Living Through Others

Someone once described real living and life as being able to relate to your surroundings which included the people around you.

"it's only when i lose myself in someone else, that i find myself" -david gahan, Depeche Mode.

Originally posted by Itisnowagain

Peace watching the sound and fury is sweet music. It is the universal song.
The one verse - universe.

I currently enjoy being part of the music. Being an actor as well as observer. Engaging in the process.

You say peace is overrated but you spoke earlier about the 'stable I'.
A 'stable I' to me is peace (or okness) - what does 'stable' mean to you?

What I meant by it being overrated is that though a person can go through a phase of searching or desiring that experience,
I do not think it is the "end all" of existence.
It is nice to stand still, it is nice to observe, it is nice to take breather from the waves,
But it is also nice to jump in and ride them again, to be a participant, be the energy, have one foot on the shore and another in the waves, so that the action is simply slowed down- not stopped.

If total peace is what you crave, there is nothing wrong with that, and I do not suggest there is.

I simply state, that I do not wish to limit my experience only to that.
Yes, it is valuable to find and develop an "I", but no, I see no reason to cling to it. "Not I" is just as interesting.

Originally posted by Bluesma


If total peace is what you crave, there is nothing wrong with that, and I do not suggest there is.

I simply state, that I do not wish to limit my experience only to that.
Yes, it is valuable to find and develop an "I", but no, I see no reason to cling to it. "Not I" is just as interesting.

edit on 21-7-2013 by Bluesma because: (no reason given)

Peace is what the separate self craves because it does not know it - when one is divided, one is conflicted. The separate self feels uncomfortable and is always trying to do it right (by choosing) - it seeks comfort because it is uncomfortable, not at ease.
It is the separate 'I' that clings and rejects, it wants and does not want.

Oneness has no separation and is peace itself because there is never any conflict. Experiences arise and subside in the emptiness (peace) that I am.
What is = what is.
It is the separate self that wants something different and is always reaching for other than what is - the separate self cannot be at peace because it rejecting what is in favour of what isn't - that very act is conflict.

Originally posted by Bluesma
Yes, it is valuable to find and develop an "I", but no, I see no reason to cling to it. "Not I" is just as interesting.

I do not think it is wise to develop an 'I'. What is it anyway?
When you say 'not I' do you mean someone else? Or do you mean having no identity?

Originally posted by Bluesma

You say peace is overrated but you spoke earlier about the 'stable I'.
A 'stable I' to me is peace (or okness) - what does 'stable' mean to you?

What I meant by it being overrated is that though a person can go through a phase of searching or desiring that experience, I do not think it is the "end all" of existence.

I was wondering what you mean by 'stable I'?

Originally posted by Bluesma
As I am reveling in my discovery of how to find stability in an "I", you seem to be reveling in the way out you found.

What does 'stability' mean to you?

Peace is not an experience, peace is the emptiness in which all experiences arise and subside. The desire or search for peace is never peaceful - it is seeking. The seeking is the disturbance.
The only thing worth seeking is the cessation of seeking.

Originally posted by Itisnowagain


I do not think it is wise to develop an 'I'. What is it anyway?
When you say 'not I' do you mean someone else? Or do you mean having no identity?

It is the perception that there is an individual, that is separate from the others, or from an environment. It is having an identity.
"Not I" or as is sometimes termed "Other" or "non-self" refers to all that is not identified with as self- other entities, objects, events, environments...



Whether you consider it wise or not, you obviously have this as you just used the word "I" and expressed having an opinion or preference, as well as perception of a "you" (a separate entity).

The experience of having no identity is almost impossible to sustain if language is used, because language forces the mind to separate concepts in this way. When people are mute, or when they are babies, that which is observed and observer is not separate. In my mute years, I was very deeply entrenched in this perception. It is Oneness.

When one uses language, a sort of flickering back and forth can happen- while you are silent, the line is not clear, then when you bring in language, it becomes clear there is separation, but even then sometimes who is what gets confused. One can identify with others as if they were self, and become detached from their own biological and psychological functions .

Originally posted by Itisnowagain

I was wondering what you mean by 'stable I'?

A sense of identity, to which one can attach and return to. As in my above reply- having a concept of "I", with various attributes, characteristics, intents, preferences, opinions.... that even when the lines disappear and all is one, separation can can be attained again, and the same identity be returned to.

A lack of a stable ego is when one tries to use language and percieve through separation, but has no preferences , opinions, characteristics, they identify with. If you ask that person what they want, what they think, what they like, they can only say "I don't know", and that void acts as a vacuum which simply reflects the desires, preferences etc. of whoever is in the physical vicinity at the moment.

What does 'stability' mean to you?

Similarities between moments. Not lack of movement (complete repetition) but for changes to happen slow enough to allow for perception of an identity with a trajectory of evolution.

I am not seeking anything, I simply am playing with existence, in joy.

Originally posted by Bluesma

Whether you consider it wise or not, you obviously have this as you just used the word "I" and expressed having an opinion or preference, as well as perception of a "you" (a separate entity).

I is one. I expressed that it does not need developing.

Originally posted by Itisnowagain
I do not think it is wise to develop an 'I'.

The separate self, however, is divided and feels the need to be more.

Originally posted by Itisnowagain

I is one. I expressed that it does not need developing.
I do not think it is wise to develop an 'I'.

Well, it has developed. I guess you mean you did not make any conscious choices in it's development- you let others do that? (parents, other people in your environment as a child?)

Perhaps I cannot make comment on that. I was largely neglected and without much acknowledgment from my environment and others when little- I needed to make conscious choices of what I was and was not, to have a sense of identity. From listening to the experiences of others who had lots of interaction with others as a child, it seems they often desire to exit or exchange that identity that was given them, for one they form themself anyway (even with the difficulty that poses...).

The separate self, however, is divided and feels the need to be more.

Hm. Interesting. I do not experience that.

My self doesn't feel the need to be "more" as in accumulation or expansion... my sense of self is pretty stable and okay with that at this time, though in some earlier years, I remember feeling a desire to be "better" in certain ways, to develop certain skills or knowledge.... but I didn't identify with those skills, abilities or knowledge as being my self- simply as experiences available to that self.

The characteristics of ego change, which is not really an accumulation because as one characteristic is born, another is separated from (I experience more of this and less of that).

I realize that change happens even if I do not navigate (which you have pointed out), but at this time I have fun and enjoy navigating a bit- looking around and seeing what possibilities there are, of experience and choosing experiences.

This is where the experiences of others come in handy. Without conscious navigation, the subconscious ego (whether it is one that was formed and developed purposely by your entourage or by your bodies' experience of nature) will only be drawn to familiar experiences- recreating what it already knows.
In exchange with other, the mind is opened to novelty and previously unknown possibilities for experience.



General consciousness, I experience, searches expansion and discovery, exploration of unknown, but my ego, my self, my identity, is an attachment to concepts which on the contrary, tends towards known elements for that experience of stability. This is why I don't feel it necessary or important to remain in that self perception at all times, that would severly limit change. An anchor is nice to return to between trips, but a prison if never left!

reply to post by Bluesma

Originally posted by Itisnowagain
I is one. I expressed that it does not need developing.
I do not think it is wise to develop an 'I'.

Well, it has developed. I guess you mean you did not make any conscious choices in it's development- you let others do that? (parents, other people in your environment as a child?)

Perhaps I cannot make comment on that. I was largely neglected and without much acknowledgment from my environment and others when little- I needed to make conscious choices of what I was and was not, to have a sense of identity. From listening to the experiences of others who had lots of interaction with others as a child, it seems they often desire to exit or exchange that identity that was given them, for one they form themself anyway (even with the difficulty that poses...).

I didn't fit in as a child in the family unit and it made me try to fit with people to connect to people because I had a very isolating childhood. The trying to fit in with others is what develops - fitting into an toxic family makes one have to play the game - one is shaped to fit. That shape does not fit anywhere else but in that family. That family is not what surrounds me now.
That shape that formed was not my true shape. A shape will not fit. Each individual has a certain shape or form that they hold together - it makes then not fit everywhere they go.
Being shapeless allows one to flow with all that is, any expression can happen - there is nothing fixed..

Have you ever seen the film 'The Golden Compass'? It just came to mind.

Originally posted by Itisnowagain

I didn't fit in as a child in the family unit and it made me try to fit with people to connect to people because I had a very isolating childhood. The trying to fit in with others is what develops - fitting into an toxic family makes one have to play the game - one is shaped to fit. That shape does not fit anywhere else but in that family. That family is not what surrounds me now.
That shape that formed was not my true shape. A shape will not fit. Each individual has a certain shape or form that they hold together - it makes then not fit everywhere they go.
Being shapeless allows one to flow with all that is, any expression can happen - there is nothing fixed..

Have you ever seen the film 'The Golden Compass'? It just came to mind

I have tried to watch that movie many times and once I got bored and drifted of to do other things, other times I fell asleep. I guess I never got as far as the good parts (because I have heard many say it is good).

If I understand you correctly, I would want to point out that many people form themselves into a identity that does not "fit in" anywhere, with anyone- on purpose. They like to be "different", or the black sheep in the crowd, and are the kind of people who will repeat mantras such as "I would rather be hated for what i am, than loved for what I am not!"

They assume that there is some sort of "true" shape to their identity, that transcends this world. I don't feel real confident in that idea.

There are other people who do the opposite- they are chameleons. My genetic father is like that- he becomes different in front of each person. His opinions, ideals, intents and preferences change according to those in front of him. It is not fake either! He is completely in the moment- with no one around he is without identity and loses all track of time (and his phone, his keys, his hat, come to think of it ) He is an excellent salesman.

I have observed these different choices of being and their benefits and problems, and decided I would like to do something in between- have a stable character with some base framework of morals, ethics, and ideas, that remains the same always, so that others can recognize it from one moment to another.

This aids them to feel comfortable with me- there is a predictability to my responses that allows them a bit of control over their experience with me. Whether they consider it a "good" or "bad" character is not important. What helps them is knowing what they are going to get with me.

This finally made sense to me when working with training horses and dogs- I realized that as long as you are consistant in your way of being, they will feel safe with you. They can learn and know your "system" and navigate their way within it- this gives them some individual power over their own experience. I found people are the same; it is in our physical programming.

Of course it also has that stability benefit for me- a point of perception I can return to, even after traveling into the eyes of others, that mental container for consciousness always brings it back eventually.

But some flexibility and ability to relate to others I also like to experience and find it has many benefits, as we have discussed here- not only pragmatically for relational exchange, but for me to discover unknown and novelty.

Originally posted by Bluesma
"I would rather be hated for what i am, than loved for what I am not!"

I am what I am and what I am needs no excuses.



I don't think anyone chooses.