are you doing here? There are questions that seem unanswerable. Questions such as: "What am I?", "What is time?", "What is direction?", "What is change?". The standard philosophical way of looking at them is to explain them in terms of something else. What I'm doing here is explaining them away by revealing the underlying paradoxes. What is the point? That is a good question that I intuit to point towards a paradox as well. What is the point of life? What is a paradox? Logical impossibility.

No, not really uncomfortable. It's very refreshing. Makes me feel alive. Creativity is through the roof. I can see clearly and everything feels vibrant. Not at all like my ordinary self. Usually I adopt the stoic attitude between peak experiences. What do you mean that it 'makes me understand'?

@now is forever That was very poignant, thank you. Women are scary . It's gotten much better at work lately. I deconstructed the idea of work, but do not see clearly what we actually do here yet. This hierarchical order is maddening because people actually believe it and I don't. I don't know what to do about it yet. You have no idea how psychic it is.

@now is forever Come on, don't be shy .

Now I'm curious. Tell me! Not deliberately. I took journaling because I got a beautiful pen and wanted to write with it. I also studied Japanese for half year and remember having half of my notebook covered in hiragana characters when I practiced. My signature was also something that I put my heart into.

You're very young and you are probably still struggling with establishing your personality. Fighting with others for its independence may seem like inevitable, but I assure you that it's not. It is perfectly fine to just go through the motions if you feel coerced into practicing religion against your will. Your parents are what your life is still revolving around and hurting them is not a good idea (for your own safety). I suggest that you take this opportunity to contemplate what religion is about, if god does not exist. Also, here is a helpful fragment from /r/atheism's FAQ:

That is insane. You are out of your mind and I love you .

You aren't disturbing me (yet ). Lately, I've become passionate about knife sharpening and bought a waterstone. Paper was my victim . Hey @now is forever, do you feel the pressure in the temples when you stop by to visit my journal? My energy is going off the charts lately.

@now is forever Yes, why? I'm supposed to sleep, but came here to write this: Change is when something is itself, even if it isn't. <~ that is the perfect way to explicitly write the obfuscated paradox.

Today, I was contemplating what is motion in relation to the conceptual framework of separate senses. My method was quite unorthodox, as I was walking around my house and observing how a blanked moved as I kicked it. I brought the sensation of short-circuiting to my direct experience by touching my fingers and looking at them. It reminded me of the illusion of separation of senses. It the struck me, that motion is nothing else than the recognition that a blanket remains a blanket - even if it is completely different after I kick it. In other words - motion is the possibility of recognizing something to be itself, even if the experience of it had changed. The blanket keeps being a blanket even if it looks like something different (after I kicked it). A song keeps being a song, even if it keeps sounding nothing like itself. Something keeps being itself even if it is something different. Motion/change is a paradox in the conceptual framework of separate senses. Yet another obvious thing turns out to be a misconception.

I've been observing this inner movement of mine and its relationship to emotions. I'm starting to observe that there is, in fact, a correlation between the two. Today, I was having a shower and remembering a situation, where a guy from work said something along the lines of 'taking me along to some clients' and I was getting angry for being treated like some sort of a briefcase to be taken. Immediately, I noticed the boiling sensation in the area of my chest and tried to move it down along the spine. It calmed me down immediately. Yesterday in the evening I had a headache and noticed that it is a good opportunity to experiment with pain. I sat down to meditate and tried to evenly distribute the movement along the spine and widen it as much as possible. Then, I tried to transfer the headache down the spine and move it towards my left arm. I was successful to some degree, but it stopped in the area of my left shoulder and started radiating along the whole of my arm. Then, I centered it in the heart area and again, tried to overwhelm this sensation by creating as much movement as possible, but the pain remained centered after I got exhausted. I could not feel the pain during the stirring, however. I tried to move it down along the spine to the base and it seemed like the pain had stopped, but as soon as I lied down on the floor - it was back to the head. When I was running some errands yesterday, two relevant thing happened. First, when I was going down to the garage in the elevator, some sort of alarm went off as if the elevator was broken. It triggered an emotional response in my chest. Second situation was when I was parking near the grocery store - a car honked at another to stop him from driving back. I also observed the inner motion in the chest area and recognized to be fear. Interesting that I automatically started looking around whether it was me that caused the trouble or not. It seems like the area of occurrence of emotions does not correspond to their 'flavor'. I can feel anger and fear in the chest, and in the area of my navel.

So, It had occurred to me that normally - I think that this intersection of the disjoint spaces of senses is understanding. I 'understand' the text. I 'understand' where I touch. I 'understand' that the dinner smells delicious. I can correlate the sight of the meal with its smell. I can do this, because: yadda yadda yadda... Sense-spaces appear to be separate, but they aren't. The everyday name for short-circuiting is 'understanding'. Understanding is seeing through the illusion of separation of senses. The other thing is that I recognized direction to be short-circuiting of sight and touch. Direction is the answer to "Where?". I wonder whether the other pronouns are also short-circuits? Like "When?" and "Who?".

@now is forever If you find my insights useful somehow, then I'm glad that I could be of any help to you. However, if they create confusion, then you must understand that they are contextual to what I experience. There is no way to translate them for you and I'm not going to attempt to. I write this journal for myself as a way of extending the lifespan of my insights and integrating them into my everyday life. Explaining them to others (even if I find them to be wonderful people) is not my priority if it doesn't serve the above purpose.

@now is forever Nothing. It just is. I suppose that I've chosen sensations as a framework to describe myself with. Touch is one aspect of 'me'. In this perspective, everything is reduced to one from of sensation or another and I establish relationships between them. I have already convinced myself that short-circuiting is the experience of falsehood of this perspective, a paradox. Senses are not disjoint like this perspective assumes. Short circuiting is a form of obviousness and in this particular instance - obviousness masks a paradox. If I am the obviousness of things, then am I a paradox? A false assumption? Do I feel this? Kind of... It is mostly a logical reasoning for now.

@Zweistein I can't really say that I am nothing, because I cannot locate it in my direct experience for now. Anyways, thank you for reading my journal @Zweistein and @now is forever. It is a pleasant feeling to know that some people find my thoughts interesting.

Close your eyes. Touch your index finger to your thumb and start moving them in circular motions. Concentrate on the feeling of touch. Stop touching your fingers and listen to your thoughts. Concentrate on them and notice the chatter. Open your eyes. Look around. Notice that you are seeing. For me, these are three distinct areas of senses. Normally, I think of them as separate spaces that are disjoint. Sight does not appear in the space of touch. Thoughts do not appear in the space of sight. Etc. Now, start touching your fingers again, but with your eyes open. Look around. Can you see where your fingers touch? The assumption that senses are disjoint is false. You can clearly see where the sensation of touch occurs. This knowledge is not 'visible' and you cannot 'touch it'. It is simply obvious where your fingers touch. The intersection between the sight-space and touch-space is what I call a short-circuit. This particular sight-touch short-circuit is what I recognized to be direction. There are other short-circuits, such as sight-voice. There are sights that you can witness that will trigger an inner dialog. This very text is a sight-voice short-circuit because (at least for me) it triggers an inner dialog that I recognize to be this text. You can start touching around things and seeing where they are in the touch-space. This is how you can know the extents of 'your' body. Touch is only associated with a certain shape in your sight-space. It is a sensation. I cannot explain it in terms of anything else.

@Nahm Beautiful. Thank you ?

Is the inner and outer sphere of "Me" really separate? Since there is an inner and outer "I", and all senses seem to have an inner and outer counterpart, then maybe I am my senses?

I was just reading about that earlier today: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sense

So, what am I? A thought came up that I am a thought. Lets investigate that. What is a thought? There is the inner voice, inner sight and inner hearing (like a catchy song gets stuck in the mind). To some extent, I can conjure a taste of yesterday's dinner, or the smell of my wife's hair. So - thoughts are a space of sensations. How are these sensations distinct from the 'outer' ones, so that I classify them as thoughts? There is the social aspect - the imaginary sensations are not shared with others. People do not hear my inner voice. I can call them all kinds of names and they do not react to them. They do not react to what I imagine. I can visualize all kinds of situations and they stir emotions within me, but others do not seem to be receptive to them. Are emotions thoughts? I can bottle up my emotions and not let others see them (up to a certain point), so they can be private. However, I can see somebody else's emotions if I know them well enough. I can also share what I feel by talking, or through actions - like displays of affection/love, or outbursts of anger. It is then immediately clear what I feel even if I do not describe it. In intimate relationships, my emotions can even get interlocked with other people. Their sadness is my sadness. Their anger is my anger. Emotions seem to be this grey area between private and public sensations. Are they special in this regard? Perhaps there are also inner and outer emotions, like there is inner and outer voice? That is an interesting way of seeing it, I have never thought about it before. There seems to be a connection between emotions and this inner feeling that I can induce along the spine. When I'm being mindful when I am angry, for example, I can feel the boiling sensation in the area of my chest. I even successfully extinguished my anger/fear/anxiety in the navel area once by stirring the inner feelings. So, maybe the inner feelings should rather be called inner emotions? Again, it hits me how strange it is that I can locate sensations between orthogonal spaces such as touch and emotions. Anger in the navel area. What?! So, sensations seem to be divided into two spheres - inner and outer. Private and public. The private sphere is what I call thoughts. Am I a thought? If thoughts are defined like that, then no - I am not a thought because other people seem react to what I do. If that is the case, then I am not private (at least not entirely). So, perhaps there is the inner I and the outer I? This reminds me of the Jung's model of the psyche: EDIT: Now that's an interesting thought: maybe, 'the social aspect' is a way to divide 'me' into inner and outer sphere?

Does this influence my notion of what I am? Not really? Kind of? I feel differently. Am I my body? Why is the touch so important to me? It fascinates me that there is this visible surface area around 'me' that I can feel. I can see two cupboards that touch in front of me, but I can't feel it the way I feel when I touch something with my hand. Do they really touch if I can't feel it? What does it even mean that two things that are not me touch? Do they? I'm getting sidetracked again... Why do I so stubbornly insist that I am the body? Oh right - I don't. I just flipped back to being obviousness, huh?

Oh shit. I just realized what direction is. It's a short-circuiting of senses! What the fuck! There is this obviousness related to where sensations occur. They occur in one field, but this field is partitioned into various categories such as sight, sound, thoughts, etc. Direction is the obviousness of simultaneity of sensations. Hahaha what the fuck?! Direction is a paradox. It doesn't exist!

Now, that I think of it, these 'inner' feelings actually do have a kind of directionality if I can shift them around on the inside of my body. This directionality is defined, again, by touch. I can see my hand touching my chest, feel the touch on the hand and on the chest and induce the inner feeling in this area. The inner voice also has a kind of directionality, because of reading. hmm... Does this somehow help me answer the original question?