Tonight I'm getting over you

Bit inspired by Carly Rae Jepsen: ain't it time I got over "my muse"?

So here are the remaining issues after 15 years of musing this one.

(1) The belief it meant something for real. Here is the alignment of planets the night we met. Saturn, Moon, Jupiter, Uranus, Neptune, Venus, Mars and Mercury -- the solar system in a line. Obviously absurd to suggest it means anything, but we hold onto beliefs. I felt instantly that we had met before in past lives, that I had waited my whole life to meet her, I felt she would not live long: she didn't. My last words were that I would see her in another life. I felt I would wait until then. We have our beliefs that sustain us long into the dark after the lights are out and the party has ended and everyone has one by one left.

(2) So breaking up is painful. It is painful if we are rejected, it is painful if our love dies, it is painful if they actually die: it is painful when it goes wrong. On the other hand it is blissful when it goes right. So what do we do?

2.1) First approach: try and get over the "love" first by looking for someone else. But the old memories persist, no one is the same, and we can only try and deny how we feel. Started this one even while I knew her.

2.2) We may persist in trying to get over them by continuing to hold onto them. It isn't over I'm not going to face the pain. We can find reasons, we can find beliefs to support us. Most powerful is the argument of True Love. Long argued in this blog years ago. How can we love again? If we do love again then it wasn't True Love, if we wish to preserve and honour that experience as True Love then we can't love again. If we feel that it was True Love and we can't imagine ever feeling like that again, we can provide a very strong argument to just get stuck and not grow and move on with what we have. An argument to swap the Future for the Past. I started this one in 2000 and then again after her death in 2006. I won't argue for or against the True Love arguments, only just acknowledge that such beliefs exist and focusing on them will help get us very stuck. The way on is elsewhere. What would our love want anyway?

2.3 ) Then we may get really serious about this denial. Love is an illusion, no one needs it, we can live without it. What is love anyway? If we can only find a way to live without it we can be free from all this nonsense and pain. Jesus, Buddha, monks, many all find this way: surely it exists. We might get scientific (as I've heard a monk argue): it is only chemicals in the brain; or, as a biologist, it's just an evolution to encourage childbirth. In both cases it is an addiction to force us into reproduction. What real satisfaction lies in biological preprogrammed impulses that are imposed on us by our body? I began this one in 2008.

(3) Tried them all. Five year later in 2013 I had succeeded in turning down all temptations to relationship and love, and escaped all sexual desire and wish for partnership. Needing someone was an illusion and I was free from the time wasting. A friend did an ancestor ritual in Gaya in which he included "my muse" without telling me. A third of the way around the globe I felt a physical chord snip--as if by scissors--to my top right. I told him, he told me; seems there might have been a connection: so I was free. But a seed remained, something wasn't quite right. There was denial still.

So 2015 things turn around I decide to explore back up the path, to reengage with where I was 18 year ago. Thanks to CRJ guiding me toward those now distant, almost forgotten, feelings I see an obvious flaw in the argument. If I really didn't need "love" them why was I at first seeking it, and then running from it? Indeed I was awake all night and running from it the night I met her: I was afraid because I was out of my depth on day one. If it is just an addiction, or an evolution (which it may be) this doesn't help me *now* because I was seeking it. And this leads into the proper way to get over them.

The door out, involves going through the door in. There are feelings, there are experiences that are part of the case, that we cannot and must not deny if we are to be a good detective and progress with the case. They are painful, they may be joyful, but both cannot be denied. It is in those feelings that we find our Self. Run away and we avoid our Self. Live in fear of them and we hide from our Self. But if we think we are free it is a myth because our every action is governed by what we are running from. Our freedom is a trap, and the punishment we fear is actually our freedom. We must one day face it.

And yes it does feel like punishment. And we look at what was so beautiful that has turned around to hurt us and we can't believe the injustice. While other lives in joy we who almost tasted that joy now experience a brutal punishment. That punishment is for not yet understanding how to get over you. If we learn this we have the greatest prize of all. We can love without fear.

Call it karma, perhaps, but those experiences good or bad are ours and we must have the strength to be ourselves and experience what is ours, take feelings on the chin, weather the storm, stop and enter the door to see what they really are, and come through it. In Buddhist language we must cross to the other shore. On the other side is our true Self free from these difficulties. It won't kill us, its not even real, it is only a conversation of feelings with our self, but they are part of our self and we do ourselves an injustice if we don't face up and listen to them. We like to think we don't need to listen, or stop for these things. We are bigger than that, why should I stop, I AM myself already, self contained and invincible, who am I stopping for? We should stop because that is our greater self calling! This self is yet incomplete, like a child trying to run away from home, it will hurt. They call this immature self Ego.

So finally the mystery that still eludes me. Buddha speaks of non-attachment. This means no more than having the ability to say "tonight I'm getting over you". To have that ability is enlightenment. But if we have that ability what is being in love like? If we like love, we don't like losing love, and if we don't like losing love how do we "get over you"? Pretending we don't like love does not work! (See above). And trying to train ourselves not to like love does not solve the problem, it simply avoids it. Quite how we do it is a mystery still, but all avenues that try to avoid the problem, and avoid going through the door of pain are wrong. We do like love, we do seek it, and we do find it goes wrong sometimes. Who knows why, but if there are answers we need listen to our big self for them. This is the last remaining door that we must go through.

Freedom, Ayn Rand, Individualism, Selfish Interests, Addiction

Technorati Tags: Freedom,Ayn Rand,Individualism,Selfish Interests,Addiction

Dissenters of the traditional view that we ought to sacrifice ourselves for other people might consider this post simply a dogmatic reiteration of the “traditional” view. But if we fear whether our thoughts are fashionable or old-fashioned we most certainly reduce our freedom. I’d rather ignore current fads and simply say things as they are.

Individualists like Ayn Rand, Sartre, Nietzsche speak a lot about “freedom”. So what is so free about “freedom”. A prince in a Hollywood film says “True I can have anything I want, but like all men I can’t chose what I want”. Thus we often end up wanting things that really it is best for us if we didn’t want. This is the whole naivety of the Individualist view. It is also said traditionally that it takes a great man to command an army but only the greatest man can command himself. This is the essence of the Religions: the learning to be master of our self. Shakespere’s Othello is a model of how lack of self mastery makes us to weakest of men. We need only see an addict swearing they are in control and demanding “freedom” to do what they want to see the weakness of this type of thinking. A asked a Buddhist once what was wrong with the ego he said that the ego works in its own interests even at the expense of the whole self. This has turned out to be a very deep understanding of the problem; far deeper than the allegory of the Devil used by religions. The drug addict, or anyone with a compulsive habit, finds that what they want to do, indeed need to do, is actually bad for them.

“Simply look at how many people have died in the name of Freedom—it is far more than all other causes added together.”

However because the wish to do it is so strong they are prepared to ignore the side effects. I once saw a film of a smoking addict in a wheel chair who had lost both legs due to blood clots. The interviewer said that clearly the smoking was killing him, he said he didn’t care and was prepared to die bit by bit. That is a strong desire. Everything was sacrificed for the need to smoke. We would argue that at least a more balanced life with a mixture of other activities would be more worthwhile. But the addict won’t see this and their addiction and need to do what they want will be more valuable to them than even their own life. This is the nihilism and meaninglessness at the root of self-interest, exactly what the SRH says. In any case it is clear to see here the extreme individualist sacrificing everything here for a desire, when originally he wanted to be free from sacrifice altogether.

So “freedom” where does it go wrong?

In a world where we really do determine our own future and every road is open what do we do? Are we like the Dice Man and freely pick 6 random possibilities like: {Eat, Sleep, TV, Sex, Defecate, Kill ourselves}. With complete unconditional indifference to the future and complete “freedom” from the Past we roll the dice and do whatever is says. Except we are deciding to then having our future dictated by a dice. What if we decide to obey a new die: {obey the dice, don’t obey the die}. Decide to roll that a few times and we’re back to square one!

Alternatively Individualists put emphasis on our “will” (Nietzsche/ Sartre) or “desires” (Rand). The idea is that we are what we do/will/desire. For Sartre it is our choices that make/build/design the future. For Nietzsche it is our inexorable innate will to supremacy that drives our very action. For Ayn Rand it seems (and I have only caught whiff of her philosophy) it is our desires/wishes which determine our future. Hers is by far the most juvenile and trivial philosophy: we are slaves to our own desire then exactly as in the above paragraph. She preaches the worst kind of imprisonment and her followers walk in the opposite direction to freedom. As religions endlessly try to persuade people, the Devil is most cunning and will promise you everything so that you submit your soul to him—he is the most expert door to door salesman. As far as I can see it Ayn Rand basically says give into his demands and do whatever you want even if it is bad for you.

Sartre and Nietzsche are however better versions of Individualism but they still seem to suffer from a lack of freedom. To say that we are free to exercise our will to power is to say that we are a slave to power. My personal life at the moment is exactly the will to gain power over the will to power so that I no longer need to be viewed as successful or worth something. Isn’t this the contradictory zenith of Nietzsche’s philosophy—freedom even from this universal principle? With Sartre my problem is that any choice we make to be successful must take into account our environment. If I wish to buy some food I have no choice but to go to a food shop. If you analyse why I wish to have food it is because my stupid body needs energy. I have no choice over this. I may chose to sit down and die from starvation, but really this is my stupid mind rebelling against having to do things which becomes just another thing I feel compelled to do. Whichever way I turn I find myself embedded “in a world”—immersed as a friend once called it. When we are underwater we cannot move without displacing water around us. So it is with the world we cannot move without the world moving with us—there is no escape, indeed even thoughts of escape are movements in the water!

No freedom is a complete misnomer. Even the search for freedom binds us to an activity that becomes a bore and an oppressive tyrant. Simply look at how many people have died in the name of Freedom—it is far more than all other causes added together and squared. Freedom begins when we accept where we are rather than confronting it and trying to change it. If we are trying to change it then we are just slave to another force from within. What proponents of freedom are really responding to is the notion of a sovereign self: it makes a difference whether the tyrant is from within or from without. That is the next discussion. Historically Freedom is an obvious major issue in the West because we are in opposition to our history of Slavery. Like a guilty man we are particularly sensitive to slavery and rather over do the freedom angle. What we ought to see immediately though is that without the possibility of slavery how can there be freedom? When we speak of freedom we are really admitting that slavery still exists.

Most of this is blogged already in this blogroll. The puzzle from ancient Greece of whether the Argo returning from its 10 year quest was really the same boat that left since every plank of wood had been replaced at least once on the journey. So it is with us. Which thought, which desire, which body part, which possession is really us? Are they all us? If so do we lose a bit of ourselves when we lose one? If we do then where is that bit of myself in my car, or in my hair on the barbershop floor? Rubbish it is just a car, it is just hair. There is nothing about me in them either on the shop floor on in my possession. It is the same as a piece being in check in a game of chess. It isn’t really in check unless you understand the rules of the game: we simply make it up. That is all the self is: something we make up. The search for freedom is just something we make up; and we can just as easily unmake it! If we were truly free we would be able to unmake it… but we can’t! Especially when we believe in a philosophy that is based upon that very belief in self. Free yourself; stop believing.

Like all things, Individualists are right about something however. It is correct that we take responsibility for what we do and we do find our self so that we can become master it. It is not good enough to just follow the crowd like sheep, any more than it is to simply switching off saying it doesn’t matter it’s all just make believe. This just sends us from one make-believe world into another where everything is make-believe—we start believing that everything is make-believe! It is not that easy. What does “make believe” mean anyway? Ayn Rand started off in the right direction, she saw the irony is forming a “group of believers in Individualism” but the Devil is strong and she fell foul very quickly of her own philosophy believing that this meant that she should follow her desires. She ironically became to a slave to herself as she ran from what she perceived was others becoming slaves of the mass. True Freedom ain’t so simple which is why mankind has been pursuing it for 10 thousand years and why so very few have ever achieved it.

Loren Carpenter

Adam Curtis’ new documentary features an experimental game of Pong operated by the ratio of red and green paddles held up by each half of an audience. The experiment was performed on an minimally instructed audience by Loren Carpenter (of Pixar fame) in 1991.

Quote from Adam Curtis,

"It was like a switch went in my head," Curtis says. "Carpenter saw it as a world of freedom with order. But I suddenly saw it as the opposite – like old film of workers toiling in a factory. They weren't free – they looked like disempowered slaves locked to a giant machine screen. It was a video game, which made it fun, but it still made me wonder whether power had really gone away in these self-organising systems, or if it was just a rebranding. So we became happy components in systems – and our job is to make those systems stable."
http://www.guardian.co.uk/tv-and-radio/2011/may/06/adam-curtis-computers-documentary

Written up here.
http://www.capatcolumbia.com/reading%20packet/Out%20of%20Control.pdf

Comment:
Curtis’ analysis is naive. We are not individuals either free to pursue our “own” interests or individual caught within the web of group interaction… we aren’t individual at all! Each of us is the accumulation of interactions just as much as the game is the accumulation of individual interacting. It is fractal and hierarchical.

To reductio ad absurdum Curtis I need only point out that he is trapped within the confines of the collective understanding of English. Where is his “individual” if he frees himself from language? Where is the freedom in even generating media that necessarily requires an audience?

The experiment is interesting I need pursue it more. It may be useful to understand the stock market also especially the frequency of oscillations and size of movements induced by slower feedback (less volume), and the fact that bird flocks have faster response rates than individual birds so that groups adapt to signals faster than individuals! Really suggests that there are emergent “entities” (which is an oxymoron since we are discussing the dissolution of selves into groups so what sense in making groups just new individuals).

Technorati Tags: loren carpenter,adam curtis

Multiverse & SRH

Think I had it in for the Multiverse concept at some stage; obvious change of mind now. Multiverse is the concept that instead of quantum waves collapsing into discrete recordable events, instead they create new universes, one for each event. David Deutsch champions this idea in connection with quantum computing where the possibilities in many universes can be utilised to compute results in this universe.

My problem with this is—after recent developments in the SRH—just linguistic. A universe suggests already that there is nothing outside it. To coin the term “multiverse” is completely oxymoronic and contradicts the meaning of universe. What quantum theory has opened is the realisation that what we thought was the limit of the universe is really just the limit of one bubble of space-time and other bubbles might exist. The “multiverse” is just a name for our better understood universe. For analogy how absurd to call the other planets multiverses in the days when the universe extended to just this planet and its atmosphere.

It might seem trivial but this lies at the heart of the SRH conception. A SRH Universe is unlimited just as Cantor showed that the sets of numbers are unlimited—that is not just that the numbers in each set is unlimited by the sets of infinities is unlimited in a way that can’t be grasped by any set! A fractal that extends in both directions with an infinite hierarchy of scale going upwards and downwards—the proper conception of Universe is something that in its very nature is ungraspable. The SRH says why very simply—if a body of understanding ever did try to grasp the scale of the Universe it would always need something outside itself in order to say something meaningful about itself. It cannot by the SRH ever say anything meaningful about its own existence, because that is a given from which the theory necessarily already depends rather than explains.

QED

Technorati Tags: Multiverse,Universe,Absolute,Self,Theory of Everything

SRH + Time

Ideas forming. The SRH depends upon a type of relativity. It says that any entity lives within a unique ontology where it is a given that it exists. In other words it can never be the case that it doesn’t exist within its own “frame of reference”.

This hierarchy is the same as we see with a brain scientist looking at their own brain patterns. Whatever they conclude “objectively” depends a priori upon what they experience “subjectively”. If they find a pattern that corresponds to them thinking they must realise that their conclusions are based upon the perspective of everyone else, not upon their own perspective. Within their own perspective it is rather pointless the conclude that they are thinking from the image, since “thinking” was what they had to be able to identify anyway in order to determine the correspondence between image and “thinking” in the first place.

Now, as is well documented, this is all a linguistic feature since patients can only inform scientists that they are “thinking” through language. The correspondence is between events in the body and things said, between phenomena and mysteriously the meaning of what is said (which is somehow for materialists an unexamined, unexplained, given). Typically scientists rarely question that what they are doing, and how they understand it, is within a prior world of language so they can only imagine that their experiments are somehow mysteriously beyond language. In reality language and culture precedes their enquiries. This hierarchy is the SRH also as above. As an aside I mused recently that “myth” which we attribute to the ancient stories is just as active and important today, it is just that the wealth of phenomena and facts that we weave together with myth today is so much denser. We have facts on everything and so the stories are that much more convoluted to account for all these details.

Finally the relevance to Time. We can never be outside our own time frame. Whichever time we end up in, be that Past, Present or Future for us it will be just our own time frame—it will always be Today in other words. Just as an entity cannot meaningfully make a statement about its own existence, it cannot, it seems, make a meaningful statement about its Time either. Time, like existence, only happens through the eyes of someone else for whom we may be dead or for whom we have been gone a long time. To explain the death of my grandfather to my young sister my parents said that he had gone on a long trip. There is little difference. The point is that these things are only meaningful to someone else, necessarily never ourselves. So the idea of Time travel actually contradicts the nature of Time. If I travelled in time it would mean nothing to me, in reality it would still be Today when I arrived. What would be different would be my memories and expectations. I would have memories of things that hadn’t happened yet and would have the habits of the world I left. I wouldn’t be able to meet the people I remembered and might not know the language or the customs if it was a long time before for example. However while everything might have changed it is still Today and the Time in my frame of reference hasn’t changed. Only by finding out the year from someone else and comparing with my memory of the year (which I was told before I left)  would I be able to say that I had time travelled. But this is just language not reality; it is only what other people would say.

Now does this shed light on the murder paradox? Can’t see it for now…

SRH (summary) and Time

Technorati Tags: God,proof,meaning,cogito,self,existence

The SRH is purely linguistic. There are no contradictions in reality—things just are—problems only occur when we try to assert things one way and then change our mind. The reader is left unsure what we mean and complains.

To summarise: the SRH (which needs a new name) notes that when referring to something by some description (essence) or asserting its existence one cannot then meaningfully attribute that essence or existence to the subject e.g. “(Ex) x exists”, or “(x) P(x) & Q(x) –> P(x)” respectively “there exists something which exists” or “for all x where x has quality P and quality Q it has quality P”. These tautologies sound ridiculous in logic but “all black swans are black” sounds almost meaningful and “I think therefore I exist” is famous.

To recap further the problem with these tautologies lies in their negations: they are contradictions or at least always false. Respectively above: “(x) x ¬exist”, “(Ex) P(x) & Q(x) & ¬Q(x)” that is “for all x, x doesn’t exist” and “there exists an x such that x has P, Q and doesn’t have Q”. The latter is a typical contradiction the former is a type I don’t know that i’m calling existential contradiction. The famous Descartes’ statement has this SRH problem at root: its very appeal and certainty lies in the tautology that to be thinking at all he must exist (we know what he means even if it doesn’t technically imply an existing self like entity). But the statement is misleading because its negation is an existential contradiction and so there being no situation under which it can be false (it is always true) and so fails to convey any particular meaning! We know nothing after reading it that we didn’t know before. Another way to put that is there is nothing to learn about such a sentence’s use; we can say it anytime and anywhere in any imaginable universe.

The relevant to a proof of God is firstly not to prove “(Ex) x is God” i.e. there is a thing called God. This is clearly nonsense at first sight since God made “all” things so one presumes he either made himself or he isn’t a thing. It staggers me that Dawkins et al. waste time pursuing this dead end. It makes more sense for God to be a principle (principal perhaps) namely that nothing can assert its own existence, instead depending upon other things. The name of God in the Arahamic religions is Yahweh in Hebrew which means “I AM”. It is important to realise that because of the SRH we cannot meaningfully assert this for our self. Any sense of “I am” comes from outside us.

Returning to the thread if this blog entry. The SRH and existential contradiction is linguistic. There is one famous field of existential contradiction namely time travel typified by the paradox of going back in time and killing oneself. The problem then arises was there a murder? If there was then the person who was murdered is also the murder. But if there was a murder it also means that the murderer was killed before he did the murder. However if there wasn’t a murder then what exactly did the time traveller do?

It is only an embryonic thought at this stage but similarity to the SRH signals an alarm bell that this “time travel” and indeed “time” itself may be only linguistic at root and not real. This wouldn’t be a new idea but I don’t grasp it yet. I read earlier in the year (but can’t remember where) a poem in which it is said that “self” is only a feature of our Indo-European languages and with a different language structure we would be able to avoid this cultural artefact all together.

SRH : Existential Contradiction

A month ago I had a brain wave. It occurred to me that the SRH is to do with existence.

I use the logical syntax:

(x)   : for all x it is true that
(Ex) : there exists x such that
¬ : not/negation
<statement>

Thus the proof of God is this:

The simple sentence “this sentence exists” seems unproblematic:

• <(Ex) x is this sentence>

But consider:

• <¬(Ex) x is this sentence>, or equivalently
• <(x) x is not this sentence>

These sentences are equivalent and are false because the sentence itself serves as an entity which contradicts them.

Now we can’t say that the sentences are “not sentences” because that would eliminate the entity we need to make them false. So it is not that self-reference is impossible as was naively proposed by the SRH.  However there is something odd.

The sentences are necessarily false. Once we have read the sentence we cannot then deny that the sentence exists, for what did we just read? So by the time we have understood the sentence we are already committed to its existence; we are already committed to its falsity. It is an analytic statement false by virtue of the definition of its own words. However it is a posteriori to the extent that we must have experienced it to have proof that it exists. (This is in contrast to Kant’s synthetic a priori.) It is thus a necessary contradiction.

It follows that its negation (statement 1) is not just true but necessarily true. It is a tautology, an analytic a posteriori.

So all the sentences above carry no information that the reader isn’t already familiar with by virtue of reading them. While they seem to make profound statements they are actually meaningless just as “Black swans are black” doesn’t tell us anything we didn’t already know: if we can find a black swans we already know it is black. More generally then for any predicate:

• (x) S(x) & B(x) –> B(x) 

clearly doesn’t tell us anything i.e. anything which is S and has property B has property B… i.e. all swans(S) which are black(B) are black(P).

What this means is that no entity can carry information about its existence or any feature which is required to identify it.

This means, and this is the SRH, that entities can only be meaningful about the existence of other entities apart from themselves.

To put it another way: we are very unlikely to hear that we have died and if we did we would know it was false. Thus the statement that we are alive is meaningless to us. It is this meaninglessness which means that we must be silent when it comes to issues of our self-existence and non-existence. Death, or indeed any word, doesn’t make sense here.

In contrast however other people can die and so we can make meaningful statements about their being alive or dead. When someone else makes a statement that we are alive then it is meaningful, but only from their point of view. This is social consciousness. If we attribute meaning to “I am alive” it is because we have adopted a social consciousness. This is not a good thing because why would we do this when we can see with our own eyes the truth? I suspect that the search for fame and social status derives from this weakness of our own eyes. The need to make noise and words (as I do here) is also such a weakness. For such a consciousness Death is a very real thing.

From this stems all the rest of the SRH. Most importantly that no system can exist independent of another because if it was an Ultimate theory of Everything it would need another system to state meaningfully that it did indeed existed as the ultimate system.

Likewise for every entity that seeks knowledge of its existence there is always an Other outside it that it must acknowledge first. This is the God Proof. Not the proof of a particular entity amongst all the others (the naive view of God) but the principle that there is always and necessarily an entity outside.

This also explodes the narcissistic, solipsistic world view. No self can know its existence before it knows the existence of another, and worse for the self it is the view point of the other that it adopts as its own proof of its existence! If it really looked at itself with its own eyes it would be speechless because what can its eyes “see” that his “seeing” hasn’t already told it?

"My Muse" & Self

The whole issue of my muse is all certainly digested and in the Past. 14 years from start to finish - I'm clearly a slow learner; I hope the other issues in this blog resolve more quickly!

Put very simply the actual issue was that of self - which i was deeply aware of at the time but lacked perspective. I valued my muse a lot (more than anyone else) and certainly sex with her was more valuable than anyone else. She on the other hand did not share either this value of sex or herself. Now at the time I could take that three ways: either I was wrong and she was not valuable (as a friend said about herm as he didn't consider her worthwhile), or she was wrong and she was valuable, or thirdly we were both wrong and right and depending on how you looked at her she was valuable or not valuable. Certainly the third is correct. For example not everyone would find her attractive, and more obviously not everyone would be sexually attracted for example other women.

The problem then lay in my bias to my own conditions. I found her attractive, the most attractive, and it was my existence stuck on that side of the argument that I found so difficult. I now don't see her as so valuable so I haven't resolved the issue of self, but I am able to see her side of the argument now which is that she is just another girl looking for sexual thrills and why shouldn't she have them. But to see her side I have had to forget about my side.

What is ideal is to be able to switch between sides while they are prevalent and relevant. But to do this we need to understand and master ourselves.

This is the essence of the illusion of self and of attachment: the inability to switch between our own desires and attitudes and those of others. It implies that we remain ignorant to the fundamental reality that what we find ourselves desiring and attached to is not of our own choice: it is rather chosen by the situation we find ourself in; but this is chosen by our past actions - that is Karma. So when we see our own mind state and desires as the total product of our genes and experiences we then understand that we have as much "right" to it as anyone else, and also we understand that it is only relevent to our own genes and conditions. Now to deeply understand that means we can step outside the limitations of our conditions (by SRH that wisdom cannot be conditioned itself and must be un-conditioned [it is only the lack of wisdom that is conditioned - the onion skins of illusion that we must remove as it is often referred to]). Once we can step beyond our own limitations then we see how other people are trapped within their limitations and that inspires (1) compassion, (2) equnimity toward the interaction of our position and theirs, and (3) the loss of suffering.

That is the theory I'm still on the road of ending Dualism by weakening one side to see the other. The next step would be to desire again but not be attached to it, keeping equanimityand freedom as I go... dangerous... not ready yet.