unconscious image
All images that are in my head are unconscious, so are my memories.
I think Si may relate to my Aphantasia.
Vedic Scripts say Maya is illusion.
Everything is removed from the subject because it is only in the subject.
Everything that passes through the subject as experience is not the subject.
Then there is non-attachment. All that is - Passes.
Anyone know how this relates to forming good relationships?
To remove from the concept of the subject all possible material differentiations of the objective (
integrated information, in the language of the theory of Tononi et al with which it shares its name) leaves us with an empty abstraction (
null concept; nothing at all), just as an object presupposes an understanding subject, a unitary spatio-temporal manifold- and thus a mutually supporting community with other objects, a diversity- as its Kantian condition of possibility (imagine an object with no-one “around” to perceive it...obviously you can’t, because at least
you’d be perceiving it!). The subject and the object, then, are the two indispensable aspects of
existence, which are yet opposite; reality, the immanent
present in which we find our
selves, is both complex and simple (Leibniz: “multiplicité dans l’unité”;
composition and
integration), being and becoming, a system of passive phenomena constituting a singular act of will.
Just as absurd and meaningless as the concept of an undifferentiated, object-less subject is it to suppose that only the present differentiation of matter is ‘me,’ and that all others are...well, ‘merely others!’ This is what it is to be fooled by the ‘illusion’ of Maya (small wonder, then, that the great Schopenhauer called it the
principium individuationis;
exclusion is its name in Integrated Information Theory). One recognizes in objects only their objective aspect- that is, their passive aspect. He fails to recognize that they not only are instrumental or obstructive to fulfilling his desires, but also, as acts of will, have desires of their own which are no less real and no less ‘important.’
Animals are almost completely under this spell since their understanding is heavily skewed towards discerning the exigencies of the present. Vulgar people are a little freer of it than are animals, for they at least recognize the reality of their foreseen future selves and usually- albeit to a lesser extent- those of their tribe. Somewhat above the vulgar man is the pompous utilitarian who preaches sanctimoniously about the ‘rights’ (subjective existence; susceptibility to desires) of humans- and sometimes other animals- in general
exclusively, emboldened by a relatively thorough education, which has yet not impressed upon him a pittance of humility in view of the abyss of human ignorance. Finally, there is the ascetic, who recognizes and respects the subjective reality of everything, including- and especially- that which harms and wrongs him by opposing his will, impeding his progress towards his desires.
The ascetic doesn’t concern himself with acquisitive efforts on behalf of himself, his tribe, or the insipid, limp-wristed inhabitants of some future global kindergarten because he knows that the very effort entails conflict with another manifestation of will whose desires are no less ‘important,’ so, to answer your question, asceticist philosophy is the wrong place to look for advice on how to ‘get’ a girlfriend. Asceticism has as its problem not any desire, but desire, from which it seeks deliverance.
