UnbornTao

It seems that assessing something one did as wrong or bad - and recognizing it - as in "I screwed up" - is an element of shame, which is pretty much what you said above. Adding that it occurs in a social context - "how my actions may be perceived by others" or "how I interpret that others may see them." And the action or its effects are considered socially unacceptable in some way. It can also apply to the actions of another person or a group. Not sure how it differs from embarrasment - you native speakers probably have a better sense of that. Right and wrong might ultimately be unreal or not existential, yet we keep experiencing shame. So the nature of value (I think these are based on value) would probably need to be experientially clear to us first, although dropping shame is more straighforward. Just in case, for anyone else reading, please avoid using this point to justify dysfunctional stuff. Make your beds. Anyway - some incredibly raw reflections. Blame and shame - what are they, really? Something worth questioning. I get the sense of where that quote is coming from and somewhat agree with it, but I think it conflates enlightenment and healing. Nothing needs to change to grasp the truth. It's already true and you... thinking of a synonym apprehend it.

Nice, you seem to be refining your ability to recognize what a concept is. I recommend you sort out what's what. When you say attention, make a distinction between that - which is more about sensitivity or heightened awareness - and the activity of thinking, which is what you might be calling mind in this case. Attention isn't necessarily the same as thinking, and it might even be empowered by a kind of "mental silence." The mere awareness of something, like an object, is that very distinction, and this comes prior to thinking. You recognize lamp prior to your labeling of it, but this noticing is, as if, a background or very subtle activity. Anyway, this isn't really relevant here. Just take your most present sense of yourself at this moment and ask: Who am I? You aren't looking for a notion or a "self," but you - the very one reading these words right now. The mind will provide a plethora of answers, yet these are received by you. It's you - not something else. Just stay grounded and open.

@Carl-Richard The philosophical interchanges can be entertaining and mentally stimulating. At best, they might present a good intellectual argument, but all the intellect in the world won't make any difference at all in these matters. In the end these kinds of things are just guesses or conclusions or possibilities. They are not a real assertion based on real consciousness in the matter. Such pursuits are only intellectual and have nothing to do with genuine direct consciousness in such matters. They're worthless, really. My attempt was more about sorting out what's what in one's experience and pointing out that states and drugs are not direct consciousness. To me, it's clear the OP is conflating phenomena and mind states with any breakthrough that might have been achieved. His descriptions are full of "this" and "that" which are relative considerations, such as a process in time, "losing" the experience, "coming back" from the state, and so on and so forth. A breakthrough doesn't come with all this baggage.

@Natasha Tori Maru Definitely. You don't even need that depth of recognition to see that, regardless of external influences and extraneous factors, it is your experience, not somebody else's - the main implication of that fact being that you are at the source of it. Of course, deeply experiencing this principle of responsibility, not blame, is different from just thinking about it. I might rephrase that.

Investigate your experience. You move your body - who did that? You have a thought - who thought that? Who's playing the victim? Who's reading this now? This isn't self-inquiry - it's simply owning your experience. Now, create a desire for something. Actually do it - something minor: desiring ice cream, an object not in your vicinity, or more comfort while sitting. Desire arises from an assessment: that something deemed wanted is not present in your experience right now, and that obtaining it will lead to an improved experience in the future. That assessment is yours. “I did this, but I didn't really want to - others or circumstances made me do it.” This may be the basic premise of that disposition, and it is not true. The point is: if you took a certain action, you wanted to do it. You may not have desired to do it, but you had the intent, which was reflected in the fact that you performed the action. I'm not saying every action comes from desire, or that owning your experience means you're now in control of every aspect, and therefore things like disciplining yourself comes naturally. There're still habits and forces you're engaged that seem to push you around. Contemplate them: what's drive and impulse? What's a habit? There are further distinctions to be made in the domain of motivation or drives - such as want and intent. Desiring doesn't involve or demand action - it is more like wishful thinking or daydreaming. Yet the basic observation remains: you are not a victim of your desires. You may say you don't want to have a certain desire because it seems dysfunctional or unhealthy or whatever. Fine - you can deal with that while still recognizing that you are the source of the activity, even if it seems to be out of your hands. You need to clarify for yourself what’s what in your experience, and strip away as many assumptions as possible along the way. I haven't explained myself very well, and there's more to be said about this topic, but I hope this is useful.

Sounds good. Is space not a context for objects, though ('dimension' being a function of space)? You addressed the above question in your second sentence. So "the time-space or space-time dimension" might be missing the mark. You may well be using that figuratively, but is context not unformed? Other than that, the sentence makes sense... Still, you might start calling that "consciousness" instead. If it's infinite it goes beyond being a background.

Try clarifying it some more. You insist on being an adept in the religion of Victimhood. To start with, do you even know what a desire actually is? Naturally, then, you might want to consider that first. What is the activity composed of? What occurs in your experience as 'desire'? Certainly, there are external influences. Triggers can seem powerful at times, but they don't do it for you. The presence of a trigger doesn't mean you have to react according to its demands. In many cases, you can even stop it from being a trigger at all. Who or what controls your experience? Can someone else make you angry, for example? Normally, we'd respond in the affirmative - but look closer. Among other things, and beyond the cultural programming, we tend to overlook the lightning-quick process of interpretation and meaning-making that precedes the reaction. This is entirely made by you, even though it might not have been recognized yet. At the risk of oversimplifying the matter, "not taking things personally" is also an option, at least in this and related examples. And what, after all, is an emotion? Becoming more aware of the genesis of your experience eventually shows that you are the author of it. Still, this depth of understanding isn't necessary to see that you generate desire. You're already in the driver's seat, so it isn't a matter of "taking control," but rather of simply recognizing what's already happening. It's like the driver complaining about where the car is taking them. Recognize that you are the driver of your experience, and notice how that's the case.

I share the sentiment. For this thread: Why context?

Put down the pipe.

I mean, by all means contribute whatever you guys think is useful.

Sounds accurate. What about existential context? Like the mind. The "place" where thoughts occur.

@MuadDib

Yes, that's better put. Having other minds contribute to the discussion helps too, in any case. I'd say that insight is something generated - sudden - and that one has to work for it: by focusing, questioning, staying open, and wondering about something. It can be intellectual in nature, but it isn't limited to that realm. It's a Eureka moment, one that usually demands experiential investigation, depending on the subject.

That's a good one.

Experiencing what context is as itself. So far, what we have are notions about it. These notions themselves aren't the same as context. Recognizing our unconsciousness regarding the matter helps us notice that possibility. For example, we often assume that our experience is merely a reflection of what's "out there," and so we fail to grasp the reality that is created along language. He realized that objects don't fall upward or move sideways! In that story with the apple hitting his head, he consciously experienced a principle of the physical world - he had a sudden, personal encounter with something real. He wasn't just making something up or having a new thought. Now we take it for granted as obvious, but so did others before Newton. We tend to overlook the possibility of personally discovering shit, especially when it is profound.

Can you give it a try at pulling subcontext out? Wouldn't subtext be a subset or type of context? Subtext relates to communication, which is based on language-context. There has to be an environment (space) first before there can be an implicit meaning beneath the surface (the source of this surface may be the context for it.) Context as the possibility for new domains of distinctions to arise - is how I define it. When consciousness creates it, the content within it can come to pass. When thinking of language, the content is usually what comes to mind. Selling molasses by the river.

It isn't just about words or semantics. Then again, there is an experiential insight to be had - that's why we contemplate in the first place, based on that observation. If it were simply a matter of receiving an answer, we could have just Googled it and moved on with life. And yes, topics like these can seem aggravatingly irrelevant when it comes to our self-concerns and our daily lives. Despite that, what is true in the matter? It's a bit like Newton grasping a principle: every idiot knew that objects fell down, so what was overlooked that only a genius like him realized? I suspect that virtually no one truly grasps the nature of context, even though it could be discussed intelligently. Simply concluding something intellectually isn't the goal. And this being a forum thread, its function may be more akin to stimulating conversation and opening a few doors, taking into account that insight can happen for anyone at anytime. The insight occurs as an increase in consciousness.

Not sure. You could say that there's a perceiving and interpreting of objects. Those two sentences of yours directly address several subjects - objects, space, perception, self, context.

@StyxNStone Nice, will try with that one.

Good to hear. On the other hand, it's more like recognizing that one might not actually know what enlightenment is about. That, in turn, gives rise to an even more powerful opening, beyond knowledge and assumptions. Looking good!

That itself is the context being discussed - the space for things like emotions and thoughts to occur. How could one think of those distinctions without a mind context? Depending on what you're talking about, the "mind" didn't exist at some point. We think it was just a reality that evolved over millennia of human development, just as we discovered fire or agriculture. But that might not be the case. I don't understand your first claim. Okay, that's good.

It's best to make sure one's assessment is accurate - it is easy for it to be biased and partial. Again, being precedes state. At that point, it might better be called condition. State comes and goes; consciousness does not, as that would imply it is some thing that is subject to process; at that point, we'd be referring to something relative - possibly, cognition or awareness. What would be the point if the truth changed with state X or Y? Even the qualifier of "highest truth" is a claim belonging or relating to the relative. A form is relative. That limitation is what allows it to be a form in the first place. It doesn't mean it is separate from the absolute, though. Being is the same whether applied to the experience of a rabbit or to apes like us humans. And consciousness too! Like I said, it seems to me you're talking about a process, perhaps that of perceptive faculties, or experience, as you said. As for the absolute, it is absolute - better left as a possibility to grasp. Still, it is not what is though about it, or the result of combining relative things. Not separate - we're making a distinction. You don't put your socks on before your shoes. Distinction itself is non-conceptual, although distinctions of that kind can be made. The mere awareness of the existence of something is that distinction. And awareness is a limited form of consciousness. As said, it is thanks to the "absence of another" that you can be alone. In any case, that is still referring to the distinction between self and not-self, which is relative. Psychedelics only shift one's mind state. Phenomenal possibilities within experience shouldn't be conflated with a direct consciousness.

Yeah, this shows where you're coming from and how you're holding the matter.

What?! Nonsense. Desiring is something you do. Feeling like the victim of your own actions is disempowering and untrue. It isn't just a part of you - it is you! Your entire self-identity. Don't turn it into a war between two aspects of yourself. The self will be the winner either way.