Looking at the Philosophy Project


This post refers to the Philosophy Project.

The purpose of this post is simply to provide a holding area for ideas.

We shall be looking around at all different kind of stuff to digest it. The ideas shall first be discussed under the COMMENTS section. Anything pertinent will then be added to this post.


A self (being) seems to be simply a “center of considerations” that it holds and continually outputs.

As the perception point identifies itself with knowledge through considerations, it gets fixed in its place, and loses it fluidity. Thus,  “I,” or the self, is generated.

All knowledge, regardless of its source, should be consistent. When there is inconsistency, there must be something unresolved that is underlying that inconsistency. Spiritual progress occurs when one starts to spot inconsistencies as they come up naturally and applies mindfulness to them until they dissolve.

As one starts to look mindfully at an inconsistency, it may lead to a chain of inconsistencies. Just keep looking more closely at the inconsistency that is at the “top of the stack.” It is very important to follow the 12 points of mindfulness.

“I” generates considerations (assessment, speculations, judgments, justifications, assumptions, etc.). These considerations are capable of filtering whatever “I” looks at. Taking responsibility means not letting one’s considerations color one’s perception and seeing things as they are.

Considerations seem to bring in the factor of “preservation,” whether it is the preservation of self, or the preservation of property. Justice seems to be concerned with such preservation.

Everything about this universe is in flux. Nothing stays the same. Everything is impermanent. Yet this whole system made up of impermanence seems to be permanently there. How can this inconsistency of “impermanence being permanently there” be explained?

Perception is there as long as manifestation is there. When manifestation is not there, there is no perception either. Thus, there can never be a perception of the state of non-manifestation. We would always perceive manifestation to be there. Ha ha… Q.E.D.


(1) An “identity” may simply be a tight “knot” of considerations that needs to be loosened up.

(2) The self is the “center of considerations” analogous to the “center of mass.”

(3) An identity may not affect the self if it is somewhere at the periphery of considerations.

(4) If the identity is closer to the center, it may appear as if the self is stuck with it.

(5) But there are simply a bunch of considerations knotted together, which needs to be loosened up.

(6) Being stuck is simply “some considerations locked into each other.”


There seems to be two different levels of knowledge:

(1) A level of knowledge before SELF comes into being.

(2) Another level of knowledge, which is generated when SELF starts to react to the previous level of knowledge.

Such a reaction may occur in chain resulting in ballooning of considerations. The only way to stop and reverse such ballooning of considerations would be to look non-judgmentally and see what is actually there.

Then one is no longer reacting to what is there. Instead one is now continually realizing what is there. This starts to deflate the ballooning considerations. In other words, the ego, or self, gradually starts to dissolve.

One can never predict where this process might lead to. :)


At death, the body disintegrates into its particles, and the identity that was the body is dissolved. Similarly, the observing and thinking part of the person (the living soul) also disintegrates into its particles (considerations), and the identity that was the person is also dissolved. That is my current understanding.

However, the particles remain and they can recombine into another “body plus living soul” combination. There is infinity of such recombination.

What are the ultimate laws underlying this disintegration and reintegration, I don’t know the details at the moment. But this seems to be going on forever like complex cycles of some eternal wave according to Hinduism.

Nirvana is something different altogether. It happens to a live soul. In my opinion, nirvana is like exteriorization from CONSIDERATIONS. It is the separation of perception-point from all its considerations. This is called giving up of all attachment in Hinduism. One then sees things as they are without any filters as in Buddhism. There is no individuality in terms of considerations. A perception point is the same as any other perception point. It does not add anything to what is observed or experienced.

Nothing arrives at Nirvana. it is what remains after all attachments are dissolved. I call it a perception-point. But even the perception-point dissolves at parinirvana by merging into its own manifestation… something like electron merging into positron.

Parinirvana is probably what occurs at death, where the live soul, that was already reduced to a completely detached perception-point, merges back into its own manifestation, extinguishing both. The laws of disintegration and reintegration are thus bypassed. But this is only my speculation.

The basis of this speculation is removal of all inconsistencies that I am aware of at this level.


Both comments and trackbacks are currently closed.


  • vinaire  On December 25, 2012 at 7:47 AM

    Ultimately, what matters is HOW ONE ADDRESSES A CONFUSION!

    (1) A decision can make a confusion easier to bear, such as, “I must not be very good.”

    (2) One has simply avoided looking at the confusion by arriving at this conclusion.

    (3) But the confusion is still there and it would impact the person in different ways.

    (4) Actually it would now impact the person through the conclusion, “I must not be very good.”

    (5) One has simply changed the form of the confusion.

    (6) So one must first look at all such efforts to suppress the confusion, and then at the original confusion itself.

    (7) This has to be done non-judgmentally using the 12 points of MINDFULNESS, a little at a time.

    (8) One continually examines the considerations that come up whether they are out there or held closely by one. This includes the examination of one’s viewpoint.

    (9) Anything that comes up is a grist to this mill of examination.

    (10) Any examination must be totally non-judgmental in terms of looking at things as they are.



  • vinaire  On December 25, 2012 at 7:51 AM

    All inconsistencies are leaves on the tree of confusion.



  • vinaire  On December 25, 2012 at 8:07 AM

    Being stuck is simply “some considerations locked into each other.”

    There is no substantial “you” that is clinging to anything. A “stuck you” is what appears to be there. But underlying that are “considerations locked into each other.”

    One starts examining all the considerations to do with the area of stuckness. No matter how true some of those considerations seems to be, they are reexamined for inconsistency without being judgmental or biased, until they become loose and no longer interlocked tightly.



  • vinaire  On December 25, 2012 at 9:13 AM

    (1) Considerations becomes knotted because of some desire.

    (2) It is like magnetic particles coming together and balling up. The opposite poles of particles grab each other indiscriminately depending on the distance between them.

    (3) Therefore, it may be just that the shortest route to satisfying desires is what balls one up.

    (4) If one can only be patient and start looking at how things really are that one may start loosening up these knotted considerations and realigning them more simply.

    (5) Those who can control their immediate desires can then achieve their long term goals more easily.



  • vinaire  On December 25, 2012 at 9:21 AM

    Sorting out the inconsistencies among various desires may help loosen up the tightly knotted considerations that one is holding on to.




  • vinaire  On December 25, 2012 at 9:39 AM

    One needs to see what is actually there rather than just think about it.

    People stop looking from a viewpoint when a decision is made from that viewpoint. That decision now seems to become the new viewpoint.



  • vinaire  On December 25, 2012 at 10:38 AM

    (1) A confusion disturbs the natural alignment of considerations. With that confusion consistencies are entered in that alignment.

    (2) This disturbs the natural flow of energies through that network of considerations..Inconsistencies are entered into the flow of energies.

    (3) A decision is designed to handle the confusion by redirecting the flow of energies.

    (4) A decision creates rules and restraints and marks a shift in how one is being.

    (5) A decision may have to do with the knotting of considerations.in a particular way.

    (6) Automaticities result from knotted considerations.


  • vinaire  On December 25, 2012 at 3:10 PM

    When working with a person, the best way to gain their trust is to be totally sincere in whatever you say to him.and then carry it through. He will trust you when he can see that you thoroughly understand his concerns and you are working to handle those concerns in every little way you can.

    Be sincere in telling him what he is doing right, and where he can improve. Be precise in giving him instructions. Approve of him heartily when he does it right. Trust him with doing his part and give him credit for it. You take credit for doing your part.



  • vinaire  On December 25, 2012 at 8:53 PM


    (1) An “identity” seems to be a tight “knot” of considerations that needs to be loosened up.

    (2) This tight knot comes about during some intense confusion during which a decision is made as a “solution” to the confusion.

    (3) That decision fixes the considerations in a certain configuration (knot).

    (4) Since this configuration now acts as the viewpoint, from which one is looking, it is hard to spot.

    (5) The most important part of this “fixed configuration of considerations” is the resultant vector, or the overall direction, in which all other considerations are being propelled.

    (6) The underlying purpose is, obviously, to end the confusion.

    (7) What Galusha calls the “primary intention of the identity” is the action or decision taken to keep the confusion at bay.

    (8) This would now be the driving consideration, which is somehow creating the unwanted condition..


  • vinaire  On December 25, 2012 at 9:10 PM

    Resolution of unwanted condition requires a thorough examination of the decisions one is living by.



  • vinaire  On December 26, 2012 at 5:43 AM

    Confusion occurs when one encounters an inconsistency, which goes against the considerations that one is holding to in an area.



  • vinaire  On December 26, 2012 at 7:26 AM

    If a religion disagrees with another religion; or if a philosophy disagrees with another philosophy, then there is an inconsistency.

    Underlying that inconsistency would be a more fundamental truth.


    • Chris Thompson  On December 26, 2012 at 10:37 AM

      I’ve been looking at this premise of “truth” for some time now and am tending away from the use of it.

      1. The term truth seems to be rooted in a human desire for absolutes.
      2. Truth is relative, conditioned and impermanent.
      3. Inconsistencies are also disharmonic waves. The disharmonic is relative to another wave but possibly only within a certain frame of reference. Maybe we should concentrate on tuning in these inconsistent waves and simply bring them into harmony and not worry about any underpinning of truth.
      4. Possibly the greatest truth we can achieve is harmony within a frame of reference.


      • vinaire  On December 26, 2012 at 12:31 PM

        That is how I am looking at it too. First of all any inconsistency would appear within a certain frame of reference, and it needs to be resolved within that frame of reference.

        So, if we see an inconsistency between Islam and Christianity, what frame of reference are we looking from?

        .Ultimately, it is a personal frame of reference, and one should resolve the inconsistency for oneself within one’s frame of reference.



  • vinaire  On December 26, 2012 at 7:41 AM


    (1) LOOKING starts with an unwanted condition. A problem would be an unwanted condition.

    (2) Having problems may not appear to be an unwanted condition, But underlying those problems would be an unwanted condition.

    (3) An unwanted condition would be a set of considerations fixed in place. It may seem that there is no way out.

    (4) It would help if one could spot the beginning of that unwanted condition. But it may not be possible.

    (5) Plato starts with the Ethical problem. It then leads to the Political problem. This, in turn, leads to the Psychological problem. The Psychological solution that Plato comes up with is the conditioning of the mind through belief in God and installing faith.

    (6) Such a solution simply fixes certain considerations in place. Thus, the original situation of unwanted condition being “a set of considerations fixed in place” continues.


    • Chris Thompson  On December 26, 2012 at 12:30 PM

      An unwanted condition can also be called an inconsistent condition. It is inconsistent because it doesn’t match when overlaying another condition. Looking provides the perception required to match pro-action with the perceived inconsistent and disharmonic condition so that that disharmonic can be brought into focus and then harmony.

      Nothing seems to dissolve nor disappear except the perception of disharmony.


    • vinaire  On December 26, 2012 at 12:46 PM

      My premise is that a person should be able to change the considerations and realign them so that they are consistent with each other and with the surroundings.

      A person is actually the sum total of those considerations. So the ultimate alignment will occur according to some laws that apply to the considerations; and thus these laws also apply to the person himself.

      This is where mindfulness comes in. Mindfulness is an approach which is free of logic. One lets the considerations level themselves by not interfering with them.

      What will dissolve and disappear would be the inconsistency or disharmony. Of course, it is perception that tells you what is there.

      However, at this stage of the game I want to fully understand all the various aspects of an unwanted condition.



      • Chris Thompson  On December 26, 2012 at 6:27 PM

        Yes, of course. Please continue.

        As an aside, I am experiencing a great leveling – a blurry scene being brought into focus. It is a very rewarding feeling…


      • vinaire  On December 26, 2012 at 7:10 PM

        That is great. I am experiencing the same thing. A great calm.

        I just realized that Buddha deals with unwanted condition in his First Noble Truth.

        So, there is suffering (unwanted condition). So, what is the nature of this suffering. Looks like I have progressed to the final exercise of Buddha:


        But this doesn’t mean that I have EP’s all earlier exercises. I am actually doing all the earlier exercises as part of this exercise. 🙂



  • Chris Thompson  On December 26, 2012 at 10:41 AM

    The Universe is dynamic – period. Because truth is relative, conditioned and impermanent; possibly the greatest truth that we can aspire to is harmony within a frame of reference.


    • vinaire  On December 26, 2012 at 12:48 PM

      I see it that way too.



      • Chris Thompson  On December 27, 2012 at 4:33 AM

        🙂 “Framing” is constructing. “Identification with” is fixating upon; is anchoring into; is attempting to hold onto a single iteration; to make some aspect and time of our existence hold still. This is impossible to do. The more one strives to make one’s reality unchanging the more disharmony occurs.

        Possibly mindfulness is the widening of one’s field of vision so that one is aware of and therefore tolerant of the roiling flux of Nature.


  • vinaire  On January 5, 2013 at 8:08 AM

    The most fundamental dichotomy seems to be “impermanence – permanence”

    On that depends the dichotomy of “confusion – no confusion”



  • vinaire  On January 5, 2013 at 8:09 AM

    In confusion because there is nothing permanent… the tendency is to seek something permanent.

    Dukkha is the striving for permanence in the world of impermanence.


  • vinaire  On January 6, 2013 at 5:14 PM

    (1) In confusion one is actually looking at a disruption of a desire.

    (2) The identity that is formed during the confusion operates as a stable datum to align the confusion. But the identity then absorbs that confusion within itself by suppressing the desire.

    (3) An identity is basically a set of considerations that are locked into each other. This keeps the characteristics of the identity fixedly in place.

    (4) Thus, even when the identity is restraining confusion, its fixed characteristics result in unwanted conditions.

    (5) Thus an unwanted condition is basically the manifestation of the disruption of the original desire..

    (6) The identity may be diffused but the disruption of the original desire still needs to be addressed to handle the confusion and the resulting condition completely.



  • vinaire  On January 7, 2013 at 6:25 PM

    I am reading about Gurdjieff.


    Gurdjieff claimed that people cannot perceive reality in their current states because they do not possess consciousness but rather live in a state of a hypnotic “waking sleep.”

    “Man lives his life in sleep, and in sleep he dies.” As a result of this condition, each person perceives things from a completely subjective perspective. He asserted that people in their typical state function as unconscious automatons, but that one can “wake up” and become a different sort of human being altogether.

    Does this mean that most people have heavy filters that never come off? Gurdjieff is saying that it is possible to just drop off those filters.



    • Chris Thompson  On January 7, 2013 at 9:47 PM

      I like these tangential vectors. My looking points to radically different states than the status quo points to.


  • vinaire  On January 7, 2013 at 6:52 PM

    Instead of developing body, mind, or emotions separately, Gurdjieff’s discipline worked on all three to promote comprehensive and balanced inner development…

    Gurdjieff’s teaching addressed the question of humanity’s place in the universe and the importance of developing latent potentialities — regarded as our natural endowment as human beings but rarely brought to fruition. He taught that higher levels of consciousness, higher bodies, inner growth and development are real possibilities that nonetheless require conscious work to achieve…

    Gurdjieff taught people how to increase and focus their attention and energy in various ways and to minimize daydreaming and absentmindedness. According to his teaching, this inner development in oneself is the beginning of a possible further process of change, the aim of which is to transform people into what Gurdjieff believed they ought to be…

    To provide conditions in which inner attention could be exercised more intensively, Gurdjieff also taught his pupils “sacred dances” or “movements,” later known as the Gurdjieff movements, which they performed together as a group. He also left a body of music, inspired by what he heard in visits to remote monasteries and other places, written for piano in collaboration with one of his pupils, Thomas de Hartmann. Gurdjieff also used various exercises, such as the “Stop” exercise, to prompt self-observation in his students. Other shocks to help awaken his pupils from constant daydreaming were always possible at any moment.


  • vinaire  On January 7, 2013 at 7:03 PM


    The Work is in essence a training in the development of consciousness. During his lifetime Gurdjieff used a number of different methods and materials, including meetings, music, movements (sacred dance), writings, lectures, and innovative forms of group and individual work. Part of the function of these various methods was to undermine and undo the ingrained habit patterns of the mind and bring about moments of insight. Since each individual has different requirements, Gurdjieff did not have a one-size-fits-all approach, and he adapted and innovated as circumstance required. In Russia he was described as keeping his teaching confined to a small circle, whereas in Paris and North America he gave numerous public demonstrations.

    Gurdjieff felt that the traditional methods of self-knowledge — those of the fakir, monk, and yogi (acquired, respectively, through pain, devotion, and study) – were inadequate on their own and often led to various forms of stagnation and one-sidedness. His methods were designed to augment the traditional paths with the purpose of hastening the developmental process. He sometimes called these methods The Way of the Sly Man because they constituted a sort of short-cut through a process of development that might otherwise carry on for years without substantive results. The teacher, possessing consciousness, sees the individual requirements of the disciple and sets tasks that he knows will result in a transformation of consciousness in that individual. Instructive historical parallels can be found in the annals of Zen Buddhism, where teachers employed a variety of methods (sometimes highly unorthodox) to bring about the arising of insight in the student.



%d bloggers like this: