The Illusion of Self-Knowledge: Internal vs. External Rea...

Your internal state is opaque You think you know what is going on, but you dont You get floated conclusions and think youve done some sort of thinking Internal ≠ External There is a difference between how other people perceive you and how you perceive yourself

Objectively yes, but subjectively no. As within, so without, as above, so below. The external is a mirror of the internal, internal does not equal external, but they are mirror versions of each other.

@sage5042 Could your clarify your point please?

@hagalaz9 was mad sleepy when I wrote it but essentially what I’m doing is reframing your point because while it is true at one level It’s not getting the full picture. I agree that our internal state is opaque, and I agree that there is a difference between how other people perceive you and how you perceive yourself. The rest however I think in a way contradicts itself. Think of it this way, who is the you that is perceiving yourself? Is it the personality, is it the thoughts, or is it the awareness behind those? Based on the answer to that is my point. The answer in my experience is the awareness, the awareness of thoughts, the awareness of physical sensation, the witness of our lives. From the perspective of the unconditioned individual awareness internal = external because there could not be an external if there was no internal awareness of both the internal and the external. The internal experience is opaque because our internal experience is a mirror of our external experience and vice versa. The experience is opaque because the mirror is opaque. Our internal experience is conditioned via our external experience of which becomes our personality, ego, mental frameworks etc. However we are not the internal experience, we are the awareness behind the internal experience of which is a mirror of our external experience. The mirror is opaque because we have been societally conditioned to ‘think’ that we are our conditioned internal experience. It’s not to say that from the perspective of our dualistic minds that that experience is false, rather it’s just a really good illusion. But rather the identification is in a misinformed place and has been for centuries of which informed your stance, which is not incorrect. I’m just saying you aren’t exactly looking at the full picture, you’re still in Plato’s cave looking at what they gave you. Which is not your fault, I’m just trying to point you out. Does that help clarify my point? I can go much deeper haha

@sage5042 I think you’re muddying the waters a bit with consciousness theory… To me, it seems like we agree You say you argree that -internal state is opaque -there is a difference between how others perceive you and how your perceive yourself These are the only two points my post made.. so its hard to see what else you are disagreeing with.. Also it was assumptive of you to assume that I haven’t encountered the allegory of the cave. And, quite frankly, if my post (or anything we say and do) removed the ego/constructions of the mind, and only operated from the place you identify as the witness to reality/reality itself - then it would remove a lot of the defining features of perception. I agree, it is definitely wise to encounter reality with sensitivity and by removing/revising the tools and frameworks we use or were taught to use. But you must see, it is the analysis of what we use that enables us to continue to use them or decide to distance ourselves from them. How can you advocate for the total removal of mental frameworks? The truth is, we perceive the world through the lens of our constructed selves and the world does the same back. Yes, this can be a helpful function to understand and yes, you can begin to talk about the function of mirrors etc. But what exactly do you disagree with? This feels like a non argument where you have jumped on to a high horse about your experience with the world. Seems like you have to say something - not have something to say, if i am being honest.

@hagalaz9 I wasn’t trying to argue, I was just trying to give a different perspective. Your on the money saying it was a non-argument and I definitely jump on the high horse on here but only because I care. It was assumptive in some areas, and really at the end of the day I’m not really saying anything groundbreaking so point well taken. He who speaks does not know and he speaks does not know. The biggest thing that I was disagreeing with was the internal ≠ external thing but I just interpret the whole thing differently and to me it felt limiting. I’m not saying that we remove the ego or mental constructs but removal of identification with, and attachment to them. Not completely but in regard to those which are not aligned with ourselves. We can have a discussion on differing beliefs without making it an argument, however I do realize your points.

@sage5042 I can boil down that reply and see your point. You’re trying to add ‘if we don’t identify with out internal state and mental constructs, then we might improve the clarity of the universe within. As it can be a mirror of the external world. So in a way, 'internal ≠ external’ is not entirely true.’ Correct? P.S. you admitted fault and then said its because you care… I appreciate the context but you don’t need to justify it. Correction is enough, we dont know each other.

@hagalaz9 More or less. Yes I acknowledge fault and said I cared not to justify it, just to be honest man. Not everything is black and white.

@sage5042 Am I treating everything as black and white?

@sage5042 and after clarifying, if that was your point, thank you for your input, I think there are people who need to understand what you’re saying.