Wholeness

nebulaJP · Jun 13, 2013

Premise: Regarding happiness, it is better to feel whole than it is to feel incomplete.

If we accept this premise, the question of how to feel whole arises. I don't know the answer to this question but I believe I know how to get somewhere near wholeness.

A newborn baby experiences being but isn't yet aware that it is "a being." When hungry or uncomfortable, the baby cries by instinct. It doesn't know its body requires nutrition or that its diaper needs changing and decide to call for help through crying because it doesn't know what individuality is or that it has a body. Gradually it develops a sense of the personhood of its mother and after this its own sense of self begins to emerge.

My belief is that newborns are whole (happy) because they have not yet developed a sense of self. We only come to feel incomplete with a developed sense of "me."

At first for the newborn, there is only the experience of being, one thing. After the sense of self develops sufficiently there is the experience of "me / the rest of the world" which introduces incompleteness. Since there is now a me, there is something other than me which me either has or lacks. Without the sense of me, there is no one to sense lacking anything.

So the way to feel whole is to lose the sense of me, or the sense of self, or of being an individual separate from everything else. I have not lost the sense of me and therefore feel incomplete myself. However, I get closer to it by not believing there is a me. I believe self consciousness and free will are illusions. I cannot make choices because there is no me to make them. All I believe is that "the whole" (AKA God) exists and that life happens and this I believe brings me closer to wholeness.

The are a lot of pronouns used in the above paragraph. Our language is based on duality while this idea that there is no me is called nonduality. That is the reason for the contradiction. The only way to get around it it is to say things like "wholeness appearing to be an individual" rather than I, which is rather awkward.

variant · Jun 13, 2013

nebulaJP said:
Premise: Regarding happiness, it is better to feel whole than it is to feel incomplete.

If we accept this premise, the question of how to feel whole arises. I don't know the answer to this question but I believe I know how to get somewhere near wholeness.

A newborn baby experiences being but isn't yet aware that it is "a being." When hungry or uncomfortable, the baby cries by instinct. It doesn't know its body requires nutrition or that its diaper needs changing and decide to call for help through crying because it doesn't know what individuality is or that it has a body. Gradually it develops a sense of the personhood of its mother and after this its own sense of self begins to emerge.

My belief is that newborns are whole (happy) because they have not yet developed a sense of self. We only come to feel incomplete with a developed sense of "me."

At first for the newborn, there is only the experience of being, one thing. After the sense of self develops sufficiently there is the experience of "me / the rest of the world" which introduces incompleteness. Since there is now a me, there is something other than me which me either has or lacks. Without the sense of me, there is no one to sense lacking anything.

So the way to feel whole is to lose the sense of me, or the sense of self, or of being an individual separate from everything else. I have not lost the sense of me and therefore feel incomplete myself. However, I get closer to it by not believing there is a me. I believe self consciousness and free will are illusions. I cannot make choices because there is no me to make them. All I believe is that "the whole" (AKA God) exists and that life happens and this I believe brings me closer to wholeness.

The are a lot of pronouns used in the above paragraph. Our language is based on duality while this idea that there is no me is called nonduality. That is the reason for the contradiction. The only way to get around it it is to say things like "wholeness appearing to be an individual" rather than I, which is rather awkward.

A sense of self is necessary for a discussion of "better" so I think your argument falls apart on it's first premise.

The idea of "better" is premised upon the idea of value, which can only work if you have a you-ness to measure it with regard to.

Simply put, values are subjective, you can not value non-subjectivity subjectively (which is semi absurd).

Also, language is built upon this foundation of self and division so if you could value the non-subjective wholeness you could only do it ineffably.

nebulaJP · Jun 13, 2013

variant said:
A sense of self is necessary for a discussion of "better" so I think your argument falls apart on it's first premise.

The idea of "better" is premised upon the idea of value, which can only work if you have a you-ness to measure it with regard to.

Simply put, values are subjective, you can not value non-subjectivity subjectively (which is semi absurd).

Also, language is built upon this foundation of self and division so if you could value the non-subjective wholeness you could only do it ineffably.

It is true that it is completely paradoxical to talk about nondualism. That is because awareness and thought are based in duality.

I was only sharing what I think wholeness vs incompleteness is about. It's impossible to argue because nondualism makes no sense to the rational mind, which is dualistic. So if it seen as an debate, you win, I lose.

Eudaimonist · Jun 14, 2013

I look at the issue of wholeness in a different way.

A feeling of incompleteness doesn't arise because one doesn't experience oneself as the entirety of existence. Rather, one feels that there are psychological needs that aren't being met.

For instance, if one doesn't experience meaning in life, one might feel incomplete, because one feels that one should have meaning in life to be a complete individual. Having meaning does not require dropping one's sense of self. Indeed, it requires accepting that one is an individual.

So, wholeness is entirely compatible with the view that one is an individual.

eudaimonia,

Mark

nebulaJP · Jun 14, 2013

Eudaimonist said:
I look at the issue of wholeness in a different way.

A feeling of incompleteness doesn't arise because one doesn't experience oneself as the entirety of existence. Rather, one feels that there are psychological needs that aren't being met.

I'm not saying we feel incomplete because we don't experience the self in a certain way. We feel incomplete because we experience the self, period. Babies don't have a sense of "I am all of existence," only a sense of being with no I.

Eudaimonist said:
For instance, if one doesn't experience meaning in life, one might feel incomplete, because one feels that one should have meaning in life to be a complete individual. Having meaning does not require dropping one's sense of self. Indeed, it requires accepting that one is an individual.

So, wholeness is entirely compatible with the view that one is an individual.

What I am saying is that if we finally find meaning or anything else we long for, such as success or a spouse, we still feel incomplete because the premise that there is a me to be fulfilled is false. Whatever we are looking for to make us whole, if we find it, it doesn't work and cannot work.

variant · Jun 14, 2013

nebulaJP said:
It is true that it is completely paradoxical to talk about nondualism. That is because awareness and thought are based in duality.

I was only sharing what I think wholeness vs incompleteness is about. It's impossible to argue because nondualism makes no sense to the rational mind, which is dualistic. So if it seen as an debate, you win, I lose.

I was pointing out that this is a flawed and paradoxical discussion from the get go, you would have to invent a new kind of (anti-) language to properly approach it.

The point though is that you can't properly have this world view, and that if you are capable it is nihilistic and self annihilating.

So the way to feel whole is to lose the sense of me, or the sense of self, or of being an individual separate from everything else. I have not lost the sense of me and therefore feel incomplete myself. However, I get closer to it by not believing there is a me. I believe self consciousness and free will are illusions. I cannot make choices because there is no me to make them. All I believe is that "the whole" (AKA God) exists and that life happens and this I believe brings me closer to wholeness.

You are worshiping a god that can't think or feel and has no sense of itself and has no plan or freedom.

What is the point?

louise sheinholtz · Jun 14, 2013

variant said:
A sense of self is necessary for a discussion of "better" so I think your argument falls apart on it's first premise.

The idea of "better" is premised upon the idea of value, which can only work if you have a you-ness to measure it with regard to.

Simply put, values are subjective, you can not value non-subjectivity subjectively (which is semi absurd).

Also, language is built upon this foundation of self and division so if you could value the non-subjective wholeness you could only do it ineffably.

.............................................................................................................
Nebula

"Premise: Regarding happiness, it is better to feel whole than it is to feel incomplete. "

It is better to be whole than it is to feel incomplete.
In order to become whole we must understand that we are not whole because we are dealing with a dark identity within that needs to be overcome.
Seeing all the tricks it plays on the mind to keep us from become whole we must study our thoughts diligently.
Louise

variant · Jun 14, 2013

louise sheinholtz said:
.............................................................................................................
Nebula

"Premise: Regarding happiness, it is better to feel whole than it is to feel incomplete. "

It is better to be whole than it is to feel incomplete.
In order to become whole we must understand that we are not whole because we are dealing with a dark identity within that needs to be overcome.
Seeing all the tricks it plays on the mind to keep us from become whole we must study our thoughts diligently.
Louise

Understanding that a thinking thing will never feel whole until it stops thinking is the issue here.

Studying your thought isn't going to cut it you can't think and be whole, you can't simply come to an understanding.

Better just can't factor in here as better relies on our identity, you can't make an argument from value at all.

louise sheinholtz · Jun 14, 2013

variant said:
Understanding that a thinking thing will never feel whole until it stops thinking is the issue here.

Studying your thought isn't going to cut it you can't think and be whole, you can't simply come to an understanding.

Better just can't factor in here as better relies on our identity, you can't make an argument from value at all.

\..........................................................

The better way to put it is to observe our thoughts with the awareness of God. Understanding and insights come from a quiet mind. Not from thought because there are two sources within, one satan and one God that speaks to the mind, but God can only come through a quiet mind.

"Be still and know that I am God". psalms

I don't argue, Perhaps you are projecting.

variant · Jun 14, 2013

louise sheinholtz said:
\..........................................................

The better way to put it is to observe our thoughts with the awareness of God. Understanding and insights come from a quiet mind. Not from thought because there are two sources within, one satan and one God that speaks to the mind, but God can only come through a quiet mind.

"Be still and know that I am God". psalms

I don't argue, Perhaps you are projecting.

All assertions and attempts to support are arguments, the only difference between us is that I know that I am arguing my viewpoint.

The idea here is that to have sensation, thought and understanding one must separate themselves from wholeness where such things can not exist.

We are incomplete, making observation possible, the part of the universe that has broken off making it possible to see the rest.

Embracing our incompleteness and the uniqueness of it seems just as good if not a better solution here than trying to grasp wholeness while innately incomplete.

louise sheinholtz · Jun 14, 2013

variant said:
All assertions and attempts to support are arguments, the only difference between us is that I know that I am arguing my viewpoint.

The idea here is that to have sensation, thought and understanding one must separate themselves from wholeness where such things can not exist.

We are incomplete, making observation possible, the part of the universe that has broken off making it possible to see the rest.

Embracing our incompleteness and the uniqueness of it seems just as good if not a better solution here than trying to grasp wholeness while innately incomplete.

.............................................................................................................
What good is it to argue?
We will never know what wholeness is until we overcome what is not whole within us piece by piece, observing resentment and anger that causes stress, anxiety and sickness. These things keep us from wholeness.
We can't change a hair on our heads let alone changing our natures.
As long as we think we can change ourselves we will not understand how God works in our lives. He works without our knowledge through His mysterious ways and sometimes we may feel helpless, but, we have to get the intellect out of the way..
Louise

nebulaJP · Jun 15, 2013

variant said:
The idea here is that to have sensation, thought and understanding one must separate themselves from wholeness where such things can not exist.

We are incomplete, making observation possible, the part of the universe that has broken off making it possible to see the rest.

Embracing our incompleteness and the uniqueness of it seems just as good if not a better solution here than trying to grasp wholeness while innately incomplete.

My belief is that we are not innately incomplete. This is because there is no we or I to be innately incomplete. The I is an illusion so the apparent me is apparently, innately incomplete.

You are correct in saying there must be incompleteness for an individual to have sensations, thoughts, understanding or the ability to observe.

However, there can be wholeness while also sensation, thought, understanding and observation. All of these things can happen in the absence of a sense of me, just as photosynthesis in a blade of grass happens without it having a sense of being an individual. Life is life and it happens regardless of the form it takes, whether or not that form has a sense of self.

Eudaimonist · Jun 15, 2013

nebulaJP said:
I'm not saying we feel incomplete because we don't experience the self in a certain way. We feel incomplete because we experience the self, period.

I disagree 100%.

eudaimonia,

Mark

variant · Jun 15, 2013

nebulaJP said:
You are correct in saying there must be incompleteness for an individual to have sensations, thoughts, understanding or the ability to observe.

However, there can be wholeness while also sensation, thought, understanding and observation. All of these things can happen in the absence of a sense of me, just as photosynthesis in a blade of grass happens without it having a sense of being an individual. Life is life and it happens regardless of the form it takes, whether or not that form has a sense of self.

That is where you are entirely wrong. Life has at it's essence a self concept, the division between the individual and the whole in order to create and maintain boundaries.

It is not that that you need to be conscious to have a sense of self; consciousness is an emergent phenomena that comes from layers of complexity built upon the self concept inherent in life.

So no, you can not have wholeness and thought, wholeness and sensation, even wholeness and life, the second you make a boundary or a division, the second life begins, that is impossible.

Sensation can not coexist with an undivided whole.

nebulaJP · Jun 15, 2013

variant said:
That is where you are entirely wrong. Life has at it's essence a self concept, the division between the individual and the whole in order to create and maintain boundaries.

It is not that that you need to be conscious to have a sense of self; consciousness is an emergent phenomena that comes from layers of complexity built upon the self concept inherent in life.

So no, you can not have wholeness and thought, wholeness and sensation, even wholeness and life, the second you make a boundary or a division, the second life begins, that is impossible.

Sensation can not coexist with an undivided whole.

I can go along with the idea that the self concept is inherent in life. But when life rises to the level of human consciousness the self begins to create a problem. The problem is that the level of our consciousness is so high that we actually recognize something fundamental is missing from the self and we experience what we call the human condition.

I do believe it is possible to lose the sense of self even though its inherent in life. That of course is paradoxical but that is the nature of our reality. It's a paradox. We know that we're not truly independent of anything else. We can't survive without oxygen for example. Every life form is made of elements formed in stars and the universe is one big system with the same source, the big bang. A human body is a community of living cells. Some of these cells make up the fingers of the hand which all appear to move independently. An animal may mistake our fingers for individual living entities if we stuck them into his burrow, while we know this isn't the case. They all spring from the same source, the hand, just as all of our bodies come from the same source, stars.

If it is impossible to lose the sense of self while retaining consciousness as you suggest, there is no hope at all. Any search for fulfillment in life is completely in vain because ultimately there is no individual to attain it, even though there seems to be from our limited perspective.

variant · Jun 16, 2013

nebulaJP said:
I can go along with the idea that the self concept is inherent in life. But when life rises to the level of human consciousness the self begins to create a problem. The problem is that the level of our consciousness is so high that we actually recognize something fundamental is missing from the self and we experience what we call the human condition.

It's not so much a problem as something you should be aware of.

The self concept is hard coded into what you are as a living being and it is meant to make you want to perpetuate your biological existence.

Regardless though it IS a part of who you are as a human and as a problem it is temporary so there is no reason not to embrace your sentient existence for what it is rather than yearning for what it is not.

I do believe it is possible to lose the sense of self even though its inherent in life. That of course is paradoxical but that is the nature of our reality. It's a paradox. We know that we're not truly independent of anything else. We can't survive without oxygen for example. Every life form is made of elements formed in stars and the universe is one big system with the same source, the big bang. A human body is a community of living cells. Some of these cells make up the fingers of the hand which all appear to move independently. An animal may mistake our fingers for individual living entities if we stuck them into his burrow, while we know this isn't the case. They all spring from the same source, the hand, just as all of our bodies come from the same source, stars.

It IS possible to diminish your conscious self awareness simply because the brain can be effected in this way. Neurological studies of people who were meditating or otherwise in spiritual trances shows us that they lower activity in the part of the brain required for asserting conscious selfness. Certain drugs will also get you there but I don't want to promote something like that.

This can help us understand the religious/spiritual instincts of trying to connect with others and reduce the over-baring part of the human consciousness.

It IS entirely impossible to not have a sense of self because it is hard coded into your biological being, but it is not impossible at all to FEEL a lack of self, or to switch your conscious selfness off for a bit.

If it is impossible to lose the sense of self while retaining consciousness as you suggest, there is no hope at all. Any search for fulfillment in life is completely in vain because ultimately there is no individual to attain it, even though there seems to be from our limited perspective.

The search is what life is about. But true, you aren't going to have a sense of fulfillment in your current state, if you need to deny what you are to get there.

Wholeness

Well-Known Member

Happy Cat

Well-Known Member

I believe in life before death!

Well-Known Member

Happy Cat

Active Member

Happy Cat

Active Member

Happy Cat

Active Member

Well-Known Member

I believe in life before death!

Happy Cat

Well-Known Member

Happy Cat

Similar threads

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency