shitty models of the “enlightenment” landscape

This is gonna be wrong. I’m sure there are people out there that have a better dataset and better models here than me. Hopefully someone will show up in the comments or someone will contact me.

  1. The degenerate state. In this one, the person has managed to practically cut themselves off from something, like e.g. their emotions. There’s always a thin thread back; it’s reversible, though possibly with great difficulty. Very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very tentatively this is more likely to be someone in the Finders Course space. I’m so negative on these guys, and I don’t even know them. Maybe I’m totally mismodeling them from a distance, and if I had more time and was a better person I’d go find out. [Oh yeah, also, memory issues.]
  2. The phenomenological state. This is like the Daniel Ingram model of enlightenment. I think. All the sense doors integrated, no-self, etc. It is a very stringent, specific something that it is to be like, phenomenologically/experientially speaking. You can complete it, get it flawless. And, everything is just exactly what it is?? And you get to mostly stay a fucked up asshole if you have the right setup going in. Some people will have to work through some percentage of their emotional/behavioral stuff to get all the way. [Edit: And behavioral change here might get filed under “training in morality”][Oh yeah, also, see of course Mahamudra, Dzogchen, I think?]
  3. Behavioral enlightenment. You arrive at yourself as a baby, go back in time, to your first moments of consciousness, but you’re there as an adult, now. Some Zen traditions and I think Shinzen Young are into this. The A.H. Almaas Diamond Approach people might call this “digesting your history,” IIRC. I think they may get this too. This is Zen Beginner’s Mind, I think–all your crap, all your karma is burned away–everything you experience actually gets registered and used, instead of being thrown away, but it’s not overwhelming. You get massive emotional/behavioral/reactivity changes, all the Theravadin fetters stuff is real along this route or at least highly correlative. And I think this can be completed too.

 

I think there’s a huge amount of synergy and experientially/methodological overlap between 2 and 3 and presumably if you do things right they’re the same thing. Massive insight into emptiness, etc.

Ok… has someone got a better version of this?

Advertisements

Draft: Meditation and Fear of Death

I haven’t worked through this fully, either cognitively or meditatively-experientially, so I may think something different in the future.

A while back, I had at least some (but unmistakable and deep and pervasive and stable) elements of the figure/ground reversal that Shinzen Young talks about, sort of like you no longer identify with experience or the experience of the self, but instead you identify with where experience comes from.

I haven’t deeply and carefully examined this for myself. It might not be homogenous/uniform, and there’s many senses in which I still have a self and am still identified with my self and self sensations and self-concept and beliefs about my self and motivations relative to having a self… But I’ve also lost a fuck-ton of selfing and self-reference and self-significance and self-historical-non-transcedence. So, there’s probably a lot of careful and useful distinctions to be made here.

In any case, when this happened, I sort of gained this deep, refreshing peace, that’s always back there. I can still experience intolerable emotions, and my mouth can taste metallic from stress, and I can’t exactly dip into or reflect on or be as that background as a reliable tool for being in the world.

But something very interesting happened with respect to death. Again, I don’t know if this is flawless, and I haven’t examined my current state very carefully with respect to this. Also, I’m not obviously cycling or intending to rack up lots of fruitions. I currently don’t think it’s necessary for getting all the goodies. So what’s below is provisional.

But, when you blink out or have attended to some relevant aspect of a fruition or have some insight into emptiness and mind, when you’ve tasted true nothingness, or at least have had experience on either side, something becomes ok about death? Some author has probably said this more eloquently—I’d be curious in the comments.

Like, we’re all striving to make everything ok, so there’s somewhere somehow, even in the deepest state of agony and despair, somehow in that is the belief that it’s going to be all right in the end. Even in totally giving up, implicitly that giving up is to get something. (Some philosopher’s have made this point concisely, I think. Analytically (see analytic/synthetic distinction) all (true? representation-based? handwavehandwave) goal-oriented systems are acting on the basis of the goal being fulfilled, even if part of the plan involves figuring out the goal or replanning. Somethingsomething.

Anyway, the nothingness happened. Inside of itself it did not carry knowledge or expectation of there being a world on the other side. There was no experience, no time, no consciousness, nothing. Perfect experiential annihilation.

I was originally going to write that so then that nothingness has to be ok? Has to be completion? Even perfect goodness? Perfect satisfaction?

But, that’s not quite right. My goals, what I want, contains experience, is experiential. I’m surely so dumb about much of what I want. But right now I want profound intimacy, profound goodness for other people, etc.

So what’s so good about the perfect annihilation thing, if it’s not good in and of itself?

Well you sort of learn that the nothingness is pregnant, potent. It itself is not experience, but just on the edge of it, spatiotemporally, is this like limbing of pregnant potency. Like, the void is alive.

And you sort of learn that nothingness gives rise to you in each moment. (I haven’t currently trained up my perceptions to actually be aware of this in any contiguous succession of moments.)

And so, like, permanent annihilation is still like critically bad.

But, you lose your fear of the instant before any potential instance of experiential annihilation. And, I’m leaving so many reasoning steps out, maybe the logic won’t hold, but you sort of have to believe you’re going to come back anyway. You sort of have to believe that there’s continuity. Like, we die in each moment between moments of consciousness anyway (which can be detected with training) and come back as something different.

So like if you get hit by a train and die, is that any different than the blinking out every few X milliseconds?

I mean it’s really fucking different in lots of ways, but something has changed. I don’t know what it’s like for other people who’ve tasted nothingness, emptiness, fruitions, etc.

I want to qualify not being afraid of death. I don’t want to die, but some deep, really significant existential horror has blinked out. (I still experience other horror if I go looking for it or am unlucky, though, less and less and less and much of it is empty in the technical sense.)

And, that horror blinking out makes it possible to turn a really important crank: being able to really, truly look at one’s goals. I think that being able to really truly looking at one’s goals may necessitate solving lots and lots and lots and lots of puzzles. And/but one of the critical puzzles is this death piece thing.

It becomes ok to look, all things being equal, and in potential.

So, I still have to work through all sorts of reactivity. I think, like, I’ll still contort and torment myself and experience sick, hollow, hopeless, time-stopping dread if someone e.g. pulls a gun on me. But now there’s a sense of optionality around that? Of the possibility for mere correct action (up to the training or preparation one has had for potentially life-threatening event X)?

I think it won’t be safe to not be “reactively” “reflexively” scared/terrified/tormented of/by death-in-the-moment or specter-of-death-in-the-future until one has concrete and fully general strategies for not dying that are strictly and universally better than being scared/terrified/etc by death. So like being scared of dying is useful until the mind has something better. Being scared of dying is really inefficient. Instead why not just take skillful actions? etc.

I’m sort of hinting at like a belief now in reincarnation and maybe the above could still be interpreted as me being fractionally less likely to preserve my life in all the situations where one might endorse preserving it. (Would I sacrifice myself for a kid? A life partner? I dunno.) Did I break my brain? I don’t think so, though maybe of course I’d say that.

It’s more just, like, there’s this extraordinary new fractional spaciousness now around death, I can defer thinking about a bunch of stuff because they’re not necessary for doing the best thing now, and there’s this huge weight off my shoulders, the possibility of looking directly at many things that I couldn’t look at before. Perhaps I’m one step closely to just being able to live fully, which includes viciously but ever-yet-more-non-self-torturously strategizing around having a rich, full, good, healthy, safe life. Lots of other moral/experiential/strategic/intimate puzzles to solve, and lots more to think about re metaphysics, death, quantum field theory, consciousness, physicalism, reincarnation, many worlds, healthy eating, exercise, life extension, etc. But now there’s more optionality and my life and my expectations for my life are better. So much better. And it’s been rock solid for many months, now.

[Very rough draft] “Long” after stream-entry and the Arhatship horizon and the future of hoo-manity

[I wrote this a few weeks a ago, and it’s holding up… not tooooo terribly? Still more to do, always more to do. Maybe there will be a large phase change at some point of some kind. Epistemic status: wheeeeeeeee]

So, I seem to be careening towards the end of something, with ever-increasing speed. It maybe possibly doesn’t seem to be a sharply classic axis of development (if there is such a thing), but it’s in the ballpark. Maybe I’m gonna blow it, but I don’t think that’s a big deal. I’m grateful to my past self for accumulating all this smart, honest content, here, where I can spout intricate, messy craziness that can be really wrong but still relatively safe and provide lots and lots of value. I do worry that I’ve written some things that were contingently misleading enough that they cost people real time in getting where they wanted to go or would have wanted to go in current or future retrospect. But, here I am and here we are. Better and better until we get hit by a bus or not.

When I achieved (accidently, desperately smashed myself into) stream-entry, for a few days afterwards I experienced respiratory drive depression and dizziness from, I assume, low blood pressure. As soon as I noticed it, I expected it was because the sympathetic activity of my autonomic nervous system had sharply dropped (and/or parasympathetic activity had ramped sharply up) and that slow-changing homeostatic equilibriators(??) in my physiology had to readjust. [Ed. threat response dropped sharply] The body has a bunch of collections of complementary systems, where one is a fast responder to homeostatic pressure, which can keep compensating for a few days, and then there’s a slower to adapt, but less costly to maintain, system that catches up over time.

I’m experiencing a rolling version of this now [Ed. it’s over for this round]; every few days I experience abrupt drops in global muscle tension (and I assume) increases in vasodilation and decreases in blood pressure. So I like keep getting dizzy walking around and it fades over a few days and then it happens all over again.

Immediately after stream-entry, before I knew I had experienced stream-entry, I noticed that there was a strange expanded diameter of clarity in the center of my vision. Not that big of a circle, but big enough to notice. It was distracting when watching tv or driving for a few days. I’ve had all sorts of changes to the visual (and whole sensory/experiential field) over the past couple years. That circle widened (I think?) until there wasn’t a weird extra circle in the middle of my vision anymore. Just the whole thing was different and it was difficult to concretely call up the experience of the difference between before and after. And it’s [all experience is] brighter, though it’s not brighter all the time–if I’m in a weird metabolic regime or my blood pressure is slightly wonky (glucose/ketones/oxygen aren’t fully keeping up for whatever reason).

More recently, when I close my eyes, the lights and flickering and blobs and patterns are so bright, more structured, more meaningful. (It’s not distracting me or interfering with sleep or anything like that.)

The entire field, all the sense doors, are pretty damn integrated, but very obviously not entirely integrated. Cognition, thinking is so much easier, so much less manual because everything I need is prereflectively feeding into the right places. I don’t have to go looking for it.

Will and effort are still there, though attenuated. Nothing has recently changed with time-bending [a thing that’s supposed to happen eventually]. I had like a scary seeming ego-death-ish experience that was totally handleable as it was happening, and I didn’t feel all that different afterwards [had a few more of these].

So, yeah. Why do I think I’m getting to the end of something? What about cessation of suffering or happiness independent of conditions [Ed. this is happening now I think] or something profoundly spiritually good combined with overwhelming gratitude and a sense of completion?

The main reason is I’m sort of running out of stuff to process, to the point that, in some sense, all that’s left is action. Months ago, I kept thinking I was near-done, but I’d discover additional huge pockets necessitating processing and then large refactorings needing to happen after that. You start to get more and more of an accurate sense of what’s left, maybe.

When I say all that’s left is action, I sort of mean that there’s, in some sense, nothing left to do but doing things. You sort of run out of technical debt in your mind; you’re all caught up, you can use your mind if needed, but you’re not caught up in your mind. There’s a sense of huge amounts of unnecessary complexity, loops and routes and bypasses and gates and blocks and fantasy and comforting and chattering getting sorted out, ironed out. And the big jumps of realizing that there was a huge amount of phenomenology you weren’t effortlessly already aware of seemingly have ended; the whole volume and surface of the body is alive, the whole body shimmers, coextensive with the mind. Like I said above, it’s not fully integrated, but I’m not expecting to encounter additional totally new (to me) qualities or qualities that I knew in some sense were there but they weren’t available all-at-once with everything else. I recently started using the previously groan-inducing (to me) term ‘bodymind.’ It fits. The system still gets stuck at times, but when the system moves, the whole system moves, and that wasn’t the case before.

And there’s just not that much left, as far as I can tell. I’ve reached entirely new and surprising vistas before, become aware of months if not years being left, but I’m not getting the impression that that’s going to happen again. We’ll see. Maybe there will be clicks or jumps of like things with self or will or effortlessness or integration/unification of the sensory field.

Another thing that’s happened, possibly the most valuable thing to me, and I expected this to happen, was how my world started to make more and more sense in a very realistic and concrete way (nonmonotonically). What I was doing, why I was doing it, my place in the world, what other people are doing, how the whole things works, what’s good and bad about that. Basically, my plans kept getting better (nonmonotonically).

What made me write this post is that the practicality of my thoughts and my stance towards the world just keep increasing. I was trying to point to some of the core things, and one of them seems to be that the inputs and outputs of my cognition are becoming more and more and more sensorially concrete–like, prereflectively, effortlessly, what are the outcomes of my actions going to be in terms of the actual sense doors. What’s actually going to concretely happen, as far as I currently expect and believe, is the thing that is ramping up and up. My decisions are becoming more and more based on how am I actually going to feel, what are they actually going to say, do I actually want that, what can I do differently… Perhaps everyone already does this, I mean, of course? And I was doing this too? But something on this axis is optimizing, and it’s very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very good. Maybe some other facet will become more salient as things continue, but the sense of being unconditionally on top of my world, on top of all my shit (even when there’s endless things left to be done) combined with a sort of ever-increasing effortless end-to-end concreteness sort of currently feel like The Thing(tm). For me, anyway.

When I say concreteness, it’s not like washing dishes becomes totally good and absorbing or something like that. Maybe that will happen; I don’t care. And I don’t feel, like, boring or unimaginative. And I’m looking forward to writing material with extreme philosophical intricacy and precision about all of this, more than I ever, ever have before, and much of that will be very abstract, not concrete. The concreteness is more just like, ok, and this is cliche, but not mistaking the sense doors (or sense field or whatever) for something other than what they are (for what it is). The external world is out there but all I’ve got are these sensations, so I’m gonna optimize them. My internal world is in here, but it’s empty, insubstantial; in both cases map is not the territory, so I’m gonna frickin’ optimize the map.

I burned off, frankly, endless amounts of disendorsed but gently regarded fantasy violent misogyny (among fifty billion other things), and/but sex is still intense and good (nonmonotonically). I’m still enjoying tv though for different reasons [Ed. this seems to be fading now].  And I’m moving towards, perhaps, I think, I suspect, something like utterly-all-consuming local and expansionary compassion. (Big surprise; we’ll see. If so, I’m confident that it will be non-grim, non-naive, hilarious, connective, and exciting. There’s a whole world out there, and people are hurting, and there’s still nukes and the promise and peril of technology. And increasingly so the promise and peril of especially mind tech.) You want the people around you to be happy and you want the whole thing (the whole world) to work.

Some additional important things. At times I thought I was going to have to give up things I didn’t want to give up, that I would have to make terrible choices. But always, and I mean always, it turned out that I didn’t have to give anything up that was truly good. I had to examine so many sacred beliefs, so much sacred phenomenology. And, for me, at least there was endless experiential and philosophical and moral puzzles to solve. It was very, very cognitive while I was still refining my methods, and it’s still intermittently very cognitive. And even when it’s not “cognitive,” understanding/insight,  fodder for prereflectively using your mind well, for making good choices, what you use to win in dharma combat–true understanding in your bones–is everything. Sometimes I had to make hair-splitting comparisons or pay attention to hair-splitting phenomenology and the whole system was so, so, so, so, so jammed up. You have to be willing to look at your most sacred (and terrible) untouchable (unfixable; seemingly) things, but you get to keep the good stuff. Good as in good-good, not boring-good or society-good or creepy-sex-thing-good or melodrama-good. You get to keep the good-good things in these things. And you never, never have to give up anything until you’re ready. It’s not your fault; this is hard. If you try, it’ll just take longer. FINE, I for sure used iron will and self-crushing, but I had to undo ALL of it, ALL of it, and maybe that made things take TWICE as long; so if you can get away with not doing those sorts of things to yourself, DON’T. If the world has gone joyless and grimdark and you have to resign yourself to some nihilist buddhist or materialism thing then you’re making an error somewhere. This will surely happen at times, over and over again, maybe, and don’t fight it, but also it’s ultimately an error.

II

So, where to, from here?

It’s a cliche in meditation-land, but the problem is in our minds, people. AND MINDS CAN CHANGE. You think you’re too stupid, too fucked up, too broken–that the world will never make sense to you, that you’ll never take world-facing valued actions, that you can’t write a call to action or go on tv or write a book or found a dynasty. No. Minds can change down to the very, very, very bottom. This is the good news. I’m almost thirty-eight [Ed. I am now 38.]. That’s like five-hundred years old in something years. I felt pretty fucking ossified. Is that weird? But with the right methods the whole thing just sheds what it doesn’t need and moves.  Shockingly so. Shockingly so. Shockingly so.

The bad news is how currently hard and dangerous it is. Selection bias and survivorship bias. People who don’t get stuck make it all the way, along some of the axes. And we don’t hear about the people who bounce off or hurt themselves very, very badly. And most people are somewhere in between. And what’s the goal or the bar? Non-self-crushing, non-naive, world-centric, large-scale compassionate coordination?

I’m still an arrogant, not-finished, paranoid loner. [Ed. a lot less so now]

Though, not exactly, and I’ve got plans.

III

I couldn’t have done this without all the material already out there, both directly and indirectly. I didn’t benefit directly from e.g. /r/streamentry, but I benefited from people who did benefit from e.g. /r/streamentry. Critical pieces. And so it goes, back in time. Doing this is so hard, at least until you finally, confidently settle on the right methods. And figure out your super-weird, idiosyncratic puzzles and blocks to making straightforward progress (and they keep popping up as you go).

I also benefited from local community. Because of my contingent starting conditions, I wouldn’t have made it without the support of the people around me. And sometimes I extracted that support via emotional extortion. N-dimensional chess manipulation. I’m still making it up to them, and I’ll be doing so some time. And they hurt me. We’re all hurting each other.

(I also absolutely couldn’t have done this if I were not a white male with hair with an engineering degree, software development skills, a supportive family and most importantly stratospheric levels of belligerent self-entitlement.)

So can we do better? Buddhism is doing its thing. Some people went to Burma and came back. Ingram wrote his book. Culadasa wrote a book. Ken Wilber. Shinzen. Dozens of people like them. Hundreds of people who supported them. All of it.

Ingram is rocking a my-uncompromising-truth-which-non-coincidentally-has-a-lot-of-truth-truth thing. Culadasa is rocking a “here’s one path described with world-historical levels of detail, modernized terminology, and a new theoretical framework.” Shinzen is rocking a clarity, precision, unification, history and science thing. And, as far as I can tell, there’s dozens of good teachers out there now doing their thing that happens to be less visible to me.

What I intend to bring to the table is philosophy-grade precision, analytical phenomenology, rigorous epistemology, and a unification with depth psychology. And local and global safety. Let’s crack this thing. Let’s do it safely. Ingram warns of the dark night. Culadasa claims you can avoid it. Shinzen (I think?) downplays it.

As the mind tech improves, what about the possibility of triggering a global dark night? What about an uncontrolled explosion in use of the powers (yes), as Ingram refers to them?

I don’t mean to piggyback on the nuclear and AI apocalyptic warnings, except that, ok, I do; it’s convenient and it’s good memetics. But these are real concerns. Really real. All of them. If we’re really serious about disseminating tools that are truly catholically accessible and powerful enough to actually work (help people have experientially and interpersonally good, world-centric lives on their own terms) as well empower people who choose to do so to work towards making safe, world-scale changes then we have to take all possible risks seriously. And the clock is ticking. And our private and public struggles are real.

***

We are all seeking something good and real; we are fish in the water of ourselves and world, of our presuppositions and the ways in which self and world could be different, and we don’t even know it. Differences and vistas of expansion, changes of mind as shocking as gaining new limbs, new senses. We don’t yet know how far apart we actually are and how close we can become. Can neural prostheses and metacortices train the mind at the highest grain of precision, teach us about the good, teach us how to be together with each other in a non-wireheady way? Where does that precision and those degrees of freedom come from? Maybe we’ll hit on the right electrodes or fields on the right neurons by chance. But neuroscience and even academic psychology do not speak the language of the soul, the language of the soul experienced from the inside. Philosophy comes closer, Aristotle, Descartes, Leibniz, Kant. Brilliant, critical, irreplaceable, foundational. The Buddha and lineages. We are their descendents and for all that’s gone wrong, for all we’ve lost that they had, we still have things that they don’t. There is still a need to put it all together. One’s deliberate, reflective precision is only as good as one’s method and metalanguage. My ideology is the surpassing of all contingency in service of those definite goods I can’t yet even conceive of, in the language of my mind, body, and heart that I can’t even speak yet. There is still a need for a science of mind from the inside. Husserl, messy as he was, was on to something when he indicated that the one true first philosophy is phenomenology

two books

1.

Romeo Stevens writes on facebook, and after browsing the appendix, I agree:

I’ve recommended IFS, Focusing, and Coherence Therapy in the past but struggled to find an all in one resource that communicates the core of the ideas in a simple concrete practice. The closest is the much recommended Focusing audiobook by Gendlin. Today I found an excellent book that not only explains what I think are the most important parts of these practices but also contextualizes them as part of contemplative practice.
https://www.amazon.com/Feeding-Your-Demons-Resolving-Con…/…/

This, alongside Opening the Heart of Compassion are my two must reads if you want to understand all this yogic nonsense you’ve heard me spouting.

(Me again: No opinion on Opening the Heart of Compassion which could be very good, but see also below. The material in Feeding your Demons is still heavyweight, but it is less heavyweight than e.g. Jay Earley’s Self-Therapy protocol, and it is also really uncommonly fucking intelligent about how minds actually work.)

 

 

2.

A Truthful Heart by Jeffrey Hopkins is a reprint of this* (Cultivating Compassion). It has good auxiliary practices, and could potentially speed up understanding the relationship between wisdom, emptiness, compassion, action, truth, reality, causality, etc…

 

subreddit

There is now a subreddit. If you have experience moderating and you’d like to be a moderator, please point me to any public moderation decisions if you’ve posted any, and/or tell me about you. Thanks!!!!

I don’t have any experience moderating online communities or estimates of time investment (depending on content and number of users), so this will be an experiment.

https://www.reddit.com/r/meditationstuff/

Inside and Outside; Sensations and Meaning

[This post is a promotion of a comment in my “return” post. The post before this one is actually newer. https://meditationstuff.wordpress.com/2018/09/17/some-brief-long-overdue-probably-regretfully-unsatisfying-updates/]

do you consider the meditation program outlined by Culadasa in The Mind Illuminated to be safe-ish (obviously keeping in mind that the whole “pursuit of Nirvana” thing is inherently a pretty crazy deal), if followed by a rational, sane, sensible person who generally has his/her life in order?

[…]

However I would be very interested in knowing what’s your opinion on Shamatha-heavy practices (like Culadasa’s) and on the Jhanas.

I’ve gotten a lot of value out of Culadasa et al.’s work. I think the practice, the instructions, and the theoretical models are high quality. I think, for a significant portion of practitioners, it will get them the thing (and, as far as I’m aware, lots of people have had success with this method? I haven’t tried to figure out the size of the community and the survivorship/selection bias/file drawer effect).

As with most practices, though, a significant portion of practitioners will get “stuck.” There will be something avoided in mind or body and/or there will be some error in how mind, body, attention, sensations, etc., are construed.

Reggie Ray and David Johnson [1] are on to something very important regarding the body.

Gendlin and parts work people (e.g. Internal Family Systems; Jay Earley [2] are also on to something.

Sensations are sort of a window into the mind from the outside, and meaning is sort of a window into the mind from the inside.

The body is a reflection of mind. Muscle tension and uncomfortable feelings point to something important and arguably unhandled in the bodymind system.

One can help out the system by attending to sensations with a healthy relational intention, i.e. from the “outside.” [Note that hammering away at muscle tension with a strong will is probably very counterproductive. What does it need? How can you help it? How can you and it both get a good thing?]

And one can also help out the system by attending to the meaning (with a healthy relational intention) that corresponds to those body sensations i.e. from the “inside.” [Does this make sense? Can I look at this terrible, feared thing about self, life, or world, gently and impartially, without it or self needing to change right then and there? ]

I haven’t tried this, but, in the TMI practice, when one finally ignores everything but mind(?), one might include the entire emotional/interoceptive/sensational body and any “thinking”/”meaningfulness” that’s happening inside the body. So the only thing to be ignored would be sensations that are definitely not being generated by the bodymind. There are probably yet finer distinctions to made, here, and I’d be curious for any TMI practitioners to chime in.

Stream-entry, in one sense, is the initial realization of important relationships between sensations, meaning, world, self, mind (and hopefully body).

If you’re good to the system you get more slack in the system to have the right things happen. (cf. spiritual bypassing)

[1] https://www.reddit.com/r/streamentry/wiki/beginners-guide [See TWIM]
[2] https://www.amazon.com/Self-Therapy-Step-Step-Cutting-Edge-Psychotherapy/dp/0984392777

Turning cranks inside spaces

Mostly according to a contemporary philosopher, with some mutation, one can think of the bodymind as something that acts on the basis of representational content. Representational content is more or less beliefs, and beliefs are more or less representations that represent the world more or less accurately.

Those beliefs are sculpted by having experiences and surely the bodymind also operates on itself, changing and hopefully improving beliefs with reference to remembered or recorded past experience.

This leaves things out, but one can really simplify thinking about the mind, even the brain by thinking about brainy-mind stuff as a collection of representations that changes over time.

One can then think about the space of all possible representations and the space of all possible collections of representations. The space of all possible total mind states will be a subset of the latter.

So, a mind in any particular time slice, in this simplified (but not that simplified?) model can be fully described by it’s representational content. It’s probably the case that we’d need to know some things about the environment that that mind is in, in order to know that mind’s trajectory. But, absent certain classes of interventions, many features of that mind might be overdetermined by that it already is (karma…), that is a mind’s trajectory may be heavily determined by the operations it performs on itself, which are determined by the current representational content in the system (So perhaps a mind encounters a teacher, a mentor, a meditation practice, depth psychology, a revelation… In my concepts I call this “grace.”)

In any case, we can also think about the space of all possible mind trajectories.

A mind(’s trajectory) might have necessary fixed points and contingent fixed points. That is, maybe minds always needs to have hope or hope in something. Or maybe minds intuitively grasp something about action or goodness. (Kant has some things to say about this, and probably the Buddha.) So, for any mind, if we have good epistemology, either empirically or a priori, we can start making claims or proofs about properties shared by all minds. I’m sort of thinking mostly about beliefs, here, but of course there’s going to be physical or mental laws, transformation laws, about how to determine a mind’s next state from a mind’s current state. And perhaps all minds are running on the bare metal, as it were, but perhaps minds tend to have a huge amount of built up structure, operating systems, virtual machines, if you will, lots of boxed operations, powerful but far away from the base transformation laws.

The necessary fixed points give you something like an envelope or a cone within which any particular mind can transform.

Personally, I don’t think there’s anything particularly special about stream entry or enlightenment in that I don’t think the laws of the system change. Things feel very, very different from the inside, of course, and models like the above don’t trivialized the profound value and tremendous achievement of getting one’s mind into a particular abstract state.

I think of how to do this as, given that a mind changes based on experiences, what one wants to do is pay attention to sensations as such, particularly the spatiotemporal properties of sensations that are common to all sensations and the relationships between all sensations. Then something magical happens.

I don’t think it’s quite this simple, but this gets one pretty far.

I think it’s actually really complicated, but the goal is to find really simple cranks to turn that unwind and/or move the system in the right direction, as opposed to cranks that wind the system up (create or reinforce contingent fixed points) until the system gets stuck.

I think lots of practices both unwind and wind, that is cause the mind to trade off on progress in different parts of itself. I think an ideal meditative practice will generally unwind the mind and sometimes you’ll have to solve small or medium-size puzzles that a relatively simple practice can’t quite untangle by itself.

I do think lots of meditators are doing a sort of tradeoff thing, where they’re making progress but also winding themselves up in some way. Additionally, with a strong will, you can smash yourself into the edge of the envelope, and then it feels like your metaphysics, the entire universe is breaking. This is one possible explanation for the dark night. If you slide along the wall in your travels instead of moving well away from the wall, then you could be in the dark night for a very long time. See also spiritual bypassing. Likely all practices have at least minor “adaptive valleys,” nonmonotonicity, where things get a little locally messed up before getting even better before the hiccup, possibly over and over again.

So, what are the correct general cranks to turn (meditative practices), what conceptual distinctions do we need to make, what phenomenology needs to be pointed at, how do we generally describe the idiosyncratic puzzles that particular practitioners needs to solve to make or continue to progress, and how does any particular practitioner reliably know whether and where they’re unwinding and winding?

Addendum: think also constraints, slider puzzles, Rubik’s cubes, tower of Hanoi problems, contingent locks and keys, all the way up and all the way down

Addendum 2: Backchaining [from sub or terminal goal states], acontextual or diminished or abstract context correct moves