'trying to be' is 'being' - an hypothesis

[Andrew]

So, i have been running a question for a week or two; “what am i waiting for?” which has been very interesting. All sorts of things it turns out.

Tonight, whilst walking in the park, i started thinking about how i can never seem to close the circle on these things, these ponderings and inquiries. For example, i have also been thinking about “time” a lot; time being central to “waiting”.

It started to dawn on me, that the very ‘waiting’ is the sense of ‘being’. Which is an interesting hypothesis ; There is no actual ‘me’, so what is it that ‘i’ am? Am ‘i’ simply the longing to ‘be’? Am ‘i’ a psychic verb? A ‘doing’ , which in the ‘doing’ is the only ‘being’ it will ever be. The circular nature of this type of question, is quite interesting.

As an hypothesis, it should be testable and the hypothesis should make predictions about it’s subject.

So, the hypothesis predicts that if the is no ‘being’, (as in something like a rock, which can be located, and doesn’t require any action to remain a rock), then ‘waiting’, ‘longing’, 'desiring ', ‘fearing’ etc are the only things to be observed.

‘i’ seem to ‘be’, but when i try to find something about ‘me’ that is a ‘core’, or something that isn’t otherwise a movement towards a time, place or person i long for in the future , or a longing for a time, person, or place long gone, then it seems to be true that there is no ‘being’ other than the ‘desiring’ to ‘be’.

It really is this constant hum, a buzzing of activity always out of observation, but annoyingly persistent. I have noticed that i am always waiting. Asking that question for the last while, and it is clear that there is ‘waiting’ going on all the ‘time’.

Laat Friday, walking in the same path, I cried for a good few laps, as one of the things i saw i was waiting for was those who have gone away to return. My late father and brothers especially.

Perhaps this ‘waiting’ thing is the main ‘flavour’ of my ‘selfing’ habit. I push down any emotion around it, as if by being good, not getting upset, by patiently ‘waiting’ my father will return. (for context, my father was a truck driver who would be away for months at a time, himself having lived a tragic life in many ways). It seems that it is the flavour of my family.

However, there is an absurdity also in all the waiting, beyond the impossibility of the dead returning ; and that is the ‘seeking’ of approval which goes along with it.

This came up very strongly in the last few months at work. Especially, as i started asking myself the “what am i waiting for?”.

There has been a lot of tension at work. I seem to be one of the hardest workers there, yet the bosses have been taking out their frustrations on me. (it probably wasn’t just me, but i had been taking it personally). It lead to the realisations about my father. My partner had reminded me about our situation is often a ‘mirror’, and we can create the situations we think are unfair etc.

I took that to heart, because i had previously (months ago) determined that i would learn how to be patient at work, and not angrily quit (in my own mind it seemed that learning patience, genuinely being patient, would be better than my previous MO).

Anyway, that’s enough thumb ballet for now.

[Andrew]

Further, so much of waiting, is waiting for recognition. Via recognition, my longing to be, seems to have some glimpse of hope.

However, being happy, one wants to be recognised, but somewhat less, as it is happiness which is the prize signally maximum being.

I imagine others seeing my happy moments, and i am closer to being.

Yet, if the hypothesis is correct, the seeking cannot help but keep moving, because if it stops, so does the being which was the seeking to begin with. . The seeking is the being. Which is the same as saying that being is an idea which, somehow, has this feeling chasing it, whilst it never had existence beyond the idea and this function called feeling.

Hmm, too theoretical. But, every day i notice how i am waiting, waiting for something, someone, some place and time. I have so little motivation these days because of this seeking, and seeing, that nothing can save me, but worse, nothing can make me into that being i crave.

[Andrew]

So, it remains to be happy. To let go of the ideas, without letting go of happiness. To work without desiring recognition, but rather generating happiness because it really is a choice between seeking to be, and ‘happying’ which is the closest a one gets to something… actual.

[Andrew]

Which, is somewhat like Richard talking about maximising happiness. There is an assumption of being in that. An audacity to ‘be’, which whilst not ending in an actual ‘entity’, could, with application, land me, here, actually.

What is it that attracts us to happy people? They seem to be someone. They seem to be.

It also seems to be the case, however perversely, with any aggressive emotion which is confident. Those who are confident seem to be. As i crave to be, i am attracted to those who seem to have that sorted out. I imagine they have arrived.

[Andrew]

Or i could say imagining is happening, and imagining gives the impression of something imagining it. The more seeking, imagining, depressing, sorrowing, hating, loving, (any feeling expressed as a verb).

[henryyyyyyyyyy]

RICHARD: As you got an answer for your multiple queries on how can ‘you’ get rid of the ‘I’, how can ‘you’ walk away from ‘your’ pleasures and needs, how can ‘you’ destroy ‘yourself’ and how can ‘you’ reject ‘yourself’ then surely you can figure that one out for yourself?

No? Simple answer: as no ‘I’ can detect ‘itself’ then ‘you’ can not, either.

Nor can ‘you’ get rid of ‘yourself’.

Neither can ‘you’ walk away from ‘your’ pleasures and needs.

And ‘you’ cannot destroy ‘yourself’, either.

Plus, of course, ‘you’ cannot reject ‘yourself’.

Nevertheless, what ‘you’ can do is become exquisitely aware, each moment again, of the way in which ‘you’ experience ‘yourself’ in regards to ‘your’ situation and circumstances.

I see it now as whatever non-PCE state I’m in is what ‘me’ is right then… only when the veil is completely removed, am I actual.

So whatever it is you see when you look out at the world, is [through the lens of] you. Whatever it is you feel when you probe into yourself, is you. The state of waiting is certainly you! I find myself feeling bored/anxious frequently, that is ‘me.’

Happiness & harmlessness is still ‘me,’ but it’s a very light me, that could float away with the lightest breeze. That’s why the method works.

[Andrew]

@henryyyyyyyyyy Yes, i understand that way of putting it.

What i am getting at is the assertion that ‘i’ don’t actually exist. So, what is this ‘i’ then?

When we say ‘i’ am this ‘fear’. We are moving the thingness, the idea that it is something existing, from a ‘self’ to a ‘fear’. Like when people say in Buddhism that there is no self, by explaining in analogy that the self can be broken down into parts, the thinginess of it is still there, linguistically and by extension, in the idea itself.

Let me elaborate; if we take the analogy of a car.

One may say, “there is no car, because it is really wheels, chassis, engine, etc”, the car isn’t an actual thing, these things in it are. Then we could go on to say “there is no wheel, it is rubber and steel”. Etc etc until we get down to the limits of science. Yet, the actual existence of all of these things are not in dispute really, what is being done is the existence previously ascribed to the car, is now being ascribed to the parts, and so on.

In actualism, the premise is that there never was, is, or will be, an actual self. So, when we say that the self is made of feelings, then we are in the same trap as the car analogy. We are transferring the existence we believed about a self, onto a feeling.

We could do this with thoughts as well.

Today, i had a lot of success with this, because it challenges the belief, the very idea, that anything at all actually exists in the psyche.

There is an actual mechanism in the body/brain a projector, if you will, there has to be, but nothing in that projection is actually happening.

So, going back to the hypothesis, it will also predict that the mind can and hold both factual and false information. The belief in self being just one of the false ones. There are potentially thousands of false ideas which we psychically ‘pursue’ (crave, fear, etc) However, because “happying” is the method by which we align the false with the actual by one by one, seeing if this or that idea is a fact. If the self is rather a ‘selfing’ a perceived movement of feelings towards ideas, then we are back to why the actualism method can work at all.

Im pretty excited, because it must have been my habit to transfer “self” belief onto feelings. As in “i can’t change human nature” because it is a thing. An actual thing.

So, somehow this is really helping. Even though it’s a play on words to a degree, i can ask now what ideas am i “selfing” towards? Wouldn’t i rather be “happying” towards the idea of being free?

[Andrew]

So, this is helping a lot.

“selfing” requires both an object and a psychic action towards that object, to create the illusion of a subject.

Feelings moving towards ideas. (beliefs, conditioning, morality, the past, future, the present, other people, one’s body, anything and everything can be something to ‘self’ towards).

That’s why, really seeing that an idea is false, leads to a reduction in the ‘selfing’ ability and why an object “being as happy and harmless as possible, enjoying and appreciating being alive” is needed. Just pulling down ideas, beliefs, etc leads to depression. Which is where i have ended up, both recently and in the past. Sadness becomes the default idea.

[Miguel]

I have also thought about and experimented with what you say and I find it useful too, but up to a certain level.

Although I have not wanted to give my opinion in other threads where the self was completely identified with actions (with a “doer”), I simply do not agree experientially with this reduction.

If in a EE disappear the waiting, desiring, fearing, etc., there remains the sensation of being (a “beer”). Of course, this sensation could also be categorized as feeling, but the important thing is that “trying to be” would not be the whole “being”, because “the doing” would not be the only “being” (or the only way for “being” to be manifested).

Does this experientially change anything?
I think not until one is in EE; but then it becomes important because there will still be something to be observed…

[Andrew]

Thanks @Miguel, i will see what i find out.

Perhaps it is that the primary idea of being is very close to whatever it is that creates it to start with. Perhaps that something to be observed is also a circular thing, a habit of feeling towards a feeling, something entirely without an object, hence it’s reported instability. How long can something which doesn’t exist, hold itself as the object?

That’s the premise anyway. It has no actual existence. Hence @Henryyyyyyyyy great find from the AFT; it cannot end itself as it isn’t anything to start with.

That maybe the final idea; that there really is something after all, the last little hope, that bitter sweet justification, the subtlest last ‘do’ movement. We shall see!

[henryyyyyyyyyy]

@Andrew

When we say ‘i’ am this ‘fear’. We are moving the thingness, the idea that it is something existing, from a ‘self’ to a ‘fear’.

I think you have it backwards, the felt sense of fear is what constructs the self. From there it’s a feedback loop of new experiences being added to the self, and with humans there is the ability to attach memories & ideas to that felt self / sense of ‘being,’ which is what generates the ego.

Maybe it is possible to deconstruct the ego using the conception you describe, because the ego is made up of emotional thoughts, but the underlying sense of ‘being’ remains because ‘being’ is deeper than thought-belief.

To use your car analogy, when you reduce ‘self’ to the ‘limits of science,’ then so long as ‘being’ exists then it will simply migrate to the new conception. That is the sneaky aspect of self.

Speaking experientially, I have seen firsthand how my self was perfectly happy to migrate first from being ‘normal’ to a ‘spiritual’ ‘Buddhist’ identity, and then, to my surprise, to an even stronger ‘Actualist’ identity. It’s really quite amusing.

From there it’s not hard to see how a ‘being’ could just be like ‘I am these molecules & atoms!!!’ while still getting up to its old tricks.

‘Being’ comes first.

Please let me know if I’ve misunderstood or misattributed you!

[henryyyyyyyyyy]

Additionally: speaking for myself, ‘self,’ ‘being’ has been one of the hardest things to understand, I found this selected correspondence page useful in getting closer.

[claudiu]

It’s more that being itself is the movement of feelings. That is what ‘being’ is - the movement of feelings. There can be no ‘being’ without movement of feelings, and similarly without ‘being’ there would be no movement of feelings as that is what ‘being’ is.

And there is no such thing as a non-moving feeling - a feeling is a movement in and of itself. ‘You’ cannot actually ‘be’ still - just by ‘being’ you are ‘moving’. This is why actuality is so still, why a stillness is palpably experienced - because the absence of ‘being’ means there is no ‘movement’ happening.

In contrast, the actual flesh and blood body just exists, there need be no ‘movement’ or ‘doing’ of anything for this to exist. Just like the rest of actuality. This is why you cannot really go wrong ultimately .

---

@Andrew

In actualism, the premise is that there never was, is, or will be, an actual self. So, when we say that the self is made of feelings, then we are in the same trap as the car analogy. We are transferring the existence we believed about a self, onto a feeling.

It’s not that the self is “made of” feelings, it’s rather that the self is the movement of feelings. One is not made of the other - this is just a description of what the self is.

The bit about ‘me’ not being actual is that, ‘I’ take myself to be a thing that exists on-its-own, statically. But as you can see, without any movement ‘I’ will cease to exist. Hence ‘I’ have to keep moving, to reaffirm ‘my’ existence, to reinforce ‘my’ belief that ‘I’ do exist, because if ‘I’ stop moving then ‘I’ will no longer be able to deny that ‘I’ don’t actually exist.

[Andrew]

@claudiu Yes, that is exactly what i am seeing. There is always this apparent movement towards things which is the perception of self.

The car analogy is how (cunningly) the belief in a self is transferred to the parts. So, they become the subject and object. Basically leading to the “i can’t change” idea.

I am getting great mileage out of this simple linguistic adjustment ; always asking what i am doing. Am i “happying”, am i “angering”… it’s a verb, not a noun. Indeed, how am i experiencing…

It’s the "Ing"

[Andrew]

@henryyyyyyyyyy that is what i am saying.

It’s linguistic.

The linguistic construction " ‘i’ am ‘my’ ‘feelings’" doesn’t describe what i am experiencing well enough, for me.

I think it could be either / both a normal transference of belief, and a hangover from years of meditation.

Im not so much trying to theorise about it, but presenting how it seems to be for me, the proof so far is it’s been surprisingly easy to feel happy when viewed this way.

It really struck home after asking myself “what am i waiting for?” for at least a couple of weeks, and noticing that there really wasn’t anything going on but waiting (desiring, depressing…’ feeling verbing’)

[Andrew]

In other words, it far easier to feel good when i am not fundamentally trying to change some definate thing, but in a way, playing with a perceived movement of something, which i am assuming, to be non-actual.

Like playing with the wind, rather than mining rocks.

[henryyyyyyyyyy]

@Andrew

It started to dawn on me, that the very ‘waiting’ is the sense of ‘being’. Which is an interesting hypothesis ; There is no actual ‘me’, so what is it that ‘i’ am? Am ‘i’ simply the longing to ‘be’? Am ‘i’ a psychic verb? A ‘doing’ , which in the ‘doing’ is the only ‘being’ it will ever be. The circular nature of this type of question, is quite interesting.

Re-reading, I think I understand what you’re saying… you’re identifying ‘your’ way-of-existing as ‘you,’ in a way that you hadn’t previously recognized.

@Andrew

‘waiting’, ‘longing’, 'desiring ', ‘fearing’ etc are the only things to be observed.

As components of ‘me,’ and then ‘I’ am the shadow-figure directing / be-ing those observable functions?

[Andrew]

@henryyyyyyyyyy Yes, i am experiencing it directly in a way i hadn’t before. That’s a great way of putting it.

I wouldn’t know about the second bit, exactly what is observing anything. I think you used the word “lens” before, that fits nicely with the movie projector metaphor. Obviously, there is consciousness, i assume an “actual” one.

[henryyyyyyyyyy]

@Andrew

Obviously, there is consciousness, i assume an “actual” one.

Richard describes the three ‘me’s,’

1. Ego
2. ‘Greater Me,’ Who I deeply feel myself to be, aka God etc
3. Actual me

And when he becomes enlightened he has a moment of asking himself - who is it exactly who is watching all this happen? That later he was able to follow to become free. That was the actual.

@Andrew

Like playing with the wind, rather than mining rocks.

I think there is space for both actions, where ‘mining rock’ might be picking away at specific ego-beliefs, and the ‘playing with the wind’ is more directly altering ‘your’ vibe/lens/veil in real-time… both compliment the other.

Though I can corroborate that when it becomes ‘playing with the wind,’ it is far easier, more direct.

[Andrew]

@henryyyyyyyyyy Yes, as you say, some issues are picked away at. I suppose the years of picking at some of these things, along with the dramas (and having had enough, via age or choice) has lead to both options being available.