I am nothing • Hacker News Board

Re: I am nothing

#61

Post by davidhollander » Sun, Aug 21, 2011, 5:30 AM UTC

Premise: we are what we think about. Being nothing requires one to think about nothing. It's actually quite a lot of work to think about nothing! The brain is constantly solving problems while awake and while asleep, building up momentum.

Proposal: Instead of expending massive amounts of energy bringing an object of such high inertia to rest, why not just change the inputs you are feeding it to gradually alter its direction? Don't focus on the cessation and extinction of the turning of mind. Focus on feeding the turning of mind solvable or aesthetically pleasurable problems, to decrease the bandwidth occupied by unsolvable\fear based problems.

tldr: I'm not convinced the epicness of ego destruction is necessary for ego transmutation, if that is one's goal.

edit: Well, I just realized my analogy does not hold for all cases. In Physics, if you want to change the direction vector of an object in motion, to the opposite of its present heading, it will require at least as much energy as bringing the object to rest. So focusing on ego destruction could be worth it depending on where you want to go and where you are now.

Additionally, we also know from Physics that all motion is relative, velocity cannot be measured without a frame of reference. I think the Buddhists would argue that cessation of the turning of thought provides this otherwise missing frame of reference, enabling the thought\ego vector to accurately be measured when the turning of thought restarts.

Re: I am nothing

#62

Post by mjijackson » Sun, Aug 21, 2011, 5:34 AM UTC

paul wrote: post #21

mjijackson wrote: post #11

I am a husband. I am a father. I am a child of God. There is a fine line between putting yourself in a box that you (or others) create for you and knowing who you are. The classifications that Paul lists in his post are of the first kind. The second kind, you can't really change.

Once you think you know, there's a risk that you stop learning, that you discard other possibilities.

I absolutely agree with this sentiment. This is the "box" that I was referring to above. It represents the limit of that which you are willing to believe, in many cases because you believe that you have already reached some level of understanding which cannot possibly be eclipsed by further investigation.

I also believe that it is at least as important to recognize that there are certain characteristics (for lack of a better word) that each of us possess which are an integral part of who we are.

Your claim that we are nothing presents a serious ethical dilemma, and one which I believe if not understood correctly can have disastrous consequences. Allow me to explain.

Each of the characteristics that I mentioned above directly ties me to a responsibility that I have to some "other". With regards to this other, I am something. It is the very essence of existence. The mere fact that I exist means that I will always have an effect on some other, whether good or bad. Without an other, I do not exist.

To choose to ignore the responsibility I have towards an other is an action. It may have a good or bad consequence, but it is still an action. I cannot avoid acting, as inaction itself is an action with regard to the other.

For example, I mentioned above that I am a father. Now, I could of course choose (as many men do for one reason or another) to simply walk away from my responsibilities as a father. I could decide essentially that I am not a father. But that doesn't change the fact that I have fathered children and that abandoning that responsibility will have some consequence on them. To them, I am something. I am their father, and I can't change that.

To pretend that I'm not a father is simply lying to myself. It's also being very selfish. That's why I say that this belief system can have disastrous consequences when applied broadly. Because if you're not careful it can lead to very selfish behavior.

Re: I am nothing

#63

Post by klbarry » Sun, Aug 21, 2011, 5:38 AM UTC

It seems to me quite difficult to follow the philosophy described in this essay. It also seems to me an undesirable life, though I can see why a person would want it. Much satisfaction in my life comes from seeing myself as a "good" x, and I experience very little dissatisfaction from these labels. Perhaps this will change as I age.

Re: I am nothing

#64

Post by nevvermind » Sun, Aug 21, 2011, 5:54 AM UTC

I don't know much Zen, but after the "Zenish" comments in here, I guess lots of HN-ers do, right?

I maybe am a case of "western individuation syndrome", but for me, loosing individuation for protecting myself sounds rather like an oxymoron. Actually, when there's nothing to protect, there nothing to improve, whatever that guy says. And even if you might say that Buchheit didn't suggest to actually dissolve your personality, it very much seems like he did.

Low expectations, realism when faced with your own challenges, sane aggressiveness or indifference, confronting your own prejudices, vices and frustration, are all possible when one's brain is mentally trained, not when you're living with a general sense of "loosing yourself" or when one's dissolving one's ego.

I don't think "letting go of your identity" leads to "a better version of our selves" or "true self improvement", but to a toxic sense of not being who you are.

"But I am nothing, and so I am finally free to be myself." - if you need to be nothing in order to be free, you ARE nothing.

"By returning to zero expectations, by accepting that I am nothing, it is easier to see the truth." - what do zero expectation has to do with nothingness?

"If I were smart, I might be afraid of looking stupid." - that's not being smart, that's being westernly-smart. Change "smart" with "wise" and see if that sentence makes any sense.

Why does someone always preaches extremes to get rid of another? Now I'm being artistically literal: when you say "I am nothing", just loose the "I".

Hey, I had frustrations, I had problems and conquered must of them, partly with indifference, partly with matured ego, partly with higher self-barricades, but not once I thought of dissolving my ego. What the deuce? - I kinda need it! I was learned to fight and gain knowledge, but then I learned that, when fighting something, you actually give it meaning, so then I learned to give up. So this blog post does resonate with my experience at some extent.

Preparing for "He didn't mean to ACTUALLY renounce your personality": it's dangerous to use metaphors or ambiguous expressions when your next paragraph if a plain-life description. Just don't. Use "lower your expectations" instead of "be nothing". This is logic/biologic-ally wrong. You can't be nothing, but you can't be all of it, neither, so, in the mediocrity principle, just be something, because you already are (how's that for metaphoric?).

Re: I am nothing

#65

Post by calebmpeterson » Sun, Aug 21, 2011, 6:29 AM UTC

mjijackson wrote: post #62

paul wrote: post #21

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Once you think you know, there's a risk that you stop learning, that you discard other possibilities.

I absolutely agree with this sentiment. This is the "box" that I was referring to above. It represents the limit of that which you are willing to believe, in many cases because you believe that you have already reached some level of understanding which cannot possibly be eclipsed by further investigation. I also believe that it is at least as important to recognize that there are certain characteristics (for lack of…

Well spoken; thank you.

Re: I am nothing

#66

Post by thedigitalengel » Sun, Aug 21, 2011, 6:29 AM UTC

Reminds me of Tyler:

It's only after you've lost everything that you're free to do anything.

Re: I am nothing

#67

Post by itiztv » Sun, Aug 21, 2011, 6:38 AM UTC

edw519 wrote: post #35

...you shouldn't compare yourself with others -- you didn't start in the same place or with the same challenges... Reminds me of this: Reb Zusha was laying on his deathbed surrounded by his disciples. He was crying and no one could comfort him. One student asked his Rebbe, "Why do you cry? You were almost as wise as Moses and as kind as Abraham." Reb Zusha answered, "When I pass from this world and appear before the…

.

Re: I am nothing

#68

Post by mannicken » Sun, Aug 21, 2011, 6:41 AM UTC

I agree. Having ego is so outdated. Ego is like believing that blacks are an inferior race, or earth is flat, or earth is 6000 years old.

In other words, "apple is being eaten by you just as much as you are eating the apple". It's not so much that you have chosen to eat the apple, as much as the apple chose to hit the receptors in your brain that will make you eat it. But it's all ridiculous: you and apple are one harmonious system.

Re: I am nothing

#69

Post by Neodudeman » Sun, Aug 21, 2011, 6:41 AM UTC

nevvermind wrote: post #64

I don't know much Zen, but after the "Zenish" comments in here, I guess lots of HN-ers do, right? I maybe am a case of "western individuation syndrome", but for me, loosing individuation for protecting myself sounds rather like an oxymoron. Actually, when there's nothing to protect, there nothing to improve, whatever that guy says. And even if you might say that Buchheit didn't suggest to actually dissolve your perso…

Not only is this Zen Buddhism, but this is actually all Buddhism, in its ultimate form.

Letting go of yourself, and saying I am nothing, quite literally means that. We are nothing, simply mounds of flesh and bone. Even our thoughts, and our minds, are not a self. There is no such thing as free thought, no thinker behind the thoughts. All feeling and sensation, touch smell, taste; they all have an origin in the physical realm. Thoughts and ideas are the same, and they have an origin in the mental and physical realm. No idea is an idea floating by itself. They all originate from somewhere, like the sensation of touch or smell. Like, this conversation we're having. The ideas we both put forward have been taught to us, either by books, teachers, or our environments. They cannot be without cause.

An idea: The sun is bright. Why is the sun bright? Because the accepted lexicon of 'bright' is associated with a tingling, slightly painful feeling in the eyes. Why did I say the sun is bright? Because I needed an example in order to explain my words better. Why do examples explain words better? Because I've read words with examples, and felt I had understood more because of them, and so on. See? Where in thinking is there free thought? No where. Then, if we are neither thought nor sensation, what are we?

The pain and frustration we feel from life come from trying to fight with this, trying to see ourselves as a self; a self that has wants and needs that Must be fulfilled. We've become so accustomed to this idea of 'self' that we even shelter it, and protect it. We create elaborate explanations and excuses in order to protect this idea of self, when instead, it should be let go.

By letting go of oneself, you see this person realistically, and in an unbiased way. Pain or circumstance that befalls this person is simply as it is, neither good nor bad; it simply is. We then can improve this person: we are able to see these flaws and these unskillful actions objectively and clearly. Once these are seen, they can be easily changed, since there is no I or me, but a person. Unmetaphorically, and unequivocally, that is what is meant by 'I am nothing' and how it should be used.

Re: I am nothing

#70

Post by Joeri » Sun, Aug 21, 2011, 6:51 AM UTC

nevvermind wrote: post #64

I don't know much Zen, but after the "Zenish" comments in here, I guess lots of HN-ers do, right? I maybe am a case of "western individuation syndrome", but for me, loosing individuation for protecting myself sounds rather like an oxymoron. Actually, when there's nothing to protect, there nothing to improve, whatever that guy says. And even if you might say that Buchheit didn't suggest to actually dissolve your perso…

I disagree that the author was exagerating when he said that you must become nothing to be truly free. I think it's not about permanently erasing your own identity, but about being able to change perceptions at will.

There are two states we can be in: acting and reflecting. When we are acting, we have to rely on all of our accumulated skill, so we must be confident that we know what we are doing. But afterwards, when we are reflecting on what we've done, we must drop all pretense of having skill and knowledge, and take an outsider's view of our own work. To make a fully honest appraisal of what we're doing we must forget that it is our own work. We must be nothing to see everything.