framesofmind.info » Metaphysical investigations

Last vestige of thought

fom — Fri, 29 Jul 2011 00:32:18 +0000

Imagine yourself in a situation where you are reduced to your very last vestiges of thought. You have one thought, one point of awareness in front of you, and nothing else. Is this possible ? There is no value in contemplating such a situation if it is only an abstraction. We can imagine singularity of thought, or one particular thought more or less dominating our consciousness to the exclusion of all else, so let us at least focus on a situation like that – it could be something like a nagging pain, or an obsessive worry, or even a pleasurable anticipation.

So we can imagine the thought, or the moment of consciousness, occupying centre stage in our minds, or in our field of vision. Of course the thought is not entirely exclusive, and has a periphery, with bits and pieces of other thoughts which flow in and out, and so on. But we are simply concerned here with the main thought, not to the exclusion of all else, but rather to see how it works, and what its characteristics are.

And if we exclude the content of the thought – pleasurable or painful or neither or both – we see that what remains, or what is left over when all other factors are excluded, is that the thought ‘matters’ to me – it means something, it affects me, I cannot ignore it, or dismiss it. This is my primal connection to the universe per se.

It is worth exploring some of the implications that flow from this. What if my basic ‘connectedness’ [through its mattering to me] to the perception in front of me were somehow turned off, or reduced ? What if it suddenly, or gradually, didn’t matter to me ? What would happen to the universe ? What would happen to the ‘me’ ? It would surely revolutionise my relationship to existence.

But what can I do with this rather humble insight ? On the face of it, not much. Being able to apprehend the building blocks of human existence does not, of itself, deliver one to a magical ‘higher plane’, but it does begin a slow process of self-understanding which has more substance to it than any meditative state, or state of mind based on wish-fulfilment, or belief.

Causality

fom — Tue, 28 Jun 2011 23:43:38 +0000

The human intellect ‘operates’ or ‘functions’, or ‘calculates’, one way or another, almost entirely by means of the concept of ‘causality’. It is fascinating to stop and look at this.
When we seek to understand something, we always look to find the cause, which somehow makes us feel this explains the effect. If I do this, then it will lead to that. If I throw the rock at the window, it will cause the glass to break. If I worship God, I will get to heaven. If I meditate, I will reach enlightenment. If I kick at this white wall, I will leave a dirty mark with my foot.
A leads to B.
Is there anything else, to our thinking – including our innermost calculations – that ever moves beyond this fundamental template ? Do we have any other kind of serious mental templates within us ? Perhaps we do: intensive self-reflection may discover other types of thought pattern, cogent within themselves.
But when we think about our salvation, our ultimate destiny, do we ever go beyond the simple template of causality ? If I do A, then it will lead to B ?
And what does this tell us ? When we view our inner creatureliness in this way, are we not surprised at how basic, how simplistic and primitive, the process of our thought looks to be ?

self & salvation

fom — Tue, 10 Nov 2009 22:00:37 +0000

If a religion is to save me, I must possess an unproblematic self. If my self is problematic, then which bit of me is to be saved ? All of me, presumably. But how would that work ? I would have to be all that I was, all that I am, and all that I will be, all at once, so that none of my experiencing is denied me. If some of my experiencing was denied me, then I couldn’t be fully saved, but I’m not sure how experiencing everything at once, all the time, would work out in practice. God has it worked out, is the reply. Maybe, but I feel a sense of defeat at the prospect of a comprehensive salvation, like the one outlined above. It just seems like a piece of nonsense, and an unattractive one at that.

Interestingly, none of the religious books speak about salvation in these terms. So if we are to be saved in this way, then none of those already saved have thought to make this clear. This is puzzling. Don’t they know what’s happened to them ? Or perhaps they aren’t really saved, but only think they are. More likely still, we are dealing with imaginings, and nothing else. Not much of a salvation, and not much for the rest of us to hold on to.

Normally, when people say they are ‘saved’, they mean that they have had a positive psychological experience reassuring them at the time when they thought about such matters. If I think about what Jesus or Krishna wants of me, and then have an experience of psychological reassurance, I feel myself to be ‘taken care of’, or ‘saved’, by the God of my choice. I have no other evidence for my conviction: it justifies itself. Intellectual considerations are put aside, or made to be subservient, to the experience of psychological reassurance itself. This experience ‘feels’ profound, and self-justifying, but it doesn’t stand up very well in the cold light of analysis. It starts to look very sentimental and not a little embarrassing in its self-absorption. Is that all I’ve got, when I say that I am ‘saved’ ?

Where is this line of analysis going ? Back to the problematic nature of the self. Which bit of me is worthy of being saved, and how can I be sure that, when all is said and done, that I am truly saved, and not just deluding myself ?