What's the point of Zen koans?

Douglas Brown4;7271283 said:. I'm not big on definitions, so honestly, I don't care what philosophers decide to call it.

okay, *alles klar* (that's German for you!)

HERE IS A SNIPPET ABOUT CONSCIOUSNESS—AND NO, I’M NOT TRYING TO START A WHOLE THING ON THE "MEDITATION" THREAD!!
Fritjof Capra, "Life"—A New Scientific Understanding of Living Systems.
Because of our own ignorance (what they call *avidya*), we slice up the world into separate little objects that seem solid and permanent to us. But in reality? It's all temporary and constantly shifting. When we try to cling to these rigid categories instead of just rolling with the fluidity of life, we basically sign ourselves up for endless frustration.
Buddhist doctrine about impermanence also brings up this idea that THERE IS NO SELF—no permanent "subject" behind all our different experiences. It claims the whole idea of a separate, individual self is just an illusion, another layer of *maya*, just an intellectual concept that isn't actually real. Clinging to that notion of a distinct self leads to the same kind of pain and suffering (*dukkha*) as clinging to any other fixed way of thinking.
And get this: cognitive science has landed on the exact same conclusion! (Varela and his crew). Our "self" or ego doesn't exist on its own; it's just the result of how we internally structure everything. After looking closely at the belief in a fixed, independent self—which causes a sort of "Cartesian anxiety"—Francisco Varela and his colleagues concluded this:
"Our craving for a solid internal ground is the ego-self, and it's the root of constant frustration. That urge for a steady foundation is part of a much larger urge to cling to the outside world through the idea of a pre-set, independent universe. In other words, our obsession with finding firm ground, whether inside or out, is a deep source of unrest and frustration."

That is the core of the human struggle right there. We see ourselves as autonomous individuals, shaped by the history of our structural changes. We are self-aware, conscious of our own identities—but then again, when you go looking for that individual "self" within the world of experience, you can't actually find it!

...

Well, you totally forced my hand into typing this early in the morning! Just kidding. I "accidentally" stumbled upon this section while finishing up this book.

Richard Murphy6 said:It seems to be a crisis of the human condition. We exist as autonomous individuals, shaped by the history of our structural shifts. We possess self-awareness and an awareness of our own unique identity—yet, curiously, when we attempt to locate that individual self within the experiential world, it remains elusive.

Douglas Brown4 said:Maybe we can't find it because we simply don't understand how neural structures actually function. Perhaps the self isn't from this world at all. It might arrive from the outside into any system complex and well-designed enough to receive it. A neural structure isn't a mechanism that generates the self; rather, it acts as a house that the eternal self moves into. When Fritjof and others discuss this, I wonder: why couldn't I just create a self inside a computer? It doesn't seem reproducible.
The issue, I suspect, lies in the ignorance of those writing these theories. Those who claim the self is the root of frustration and suffering are free to believe that. Personally, I maintain that I am myself, not some illusion of interconnectedness. My suffering doesn't stem from my sense of self, but rather from the egoism of the people around me. That is something that can be resolved.

Douglas Brown4 said:Maybe we can't find it because we simply don't understand how neural structures actually function. Perhaps the self isn't from this world at all. It might arrive from the outside into any system complex and well-designed enough to receive it. A neural structure isn't a mechanism that generates the self; rather, it acts as a house that the eternal self moves into. When Fritjof and others discuss this, I wonder: why couldn't I just create a self inside a computer? It doesn't seem reproducible.
The issue, I suspect, lies in the ignorance of those writing these theories. Those who claim the self is the root of frustration and suffering are free to believe that. Personally, I maintain that I am myself, not some illusion of interconnectedness. My suffering doesn't stem from my sense of self, but rather from the egoism of the people around me. That is something that can be resolved.

Richard Murphy6 said:Do you really think that if we finally cracked the code on how our brain structure works, we’d suddenly "know" everything about the universe? Or what? Also, when you talk about the Self, are you talking about your own Ego, or your core identity? Or do you think they're totally separate things? And just to be clear—are you using "Self" as a synonym for God? I'm a little lost here!

Douglas Brown4 said:Now you're talking.

have you ever actually "felt" oneness with any other living thing or object😁
consciousness is a single, indivisible unit

Never. I have empathy, and I am a sensitive person, but true ONENESS—never.

the individual is just a concept that "thinks" I am this individual, so perhaps that concept within CONSCIOUSNESS could be called INDIVIDUALITY😉

If that were true, why can't I voluntarily stop that thought even for a second? Or imagine being you? Not even for a moment.
And besides, if consciousness isn't limited by space and time, why can't I simply see through your eyes, plug into your brain, or access your sensors? What's stopping me?

Douglas Brown4 said:That’s about as close as you get to defining God. Think about it: the quantum vacuum isn't empty; it's a sea of virtual particles. These particles have their own modes of motion—rotations, vibrations, all that jazz. Those specific modes can effectively preserve information, especially the spin modes.
You end up with quantum domains—regions where those modes are coherent, essentially synchronized. It’s the functional equivalent of a neuron. Water does this too, governed by atomic waves that act like superconductors, exhibiting that same capacity for connectivity through shared quantum properties. Once these domains organize into a complex enough structure, they become a seat for consciousness. By that logic, the entire universe—the whole damn vacuum—is one massive mind. Call it God if you want...

Karen Sanchez19 said:It’s because you are nothing more than your own individuality, a mere "product of mechanisms." Everything that occurs simply happens on its own; your free will is nothing but an illusion.
Thoughts, regardless of their nature, just manifest spontaneously.😉

All thoughts, whatever they may be, just happen on their own.😉

Douglas Brown4 said:Maybe we can't find it because we simply don't understand how neural structures actually function. Perhaps the self isn't from this world at all. It might arrive from the outside into any system complex and well-designed enough to receive it. A neural structure isn't a mechanism that generates the self; rather, it acts as a house that the eternal self moves into. When Fritjof and others discuss this, I wonder: why couldn't I just create a self inside a computer? It doesn't seem reproducible.
The issue, I suspect, lies in the ignorance of those writing these theories. Those who claim the self is the root of frustration and suffering are free to believe that. Personally, I maintain that I am myself, not some illusion of interconnectedness. My suffering doesn't stem from my sense of self, but rather from the egoism of the people around me. That is something that can be resolved.

Douglas Brown4 said:I don't think I am a product of some mechanism.

All thoughts, whatever they may be, just happen on their own.😉

Well, maybe not quite.

Karen Sanchez19 said:Yeah, sure... but you haven't even begun to grasp the reality of it yet.

Imagine, if you can, the sheer audacity of "existing"—truly existing—in a state of total detachment from everything. A complete lack of attachment to any outcome, any object, any ego. Picture a reality where everything unfolds exactly as it always has, following its own internal logic, entirely indifferent to whether or not you finally "realize" it. The gears turn, the seasons shift, the chaos continues, all regardless of your little moment of enlightenment. It just happens. Just like it always did.😁

imagine if it were possible to "exist"—to live in a state of complete detachment from everything—while everything just keeps happening on its own, exactly the same way it did before you ever had that "realization."😁

Douglas Brown4 said:The Self is me. Eternal and incorporeal. I don't believe it is some byproduct of my brain's neural networks, nor is it an illusion born from focusing on a collective consciousness.
Simply put, the Self is who I am and why I exist.
God is the Self of the entire Universe.

Richard Murphy6 said:Hmm.
So you think you're the self, but you're still somehow separate from it? Even if you reached this state of pure being—which, based on what you wrote, you haven't quite hit yet—you'd still be disconnected from God, who is the self of the whole universe.
According to your logic, all selves stay separated, even when they reach total immortality and purity.
That sounds like MULTI-SPLITTING to me!🤣
It's like a massive, infinite fragmentation of the "infiniteUm."

Even if you were to achieve pure selfhood—which, based on your writing, I don't think you have yet—you would still be disconnected from God, who is the very essence of the universe.

I guess you believe that even in their immortality and purity, senses remain severed.
That basically means MULTIIZAM.🤣
The multi-layered fragmentation of "infinutuUm."

Douglas Brown4 said:I am the master. And I am not separate from him.

Even if you were to achieve pure selfhood—which, based on your writing, I don't think you have yet—you would still be disconnected from God, who is the very essence of the universe.

Separate, yes, but in connection with him.

I guess you believe that even in their immortality and purity, senses remain severed.
That basically means MULTIIZAM.🤣
The multi-layered fragmentation of "infinutuUm."

That’s right.

Richard Murphy6 said:Maybe you've actually convinced me now.
To me, this feels like Douglas Brown4's situation, while the Self is just sitting on the sidelines.
Well, at least I know what kind of "Self-seeker" you are!👍

😁
Enjoy it!!
Where's your better half? Mrs. Q😍
If I can't win with logic, I might as well go for the personal shots!

😁
Enjoy!!
Your better half is Mrs. Q.😍

If I lack an argument, I can at least resort to an ad hominem attack!

Douglas Brown4 said:Of course I am not. Just like you aren't. Neither of us actually has any proof. I suppose that is why this discussion isn't going anywhere.

imagine if it were possible to "exist"—to live in a state of complete detachment from everything—while everything just keeps happening on its own, exactly the same way it did before you ever had that "realization."😁

Everything happens regardless of me anyway. Except for whatever I choose to focus on. When I do that, things unfold how I want them to, within certain degrees of freedom, I guess.

Douglas Brown4 said:I am the master. And I am not separate from him.

Even if you were to achieve pure selfhood—which, based on your writing, I don't think you have yet—you would still be disconnected from God, who is the very essence of the universe.

Separate, yes, but in connection with him.

I guess you believe that even in their immortality and purity, senses remain severed.
That basically means MULTIIZAM.🤣
The multi-layered fragmentation of "infinutuUm."

That’s right.

Karen Sanchez19 said:make up your mind😁>

Douglas Brown4 said:I am not the master of God. God has His own (that is just a figure of speech). I have my own (again, a figure of speech).

Karen Sanchez19 said:And what kind of absolute God are we talking about here—one existing outside of which nothing else can even exist?🙄