You are hereForums / Duality / POSSIBILITIES, in the Radius of the Three Contexts of Appearance. Part Three

POSSIBILITIES, in the Radius of the Three Contexts of Appearance. Part Three

7 replies [Last post]
RichardMiller's picture
User offline. Last seen 4 weeks 3 days ago. Offline
Joined: 09/20/2009

Here are the links of the introduction and discussion of the context of the Individual,

and the second part of the context of the World.


We did arrive at some very clear propositions in these earlier threads.  If it has proven difficult for you to work through them, a SUMMARY is in order.  I’ll recapitulates our starting point and our three ground assumptions (axioms).

I could speak at length about gaining empowerment in the contexts of the individual (which includes mastery of the emotional equation) and the context of the world.  I realise that my ideas are a maximum challenge to the held beliefs of transformation.  It is very difficult entertain such a simplification that might make previous philosophies obsolete.  Hence the limited participation.  For instance, believing in transformation, requires the acceptance of “Levels of Being”, since in order to transform, you must move from “there to here”.  What if there are no levels?  If This is IT?

1.  I chose three contexts where all people spend most of their time.  What else is worthy of discussion?  Actually we are each always:

 • an individual, with the challenges of relationship and self-esteem.

 • in the world, with the challenges to meet legal, economic and perhaps ongoing physical conflicts or war.

 • and we always live in a context of possibility for growth and knowing.

A central theme of my writing, and what is up for discussion here, is that our abilities in each of these domains depends on our linguistic viewpoint, and what we believe is possible in our life.  And it depends on our willingness to examine that, (just call it our self-talk).  This is especially obvious in the individual and world domains and it is true in the beginning with the domain of possibilities.  The domain of possibilities, must also have the possibility that this linguistic link is not totally true, or it would not really be a domain of ALL possibilities.  

Some people might be saying that this third domain trumps the other two, and that by entering into this domain, you resolve all problems in the other two.  I would hasten to observe that you don’t really resolve anything, if you are still carrying your old verbal baggage.  You just avoid the feelings of urgency, and of course your conditions in domain one and two continue to deteriorate. Some of our discussions could be reserved for this third domain, (which is this discussion here), such as from the above posts:

 • Epistemology, knowledge - how do we know what we know

 • Metaphysics = Non dual existence

 • Axiology, value & beauty

Values should be included somewhere, because what is the point of being human, if it is not to live a better life?

2.  We noted above the (my) desire to avoid basing discussions on collective concepts, like “the Mind”, that make for a catchall term of our functions of mentality.  We can find links between thoughts, words, memories, emotions and anxiety, but using an invented concept like mind obscures all these links, and substitutes more conceptual and invented “tendencies” that are not really verifiable.

We also noted that Memory is the father/mother of all human creativity, and without the notion of a past, thoughts and words would probably just circulate on a few hundred grunts and moans that gave hunter/gatherers their level of cooperation.  Something like the thoughts and speech of a pack of wolves.

Let’s go back to the three fundamental assumptions:

I.  Something is here, and we can perceive something about it, some of the times, (if it is in our window of human perceptions).  I also said that we can’t know what percent of our perception is our own interpretation and what part is actually the perceived, but they are inexorably mixed.  The interpretation fraction is what makes this medium “virtual”.

II.  Then we could say the fundamental ability in any context, is the ability to play/create in this virtual world of communication and language.   The reason that it can be moulded and “evolved” is only because it has a virtual component. It is fixed only to our dreams and imagination, but we are acknowledging that these are the building blocks of ourselves and the world as we know them.

III.  Then any worthy philosophy adds to our ability to believe we are doing good in life (with synergy in all three contexts).  A pseudo philosophy degrades our ability to believe we can direct our life in these three contexts. A pseudo philosophy may offer us only the excuses, so that we can learn to stomach what doesn’t work about our life.  It might also numb certain feelings, to make us believe that the philosophy is working.

Arriving at any ability in axiom II. requires that we are able to recognise and deconstruct any faulty or possibly faulty philosophies, (of axiom III.).  It seems better to streamline and simplify philosophies, if at all possible.

Your rating: None
RichardMiller's picture
User offline. Last seen 4 weeks 3 days ago. Offline
Joined: 09/20/2009
How do we know what we know?

1. I spoke of this in my very first post.  It starts with perception through the human sense organs.  Can there be perceptions without sense organs, or without a history (memory) of perceptions through sense organs?  Just because a question can be imagined, it does not mean that it can be answered.  This is a question that can never be answered because we don’t know anyone without sense organs.  If we did, they would be in no position to answer the question, so it is not worth considering.

What are some basics of life, based on perception? 

 • Something exists.

 • Perception of what exists is an unknown mix of the existential and what we think about it.

 • Life is always moving, (a perception) , death is always still, (an assumption).

 • Life is a multiplicity, (a perception).

What are the basics of life, based on assumptions?

 • If nothing exists, then perceptions can’t exist, (but they do exist).

 • There seems to be no way to get outside of perceptions to verify what they are.

 • Those that got out of perception have nothing to say about it, so they haven’t verified anything either.

 • We can never know what part of our perceptions are existing and what part are interpretation, (repeat from above).

 • Interpretations tend to verify themselves as real.

 • At least the interpretation part of perception could be classified as illusion, or virtual.

 • It must take constant movement to sustain life.

 • Movement presupposes space to move in, and time to move within, therefore life only exists within space/time.

 • It must take that multiplicity of life to benefit all, and make nature work, since it is all here and in a sustainable balance.

What are the basics of  life, based on preferences?

 • That Life is valuable.

 • That Multiplicity is valuable.

 • Perceptions different from my own should be honoured.

The Three Contexts of Appearance (topic of these discussions) are perceived, which indicates that they are perceived by humans each standing in one or more of the three contexts.  The view from each context is different, but the life that is receiving those perceptions is valuable. Therefore it can be considered that each context is necessary (and valuable) to the whole.

2. Metaphysics = Non dual existence?

I believe that all humans will land on some world view, some philosophy or belief structure, whether formally adopted, or just mimicked unconsciously from observing how others live.  If we recognise that we have had this world view for a long time, it means that we don’t reconsider it often, and probably it is out of date.  How do we get these philosophies, what purpose are they supposed to fulfil, and are they doing a good job?  What is the effect on my life of having one philosophy over another one?

We can inspect our beliefs to see if they arrived through perceptions, or if they are assumptions and/or logical extensions.  If we can rebuild our ideas purely on our present level of perceptions, not someone else’s, then they are authentic to us.  That was one of our premises from above, that perceptions coming from each point of view have their value to the whole.  So we can live life from how we see it (in each moment) and not be concerned about a conventional wisdom from the experts.

Let’s look at Non-duality, is it a perception or a assumption?  It seems to be another zone where perception and interpretation are inexorably mixed.  If non duality is a perception that you can’t say anything about, then it is purely subjective, and maybe at the level of a dream remembrance.  If you can say that you had such an experience, it must be in the memory, so the cognitive elements are involved in it.

Maybe there will be comments on philosophy, and the value of the non-dual.  So I will not expand these ideas here.

3.  What is beauty, what are values?

I believe that values are already in the equation, from what I said above about everybody already landing on a world view.  But also, it should-be in the equation.  We are all here to live better.  Even the suicide bomber thinks his act will allow his family or village to (eventually) live better. Values are how we measure what is better.

Let’s see what others think?

RichardMiller's picture
User offline. Last seen 4 weeks 3 days ago. Offline
Joined: 09/20/2009
Deconstructing Beliefs

I asked a few question above, that maybe we will get to answering.

  • How do we get these philosophies, 
  • What purpose are they supposed to fulfil, and 
  • Are they doing a good job?  
  • What is the effect on my life of having one philosophy over another one?

1. So far I am laying out some groundwork assumptions that will let us proceed.  We have some who have read, but nobody is objecting, nobody is agreeing nor suggesting modifications.  That’s a curiosity?

  • Maybe people are not use to thinking in this way?
  • They have their views, but haven’t considered where they come from.
  • Maybe they believe that they don’t have (or there are no) ground views that formulate their belief system?
  • Maybe they think there is nobody here to have a ground view, (but that deeply mystifies the 8 billion different experiences of life).
  • They might think that what they know comes from experience.
  • But we have said that experience is inexorably mixed with a world view.
  • Perhaps they reject that too.

It is said that when I don’t think of “anything”, such and so happens, saying “experiencing the absence of self-talk is to experience an absence of anxiety, dissatisfaction, or any sense of insufficiency.”  (That’s very Nice, but not the only way to get there).  “I don't view silence as concept but as experience, a simple perception, not verbal construct”.

Nether am I saying silence is a verbal construct.  I am saying that within that silence, there is a “you” present, that is built on verbal constructs. This “you” colours the experience of that silence.  Therefore if there is a difference, it is in quantity, not quality. The quality of humanness remains essentially the same in silence and in noise.  Someone else might say that there is a You present, but that is the pure and perfect you.  If it is inaccessible (you can't know it), then what is the use?  It becomes just another concept.


2. If someone is living perfectly satisfied with their philosophy, or their belief that they do not have a philosophy, what is that to me?  I have no comment.  I don’t have to interfere with how they live.

If someone is writing, then another is reading. They are looking for something that they believe is not yet fully integrated with their life.

  • They heard that it promises relief.
  • Or they get personal glimpses but don’t get any benefit by it (nothing seems to change with the bad feelings)
  • Or they believe that they have arrived, but they must maintain the excuse that this awakening doesn’t “make me a good person”.

This is a different group of people that may not benefit from a “push” toward adopting or verifying established beliefs.  Maybe they could learn how to deconstruct beliefs, and start over each day with innocent eyes.

I could deconstruct metaphysics here, or I could open it to doubt and discovery.  I could make alternative structures that don’t rely on any hidden meanings (magic), and see how that changes things.  Perhaps a simpler structure will give a quicker and more authentic realisation.

Authentic means taking ownership.  You can never be jogged off of what you truly know.  It is very stable.

RichardMiller's picture
User offline. Last seen 4 weeks 3 days ago. Offline
Joined: 09/20/2009
What purpose are philosophies supposed to fulfil?

Some conditions of mankind are self evident.   We live together, and sometimes we cooperate and sometimes we conflict.

In past eras conquest was thought of as a good thing.  It was a way to steal resources, get slaves (free labor as a way to create a surplus), and ensure a buffer zone to control possible marauders.  Much later the powerful opted for the benefits of trade over conquest, because then the flow of wealth could be ongoing.  Whereas if you killed your enemy, taking their wealth was a onetime thing.

From these basic decisions mankind has decided on a cooperation model as the ideal.  The more aggressive model is still in place with the excuse that “they started it first, and now we have to put an end to it”.

Whatever the model of the times, a philosophy is landed upon that supports that model.  If the world model is now cooperation, philosophy and morals need to support cooperative actions.  Such actions depend upon a sense of justice, and a balance of personal emotions.

1. Our society is based upon a high percentage of compliance to the basic behaviours that are required to make it work.  Therefore the first purpose of a philosophy of cooperation is that it is our job to manage our feelings.  This must be done (as I said, in the high 90’s %) without outside intervention.

2. At any one moment we are immersed in circumstances that may or may not appear to be just.  There may or may not seem to be a rational path to change that situation.  Still, it is our job to construct a version of ourselves that feels alright, and that we can live with.

Relevant benchmarks of the effectiveness of that story are the measure of how many of our skills can still be developed to eventually achieve our goals, and how much we have had to resign ourselves to giving up those dreams.  This is acknowledged to be relative to who is currently running society.  If you hold up a cardboard sign in the square and get put into a torture dungeon for 20 years, you have to learn to act accordingly.  That kind of extreme is not happening to those that are reading this thread, but it does happen.

3.  When questioning the value of a philosophy you can notice if it is empowering or debilitating in moving forward with the rest of your agenda.  Sometimes it is thought to be empowering to be angry.  The pumped up adrenaline makes you feel strong.  Perhaps it is true that you have a higher breakthrough strength.  But you are also prone to impulsive and non thought out actions. So you expend a great break through energy on a misguided project.  You do great damage and build great resentment.  Besides, you needlessly consume your body with the poisonous chemicals that the body manufactures to fire up that fervour.

If you are fortunate enough to live in some middle ground life-style you will probably notice that a more even emotional level will offer you maximum clarity on any course of action.  It will also give you an excess of long term energy, and the possibility to apply it in a steady effective manner.  You will build relations of trust, and the cooperation will multiply your actions.

4.  Emotional balance is assumed or demanded, but is it effectively taught, or are the tools supplied to make your own philosophical adjustments?

If we are emotionally out of the ordinary, we don’t get the job, or we are put into prison.  Is it enough just to assume everyone will manage themselves, and punish the deviants?  

How do we get these philosophies?  This opens the question of how do we learn?  If this training is left to the parent, obviously many parents are unbalanced themselves, and have no hope to instruct their children.

  • The first mode of learning has got to be unconscious emulation.  Copy what seems to be going on around you, even if you never articulate it.
  • Learning in school can start with seed ideas, but memorising or repeating take us only so far.  Learning must be proven in experience, or be modifiable to fit with personal experience.  How many things that you have learned have never born up under real life scrutiny?   The learning was flawed. The philosophy might also have an addendum that says, “things don’t appear as they are”.  That may be enough for people to believe in their wild deviations.
  • A third stage of learning is when you are empowered to set up your own experiments, and see for yourself.  You have to create a metric to conduct any experiment.  Usually the simpler the metric the better. You have to be somewhat aware of your ground assumptions, So that you don't just get more of the same.

Can we get the “experience” that we are more empowered in life with more emotional balance?  I am sure that we can.

5.  Are these philosophies doing a good job?  

  • to Manage our feelings
  • to Construct a version of ourselves that we can live with
  • to Ensure that it empowers our agenda instead of debilitates our agenda

Some of these questions will require subjective answers.  I propose that we can look at the world situation to see the reflection of our collective personal lives.  If that can be accepted as the symbol of our philosophies, I think we will agree that they are a horrible failure on all three of these points.  We can always point the finger to the other guy.  In fact, many philosophies have the definitions of good and evil.  Those are the philosophies of permanent war and domination.

Much can be gotten away with because of the permanent state of fear that they instil.  Fear is a very bad advisor, so situations must continually degrade.  Perhaps this is the philosophical law of entropy, things always get worse.

We would have to adopt the ideal that man is more than his deeds, if we ever wanted to reverse this degradation.

6.  What about in the third context of the realm of possibilities?  Of course it is man the individual that is in this context.  Society is not “in this context”, but it is only a reflection of the men that have reached new possibilities.

So far growth and knowing have impacted some parts of human existence, and other parts seem untouched.  Well, they are altered too, from my first paragraphs about systematic conquest and genocide, but I guess that it is too slow for much of our liking.

I suppose much more can be said about these questions on philosophy.

We can also imagine the effect of different philosophies on our lives and actions.  Just read any history.  We can talk more about it.

RichardMiller's picture
User offline. Last seen 4 weeks 3 days ago. Offline
Joined: 09/20/2009
What is the effect on life of having one philosophy or another

(Answering more questions from above.)  

Let’s look at some components of a possible philosophy, and calculate their immediate effects.

1.  Probably one of the biggest ones is the belief of the existence of an “Ultimate Reality” as a part of our philosophy.  This is just a logical extension isn’t it? If there can be “better” then there must be the possibility of the “best”.  No evidence for an ultimate reality whatsoever.

  • Immediately we believe that “This (here) Cannot be It”.
  • Now we have another place to get to, and a means to denigrate our present experience.
  • Now we have a focus of dissatisfaction instead of satisfaction.
  • Now we develop the explanation that this Ultimate can never be known.
  • But still we think that we can approach it more closely.
  • Making this our lifetime work eliminates time for more practical endeavours that have been frustrating us for a long time.
  • We do feel somewhat better by denying the importance or reality of those frustrations.  This might be our only reward, a selfishly considered exclusive benefit.

2.  We notice that in times of stillness or reduced thoughts, both cognition and the body (thought and feeling) can soar into periods of relative reverie.

  • We build a myth that stillness is a place where we can live more often, and the more the better. (Same thing if stillness is always here, we want to visit it more often.)
  • That it is possible to be in the world but not of the world.
  • We further this myth saying that some (gurus, masters, adepts) never come out of stillness, even though there is no evidence of this, and actually contrary indications in the drama that so often surrounds these people.
  • We use these myths to continually run away from having an “ordinary life in a normal world”.
  • We use these myths as a nearly perfect insulator from world pain.
  • We are not active in the stewardship of our planet, and fabricate a fantasy that our “high vibration” is so very beneficial to all forms of life.

3.  If we are happy with this construction, that’s fine?

But still there is an overwhelming confusion about this with those that are still struggling to achieve it.  In these people this kind of philosophy adds to the suffering and the dysfunction of the world.

Perhaps they are the focus of the message in these posts.

4.  So what’s an alternative that produces less side effects?  (Remember, these are all just stories, nothing more.)  But story appears to be one of the main drivers of human action and society’s structure.  Let’s consider some building blocks of a simpler philosophy.

  • Perceptions are as trustworthy as we can get, to collect the evidence.
  • Assumptions and basic logic are how we make some order and priority out of those perceptions.
  • There is little or no necessity for testimony (hearsay) from experts, since that is one level farther down on the trustworthy scale.


  • We have thoughts, which we can manipulate with words.
  • We have emotions which seem related to thoughts, although unclear which direction is causative.  The experiment here is to see if it’s the words that are causative.
  • If we feel bad enough we finally take action, so feelings author actions.
  • We might even get used to always feeling bad (anger for instance) thinking that with anger we are empowered into stronger action.
  • (Please don’t misunderstand me, I am talking about suffering, not about going to a picnic because you are happy).

Sure there can be some dead ends in this method.

  • We might surmise in this new philosophy that we have a cognitive danger-recognition system.  
  • This sets off thoughts of fear.  
  • The fear creates bad feelings.
  • The feeling causes action, fight, flight or freeze.


  • When the danger signals go down, the feeling softens.
  • If the danger alarm rests, then the body is by its nature a pleasant place to be. (Bliss)

Now instead of inventing a “level of higher vibration” where the awakened hang out, we just say that this pleasantness is inherent in an untroubled body. Nothing hidden is needed.

5. Now what to do with these tools (from this simplified philosophy)?

Let’s question what are the limits of this danger alarm?  If we go too far into urgency, it can become uncomfortable and maybe a health hazard.  So let’s explore the limits in relaxing the danger alarm.  Meditation and stillness could even be part of this investigation.  For sure it takes a pause to find something new.

You can also notice that self-talk is an interpretation, and it has a rather wide range of constriction built into it.  Try some different verbiage with more room for you to manoeuvre.  I say that you can’t help but notice that anxiety goes down.  How far can you take that experiment to reduce tension?  Why not every day for the rest of your life?  So far it has been limitless.

No hidden worlds are required.  If a hidden world pops up, just use your technique of a wider interpretation to lower the fear factor, and use words to give yourself more room to manoeuvre in that world too.

Will you get to the same spaces that you claim to be getting to through negation and claiming illusion?  It must be better, because it is not a pyramid balanced on its point.  It cannot topple over, because it is built on a strong foundation of meaningful words, and experiences that back them up.

RichardMiller's picture
User offline. Last seen 4 weeks 3 days ago. Offline
Joined: 09/20/2009
Why do I say everyone lands on a philosophy?

First thing to notice, is there is an overwhelming tendency to “understand” through an explanation.  I propose that the drive to explain is caused by a feeling.  If we are uncertain, it is also an uneasy feeling.  When we come to agree on an explanation, we can feel more secure, and solid.  This is the difference between expanded and grounded.  A creative life is a balance between more and less of this grounding. It is subjective and made up, but it is whatever allows us feel at ease.

1. Man’s first  philosophies are probably based on “what you see is what you get”.  We live in a certain window of  perception, and a certain belief of how it all works.  We strive to explain life to ourselves using these parameters.

Man’s past explanations could have been (what we think of now as) the most absurd of constructs.  There can be different kinds of gods, talking animals and talking mountains, or a string of guilt from a series of past lives unknown to us.  As absurd as it gets, people in a couple hundred years from now may likely judge our concepts of operating life as the same or worse.

These absurd notions may have us doing rain dances, sacrificing our first born at the alter of blood letting, selling our daughters to the king, staging crusades of genocide and enslavement, or whatever.  Maybe we are trampling on other people so we can collect slips of green paper, or we divide people into tribute payers and tribute receivers.  But these are our philosophies, and they dictate our actions.

2.  We can also examine some modern-day notions that underpin how we think.  (Maybe you have successfully exited from these contexts, but picture if the following scenario is not a world condition.)  As a child you might have had a conversion similar to this.

“Ma, what’s there to do?  You could read a book.  No I don’t have any good books.  You could ride your bicycle.  Where would I go?  You could go play with your friends.  I don’t have any good friends.”

a) You came to the conclusion that some parts of your life are not enjoyable, and you have to subordinate those parts to some preferable future, that may (sooner or later) come about.  But you have no tools nor methodology to develop a vision of that future, nor to (joyfully) work toward that accomplishment.

b) Perhaps we came to believe that we must be subjected to an education of endless memorising and regurgitating of facts unrelated to our present life, and that we were most often chastised for not doing well enough.  Maybe we were a failure, but we still believe that is how you get educated?  We even subject our own children to the same regimen.

Furthermore, industry is saying that these people are not educated enough to want to hire them.  That learning happens through doing and discovering. Not through memorising and regurgitating.

c) It’s no wonder that we may have built a deep belief in living for the future.  Present time is good for nothing.  We live only for the dream.  It is a life of only thoughts and even our feelings are produced by dreams, and not by reality.  The real life is a downer, producing only stultifying feelings.  We truly wish to escape from life in this moment.  Wow, what a state of affairs, and most of the time we don’t even know how to articulate a vision of this future.  All we can say is that, “then” everything will be alright, (and only if we are optimistic).  But how can that ever possibly happen?

With these arbitrarily created verbal structures we have built a life based on:

  • Postponing and subordinating great periods of our life for some unknown future. Taken to a logical conclusion we have made up heaven, hell and an afterlife.
  • A dysfunctional education system that is most unpalatable, with mottos like “no-pain, no-gain”.
  • And we have instilled the importance of hope and dreams as the only things worth living for. There is a huge “entertainment industry” to help us forget our communal misery.

When hopes and dreams are our major preoccupation, it becomes difficult to discern the difference between thought and reality.  With this perfect detachment from existence, philosophies are free to roam the farthest reaches of our imagination.  Can they possibly help in a practical sense with daily life?

If these sour principles underpin our philosophies and world views, how can we ever create a life that transcends these limitations?  The only way is to jump completely out of this life.


3. ENTER NON-DUALITY, solidly purposed only to explain away the limited thinking exposed above.  My main objection is that this complicated explanation is built to jump completely out of limitations of life that do not exist.  Now everything that we normally SEE as real, is judged as an illusion.  Our sense perceptions are all skilfully stood on their head.  What we see as obviously true is not only false, but ALL FALSE.  

WHY?  I guess because we have made a name for it.  Somehow naming is supposed to make the world into a fantasy creation.  Reality is just one-unit with no separation, (I mean if that is the case, why come up with the concept of a UNIT?)  Now the real world is supposed to be a NO-THING, and often confused for a nothing.  I am not real.  So what does that say about you?  What does it say about the world?  To hell with the world, and to hell with you. You are all fake illusions and not mine to be concerned about.  (No wonder the world spins into TILT, if no-one is stewarding the situation, except for a few nefarious gentlemen.)

4. NEGATIVE DISCOVERY:  If I can’t discover what I am directly, wouldn’t it be the same to discover what I am not?  Let’s take a look if the mechanism is the same.

  • Some part of my body goes missing, but I am unchanged.  I wasn’t that part of body.
  • Some of my memories are lost, but I feel the same, so I wasn’t those memories.
  • Some of my thoughts have changed for new ones, so I wasn’t those old thoughts.  
  • I find that there are changes in my body, mind, thoughts, memories, emotions, how I see things, health, things I own, people, facts, stories, relationships, circumstances, and conditions, so I wasn’t any of those relationships, or whatever.

Each time i justify jettisoning something, well, any pain associated with that thing is effectively numbed.  So it does have some function.  

How far should I go with this?  It could get tiring, but I could just make a leap of faith, and say, why not all?  “I am nothing”.  I am consciousness. True, some say “I am everything” but at the same time they like the nothing route too, (no obligations are there).

An overarching concept of this method is that in order for a thing to possess reality, it has to have concrete “thingness”, some kind of locatable substance.  (Where is the “I”?)  What if the I is a matrix of individual possibility?  It contains nodes of personal memory of a history, and personal bodily memory of contractions related so some of those memories.  It also contains memories of bodily opening related to other of these memories.  It contains nodes of thinking, emoting, procreating, using a language. These patterns are also mutable, verified if you’ve ever run some personal experiments to demonstrate it.

Then what is the role of mystery in the person?  It is OK if our life is dedicated to the experiment of opening.  Let each quantum of mystery rest until its appropriate time to unfold.

If we take Nisargadatta’s famous quote, If I am everything I am love.  If I am nothing I am wisdom.  (How is detaching from the world made into a wisdom? Unless your objective is to nullify personal pain.  When really pain is a flag that is most useful in operating life.)  Then he says “my life unfolds between these two poles”. (Something like that.)  He is not saying first I am nothing then I am everything.  He is saying IN BETWEEN these poles, (some of each, just like everyone else on the planet).

I don’t claim Nisargadatta is the last word, and I see his explanations as laced with, a reaction to, and limited by, conventional human beliefs.

Any philosophy that contains reference to paradox, pairs of opposites coming from language and a world of duality is flawed.  Nature doesn’t have opposites, but it has balance. Paradox is a faulty human creation for those who don’t know how to talk about balance.

5. Let’s take a simpler physical example, like the internet.  It is a matrix of nodes (servers), all connected to each other.  Tiny packets of information filter through this matrix, all with different paths (like water sinking through the sand), but each packet has the address of where it is going, and how it should be reconstructed, to make a picture of your baby sent to grandma.  If I take away one node, was that node the internet?  No, still functions the same.  Earthquake, 1000 nodes get destroyed, no different.

Hey, the internet is not any of these nodes.  It is the space where these nodes can exist as a content.

Take away a grain of sand.  Is it still the beach.  Repeat that a couple million times if you’re just not sure.  Hey the beach is not sand.  It is nothing.  Good idea.

It does feel good to be detached.  (Who knows, it might feel good to be dead too.)  At least you are not required to do anything.

Who’s got a better story of non-duality?

RichardMiller's picture
User offline. Last seen 4 weeks 3 days ago. Offline
Joined: 09/20/2009
What can an open philosophy offer us?

Please recall I am using the word philosophy to mean world view.  Every human being has one, whether conscious or unconscious.  It is your explanation of what is possible for you in this world, and also includes a door into mystery or the unknown that could happen for you. (Some of these categories I am gathering from internet reading, and some connections are mine.)

1. Man is a social animal.  Even primitive man was in close relationship with the bio-sphere, and nowadays we are highly dependant on each other.  We have social and physical needs.  If they are not fulfilled to some extent, we cannot live well.

An effective world story (philosophy) allows our physical and emotional needs to be best fulfilled, both in the short term and on-going throughout the future.  Food, air, water, sleep, activity and exercise we all know about physically.  But what does it take to feel good about life, even with these physical necessities somewhat fulfilled?

  • We need security and a safe place from which we can develop.
  • We need some sense of privacy to reflect and consolidate.
  • We need some sense of autonomy and control, so that we can experiment with our own responsibility, choose actions and learn from the outcomes.


  • We suffer from isolation so we need to feel part of a wider group.
  • In that group we need to receive (and to give) attention.
  • So we need some amount of emotional intimacy.
  • We have some sort of status within that group.


  • We need to feel some competence and achievement.
  • If we are being stretched in what we think and do, we take some meaning and purpose from that.


These needs are all relative, and different for each human being.  They are in fact relative to your explanation of life, from your personal philosophy.  If your explanation is wide enough, you are already fulfilled or partially fulfilled within these categories.  If your explanation is open enough, you will find it easy to experiment your responsibility level, and improvise actions to test the latitude of your abilities, and improve these conditions.

2. A philosophy will empower you to grow in all of these areas, and to mentor others in your group and in the world for the same purpose.  An improved philosophy will improve the world. 

Another philosophy might seem to better predict what appears to be happening in present time.  Like you could say people are greedy, ruthless, and self serving.  But that philosophy tends to push world events in the same undesirable direction. So it has to be rejected, because it has no space for any possible turn-around.  the trick is to continually re-create philosophies with more and more open space in them.

Philosophy, explanations, actually just your definitions, can be updated as often as you discover.  In this sense philosophy sounds like a word fixed by others, and is not very flexible.  “Definitions” might be more adapted to what I am pointing to.

3. Your definitions should give the widest space to develop your innate tools.  These are the tools we use for life on earth.  Let’s look at some of them.

  • You have a complex long term memory.
  • You have an ability to know, (even unconsciously) through metaphorical pattern matching.
  • You have imagination, which enables the use of language, and allows a secondary focus away from your emotions.
  • Your conscious thinking has inherited a certain detached “rationality” which you can further organise and augment, and which can check out your emotions, it can also question, analyse and plan.
  • You have an observing self that can notice your own intellect, emotions and conditioning.
  • There is still a lot of mystery about these functions, but they can still be used without full knowledge of how they work and where they come from.  Perhaps any conjecture about your origins is very far away from the raw perceptions of life.  Don’t get lost there.  Also science has informed us that particles fly at tremendous speeds.  Therefore some people surmise that cause must lie outside of human action. (God is a gluon or a gauge boson or something?) Don't get lost there either, nor confuse the micro with the macro.


4. I don’t offer any philosophy or tell you what is, I just point out a mechanism.

That mechanism is the link between words, thoughts, feelings, emotions and anxiety, and actions or the lack of action.  Words are the handle for life, or how you can grab ahold of it.  I don’t have to say they are the only handle.  But I offer that they work so constantly and so easily, that once you notice how it works with moulding your words, you won’t give up on that awareness.  The awareness is what you are saying to yourself underneath every occurrence in your life.  This is a priceless viewpoint of you.

You may have developed other handles to your life also, fine.  This is the one that I work with, and I believe these verbal links are still operative under any other method, or any level of awakeness.

5. Any philosophies that tells you what and how "it is" are destructive, because they take you from discovery into emulation.  Therefore don’t play with other people’s end-games. We have a false belief that this is how you learn.  We fake it until we make it with someone else's vision.  These are baby steps, and university researchers and scientists work on the edge of knowledge.  There is no model out there to copy in the land of rarified understanding.  Sure they are attempting to fit with existing theories, but they have to give them up when they are not working.

All theories and models are deficient.  Please don’t get stuck in one.

RichardMiller's picture
User offline. Last seen 4 weeks 3 days ago. Offline
Joined: 09/20/2009
Where is the context of possibility hiding?

Part of the discussion in this thread refers to what I called the third context of appearance, which I entitled “the realm of possibilities to grow and to know.”  It seems like life on earth has an unlimited expansive potential.  This is both on the collective, and on an individual basis.

That doesn’t mean that expansion is automatic, nor that contraction is impossible.  Conditions often take a turn for the worse, when freedom is limited through health setbacks or, economic troubles or even human aggression, terrorism and war.  But yet there always seems to be an upside, that can take the individual and the collective beyond these limitations.  It is not well understood, and nobody has mastered the art of always moving upward.

a) Perhaps that is the amazing part, that although we might have an (even religious) belief that there is unlimited depth in the universe and that we could expand knowledge forever, we cannot take a smooth ascending path toward that growth.  Growth is always interspersed with reversals, setbacks, and our definition of problems. Each solution seems to bring with it another set of (perhaps bigger) problems.

b) An astute question to ask might be, “where is this growth and expansion hiding?”  What covers it up or makes it mysterious?

One school of thought is that expansion is hiding behind an event called awakening or enlightenment.  It is sometimes cannily described as a non-event, but yet it is still talked about.  So let’s say that it is an event for those that define themselves as non-enlightened, and not an event for those who define themselves as already awakened.  This definitely adds another layer of mystery to growth and understanding.  

Those in the “not” category are striving and waiting for a sign.  They are definitely in a holding pattern, which if one does not fully enjoy the definition of holding, it is destructive to the effective use of this lifetime.  Those in the awakened category might not be that better off.  They might construe the relief they feel as “this is it”, nothing further to do.  Maybe they even got to that realisation by renouncing any doing, so that they are doubly unlikely to build any new structures.

c) Rather than complicating the depth of the universe, we could simplify it by saying that growth is not hiding at all.  It is open and in plain sight for all those who are willing to look.  So a better question to ask is, “why don’t we care to look?

It is because of all of our “previous knowing” isn’t it?  We believe that we already have that covered with such and so beliefs, so we are looking for what’s next given that what we believe is true.

Growth is uncovered through “innocent eyes”.

d) So now we can look to discover where our previous knowing resides.  It is in our verbalisations around each circumstance.  One school of thought would suggest we can give up our verbalisation, (if only momentarily) and get a glimpse into these deeper aspects.  This is something called “pure awareness”, and gradually we can increase our time spent in this state.

But human life is built around verbalisations, and any awareness that is without verbalisation, (or can’t be talked about) has limited or no use for constructing, altering or improving life on earth.  I might feel a relief through my visits to no-verbalisation, but it still is not a building block for society.  This we could propose as the slowdown mechanism in looking at something new, (even though we are saying it’s right in front of our eyes).

So what’s wrong with that?  The unfolding of the universe becomes a step by step process. Acting on what’s new is even slower, since the mass consensus of where we should invest society’s money lags even further behind the unfolding insight.  For instance, we know about global warming, but it might be decades more before we do anything substantial about it.

  • A final series of questions to answer could be, what are we doing to hold our present knowing LIGHTLY, so that it interferes less with what could be new for us?
  • What are we doing presently to let our new insights take hold and govern our personal behaviour?  (including a commitment to give up outdated habits.)
  • What are we  doing to promote a new way of thinking into our community and into the world?

Part of the Action

We remain committed to be on the forefront of what will support life, both in your family and on planet earth. 


My interaction with you is an Experiment to further enable this vision to be true, and up to the rhythm that you are a part of the action.  


Please contribute to make this vision real.  

With Heart Felt Thanks, Richard Miller.



Who's online

There are currently 0 users and 5 guests online.