Thursday, December 17, 2009

To Experience the Opposite of "Meaningful".......Choose the Red Pill!

Eventually you must choose between the blue or the red pill.

It’s either meaningful or it means nothing at all.

If it is meaningful then, by all means, feed you head. But, what if all the important meanings you superimpose upon your experiences do nothing more than impede experiencing what is beyond your egocentric narcissistic meanings?

But can the meaningless BE experienced?

When you’re through superimposing your egocentric meanings upon the 'world' (that you experience), what will you 'have'? What will “you” experience?

Obviously, the ego-self fears the meaningless. To believe it could experience the meaningless would assert that the meaningless could exist.

If something with NO meaning could exist, then this would place grave doubt upon the existence of the ego-self, because an egocentric 'existence' is entirely predicated on meaning. Meaning is vital to all interpretations of experience. Therefore, the ego affixes meaning to every experience. Even to say something is generally “meaningless” asserts the opposite, since if it did not mean something, how would you be aware of it in order to judge it meaningless? However, to assert something as "meaningful" has no opposite, since the ego could never be aware of that which means nothing.

Yet, the ego-self believes there is nothing beyond what it experiences. This is why it invents concepts of transcendence (religion/spirituality) to aid in providing meaning to its experiences of "transcendence" (notice how even the word "transcendence" is packed with meaning).

A transcendent experience can never mean nothing and must always mean something and this is why you regularly fail to experience your "transcendence," simply because you have been taught what it means and that is precisely what you experience...egocentric meaning.

Eckhart Tolle claims to have experienced ego transcendence. Nevertheless, it was only after running his experience through the ideological meat grinder of past interpretations, that he was able to apply an egocentric interpretation that helped him make sense of what it WAS …

…but is that what it IS?

First, the ego injects meaning into the world. It then has an extraordinary experience, not easily identifiable from the normal menu of world-based interpretations. Nevertheless, it looks to the meanings already in the world to aid in making sense of its extraordinary experiences. Notice the ‘circularity of meaning’ applied to the meaningless, thereby rendering it virtually useless. (this may be difficult to understand for those who believe they have “discovered” what it all means).

The ego must superimpose meaning upon the meaningless in order to maintain its own experience of itself as meaningfully “real.” Not to experience itself as meaningfully real would be a one-way ticket to the looney bin (or non-existence). Therefore, the ego must SEE the meaning it imposes into the world and this is exclusively an internal operation and has little to do with an external world.

In fact, an external world need not exist at all (if it even does!) for the ego to superimpose meaning.

If you experience a "happy" or pleasurable world, then it is the ego that gives it that meaning. If you see a cruel, destructive or fearful world, again, the ego has superimposed this meaning upon its interior experience of a world. Yet, whatever meaning you apply must always presuppose its opposite as also ‘existing’ and this determines the inconsistency of egocentrically imposed meanings. Superimpose "happy" and an experience of "sad" is made "real." Such is the “dualism” of the egocentric This is why we often fail to accurately evaluate what it is we are experiencing and why “bad” experiences are frequently re-evaluated as beneficial or “good” only in retrospect.

But can an ego-self ever experience the opposite of meaning or complete meaningless?

If the meaning of all your experiences are egocentrically determined then, subsequently, this can only mean that the world you experience is meaningless until you give it meaning.

Therefore, the ground, or foundation, of all meaning is entirely absent of all meaning. 

The meaningless is infinite, while egoic meaning is finite and changes with time, since that's the meaning egocentrically applied to time (otherwise how could it exist as it does?).

For an ego-self to identify with its own egocentricity it must always choose the blue pill over the red pill. Choose the blue pill and you invite the ego to continue to impose meanings that it asserts as “real,” thereby insuring experiences continue to enhance or detract from itself (this is interpreted as "suffering"). To choose the red pill is to plummet from your warm and comfortable bed of meanings into an infinite universe of meaninglessness (this too is interpreted as "suffering," although it's a misinterpretation).

But don’t be afraid…because when “you” give up the finite games you’ve imposed meaning to, it all becomes infinitely meaningful (but not in anyway you could imagine at the moment).



One pill makes you larger
And one pill makes you small,
And the ones that mother gives you
Don't do anything at all.
 
Go ask Alice
When she's ten feet tall.

And if you go chasing rabbits
And you know you're going to fall,
Tell 'em a hookah smoking caterpillar
Has given you the call.

Call Alice
When she was just small.

When the men on the chessboard
Get up and tell you where to go
And you've just had some kind of mushroom
And your mind is moving low.

Go ask Alice
I think she'll know.

When logic and proportion
Have fallen sloppy dead,
And the White Knight is talking backwards
And the Red Queen's "off with her head!"
Remember what the dormouse said:
 
Feed your head.
Feed your head.
Feed your head
(Jefferson Airplane)


Artwork by Fred Weidmann  - "Evolution Without Goal"

16 comments:

  1. Beautifully well put, Mike. It's the stories in time, with cause and effect, that are meaningless, though engaging; just living is fraught with intrinsic meaning, outside of any extra added story. Trapped by dualistic language, you could say it's all "good", or it's all worthy. When the ego stops identifying with its story, and just lives, that's probably a good start, and end. But it's difficult, if not impossible, to describe simple being, although it's always the case. It's the difference between worshipping the fountain and drinking the water, someone said, and that description is as good as any.

    Love your essays!

    ReplyDelete
  2. Hi Mike~

    "...what if all the important meanings you superimpose upon your experiences do nothing more than impede experiencing what is beyond your egocentric narcissistic meanings?"

    This is an important consideration. What is possible in the experience before the story begins? My response would be that it impedes the Mystery of things once that story begins.

    "When you’re through superimposing your egocentric meanings upon the 'world' (that you experience), what will you 'have'? What will “you” experience?"

    Mystery, I think.

    "Eckhart Tolle claims to have experienced ego transcendence. Nevertheless, it was only after running his experience through the ideological meat grinder of past interpretations, that he was able to apply an egocentric interpretation that helped him make sense of what it WAS …

    …but is that what it IS?"

    Quite perfect.

    "First, the ego injects meaning into the world. It then has an extraordinary experience, not easily identifiable from the normal menu of world-based interpretations. Nevertheless, it looks to the meanings already in the world to aid in making sense of its extraordinary experiences."

    There is an inclination to grab on to the already existent frame of reference. But does an extraordinary experience have to make sense? Could it be that once one stops asking "Why?" and then answering "This is why" that one can deeply allow the Mystery to exist? Can there be threshold places, "...neither here nor there, neither up nor down, neither real nor imaginary? (Thomas Moore)" where neither meaning nor meaninglessness require separation and analysis?

    "In fact, an external world need not exist at all (if it even does!) for the ego to superimpose meaning."

    LoL, the matrix of this online experience is proof of that!

    "If the meaning of all your experiences are egocentrically determined then, subsequently, this can only mean that the world you experience is meaningless until you give it meaning."

    On one level, I don't see as it makes any difference. On another level, humankind seems determined to appropriate either/or.

    I don't know. I suppose if we all could have the psychotic breakdown, we could be merry in our dissolved ego bliss sitting on a park bench and eating bread crumbs with the pigeons in the NOW, and none of it really would matter. Maybe that's ok too. But then you've got the guy who is going to say, "Hey, that pigeon looks different from the others. He must be a special pigeon, or a deviant pigeon," and then the next guy will say, "Maybe it is a sacred pigeon with a special message" and on and on and on.

    Great post.

    Blessings~

    ReplyDelete
  3. No One,

    "...just living is fraught with intrinsic meaning, outside of any extra added story."

    Hmmm... but isn't "just living" actually the "extra added story"? Can one engage with NO stories? Of course, to engage with no story is also a story...But a story with no outcome, no goal, no rewards...no death and no living...

    ..might be fun to play! (as long as we don't take it too serious)
    mikeS

    ReplyDelete
  4. Nahnni,

    My response would be that it impedes the Mystery of things once that story begins."

    But isn't "mystery" just another story? And if it's a story one believes in, wouldn't one see mystery everywhere they look and if they did, would that be better than 'knowing"?
    Just wondering is all...

    "On one level, I don't see as it makes any difference. On another level, humankind seems determined to appropriate either/or."

    Maybe not...I suppose when 'meanings' cause so much havoc, a wonderful story is to consider the possibility of holding no meanings whatsoever. I can only imagine the glorious suffering and sacrifice to the ego-self, when it tries to live meaninglessly (tried it once, but didn't get to far, Ha!)

    "I suppose if we all could have the psychotic breakdown, we could be merry in our dissolved ego bliss sitting on a park bench and eating bread crumbs with the pigeons in the NOW, and none of it really would matter."

    But, sure enough, someone will be "sitting on a park bench, eying little girls with bad intent, snot running down his nose..."

    Sorry....couldn't resist...
    mikeS

    ReplyDelete
  5. Hey Mike~

    Mystery to me simply means the unknown or perhaps even the unknowable and not having to place any necessary meaning...or even meaningless...on what is experienced or witnessed. I don't know if one can place any story to Mystery, because in doing so it is attaching rhyme or reason where it may or may not exist. I simply don't know. But even if one were to subconsciously attach story to mystery, it wouldn't make much difference, it is still mystery, still unknown. Once it is known, it no longer remains a mystery.

    I forgot about the snotty guy, though. I forgot there is always a worm in the bud, a snake in the tree, the cuckoo in the nest.

    What a Cabaret!

    Blessings~

    ReplyDelete
  6. Hey Mike...quibbling over labels. Which is fun too.

    ReplyDelete
  7. Quibbling???

    No, my dear, only questioning....

    My apologies, but I question everything and that does often appear in the guise of quibbling....

    ...but I have little control over this, since it just "arises."
    mikeS

    ReplyDelete
  8. I think it's bloody marvelous, we have everything we need...whether we think so or not.

    ReplyDelete
  9. "I think it's bloody marvelous, we have everything we need...whether we think so or not."

    Well...some people have no food...

    But I won't "quibble"
    mikeS

    ReplyDelete
  10. You and I have everything we need to know of hunger, understand it, research it, empathise with it, and do something about it, and choose to do so or not. This is the pageant of life.

    ReplyDelete
  11. I would imagine that non-duality would choose to "do something about it." In fact, there would be no other choice, but that...meaning that no choices exist...and no reason to choose

    How could it be otherwise?

    Unless, of course the ideology is used to bypass the 'pageantry' of inhumanity, which then makes it NO different than any other religious ideology.

    Another copycat...
    mikeS

    ReplyDelete
  12. Oh Mike, I know it's a bummer, but if all the hunger in the world were alleviated, and all the disease and war and inhumanity eliminated, it would turn into the story of

    1) Rampant overpopulation and a new cause of suffering and

    2) The inability to know what humanity is, if there is no inhumanity to compare it to.

    What we seem to choose is always the same thing, in another guise. We muddle along, not knowing what the perfect answer is. We stumble, fall, err, triumph, help, love, hate and harm. We struggle with mental illness, where choice seems even more elusive than is usual. We do our best, or give up. We are bursting with energy or beleaguered by apathy and depression. Afraid, we lash out; contrite, we reach out. And I love it all, Mike, I truly love it all, and am it all.

    ReplyDelete
  13. "And I love it all, Mike, I truly love it all, and am it all."

    Aha...there it is!

    The world doesn't want your "love" Suzanne, since that obviously asserts an opposite.

    For change to occur, you need to stop "loving it all" since egos have do not realize that love is not a concept. Less egocentric love and we might finally get some results. LOL!

    I would consider neutrality....
    mikeS

    ReplyDelete
  14. Loving it all and being it all - understanding it as such and trying to label it with some word or concept or other that seems to fit isn't easy! Calling it love seems closest; it doesn't fit a word; words and concepts are what we have to work with in this forum. Neutrality could also accurately label what I'm trying to describe...it's the sort of thing that isn't need returning or defining or confining, either.

    There's no way to describe it; except to say it isn't limited in any way, not like the love most people mean when they talk of love.

    Anyway, lots of love to you, and Merry Christmas, you old Grinchie-poo. I've had enough of this male-energy, ivory tower, detached tough love crapola for awhile! I'm off now to give the hamster a kiss.

    ReplyDelete
  15. "Calling it love seems closest; it doesn't fit a word; words and concepts are what we have to work with in this forum."

    Actually, it seems to me calling it "love" could not get one farther away.

    "Neutrality could also accurately label what I'm trying to describe...it's the sort of thing that isn't need returning or defining or confining, either."

    HA! Looks like you've accurately anticipated my next post......damn!

    "There's no way to describe it; except to say it isn't limited in any way, not like the love most people mean when they talk of love."

    Then don't call it "love"! Sheesh, what kinda guru are you, anyway???? (teehee)

    I've had enough of this male-energy, ivory tower, detached tough love crapola for awhile!

    Hey, waitjustadogoneminutehere! You started it.

    "Anyway, lots of love to you, and Merry Christmas, you old Grinchie-poo."

    Same to you, Mary Poppins!

    ReplyDelete