3 ms·
You can break it down even further than "I feel this", "I logically think this". Even thinking there is 'logic' is already missing that there has to be a place
by FrustratedMonky 3y ago
You can break it down even further than "I feel this", "I logically think this". Even thinking there is 'logic' is already missing that there has to be a place where the logic 'comes from' or 'arises'. This article did play fast and loose with terminology. I'd suggest reading up on Schopenhauer and Phenomenology, for historical background, and then for modern neuroscience, "Being You" by Anil Seth. They try to get at same thing, our 'subjective' experience is just how our brain interpret inputs, and with meditation you can grow the ability to observer how the brain reacts. But in the end the reactions happen from somewhere, even a 'logical thinking' comes from somewhere before the 'thinking' can take place. You can think what you will, but how do you decide to think about what you want to think about.
Actually, forget it. I'm trying to explain this article, but I thought it was a bit confused to begin with. Guess its basically long and winding way to say 'be in the present movement'. But that's pretty generic.
- nickelpro 3y agoI don't think it's so complex a point. The article's (and other framings') "observer" is a mechanism of self-reflective meta-thought. My point is that this meta-thought is itself a thought, it arises from the same place as all other thoughts. The observer is not a separate, passive system from the thinker. It is the thinker, or an element of it, a feedback loop inside the mechanism of the thinker, allowing the thinker to think about the ideas it is contemplating and the process of contemplation itself ("think about thinking"). It allows the thinker to observe in completeness its own contemplative state, and if desired, modify it. In this simplified framework the system is not significantly different from say, industrial control theory.