Fernando Pessoa revisited

On October 19, 2005 I posted a short piece to this blog about ALWAYS ASTONISHED: Selected Prose by Fernando Pessoa, which may be found HERE. Pessoa's life and work is of particular interest to Cinemorphics because of his method of creating "heteronyms", alternative personas, all of whom composed work "in character". Here is an excerpt from a short biography of Pessoa...

"Literary alter egos were popular among early twentieth-century writers: Pound had Mauberley, Rilke had Malte Laurids Brigge, and Valéry had Monsieur Teste. But no one took their alter ego as far as Pessoa, who gave up his own life to confer quasi-real substance on the poets he designated at heteronyms, giving each a personal biography, psychology, politics, aesthetics, religion, and physique...

...At least seventy-two names besides Fernando Pessoa were "responsible" for the thousands of texts that were actually written and the many more that he only planned. Although Pessoa also published some works pseudonymically, he distinguished this from the "heteronymic" project: "A pseudonymic work is, except for the name with which it is signed, the work of an author writing as himself; a heteronymic work is by an author writing outside his own personality: it is the work of a complete individuality made up by him, just as the utterances of some character in a drama would be."

The entire bio may be found HERE. A powerful study in character play.

- See more at: http://www.poets.org/poet.php/prmPID/752#sthash.ohzmK8Mn.dpuf

At least seventy-two names besides Fernando Pessoa were "responsible" for the thousands of texts that were actually written and the many more that he only planned. Although Pessoa also published some works pseudonymically, he distinguished this from the "heteronymic" project: "A pseudonymic work is, except for the name with which it is signed, the work of an author writing as himself; a heteronymic work is by an author writing outside his own personality: it is the work of a complete individuality made up by him, just as the utterances of some character in a drama would be." - See more at: http://www.poets.org/poet.php/prmPID/752#sthash.ohzmK8Mn.dpuf

At least seventy-two names besides Fernando Pessoa were "responsible" for the thousands of texts that were actually written and the many more that he only planned. Although Pessoa also published some works pseudonymically, he distinguished this from the "heteronymic" project: "A pseudonymic work is, except for the name with which it is signed, the work of an author writing as himself; a heteronymic work is by an author writing outside his own personality: it is the work of a complete individuality made up by him, just as the utterances of some character in a drama would be."

- See more at: http://www.poets.org/poet.php/prmPID/752#sthash.ohzmK8Mn.dpuf

Selfshifting

"You" are a bodymind, not a body with a mind or vice versa. Things that influence either, influence both…powerfully.

"You" are a verb, not a noun. "You" are fluid, constantly changing…at every level. The static "you" is a persistent illusion.

"You"… "Your self", persona, ego…”who you are”…however named, is a construct that is formed by the interaction of genetics, imprinting, conditioning and learning. "You" have little input into this process until after "you" have been thoroughly shaped by "your" parents, peers, culture.

Now consider that this "you" that "you" now seem to be is, actually, very much like a fictitious character that may appear in a novel, play or movie and may be re-written, re-produced and re-performed, using the techniques of those media…

More specifically…

When someone asks, who are you?, your response may include your name, age, sex, race, height, weight, hair and eye color, where you live, whether you are married or not, whether you have children, what you do for a living, your hobbies, your likes and dislikes, your religious beliefs, your hopes, fears, hang-ups, skills, etc. If pushed, you could produce an exhaustive "character" description of all of the things that, when combined, make up what you take to be you. You identify with this description, this construct.

This description of who you take yourself to be...your ego/persona/self...includes genetic, biological and physical components as well as culturally conditioned, learned and psychologically "shaped" components. Most of these components have been assembled over a long period of time without your input. (e.g. you were born with black hair and learned to speak Spanish growing up.) Some you believe you have intentionally cultivated (e.g. you decided to learn to play the guitar and make your living as a musician). In many cases the distinction between which of your attributes were come by intentionally and which were thrust upon you by nature or nurture is very blurry.

In any case, this description of who you think you really are, this construct with which you identify, can be looked at in another way. If written out, your description of yourself reads like a character description in a movie script, play or novel. Consider yourself a fictitious character that has been devised by the haphazard, natural forces of ordinary life in the world but which you have believed is the real and only you.

Now that you realize that this "you" that you can observe and describe is very much like a character in a movie, consider the possibilities. If your life is a movie and you are the star, lets have a look at how your character was written...to a great extent not by you...and how you are being directed...also in many cases not by you. If you don't like what you see, demand a re-write. Your character...your self...is not written in stone. It is malleable and can be re-written, then rehearsed and performed by you...at first with the collaboration of and direction by a professional and then by you alone. You can also learn to be your own best, most discerning audience, write your own reviews...decide what is working and what is not. You become the producer, the star performer, the critic. You learn how to take charge…

You learn how to Selfshift…you learn Intentional Selfshifting. You are now able to see yourself as an actor not a person…an actor who is playing with the self…engaged in the endlessly entertaining Infinite Game of life instead of just wading through the daily drudgery. You may construct several variations of your self that you can shift among, identifying and dis-identifying with one after the other depending on which one you want to “wear” in any given situation. You now have a “wardrobe” of personas to choose from, all the while realizing that none of them are really YOU. You are now the creator of these characters, these selves/personas/egos, not their slaves. You are the master not the servant, the host not the guest.

Social Media as Cinemorphics Playground

Here are some excerpts from a very interesting article with implications for the (obvious) ways that social media may be used as a Cinemorphics tool/toy...warning labels (lamentably) not included. We recommend the entire article, which may be found HERE.

I instagram, therefore I am: From Descartes to the 'selfie'

Is the self autonomous, existing independently of its environment, or are we actually an inseparable part of a larger social web?

By Gabriel Bukobza | Dec. 21, 2013 | 4:00 PM

U.S.

René Descartes had a tough life. His mother died when he was a year old, and he was raised by his grandmother, who died when he was 13. He never married, and had an illegitimate daughter. Tragically, she died from an illness when she was 5 years old. For most of his life, he preferred solitude to social interaction. Toward the end of his life he became the private tutor of Queen Christina of Sweden, but his bad luck persisted. A few months after arriving in frozen Stockholm, he contracted pneumonia, to which the philosopher, mathematician and writer succumbed in 1650, at the age of 54.

Descartes was ridden with anxiety, which is not surprising considering his life history, and apparently had at least one nervous breakdown. However, he was also ambitious and courageous, convinced that his mission was to understand the truth in its most objective form. After casting off all universally held opinions, rebelling against his teachers’ authority and abandoning the study of books, he began to investigate the experience of one’s selfhood from its very foundations.

Descartes will always be remembered as the one who defined humans as the only creatures who are capable of using their intellect in order to prove their own existence. His famous epigram, coined originally not in Latin but in French – “Je pense, donc je suis” (“I think, therefore I am”) – formulated a philosophical axiom that defines the most basic human he formulated a philosophical axiom that defines the most basic human unit: the autonomous individual. Such a person needs no proof or external drive to attain the truth, nor any external affirmation to validate his life or to realize his freedom.

When Descartes was a child, another book was published in Europe, which preceded and complemented his own ideas. This book was the Spaniard Miguel de Cervantes’ “Don Quixote.” Considered to be the first modern novel, it turned the individual and the turns and twists of his fate into objects of observation. Its second part is particularly fascinating, because it’s there that Don Quixote encounters fictional characters who know him because they read of his exploits in the first part of the book.

This constitutes a sharp expression of an art form that is aware of itself and reflexive − illustrating for the reader the different transformations that the hero undergoes. Sancho Panza, the wise fool who accompanies Don Quixote, says as they approach their village at the end of their journey that even though he suffered defeat at the hands of others, Don Quixote has vanquished himself, and that is the biggest victory one can hope for.

To date, stories of self-transformation are considered in Western literature to be inspiring myths that serve as guiding lights. They are avidly consumed since they reflect and validate the concept of the self as it has been molded over the last few centuries. Indeed, it’s hard to think of a film in which the main protagonist’s spirit does not undergo some transformation. As Robert McKee writes in his best seller  on scriptwriting, “Story,” the plot will not be convincing unless the hero’s plans fail, his character changes only then to succeed.

The autonomous, self-aware self is a construct of the modern era. Nowadays, when millions of people obsessively take their own “selfie” shots on their smartphones, they are likely unaware of the link between their behavior and the writings of Descartes and Cervantes. However, the legacy bequeathed by those two and others has dramatically impacted the development of the concept of self-awareness and has affected every facet of life. The autonomous individual owns his property, his decisions, his identity and life. He belongs to a community and does not live in isolation, but he is separate from any definition that may link him to others, taking sole responsibility for his actions...

Please click on above link for the entire article.

CINEMORPHICS BRIEFLY RE-STATED

Your self, persona, ego…"who you are'…however named, is a construct that is formed by the interaction of genetics, imprinting, conditioning and learning. "You" have little input into this process until after "you" have been thoroughly shaped by your parents, peers, culture, etc.

Now consider that this "you" that "you" now "are", however, is similar to a fictitious character that may appear in a novel, play or movie and may be re-written, re-produced and re-performed as is the case in those media, using the techniques of those media.



Your framework for doing this may be aesthetic (make yourself into a work of art), as play (the "infinite game"), as counselling (I effectively wrote alcohol, cocaine and cigarettes out of my script), or as magick (use your imagination).

Cinemorphics transforms and adapts the motion picture and theatrical techniques of character development, scripting, method acting, fundraising, criticism, wardrobe, make-up, special effects, editing, promotion, marketing, etc. into a model, symbol and skill set, and mythology - a complete system - that is very powerful and effective when applied to personal reality shifting.



This blog suggests…instigates…tempts…points…
It is partly practical…partly theoretical…partly whimsical…

Ready to go into take a meeting…make a pitch…go into production…

Click HERE to contact us about Cinemorphic workshops and sessions.

DOING CINEMORPHICS

I have revised this post slightly since it was first published in 2007. These brief instructions provide one informal way to introduce oneself to the Cinemorphic Method.

Go to the Archives of this blog and click on October 2005. Scroll all the way down to the first post, dated Saturday, October 15, 2005 and work backwards through the Cinemorphics FAQ, observations, exercises and notes to the present. Skip around...pick and choose...go out and try it...

At first, doing Cinemorphics is a lot like learning to ride a bicycle...a matter of balance, habit and confidence. Once you get the hang of it the world's a different place...

(Photo at right is of ALFRED JARRY (1873-1907), fanatical cyclist, playwright, poet, artist and freelance scoundrel, whose work prefigured theater of the absurd, Dada, Surrealism, Futurism, Pop Art...and Cinemorphics (Jarry made himself into a work of art). Among his other diverse accomplishments, Jarry was also Pablo Picasso's weapon supplier and the father of 'PATAPHYSICS.)

Cosplay and Cinemorphics

Cosplay can be viewed as an imaginatively exaggerated version of one way to use Cinemorphics. This brief description of cosplay is from Wikipedia:

Cosplay (コスプレ kosupure?), short for "costume play", is a performance art in which participants wear costumes and accessories to represent a specific character or idea. Cosplayers often interact to create a subculture centered on role play. A broader use of the term cosplay applies to any costumed role play in venues apart from the stage, regardless of the cultural context. Favorite sources include manga, anime, comic books, video games, and films. Any entity from the real or virtual world that lends itself to dramatic interpretation may be taken up as a subject. Inanimate objects are given anthropomorphic forms and it is not unusual to see genders switched, with women playing male roles and vice versa. There is also a subset of cosplay culture centered on sex appeal, with cosplayers specifically choosing characters that are known for their attractiveness and/or revealing costumes. The Internet has enabled many cosplayers to create social networks and websites centered on cosplay activities, while forums allow cosplayers to share stories, photographs, news, and general information. The rapid growth in the number of people cosplaying as a hobby since 1990 has made the phenomenon a significant aspect of popular culture. This is particularly the case in Asia, where cosplay influences Japanese street fashion.

The video is from Comic Con.
 

Hieronymus Moondog Interview

Interview with Charles Webb, founder of Cinemorphics.

Have you ever used Cinemorphics yourself?

Do you mean have I ever created another persona for myself and used it in “real” life?

Yeah…that’s the question.

Couple of times, yes. The most recent instance of this involves a fictitious character named Hieronymus P. Moondog that I created and used in various pieces several years ago. On many occasions my friends have referred to me as Moondog, and in the past few months, I have "made appearances" as Moondog on the internet.

How so?

Several blogs and websites…created and written as Moondog. Also, I have gotten ordained as Moondog and plan to get an advanced degree as Moondog.

Ordained?
Yeah...as a Dudeist priest...

Buddhist priest?
Dudeist...Dudeist priest...the Dude, man...look it up...

Er...so your fictitious character has taken over and is on the loose…

I guess you could put it that way…what a trip!.

Do you think a fictitious character like Moondog can effectively operate in the real world?

I don't see why not. You are as fictitious as Moondog...how are you doing in the real world?

Uhhh...let's see (checks notes)...are you Moondog all the time now?

Don't want to answer that one, huh?...OK…I move in and out of character. I write as Moondog, and occasionally am in character as Moondog when I leave the house.

Is there a special Moondog costume?

Moondog and I dress pretty much alike.

Have other people done this…sounds kind of strange.

Yeah…lots. Check out the Cinemorphics blog. Some people even get apartments, I.D., bank accounts, and so on as their “fictitious” alter ego.

Didn’t Carlos Castaneda use this as one of his techniques?

Lots of people have done similar things for a wide variety of reasons…

But I thought that Castaneda…

No more talk of Castaneda. Why don’t you ask me about Andy Warhol?

What about Andy Warhol?

He did this in reverse…

What do you mean?

He found actors who looked like him, made them up, rehearsed them, them sent them out on the college circuit in the 60s. Of course, with him, you could never tell whether he was real or fake even if you knew it was the “real” Andy standing there.

You’re making my head spin.

Good. How do you know that you are the real you and not some made up you that turned out this way by chance and can be re-worked? Who is the real you…really?

Can we get back to the interview?

This is the interview.

Uhhh…let me look at my questions. Aren’t there legal implications?

Coward. (long pause) OK…It’s a boring question, but I’ll answer it. (another long pause) No…not if you aren’t trying to con somebody out of money. I mean…its common in a way. Many writers use pseudonyms and even do interviews and book signings in character. Same with musicians, actors…con men, of course.

Where can we find the writings of H.P. Moondog on the net?

Search “Satori Tango” and “Pin Dudeism”.

Strange titles. Can you tell us something about them?

Just do the search and read for yourself.

I didn’t mean to offend you.

No offense taken.

Are you Moondog now…or Webb?

I’ll let you be the judge of that.

Any advice if someone wanted to play around with this?

Read the blog and the sourcebook…”Who’s Asking?”(below) After you’ve done that, get back in touch.

Thank you Mr. Webb.

Rev. Moondog to you…

Thank you Rev. Moondog. Could I ask you just one more thing?

Sure.

How did you come up with the name Hieronymus P. Moondog?

I'll leave that a mystery for now...

METHOD AGING and the Infinite Game

A new and expanded version of METHOD AGING and Improvisational Longevity entitled METHOD AGING and The Infinite Game is now available in paperback HERE and at AMAZON. It is also available on Kindle at Amazon, Nook at Barnes & Noble and at the Apple iBookstore. Other eBook formats are available HERE.

METHOD AGING and The Infinite Game

You are both very old and very young. Scientists say you are made of stardust, which makes you billions of years old. On the other hand, your emotional age in an unhappy state can be that of a screaming baby. Your functional age is defined as an interaction of the chronological, physiological, psychological, and emotional ages of "you". This is an approximation of your age based on what physical and mental activities you can usually perform on a daily basis. Your age is indeterminate…you are a verb not a noun…you have no fixed age. You can learn to think of your age as an improvisation…a spontaneous movement of your bodymind…not how many years you have been kicking around the planet.

The static "you" is a stubborn illusion. "You"… your self, persona, ego…who "you" are… is a dynamic assemblage that is formed by the interaction of genetics, imprinting, learning, culture, etc....a character description, similar in many ways to a character in a film or novel, a character description which can be changed once it is recognized as such. One significant part of your character description that can be effectively re-written and re-performed is your functional age. This is Method Aging - a Cinemorphic adaptation of method acting applied to daily life. Once you are successful at this and then ask yourself..."who is it that is reinventing this "me" I identify with?"...a new perspective may emerge, as well as a new perception of your relationship with time and your story. "You" are no longer a slave to your history. You may also see that "you" are not really playing what you now realize is the infinite game..."it" is playing you. And you both are a constantly whirling field of energy and potential...dancing with the Tao.

The TAO of AGING

The paperback version of The TAO of AGING is now available HERE and at AMAZON. The Kindle version is available HERE and on Amazon U.K. The Nook version is available HERE. The Apple iBookstore version is available HERE. All other eBook formats are available HERE.

The TAO of AGING

As The Tao of Aging opens, we encounter a strange old, sage-like Chinese philosopher and raconteur who claims to actually be Zhuangzi (ChuangTzu) - the second most important originator of Taoist thought after Lao Tzu.

Zhuangzi now lives in San Francisco and is known simply as "Z". As it turns out, over 2000 years after his exploits in ancient China, "Z" is still rambling about the world - trickster to the bone - tinkering with the way we look at what we call reality. He insists that he is not some mythical Taoist Immortal whose condition is due to an alchemical elixir but rather an ordinary man who pays attention to the Laws of Nature.
"I am not the Zhuangzi you have read about in books...wallowing in the mud all day. Stuck in the mud really, if you believe what you read, which you shouldn't. There are those who will say that the ideas I am telling you about now are not those of Zhuangzi - that they are different from Zhuangzi's teachings - contrary even. But if they were not freethinking - even heretical - they would not truly be Zhuangzi's - MY - ideas...
...And so you ask about some Tao of Aging? First, there is no Tao OF anything...just Tao. And Tao is not a noun, Tao is a verb. But even Taoing is not Tao because Tao has no name, even though I have just named it. Then, look for yourself. What you call your body may change in a way you call aging, but do 'you' age? Does your awareness get wet when it rains? Does your awareness turn into wearoutness over 'time'? I think not! Just think of yourself as a constantly changing field of energy and potential...swirling and twirling with the Tao..."

Is "Z" the real thing? Our conclusion by the end of our encounter with him...MAYBE...

ACTIVE AGING and Acting and Aging

The paperback version of METHOD AGING and Improvisational Longevity is now available HERE and at AMAZON. The Kindle version is available HERE, the Kindle, U.K. version is available HERE , the Nook version is available HERE and the Smashwords version (all other formats) is available HERE.

METHOD AGING...
YOU are a bodymind, not a body with a mind or vice versa. You are a verb, not a noun. You are fluid, constantly changing. The static you is a persistent illusion. You... your self, persona, ego...who you are... is a construct that is formed by the interaction of genetics, imprinting, and learning. You have little input into this process until after you have been thoroughly shaped by parents, peers and culture. Now consider that this you that you now seem to be is, actually, very much like a fictitious character that may appear in a novel, play or movie and may be re-written, re-produced and re-performed, using the techniques of those media. One part of your character description that can effectively be re-written, re-produced and re-performed is your functional age, which is defined as a combination and interaction of your chronological, physiological, psychological, and emotional ages. The Cinemorphic techniques discussed in METHOD AGING open the door to this transformation.

Cinemorphics At SAND

Cinemorphics was well received at the 2010 Science And Nonduality Conference in San Rafael, California on October 23rd. Please enjoy the video of the presentation below...

Who's Asking? Notes On Cinemorphics

WHO'S ASKING? Notes On Cinemorphics is now available online HERE.
If you are not familiar with Cinemorphics, I recommend checking out the "Doing Cinemorphics" post, below, before going to the Sourcebook...more entertaining that way...

STORY FIELDS

The STORY FIELD concept is very useful in thinking about the Cinemorphic manipulation of one's "reality"...the telling and re-telling of personal history...the creation of Tales of Power... An excerpt from a discussion of story fields is included below. This discussion itself as well as a very effective treatment of related ideas may be found HERE.



The Power of Story - The Story Paradigm

In the field of co-intelligence, stories are more than dramas people tell or read. Story, as a pattern, is a powerful way of organizing and sharing individual experience and exploring and co-creating shared realites. It forms one of the underlying structures of reality, comprehensible and responsive to those who possess what we call narrative intelligence. Our psyches and cultures are filled with narrative fields of influence, or story fields, which shape the awareness and behavior of the individuals and collectives associated with them.

Story-reality is the reality that we see when we recognize that every person, every being, every thing has a story and contains stories -- and, in fact, is a story -- and that all of these stories interconnect, that we are, in fact, surrounded by stories, embedded in stories and made of stories. When poet Murial Rukeyser tells us "the universe is made of stories, not atoms," she's describing story-reality. Ultimately, story-reality includes any and all actual events and realities, but experienced as stories, not as the more usual patterns -- objects-and-actions; matter, energy, space, time; patterns of probability; etc. Story-reality is made up of lived stories.

Lived stories are those real-life, actual stories that are happening in the real world all around us all the time. The actual unfolding events relating to any one actual entity or subject comprise that entity's or subject's lived story. Everything that exists has, embodies and participates in many lived stories. The way to co-intelligently engage in story-reality is to become sensitive to lived stories... to learn about the lived stories of people, places, things... to share our own lived stories... to discover how all these stories intersect, who or what is in the foreground and background of each other's lived stories. Ultimately, this provides the guidance we need to find our own most meaningful place in the universal story.

While analysis is good for control and prediction, story-sensibility is good for understanding meaning and role.

Narrative intelligence is the ability (or tendency) to perceive, know, think, feel, explain one's experience and influence reality through the use of stories and narrative forms.

Story fields are fields of influence or patterns of dynamic potential that permeate psycho-social space and influence the lives of those connected to them. They are made up of many mutually-reinforcing stories (myths, news, soap operas, lives, memories) and story-like phenomena (roles, metaphors, archetypes, images). A story field paints a particular picture of how life is or should be, and shapes the life within its range into its image.

The American Way of Life is a powerful story field, which includes everything from principles like freedom and the pursuit of happiness, to stories of cowboys and rags-to-riches heroes, to metaphors like the melting pot and the safety net, to images like the Statue of Liberty and the flag. It is communicated by movies, men in business suits, advertisements, college catalogues, and mall displays -- among many, many other things. It takes immense effort to resist or change it. Anyone or anything which doesn't live within this story-sea and move with its currents doesn't seem quite American.

Psychological, organizational or social transformation is usually preceded or accompanied by a change in the story field governing that system. It is therefore usually non-productive to try to change forms and habits without changing the story fields that hold them in place. Once the story field is changed, subsidiary patterns tend to realign rapidly. (This process is part of what has been called a paradigm shift.)

DISROBE THYSELF!

Philip H. Farber re-tells this Nasrudin tale as part of a book excerpt THE PERFECTED SELF .
One wonders what would happen if the esteemed Mulla were turned loose in Hollywood.



A hermit came into town from the forest, where he had been wandering naked for a long time. In the forest there had always been enough to eat, and enough places to hide when the storms came, if you didn't mind squatting in a hollow tree, eating small rodents. But the hermit grew tired of his solitude and longed for what he remembered of the stimulating quality of human interaction.
The gravelly road on the outskirts of town was too much for even the calloused feet of the hermit. Fortunately the hermit could see a fine pair of shoes lying in the rocks beside the road. He immediately put them on. They were a bit tight, but the leather was beautifully worked and, most importantly, the hermit could now walk upon the road with greater comfort.
As he came into the center of the village, the hermit began to grow hungry. With no game in sight, the hermit sought out a soup kitchen. Just as he was about to push open the weathered wooden door, he realized that couldn't enter the soup kitchen without a pair of pants. Fortunately, just outside, the hermit found a fine pair of pants. They were a bit short, and not quite his style, but they were a much finer pair than anything he had owned before becoming a hermit. With that, he went inside and enjoyed the soup, which of tasted of beef, not rodent.
Back out on the street, the hermit thought to visit a bank and ask for a loan to set up a small shop, so that he could provide for himself. He realized, though, that he couldn't go into the bank without a shirt. Fortunately, lying in the street was a fine shirt. It was a bit loose on the hermit, and not quite his favorite color, but it got him into the bank, where he easily talked the manager into giving him a loan.
He began to shop in the marketplace for the things he would need for his shop, but realized that the merchants would give him no respect without the vest of a guildmember . Fortunately, in an alley, he spotted a fine vest. True, it bore the markings of the blacksmith guild, and the hermit had hoped to open a bookstore, but it got him the respect he needed and he was soon operating a respectable blacksmith shop.
The shop did well, but the hermit soon realized that unless he allied himself with one of the town's religions and was known as a pious man, he would never draw larger numbers of customers. Fortunately, he found the turban of a Mulla on the street outside his shop. He put it on, and while it wasn't the color of the sect he had belonged to before becoming a hermit, it was a fine Mulla's turban, and he was immediately given great honor by the other villagers.
The villagers plied him with tasty food, paraded their daughters before him in hopes he would take a bride, and attended his every word. At one gathering in his honor, a naked man was hanging back with the beggars and low- lifes . This naked man was none other than the esteemed Mulla Nasrudin, who had recently been seen to dash out of the blacksmith shop where he had earned his living, shouting, "And these damn shoes are too tight!"
One of the low- lifes recognized the Mulla. "Say, Mulla, isn't that your turban that the new Mulla is wearing?"
"It's no matter," Nasrudin said. "I just came back into town to tell my wife that she can have the donkey... I was in the wrong sect, I hated blacksmithing , I owed money to the bank, and everything costs too much money. I'm going to live in the forest! Maybe when I come back in a few years I'll find some better clothing."

Want A SECOND LIFE?

SECOND LIFE is more even relevant to those interested in Cinemorphics than The Sims (see earlier post). You can check out the SECOND LIFE website HERE .



A VIRTUAL LIFE

A journey into a place in cyberspace where thousands of people have imaginary lives. Some even make a good living. Big advertisers are taking notice

As I step onto the polished wood floor of the peaceful Chinese country house, a fountain gurgles softly and a light breeze stirs the scarlet curtain in a doorway. Clad in a stylish blue-and-purple dress, Anshe Chung waves me to a low seat at a table set with bowls of white rice and cups of green tea. I'm here to ask her about her booming land development business, which she has built from nothing two years ago to an operation of 17 people around the world today. As we chat, her story sounds like a classic tale of entrepreneurship
.
Except I've left out one small detail: Chung's land, her beautifully appointed home, the steam rising from the teacups -- they don't exist. Or rather, they exist only as pixels dancing on the computer screens of people who inhabit the online virtual world called Second Life. Anshe Chung is an avatar, or onscreen graphic character, created by a Chinese-born language teacher living near Frankfurt, Germany. And the sitting room in which Chung and my avatar exchange text messages is just one scene in a vast online diorama operated by Second Life's creator, Linden Lab of San Francisco. Participants launch Second Life's software on their personal computers, log in, and then use their mice and keyboards to roam endless landscapes and cityscapes, chat with friends, create virtual homes on plots of imaginary land, and conduct real business.

To read the rest of the Robert D. Hof article click HERE .

Robert Anton Wilson's QUANTUM PSYCHOLOGY

I recently re-read Robert Anton Wilson's QUANTUM PSYCHOLOGY. Wow! If the subject matter of this blog interests you at all, at all you must acquaint yourself (or re-acquaint yourself) with R.A.W. and his world. You can check out the book HERE and check out R.A.W. himself HERE. I have included some comments and a brief overview below.



Philip K. Dick, author of Blade Runner
Wilson managed to reverse every mental polarity in me, as if I had been pulled through infinity. I was astonished and delighted.

Publishers Weekly
Erudite, witty and genuinely scary

Tom Robbins
Dazzlingthe most thrilling tilt-a-whirls and daring loop-o-planes on the midway of higher consciousness.



Sounds, London
The mans either a genius or Jesus.

Ray Tuckman, Broadcaster, KPFK Radio
With his humorous rapier, Wilson pokes and prods our misconceptions, prejudices and ignorance. A quantum banquet.

John Gribbin, physicist
Does for quantum mechanics what Durrell's Alexandria Quartet did for Relativity, but Wilson is funnier.

New Scientist
What great physicist hides behind the mask of Wilson?

Book Description
Throughout human history, thoughts, values and behaviors have been colored by language and the prevailing view of the universe. With the advent of Quantum Mechanics, relativity, non-Euclidean geometries, non-Aristotelian logic and General Semantics, the scientific view of the world has changed dramatically from just a few decades ago. Nonetheless, human thinking is still deeply rooted in the cosmology of the middle ages. Quantum Psychology is the book to change your way of perceiving yourself --- and the universe. The book for the 21st Century, complete with exercises. Picks up where Prometheus Rising left off. Some say it's materialistic, others call it scientific and still others insist it's mystical. It is all of these --- and none.

About the Author
Robert Anton Wilson is the coauthor (with the late Robert Shea), of the underground classic The Illuminatus! Trilogy which won the 1986 Prometheus Hall of Fame Award. His other writings include Schrodinger's Cat Trilogy, called "the most scientific of all science fiction novels" by New Scientist, and many nonfiction works of Futurist psychology and guerilla ontology. Wilson, who sees himself as a Futurist, author, and stand-up comic, regularly gives seminars at Esalan and other New Age centers. Wilson has made both a comedy record (Secrets of Power), and a punk rock record (The Chocolate Biscuit Conspiracy), and his play, Wilhelm Reich in Hell, has been performed throughout the world. His novel Illuminatus! was adapted as a 10-hour science fiction rock epic and performed under the patronage of Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth II at Great Britain's National Theatre, where Wilson appeared in a special cameo role. He is also a former editor at Playboy magazine.

THE NEXT STEP

As a guide in exploring "the next step" in our Cinemorphic look at the fictitious nature of ego/persona, I highly recommend
THE SCIENCE OF ENLIGHTENMENT by Dr. Nitin Trasi.



To give you a sense of where the Cinemorphics discussion is headed I have also included excerpts of an article by Dr. Trasi below.

Who am I?
Nitin Trasi, India

"Who in the world am I? Ah,that's the great puzzle!"
Alice, in Lewis Carroll's Alice's Adventures in Wonderland.



Human beings can speak, and when a person refers to himself, he uses the first personal pronoun 'I.' But the faculty of human thought is extremely complex, and the "I" of the average man/woman is much more than just a label for referring to himself/herself. It is a complex conglomerate of several things, often little understood by the person himself. In Indian spiritual literature, the complex mechanism of the I (Sanskrit: aham) has been referred to as the "ego" (ahamkaara), and it is said to be lost upon spiritual Awakening (Enlightenment or Liberation).



But this is not easy to understand. How can a person function without the "I"? How will he see himself, or think of himself? How will he act effectively in this complex, intensely competitive world? Will he, indeed, be able to function in ordinary everyday activities and satisfy the demands of professional life, or will he perforce have to retire from it to the seclusion of the mountains, forest or a monastery? In other words, if spiritual Awakening is tantamount to loss of the 'I,' how is this compatible with daily life?

To solve this mystery, we will first have to understand what exactly constitutes the 'I,' what specifically is lost upon spiritual Awakening (and why), and what are the practical and psychological implications of such loss. Such a study will also give us an insight into the psychology of spiritual Awakening and Liberation.



I the label
The 'I' is of course first of all, very simply, a label useful to refer to that particular living unit. Let us call the I-used-as-a-label the I-L (I the label). This `I' is used both by the Liberated sage and the average person.

I the executive unit
But what exactly is it that the label I refers to? When a person says "I," he certainly means something more than just his body, or even his body-mind. The label does refer to an existing (though conceptual or notional), executive or working/decision-making unit, which we can call I-U (I the unit). Every animal is an autonomous unit that behaves and reacts in a certain way at a given point of time because of certain inherent reasons combined with certain external events. We call this "making decisions." Human beings, neurologically developed to the point of self-awareness, know this fact and refer to their own autonomous decision-making unit as 'I'. Thus there is an executive 'I' that functions in day-to-day life and acts and reacts in certain ways. This may be better understood if a human being is thought of as a corporation of several cells, just as a company is a composite of several individuals. I-L is the name of the corporation, and I-U the entity of the corporation itself. This entity, like a company or corporation, has a legal, economic and factual existence, but ultimately it is still a concept. In other words, it is a notional entity. In Buddhist literature, the monk Nagasena is said to have explained this to his king Milinda by using the example of the king's chariot. The chariot is a contraption consisting of wheels, horse and other items put together in a certain way. But dismantle that and where is the chariot? Thus, although the chariot (when so assembled) has a definite physical reality and existence, when dismantled it becomes clear that its "chariot-ness" is nevertheless a concept. So is it with the executive I (the I-U). It is this I that the sage refers to when he says, for example, "I did this." This is a mere statement of fact, not relevant to either claiming of personal credit or admission of personal guilt.

The I-U is thus an arbitrary (conventional), working classification, immensely useful in daily life. But because humans, like most other animals, are physically disparate, we tend to forget that this is so, and we consider people to be separate 'skin-encapsulated' entities. This distinction is less obvious say in a case of severely conjoint (Siamese) twins where it is difficult to say exactly where 'one' of them ends and the 'other' begins, or even, say in the much more common instance of a pregnant woman. Is the foetus part of her 'self,' or is it an 'other'?



I the mental image
Because we are thinking, self-aware animals, we also have a mental image of "ourselves." This too forms a part of the conglomerate I. This is a composite of past memories regarding ourselves (past experiences), what others have said about us, and so on. This is the I-M. In effect, this, as psychologist Ken Wilber has put it, is simply a "bag of edited memories."

It is the I-M that is spiritually significant, because it is the cause of self-centred thinking and mental conditioning, self-centred expectations, and consequently of much avoidable suffering. In spiritual terms, it is this that is referred to as the 'ego,' which is different from the use of that term in Freudian psychology. In Indian philosophy it is called ahamkaara. This is also the apparent doer of 'our' actions. The actual doer is the I-U (to put it more accurately, the I-U is, by convention, considered the doer of the action so that we do not constantly have to talk in the passive voice). The I-M is only the apparent, and not the real doer. It is actually no more than a mental construct or image, without substance, and has no real (physical or `spirit'-ual) existence. Thus the authorship of deeds is laid at the door of an entity which does not really exist, except as a mirage or a memory. This false sense of doership is called "kartruttva bhaava" in Indian philosophy. This error of understanding is at the root of all sense of pride, guilt and moral blame. It is this `I' which the ordinary man refers to when he says "I did this." It is a statement pregnant with pride or guilt, a statement in which one of these two is naturally immanent, inherent. Contrast this with the sage's meaning when he makes a similar statement (earlier paragraph).

The I-M which is ordinarily considered the doer, has no real existence. And the I-U is merely the notional doer, a figure of speech used for convenience of language. Deeds occur according to the fixed laws of Nature (the clear mirror, reflecting faithfully) and the inherent nature of the organism interacting with the environment (forms reflected).

The difference between the I-U and I-M may not be easily apparent at first glance. So let us elaborate a little. The I-U is a notional centre, location or locus where decision-making takes place, rather than an entity or a 'person' who "decides." It is a "where" rather than a "who." Psychologist B.F.Skinner said that we are "a place in which certain genetic and environmental causes come together to have a common effect" and that although we take credit for our ideas as if we created them out of an act of will, we are really just a "place where ideas happen." Ideas, he said, happen inside us much as an egg happens inside a hen 7.

At the end point of Final Liberation (see later), the "who" that appeared to make decisions (the I-M, a self-image) has disappeared, yet effective decision making continues to occur, because the "where" that decisions took place (the I-U) is unaffected. In fact, the process of decision-making happens more efficiently, untrammelled by unnecessary fears and anxiety about personal credit or risk (which was related to the I-M). At the same time, since there is no "one", no "who" to claim authorship for the action, there is none to take delivery of pride or blame either.

I the self or soul
Finally, there is the ultimate "realification" of the I. The final imbuing with life, in which a belief is superadded that this I is a separate entity by itself over and apart from all that we have just mentioned - something that will survive the death of the body and reincarnate in another body (or go on to enjoy an afterlife). This is I as the soul or spirit or self - the I-S - typified by the question "What will happen to ME after I die?" (If the me or I is dead, how can anything happen to it after that?). In Indian spiritual literature this is referred to as the jivatman (pronounced "jeevaatmaan"), the (apparent) individual 'soul' (see note at end of article). Even if the person does not believe in the soul or afterlife, there is still the conscious or unconscious belief in (and identification with) a `me' which exists during life, and which passes through the different stages of life - from birth to youth to old age to death. There is the belief in the continuity of a 'me' which is seen as going through time in a linear fashion.

The difference between the I-M and I-S? The I-S comprises the conscious or unconscious belief in the actual existence of the self. In other words, it comprises the identity of (and identification with) the presumed self. The I-M comprises its body or description - it describes the self (for example, as a businessman or engineer or doctor, with a particular life history, and so on).

Thus the I-S is the I-M (or self-image) further crystallised in thought and belief to the extent that it is mistakenly considered to be an independent self-entity, a 'me,' residing in the body, which passes through the different stages of life, and that, after the death and dissolution of the body, perhaps even survives into an after-life.



Enlightenment and Liberation
The proper understanding of the entire psychology of the I ultimately leads to the actual seeing of the I-S as false, as just a belief. The actual perception of (or insight into) this fact is Enlightenment. It is important to understand that when the actual recognition occurs, it is intuitive rather than intellectual, a matter of instant, intuitive perception and recognition rather than mentation or cerebration, a matter of insight rather than intelligence. As this is a shift in perspective, it happens suddenly (a paradigm shift). It may well happen in a series of small sudden shifts, but the classical description in spiritual literature is that of one massive shift. The shift is attended by a great sensation of relief, partly because of the sudden loss of a mental load, the spiritual baggage, partly also because of the sudden freedom from further spiritual self-expectations. This marked sense of relief has been likened to a man taking off a heavy burden which he has been carrying on his head, or of a man coming out of the scorching sun into the cool shade. Because of the nature of Enlightenment, further spiritual maturation (it is no longer seen as spiritual "progress") is seen to occur spontaneously rather than from directed efforts towards that end.

As a natural result of seeing the I-S as false, the spontaneous dismantling of the I-M is initiated (primarily because of lack of reinforcement of conditioning). This is the process of Liberation. At the ultimate end-point of Liberation ('Final' Liberation), the I-S has already long been seen as false, and now the I-M has practically vanished as well (except the spiritually insignificant bare minimum required for efficient daily living - see later). All that is left is the I-U (the notional executive unit comprising the body and mind) and of course the I-L, the label. The I-U is now able to work completely untrammelled by the burden of self-centred memory and expectation hitherto imposed by the I-M and the spiritual baggage and imposition resulting from the belief in the I-S. It is truly Liberated. It is also full of spontaneous love because it was the I-M which created the duality of the me and the other. Now, although the me and the other remain as executive units (I-U and O-U), they are merely technical, functional, day-to-day classifications for convenience. The "I-ness" of the I and the "otherness" of the you is lost and there is therefore no basis for alienation, enmity, blame, envy.

What exactly do we mean by the "bare minimum" of I-M required? A certain bare minimum of I-M will be necessary for any person for efficient daily functioning in his chosen vocation, whatever that may be. But the pertinent difference is this: Whereas the average man feels exalted by perceiving "himself" (I-M) as a "success" and crushed by perceiving himself as a "failure," the Liberated person may be pleased and disappointed respectively by the `successes' and `failures' in the particular individual tasks or enterprises that he undertakes, but he does not perceive or label himself [the I-M] as "a success" or "a failure." As a result, whatever the Liberated one may think himself to be or however he may see himself (insofar as it is necessary for his efficient daily functioning), this (his 'bare necessity' I-M) does not affect his happiness.

Another aspect of liberated living that is at least as important as valuation, is continuity through time. What the I-U adds to I-L is the notion of agency; and what the I-M and even more so, the I-S add to both is the notion of continuity. The Liberated person is liberated from the sense of continuity in time, meaning that he has understood, nay, seen, that this continuity is an illusion, much like the apparent continuity of the various stills of a motion picture when shown in quick succession. Bereft of this life-giving continuity in time, his I-S dies a quiet death, and the I-M is starved to exhaustion - practically vanished, virtually absent or spiritually insignificant. In the case of the average person, it is his warped sense of continuity that has him clinging to past or future (as "his" past or future, in relation to his I-S and I-M). By not accepting the past as past or the future as future, he does not allow his "whole" self to step into his own present. The Liberated one, on the other hand, does not cling to the experiences, but moves on. This is what is called living in the "HERE and NOW" and "dying" to the past, to every moment as it passes, as philosopher J.Krishnamurti repeatedly emphasised.

So enlightenment is not incompatible with a notion of `myself' (`bare minimum' I-M) as (apparently) continuous with time, but with (a) whether this valuation is taken so seriously that it affects one's happiness, and (b) whether there is clinging to past or future in a way that rips away attention from the present 9,13

Conclusion
There is in reality no individual in the sense of a spiritual "who" that will reincarnate and is morally answerable for 'his' or 'her' deeds, but there is a definite biological "where" in which (or where) decisions are made (volitional centre). The "where" is more of a scientific locus, as opposed to the "who" which is a religious or ontological concept or assumption. (Thus volition, or an appearance of it, may be said to exist at an everyday, conventional level in that sense. It is not really volition itself that is being denied, but rather the "who" that is supposed to "have" it).

Ironically then, Enlightenment is the very perception (seeing) of the absence of a real self or I (as is generally thought to exist) - and thus inevitably, of the absence of any I who could "be Enlightened." Ironically then, Liberation is being Liberated from the tyranny of the very I who seeks Liberation! In other words, it does not happen TO an I, it happens FROM an I!

And to whom does Liberation happen? Whom, indeed! Ironically then, when Liberation happens, the "whom" has disappeared!

The realisation of this truth has been likened to the peeling of an onion, where successive layers of the I are seen to be false. The I-S is the most false. It is just a thought or belief in the mind. The I-M is a concept which has an existence but only as a mental image, a "bag of edited memories." The I-U is a notional entity that has a definite and required existence as a working concept. The I-L is just a word, a label.

In the end, like the peeled onion, there is nothing - shunya. And yet this nothing is everything, for it feels a love and compassion which encompasses the whole of creation. Though it functions most efficiently in the proximate, everyday world, yet it sees no separation between itself and the rest of the world. For, how can nothing be different from nothing?

What exactly is this shunya, nothing or 'not I' that is left after Liberation? Let us try to understand this further. Whatever we think we are is ultimately a thought, and therefore the content of (`our') consciousness (however refined or subtle). But surely, if we go on eliminating thus, we cannot but reach the inevitable conclusion that what we really are can only be consciousness itself - in its human mode or manifestation, recognisable as aware-NESS. It cannot know itself, for whatever it knows is its content. In other words, whatever it is aware of is its content, so it cannot be aware of itself. Regarding itself, it can only be aware, period. Consciousness, though not "felt" in that sense of the term, is however identifiable (after Liberation) as the irreducible sense of anonymous presence (awareness of presence or pure presence) upon which all other phenomena (or sensations) are displayed (the content), like the screen upon which the pictures are projected.



Thus the experience of nirvana or Liberation is not something esoteric, otherworldly, magical or superhuman. It is simply the awareness that forms the background and basis of all our sensations. It is the elemental sense or sensation present and `felt' as an undertone to all other sensations at all times by the enlightened. It is present in the unenlightened too, but goes completely unnoticed by them in the hurly-burly and din of daily living. The difference in the enlightened is not in the manner of daily living, but in the inner silence that enables him to be keenly alive to this primal awareness that is the core and basis of his very being. This, the 'not I,' or the I-that-is-left, is then the same as what has been called Reality, Truth, or God:

What does it feel like? Although not an experience in the ordinary sense, the 'flavour' of this basic awareness or pure presence is described as a positive, benign, causeless, contentment. It is the ananda (contentment, peace) of Indian spiritual literature. It is the ananda (contentment of being, joie de vivre) inseparable from the sat-cit (true, core, basic presence or being), thus giving rise to the familiar Hindu description of consciousness as sat-cit-ananda.

...

About Enlightenment
It was promised earlier in this article that such a study of the 'I' would also give us an insight into the psychology of spiritual Awakening and Liberation. To reformulate and recapitulate, we can now easily understand the following the points about Enlightenment in brief:
The sudden insight into the real nature of the I results in a complete change of perspective on life. The hitherto strong ego-centric perspective of the average person changes to a softer, broader perspective which allows many more points of view and possibilities.

Such sudden insight into the nature of the I with its accompanying sudden change of perspective is termed Enlightenment in the Eastern spiritual tradition.

Enlightenment and its changed perspective lead to a process of de-conditioning from the effects of the earlier egocentric conditioning which had built up throughout life. This is the process of what has been called 'Liberation.'

As the layers of the I soften and dissolve, the obstructions decrease to the 'feeling' of the primal consciousness, the sentience (prajna) which animates the body and is our very being. The inherent 'taste' of this being-consciousness can be described as ananda, or causeless contentment or peace, the "peace that passeth understanding."

Paradoxically enough, daily life goes on even more efficiently than before as the executive-I functions untrammelled by the nagging botheration caused by the unreasonable anxieties, phobias, biases, and fears linked to the soul-I (I-S) and the ego-I (I-M).

What about the ordinary pleasures of everyday life? Are they lost? Or are they engulfed by an overwhelming bliss that is continuously felt after Liberation?

Neither. The daily pleasures are felt and enjoyed even more keenly, because they are enjoyed fully, wholly and whole-heartedly. But there is no clinging to them as in the average person. And the reason why there is no clinging is that there is constantly the intuitive understanding, insight or sensing that it is the consciousness upon which they are projected, and without which they would not be felt, which is abiding and important. It is intuitively known that the passing pleasures come and go, but the primal consciousness and its inherent taste, ananda, abides and is the basic necessary condition for them to be felt and experienced at all, anywhere, anytime.



Characteristics in Brief
Typical `average' person

* Thought: Restlessness (Nihilism to absolutism)
* Action: Confused (Over-control to impulsiveness)
* Emotion: Temperamental (Inhibition to emotionalism)
* Attitude/perspective: Self-centred
* Moods: Fluctuating, totally dependent on circumstances (external or internal)

Advanced seeker

* Thought: Emptiness (effortful or contrived)
* Action: Surrender (volitional)
* Emotion: Detachment or non-clinging (contrived, rationalised)
* Attitude/perspective: Un-self-centred (learnt, trained or habituated)
* Moods: Steadily composed, not fluctuating, not dependent on circumstances (external or internal). Result of training.

Final Liberation

* Thought: Mindfulness (natural, effortless, spontaneous)
* Action: Spontaneous (easy, appropriate, flowing)
* Emotion: Compassion (karuna) and loving kindness towards all (Buddhism: metta), both of which are natural, spontaneous - a result of dissolving of the me/other distinction.
* Attitude/perspective: Completely un-self-centred. Natural, not result of training.
* Moods: Easy, possibly fluctuating, dependent on circumstances (external or internal), but only on the 'surface.' Deep mood firmly anchored in the "inner peace" (ananda), which is the necessary sub-stratum of all sensations and hence always present.



References:
1. The Teachings of Bhagavan Sri Ramana Maharshi In His Own Words edited by Arthur Osborne, 5th Ed., Ramanasramam
2. A Search in Secret India, Paul Brunton, B.I.Pub.,1970, reprint 1994.
3. Srimad BhagavadGita-Rahasya by Bal Gangadhar Tilak, English Translation by Bhalchandra Sitaram Sukthankar, 6th Ed., 1986, Geeta Printers, Pune.
4. The BhagavadGita, Gita Press, Gorakhpur, India. 5. The Last Talks, J.Krishnamurti, K.F.I., Pub.1989, Reprint 1992.
6. The Wholeness of Life, J.Krishnamurti, K.F.I., 1978.
7. Introduction to Psychology, Morgan, King, Weisz and Schopler, Pub.Tata McGraw-Hill, 7th Ed, p.595 *(B.F.Skinner).
8. The Science of Enlightenment, Nitin Trasi, D.K.Printworld (P) Ltd., New Delhi, 1999.
9. The Inner Rhythm of Enlightened Activism, Gary Schouborg, website: www.somawake.com Email: gary@somawake.com
10. The Bhagwad Geeta with the commentary of Sri Sankaracharya, English translation by Alladi Mahadeva Sastry, Pub. Samata Books, Madras, 1977 Ed., (1992 Reprint).
11. Srimad Bhagavad Gita, Swami Swarupananda, Advaita Ashrama, 1996, Calcutta
12. Sufism, William Stoddart, Suhail Academy, Lahore, Pakistan, 1981.
13. Enlightenment in Action: Somatic Feeling and Time, Gary Schouborg, website: www.somawake.com , Email: gary@somawake.com