One of these days, I swear I'm going to write a book entitled 'The Wisdom of Life'.  Schopenhauer did it, though mine would be very different from his.  I'll wait a few more years and acquire more worldly wisdom, and then some, before embarking on this project in earnest, though.

Just curious what other people think such a book would contain.  Does anyone out there have any wisdom they'd like to impart to us?  

Listening attentively,

Shawn

Well Shawn, I would LOVE to read your book, as I think you are intelligent and your book would have real meaning!
BUT, if I were to add anything to this book, it wuold be a joke! Like, how other people think life "should"  be, and how they all have the wisdom of lif, but nobody else does. So, if you ever are writing a book like that, I have lots of quotes and sayings that others have told me, that would fit perfectly in that kind of book!

So, tell us more about the ideas behind your book!

Take care!
Dara

thank you, Dara, for your reply.  I've always had a strong interest in Ethics, in how we should live life, but at a more personal level, How I should live my own life.  Of course such questions can easily generalize to people in general, though I've never been inclined towards forcing one's views on others, since in most cases it provokes retaliatory, defensive reactions.  And so, instead of trying to force, the best course is just to appeal to people's intellect and to their hearts, and have them accept them voluntarily and not under force.

So, I'd be interested in your quotes and in other ideas that you have.  In general, the book would be over Ethics, the meaning of life, and how one should live one's life.  Again, it's just something I've thought, and continue to think, a lot about since my earliest years, and at this stage, I'm really not in a position to go into more detail because I haven't actually tried to construct an outline of the book or put together any of the details into a coherent whole.

But one of these days, when the time is right, I will.

take care,

Shawn

Curious as to anyone's thoughts over the following passage.  Has anybody read or seen this before?  If so, where, and what did you think of it, then and now?   Thanks.
~Shawn

In my mind I have burned an image of majestic, pristine white, cumulus clouds moving ever so slowly, ever so inevitably, across the infinite azure sky, totally unconcerned about the hubbub and frenzied activity of the people on the beach below. I wept at the sight, so beautiful, so telling. And thus this cosmic drama moves on, a force unconcerned with the vanities of the individual, a force totally beyond the individual, towards we know not what. And yet each of us is caught in its current, and most do not even see it. The same Self in you and I, in the heart of everyone else, looking out with fascination and awe at this transformation in progress. It's absolutely amazing. Are we the same 'I'? Do you feel this? One 'I' looking out onto the world, transforming it, and being transformed by it. To what extent does thought create reality? Who knows the full capabilities of consciousness? Think of your highest state of consciousness, and ask yourself what lies beyond. The vastness of consciousness can be a scary thing. Forget about the vast silent spaces that Pascal spoke of in his Pensees. The vastness of consciousness, of Being, in one's highest states of consciousness, and the contemplation of what lies beyond, can be a terrifying thought. An unfathomable abyss surrounds us, and the thought of falling in without being able to get out sometimes strikes terror at my core. We know not what lies beyond our own consciousness, and it's a dangerous thing to go beyond oneself in this respect. And yet what other path have we? This is the only way out. Like a trapped animal I seek to escape my confines, to expand my consciousness...it's the only way out. This life beckons us upwards, and outwards, and inwards. There's no other way. Being trapped within one's confining consciousness is the worst of all prisons.

sorry too many words i dont know and i dont have the strength to look them up, i havent heard it either

no need to apologize, Anne.  Perhaps the passage is unnecessarily poetic.  The core message it tries to communicate, though, is a simple question:  Are we the same 'I'?

Well, are we?

my best and kindest,

Shawn

The message asks about the universality of consciousness -- isolating human consciousness from that of animals, it seems.  The animal consciousness is satisfied with the answer "I Am" although it lacks the ability to ask the question.  The human consciousness sees the answer and formulates the question in a myriad of forms, adding layers and nuances though individual perception and interpretation until the search for the answer is baffled by the multi-dimensional labyrinth of the question.  
"Are we the same I?" is a fragmented reflection of the question "Who am I?" or perhaps more appropriately, "How do I define myself?" -- the universal question, a thread throughout the evolution of humanity.  "Are we the same I?" emerges from the similarities inherent in the human beast on a mental and emotional level.   Each individual shares with others the depths of anger, grief, fear, love and the ability to question.  Does this make us the same I?  Or does this simply mean that we are all constructed and fundamentally programmed the same way ... as a rabbit shares with other rabbits not only the satisfaction of basic urges, but the fear of the unknown and the desire, whether impulsive or not, for self-preservation.  Since the rabbit also shares these inclinations with humans, one might as well discard the question "Are we the same I?" and ask, "are we all rabbits"?  It is not a question asked by rabbits, as far as I know.  A rabbit defines itself from the basis of rabbit-ness, while humans do so from the basis of humanity, which involves the peculiar ability to quest and question beyond the immediate needs of the physical.  
The question "Who am I?" has no answer ... the best one can do is say, "I am who/what I perceive myself to be."  The human mind is not capable of an objective, universal answer because it cannot perceive the subleties surrounding the question from an objective perspective.  It can only integrate components of history and experience into a personal interpretation of the question and a search for an answer that can never progress beyond the stage of theory.  Yet, by its nature, it can't be satisfied with theory, thus continues to quest.
As the writer of the above piece says, "we know not what lies beyond our own consciousness".  He/she equates "beyond" with an 'unfathomable abyss' and with the terror of falling in.  It is the classic terror of the unknown shared by humans and rabbits alike, although the human is able to formulate the expression of the concept -- here be dragons.  At the end, the writer likens himself/herself to the trapped animal seeking to break out of the confines imposed by its physical environment ...  but the animal will be satisfied to escape the cage restricting it, and return to familiar comforts.  It does not seek to expand its consciousness.
It's not clear what the writer means by "it's the only way out."  Out of where?  The 'confines' of consciousness?  If one is aware of confines, then one is aware that elements exist beyond this.  Since the human mind is free to explore these, it is not confined.  It is, however, limited in its perceptions -- which is its nature.  In order to break free of the confines of consciousness, it must break down and reconstruct the essence of thought itself, which unfortunately creates a paradox.  It can only move within the boundaries it imposes upon itself, and should it dissolve these, it will create a new set of boundaries, and within whose confines it will find itself trapped once more, in morbid fascination with the terrible abyss of the unknown.
Are we the same I?  We see evidence of collective thought and feeling, but beyond that, remain trapped within the confines of perception, in the nihilistic spiral of human awareness.

And that is the lump sum of my 2 cents' worth based on the rate of exchange as it currently stands.

all the best,
Mira

Wow, Mira! I'm very impressed and delighted that you offered such a thoughtful response to my passage above.  Thank you.

The above passage was written by me on Sept. 21, 2001.
With the benefit of hindsight, I'd like to add the following comments and clarifications, and also to respond to your feedback on my post:

Who am I?   Everyone who has ever lived.
What am I?  The universe conscious of itself.

What does 'the universe conscious of itself' mean?  If you haven't experienced this state of awareness, then it's impossible to fully explain in words.

My answers to the above questions cannot be dismissed as the mere result of a modified self-image, because self-image is but a construct of the mind, and it's not of mental constructs that I speak, but of unreflective and vast states of consciousness brought about by expanding consciousness to the point of experiencing intoxicated states of Being.  

I don't think 'I am who/what I perceive myself to be' is acceptable because it reduces the answer down to self-image, and this involves reflective consciousness, of consciousness looking back at itself, which necessarily means that the part that's doing the looking back is not the part seen.

Now, about the question of whether we're confined, I would say yes.   And it's not just perceptual confinement, but also conceptual, attentional, and no doubt others as well.  I know these confines exist because there are attributes and qualities apparent in expanded states of consciousness that do not exist in 'normal' states.   While we're not conscious of these confines while in 'normal' states of consciousness, we are very conscious of them indeed in expanded states.   And so, in our normal states, we know for certain that these limitations and confines exist.   Also, I think that even in normal states of consciousness, we can appreciate our limitations and confines by reflecting on how very limited our attentional capacities are.  In a normal state of consciousness, can anybody focus their attention on every object in their environment simultaneously?  The answer is no.  Hence, we're aware to some extent of our limitations and confines even in normal states of consciousness, though a much greater appreciation of these limitations can be found if one directly experiences higher transcendent states of consciousness.

Mira, you said that '"Are we the same I?" emerges from the similarities inherent in the human beast on a mental and emotional level'.     I agree that we share such 'bestial' similarities, however, that is not what provoked my question of 'are we the same I?'    Let's use a more intellectual approach first:  We know from Physics that electrons throughout the universe are everywhere 'identical' with each other.   In fact, mathematically, identical particles are the same particle.  Analogously, all 'I's are identical patterns of functional activity in the brain, hence all 'I's are the same.  Now, that's a more intellectual approach to answering the question 'are we the same I?' in the affirmative.  But I also think the answer can be obtained from direct experience of a special sort, the kind where you experience 'we are the universe conscious of itself'.   If you experience this, then you know that all 'I's are one and the same 'I of the universe'.

Thank you for your 2 cents, Mira, though I think it was worth far more.  I tried to write a nice, informative reply in the time allotted me, though I'm afraid I probably wasn't thorough enough.  Maybe later I'll take it up again and give a more thorough and lucid reply.  

take care,

Shawn

Shawn, thanks, I found your reply nice and informative indeed *smile*.  It clarifies a few points, and this could make for an interesting discussion.  

Whether or not the above passage was written by you is inconsequential; it's merely the axis around which the debate revolves.  

Unfortunately, when you say:
"If you haven't experienced this state of awareness, then it's impossible to fully explain in words."
-- you are negating discussion because
a) you assume I don't understand your perspective, and
you say you can't explain your perspective.

It's like discussing the taste of chocolate ice cream compared to that of strawberry, with someone who has never tasted ice cream.  It can't be done ... all you can do is impose your point of view on person #2, at the same time declaring that person #2 will not understand, anyway.

But don't assume I've never tasted ice cream *grin*

You do bring up some interesting points, however.  

"self-image is but a construct of the mind".
I agree.  Beyond that, what is and is not a construct of the mind?  Again we have an assumption, and that is as follows:  
that the expanded state of consciousness, which you feel you have experienced, is not a construct of the mind.  How do you justify this?  Simply saying "you can't understand" isn't valid.  

The sense of one-ness is found in Zen, Christianity, native/aboriginal lore and a multitude of other teachings.  Meditation, prayer, hallucinogens or combinations thereof are all conducive to the condition of an expanded state of consciousness, which might lead to the sense of one-ness that manifests as 'the  universe conscious of itself'.  Accounts of near-death experiences are also replete with the concept.  People in high fevers have also felt a state of expanded awareness.  How do we know that this is valid state of being as opposed to constructs of the mind?  

We don't.  We can only choose to believe that they exist outside so-called normal modes of consciousness, and that they are valid.  If you see a shadow and choose to believe it is a ghost, you will construct a reality based on that belief ... while in fact, the ghost remains a shadow and your construct of reality, while valid to you, is false because it is based on your assumption that you have seen a ghost.

If you believe you have experienced an enchanced state of consciousness beyond the constructs of the mind, you will create a set of logic patterns and a structure of reality which justifies that belief.  This negates the idea that the 'universe conscious of itself' is a condition beyond the constructs of the mind.

I agree with your views on confinement, even though you state at first that we are not aware of confines in normal modes of consciousness, and later that we are partially aware of them ... yes, we are aware of them, to varying degrees.

I do not, however, accept as validation the fact that you claim to have experienced transcendent states of consciousness.  

I might believe in a transcendent state of consciousness, but I don't hold it to be absolute.  I perceive it as such, but does that make it valid, any more than my perception of a shadow as a ghost makes it a ghost?  So I can't base my theories on my experience of expanded consciousness, because I can't know for certain whether it exists ... or whether it is a construct of my mind.  

The expanded state of consciousness is cross-cultural and documented throughout history; but, as you mathematically demonstrated, so is the program of the human mind; and therefore the constructs it creates must be similar.  I would be delighted if you would mathematically demonstrate how an expanded state of consciousness itself is not a figment of the imagination.

I realize this does not address the question of 'are we all the same I?' so much as it addresses theories of consciousness in general.  

However, one thing at a time, hmmmm?  

all the best,
Mira
ps I hope you aren't easily offended!

hello Mira,

Maybe this doesn't need to be said, but I'll say it anyway:  When I was looking over my reply just now, I realized that it could appear like I was 'baiting' people, though this was not my intention I assure you.  I was looking for unbiased critical feedback and really do appreciate the thoughtful feedback you provided.

thanks again,
Shawn

Oh, and here I thought you wanted a nice argument.  *sigh* Ah well.  

M.

hi Mira,

it's excellent discussing these things with you, because you're so very reasonable and thoughtful, and it's rare to find such qualities nowadays.

First, I'm glad you caught me on the following: "If you haven't experienced this state of awareness, then it's impossible to fully explain in words." -- you are negating discussion.   Indeed, and further, it's a little arrogant to make the argument that if you haven't experienced it, then you can't understand it.  I mean, certainly it may be true of some experiences, but I could've made a greater effort to explain this state of awareness instead of taking the easy path.

So, I will not assume that you have never tasted ice cream!

ok, I'm being somewhat facetious, but I will keep my assumptions in check.

You brought up near death experiences, which made me smile.  It would be an interesting thing, I think, to read accounts of other people's near death experiences.  It's said that what they experience is dependent on what they go in with.  So, if they go into this state with a christian background, then they'll likely see Jesus.  If they go in with a different background, they'll likely see someone else.  My background is Schopenhauer, Spinoza, Dhammapada, Nietzsche, and perhaps most important, the Bhagavad Gita.  And so I expect my background to have shaped my experiences to some extent.  I'm curious if you've ever experienced an NDE, and if so, what it was like for you?

I like what you say about beliefs, and certainly we can all-too-easily self-deceive ourselves into believing just about anything.  No doubt people can assume different forms and belief structures, often in a pragmatic vein, but they make it appear real to them, nonetheless.  Perhaps I believe I've experienced an enhanced state of consciousness, an overmind of sorts, and have created a set of logic patterns and a structure of reality which justifies that belief.  I admit I believe that, because I've experienced it.  The experience is the core of it, everything else is just rationalization.   Sure, there are different ways to rationalize experiences.  For example, I could've rationalized it by saying that all my life is just an evanescent dream, soon to be squelched forever by Time.  Or, I could've rationalized it by going into denial or repressing memories of my experiences.  But, I didn't do these things, and instead chose the rationalization that was most conducive to high-mindedness and religious feeling, and further, that didn't affront my intellect.

I don't understand why beliefs and rationalizations negate the idea that the 'universe is conscious of itself' is a condition beyond the constructs of the mind.  Perhaps the problem is how we're defining constructs of mind.  For me, constructs of mind are everything created by the mind, but this excludes pure, unreflective consciousness (aka the Tao, experiencing in the Here and Now).  Constructs of the mind, as I use the term, include the ego, reflective self-consciousness, thinking about the future or past, etc.   Now, it's true that even in the unreflective state of consciousness, you can say that what you're experiencing and perceiving are nothing more than constructs of the mind, in which case, the constructs are various perceptions, but that's not the sense in which I'm using the term.  In expanded states of unreflective consciousness, you have a feeling of oneness, vastness, and even more than that, you have a feeling, an intoxication, with Being.   This is very different from mundane ordinary reflective consciousness.  

Also, I'm not contradicting myself by saying 'we are the universe conscious of itself' (which could be rewritten as, we are the universe, self-conscious) and at the same time stating that the state of consciousness needed for this realization is a special sort of transcendent nonreflective consciousness, which rules out self-conscious states.  It's not a contradiction because the sense in which I use 'self' is different in the two cases.   In the former, it's a transcendent, nonreflective state of Being which we identify as the universe, hence 'we are the universe conscious of itself', and in the latter, 'self' refers to something altogether different (in most cases, the ego), and is experienced in the normal state of consciousness.

It's good that you don't accept as validation the fact that I claim to have experienced transcendent states of consciousness.  I would hope though, that people who've experienced similar things and come to similar realizations will recognize the validity in what I'm saying.   And this is not to say that I'm assuming anything about you, Mira.  Scepticism is a good thing sometimes, and I really admire and appreciate your critical thought.

my best,

Shawn

QUOTE

One of these days, I swear I'm going to write a book entitled 'The Wisdom of Life'.   Just curious what other people think such a book would contain.  Does anyone out there have any wisdom they'd like to impart to us?   Listening attentively, Shawn

To go back to the original discussion for a moment.....

I think such a book would contain page after page of blank pages - nothing written, nothing stated. The wisdom of life comes from living it, and each life is a different life. I cannot fully understand your life, as I don't live with your brain, your experiences, your interpretations, your understandings, etc. I can only hope to try to understand, while being influenced by all that is me as well. While you may give me some ideas on life, it cannot be my life.

The wisdom of my life comes from living it, learning it, breathing it.

All the best,
Peta.

hi Peta,
good point.  There is a saying of Lao Tzu (author of Tao Te Ching) in the Hua Hu Ching, "The greatest teachers have nothing to say since the highest teachings are wordless," that came to mind as I read thru your reply of there being only blank pages in 'The Wisdom of Life' book.  

Perhaps.

But it's also true that many of the greatest teachers have nonetheless tried to verbally impart their life wisdom to others, usually with the implicit belief that such life wisdom was universal, or at the very least, very general, and not just applicable or valid to just the teacher's life.  For example, Lao Tzu in the before-mentioned work develops his ideas of the Integral Way, which involves self-integration and self-transformation via experiencing the Tao.    In fact, anyone who teaches their own brand of ethics, from Buddha to Jesus, and Schopenhauer to Spinoza, is trying to verbally impart a life wisdom which they believe is valid for others as well.

Another example that's very relevant here:  In Schopenhauer's  book called 'The Wisdom of Life', he preaches his philosophy and the benefits of such a worldview:

"What one human being can be to another is not a very great deal: in the end every one stands alone, and the important thing is 'who' it is that stands alone.... 'Himself' is the source of the best and most a man can be or achieve.  The more this is so--the more a man finds his sources of pleasure in himself--the happier he will be....  Happiness depends on what a man has in himself."

Ok, besides his blatant and offensive sexism (he was a lifelong bachelor and something of a misogynist), I think there is certainly wisdom here.  Schopenhauer calls it 'The Wisdom of Life', not 'The Wisdom of My Life', and so it seems that he's making a claim for universality.

'Ethics', i.e., How one should live ones life, is very interesting indeed, and while, no doubt, there are things peculiar to a person's life, there's also a large degree of commonality between people, what they experience, and in particular, what it means to be human.  Hence, the idea of a universal Ethics or 'Wisdom of Life', valid for most or all people, seems like a worthy and very important ideal to strive towards.

Btw, Schopenhauer's proclamation that 'The World is My Idea!', which emphasizes the fact that the world we experience is our creation and our idea, was (back when i first read it in h.s.) and still is very influential, motivational, and wise on a personal level...  Along the same lines as Buddha's, 'All we are is the result of what we have thought, is made up of our thoughts' at the beginning of the Dhammapada.   I think such profound statements constitute a small piece of a vast system of ethics that would have validity and usefulness for many, many people.  And it's this vast system, this 'Wisdom of Life', that I'm interested in synthesizing and elucidating.

I liked it when you said, Peta, that 'the wisdom of my life comes from living it, learning it, breathing it', but I'd be interested in hearing about the wisdom you've acquired thru the years that would be valid for others as well, even if it's just limited to being valid for people in your particular situation or who experienced similar lives.

take care,

Shawn

from Mimi Palevac:

I acknowledge the privilege of being alive in a human body at this moment, endowed with senses, memories, emotions, thoughts, and the space of mind in its wisdom aspect.
It is the prayer of my innermost being to realize my supreme identity in the liberated play of consciousness, the Vast Expanse. Now is the moment, Here is the place of Liberation.

Witness the contents of mind, the visions and sounds, the thoughts, as clouds passing through the vast expanse - the sky-like nature of mind. The rootedness of Being is in emptiness, clarity and awareness: unborn, unspoilt, stainlessly pure.

The infinite vibratory levels, the dimensions of interconnectedness are without end. There is nothing independent. All beings and things are residents in your awareness.

I subject my awareness to the perfection of being, the perfection of wisdom and perfection of love, all of these being co-present in the Vast Expanse. I share this panorama of Being and appreciate all I can share it with...the seamless interweaving of consciousness with each moment.

Create perfection wherever you go with your awareness. That is why this teaching is admired by artists--they sense the correctness of the response to life as creative. Life is infinite creative play. Enjoyment and participation in this creative play is the artists profound joy. We co-author every moment with universal creativity.

To bare our souls is all we ask, to give all we have to life and the beings surrounding us. Here the nature spirits are intense and we appreciate them, make offerings to them--these nature spirits who call us here--sealing our fate with each other, celebrating our love.

I am an intersecting kaleidoscope of Being in a rainbow refractive wave pattern: a corpuscle of light on the ocean...the transparency of my body with the rocks...sometimes the only way to summarize my feelings is to draw--to collapse the frenzy in my limbs enough to make a mark out of profound appreciation for my existence.

Share your presence with others, no boundaries, completely openly lovingly. Love is what makes us alive, that is why we feel so alive when we love. Service is being available to love. Life is the combustion of love. That we love ourselves here, that is the true magnificence in the mountains of being. We are constantly drawing the line between love and not love--enter into the Non-duality Zone, and all judgements dissolve in the Vast Expanse.

It's as though we are co-conspirators of consciousness--everyone, everywhere, everywhen, mixing up our openable minds. It's as though we could gather clouds in the sky and people into our lives. Like an eruption of consciousness, we discover the most important force is love. Experience yourself as the Source and appreciate every moment as perfection. Sunrise--Sunset. Thank you, Thank you, Creator, profound unstoppable connectedness of all beings, pattern to everything, most radical no-thing, the Vast Expanse.

many get married because on a subconscious level (rarely does it reach the consious level), they expect fulfillment.  But this isn't the case.  Even after marriage, one hungers for utter fulfillment.  It cannot come thru marriage.   It must be sought for elsewhere

This is yet another interesting topic.
I think the reading of someone elses ideas on fundamental wisdom is well worth while. However, accepting that there is no point in 'reinventing the wheel a million times', the greatest satisfaction remains in the hands of those who can achieve an end point by themselves.

I summed this up in a poem some time ago, and copy it here for your consideration. It applies equally to Faith and wisdom, I think.

Some People

some people believe.
some people think they believe.
some people know they believe.
some people believe they know.
some people think they know.
some people know.

and those who know the truth
don't spoil it for the rest.
finding out oneself
is definitely best.

Best regards, Bill.

Well Rhymer, you seem to be trying to put a dampener on the usefulness of conveying the truth to everybody.

But I know that your real intention is to point out the simple fact that the truth may well be different for each person!

Finding out what other people think can, then,  be a real aid to finding out ones own Truth. It can remove some possibilities for oneself , and it can promote consideration of parallel or tangential thought processes.
The concept of universal conciousness may be too complicated for your simple mind, so why not consider the concept of your universal right thumb instead?

I hope you think you have made a contribution.

why can socrates, the wise philosopher,  express his idea or philosophy so easily and clearly yet we have to make philosophy "extremely" difficult to understand?  Are we so much smarter than him or are we just playing words? after reading some of shawn's writings, i feel a sense of romanticism in  his heart. Nature is beautiful but the one thing that elevate us above other animals are the understanding of it. it's the invisible laws that create the visible nature are the most beautiful not in appearence but in the reason behind it and how by understanding these invisible laws like gravity, we as human being can make the lives of human beings much easier and less laborious. wisdom is the understanding of these creative power and to use it for the good of humanity. a wise man during hitler's time who didn't revolt or didn't share his knowledge against hitler is useless no matter how smart he is.the true beauty is the life of heroes who died for the good of his fellow humans, whose wisdom careless the enjoyment of selfish desires. even socrates himself never call himself wise. he teach and do what is right. and his heroic death and his ideas are eternal beauty.