Freedom said:

one simple example the sense of self is obviously not observed by the sense of self, looking at that its hard to believe i am my sense of self

---

I kind of see the ego-self as a filter for awareness. I'm not that conglomeration of adjectives aggregated into an idea of what I am if I'm observing it!

teknix said:

Would you agree that all of these are the case?;


1. Awareness is distinct from the particular contents of experience in a functional or descriptive sense.

2. It is not fundamentally separate from the physical process producing it.

3. Awareness arises, changes, and ceases when its conditions arise, change, and cease.

4. The self is a useful reference to an organized bundle of perceptions, functions, memories, and metacognitive processes.

5. The self is conventionally real but not an independently existing entity.

6. Treating the self as fixed is useful in some contexts, but metaphysically mistaken.

7. Awareness is a possible feature or quality of reality, but not reality’s fundamental essence.

8. Therefore, neither self nor awareness should be treated as an eternal ontological ground.

---

Freedom said:

i think of awareness as a pointer, but it isn't a thing that exists. the appearance of something and the awareness of that appearance are the same

i think that is what people mean by nonduality

---

redgreenvines said:

I think awareness is the active mental contents which are of a changing pattern;
i.e. we are aware of things changing before us, around, and within us; while things that do not move or repeat ordinary routines, i.e. unchanging patterns fade into the background (of which we are not usually aware).

---

Rahz said:

I don't mean the sense of self is doing more than being a sense, like maps are meant to describe the terrain rather than be it.

Sense of self can be something about you or in a less definitive/mappy way self is the experience itself according to conditions, and unconditioned in so much as there is a silent pond below the ripples. What is seen in the mirror? What do people call you? I suggest that perceptions present these various views for integration rather than simply cognitive dissonance to be struggled with.

---

Quote:

Autoglottic (often used in the phrase autoglottic space) is a linguistic and philosophical concept introduced by theorist Roy Harris in 1989 to describe the self-contained linguistic environment created by writing.

This is where I first saw the term.

Quote:

The thesis that writing is thinking in action is to be understood in the following way: an act of writing is supported by neural enabling processes as well as manipulations of the bodily external environment. We create and manipulate words and sentences in conjunction with relevant bodily and neural functions. Where our trains of thought, arguments, solutions to problems, or storing of the results of these cognitive and mental acts involve writing, some of the enabling processes are external. Creating and manipulating written sentences are not merely outputs from neural processes but, just as crucially, they shape the cycle of processing that constitutes a mental act. Completing a complex cognitive, or mental, task is enabled by a co-ordinated interaction between neural processes, bodily processes and manipulating written sentences.

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0388000107000046?fbclid=IwT01FWAT_dM9wZG9mBWV4dG4DYWVtAjEwAHNydGMGYXBwX2lkDDM1MDY4NTUzMTcyOAABHhg7gGWAwccFyfL_yEpHLyk3O3i75BPncGLNhoBNgfEojzCUhzc4c4355XCV_aem_dsW7fGbc6ApovaUvoYH18Q&via%3Dihub

---

---

Freedom said:

redgreenvines said:

I think awareness is the active mental contents which are of a changing pattern;
i.e. we are aware of things changing before us, around, and within us; while things that do not move or repeat ordinary routines, i.e. unchanging patterns fade into the background (of which we are not usually aware).

---

i really like that its very precise and doesn't have any distracting fluff

what about the sense of silence / stillness, like abosolutely still? what is that about?

---

teknix said:

Would you agree that all of these are the case?;


1. Awareness is distinct from the particular contents of experience in a functional or descriptive sense.

2. It is not fundamentally separate from the physical process producing it.

3. Awareness arises, changes, and ceases when its conditions arise, change, and cease.

4. The self is a useful reference to an organized bundle of perceptions, functions, memories, and metacognitive processes.

5. The self is conventionally real but not an independently existing entity.

6. Treating the self as fixed is useful in some contexts, but metaphysically mistaken.

7. Awareness is a possible feature or quality of reality, but not reality’s fundamental essence.

8. Therefore, neither self nor awareness should be treated as an eternal ontological ground.

---

sudly said:

What do you think about the phrase autoglottic? Seems like an interesting term.

---

Rahz said:

teknix said:

Would you agree that all of these are the case?;


1. Awareness is distinct from the particular contents of experience in a functional or descriptive sense.

2. It is not fundamentally separate from the physical process producing it.

3. Awareness arises, changes, and ceases when its conditions arise, change, and cease.

4. The self is a useful reference to an organized bundle of perceptions, functions, memories, and metacognitive processes.

5. The self is conventionally real but not an independently existing entity.

6. Treating the self as fixed is useful in some contexts, but metaphysically mistaken.

7. Awareness is a possible feature or quality of reality, but not reality’s fundamental essence.

8. Therefore, neither self nor awareness should be treated as an eternal ontological ground.

---

Yes, that a reasonable and concise description of what I've suggested.

Edit: I would make a slight distinction with point 7. I think awareness is as much a part of reality's fundamental "potential" an anything else we might consider. It can occur but doesn't need to be fundamental which is true of all things and processes. I tend to see only darkness when speaking of fundamentals.

"I consider awareness to be a quality of reality but not it's defining feature, except in so much that it's possible. It's the same as saying reality isn't fundamentally made of trees, or exploding stars, or any particular thing."

---