a path of ruin?

May 28, 2002

Jody, did you ever get lost in the woods and after a while you returned to

the very point where you discovered that you were lost.

>>>The individual is nothing more than the collection of identifications

that form in *a mind*...<<<

Now that you have identified what an individual is, do you think that it is

possible to define *a mind* without returning to your original point of

departure?

Wim

(Not seeing the forest for the trees,

Not seeing the mind for the thoughts.)

---

Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.

Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).

Version: 6.0.313 / Virus Database: 174 - Release 1/2/2002

May 28, 2002

Hi Jody, you wrote:

>>> The mind is the product of the function of a brain, which exists in the

context of a body.

The individual exists as the thought that the collection of identifications

stored as memory within the mind is the person.<<<

Mind is a product of brain function, as you say above. OK?

You say that the brain exists in the context of a body. OK?

The brain then is a 'bodily something', it exists within something else, a

body. Do you agree with that?

We can then expand the previous and say that the mind is a function of the

body. OK?

What do you mean, Jody, by "identifications stored as memory in the mind"?

Where is the memory stored, in the mind or the brain?

Remember that you just said that the mind is the product of the function of

a brain.

Your language use seems somewhat confusing... but OK.

You write:

>>>Mind is to person as disk is to contents. When you erase a disk's

contents it's still a disk, albeit an empty one.<<<

You are making comparisons to a "disk with contents." Obviously when you do

that, you accept the reality of measurable physical things, things with

substance. If you don't accept that, then your analogy simply does not make

the point that you are trying to make.

Ok then, the body must be something physical, it can handle a disk for

example. The body contains amongst other things a physical substance called

the brain... You agree don't you? That brain has a function and you call the

product of that 'mind' don't you? Well OK.

Let's find out what a body is according to good dictionary definitions and

is as it pertains to this topic.

'Body' (noun)

The organized physical substance of an animal, plant or thing.

Now let's find out how a good dictionaries define 'individual' and again as

it pertains to our topic.

'Individual' (noun)

A single human being,

A single organism,

A particular person,

An indivisible entity.

So, we could say that an individual, as it pertains to humans, is a single

bodily organism.

You said that

>>>The *individual* is nothing more than the collection of identifications

that form in a mind...<<<

It seems that in your attempt to define an individual as the product of the

function of a brain, while having to conclude from other statements that you

make that the brain is part of an individual physical entity, that you just

got you back full circle to where you started from.

Did you get lost perchance?

I asked

>>> Jody, did you ever get lost in the woods and after a while you returned

to the very point where you discovered that you were lost.<<<

You answered

>>>Never.<<<

Well, you just did, although it was in a wood full of words.

Hey Jody, let's just enjoy the scenery... :-)

I know a little 7 year old boy, Dexter is his name. While his dad was

driving us around the country side, the little boy got very frightened as he

thought that we'd gotten lost. He started crying, saying, "We are in the

middle of nowhere, I'm scared."

I was able to get him to relax and eventually we played a bit with words.

I asked him to split up the word 'nowhere' into two syllables.

He found two ways:

He first found, "no and where"

then he found "now and here"

we laughed and laughed

Wim

---

Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.

Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).

Version: 6.0.313 / Virus Database: 174 - Release 1/2/2002

May 29, 2002

Hi Jody, you wrote:

>>>I've used "mind" and "brain" somewhat interchangeably,...<<<

Well Jody, in discussions like this you cannot really do that, unless you

don't mind not to be taken seriously.

Really, the issue is too quintessential to shrug it off the way you do. You

would not have stood a chance with Plato's Socrates. Anyway, at the moment I

may be laughing a little bit too much. I get a lot of mirth from remarks

such as yours in this response.

Just hoping that at some point both of us will use our "mind" and "brain"

appropriately and not "somewhat interchangeably."

>>> ...but anyone with a three-digit IQ who isn't nitpicking will likely get

the gist of what I'm saying. <<<

Well, to be honest, I really did not get the gist of what you were saying,

and I am not even sure if there is hope...

So in the meantime, while I keep finding out who I am, I remain

Wim (a two digit nitwit picking nits at his wit)

---

Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.

Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).

Version: 6.0.313 / Virus Database: 174 - Release 1/2/2002

May 29, 2002

The individual is nothing more than the collection of

identifications that form in a mind in response to

life conditions. The awareness of that response causes

the mind to form an idea that there is an individual who

is having the response, and our continuing emotional

experience keeps the whole thing powered up and online.

When "we" make a decision to rid ourselves of this idea,

we don't realize that it is from this idea that we make

the decision. We acquire a whole new set of identifications

with our guru, our ideology, our chosen deity, and our

mystical experiences, all of which combine to form an idea

of expectation that they're doing something for "us,"

thereby strengthening the idea that there is an "us."

And all the while we rest in our true nature, being who

we are uninterrupted, never once affected by all the hoopla

of being on a path as "we" seek to become what we've never

not been.

May 29, 2002

Dear Jody,

You wrote in response to some well meant mirth of mine, "Subtle indication

of contempt noted."

Please Jody, believe me when I say that I would honestly like to figure out

what caused me to write to you the way I did.

As soon as I read your above response to me, I knew... I immediately

remembered the first line of your first post under the subject heading of "a

path of ruin?" It started with, "The individual is nothing more than the

collection of identifications that form in a mind in response to life

conditions."

Something in that statement set me off!

Maybe it was that I sensed a subtle indication of 'contempt' for the idea of

being an 'individual'... something in your statement, I felt, did not honour

the intrinsic bonafide value of being an 'individual'. I felt a subtle sense

of non-acceptance of individual self-ness. My own self maybe? Maybe Jody,

your own self? I ask this gently...

I know it is subtle, but can you see what I mean? Why would you want to

express at all, that there is something the matter with being an

'individual'?

The answer to the 'subjective self inquiry' "Who Am I?" cannot possibly show

any trace of judgemental diminishment of the individual self, not even the

slightest. If anything, it will let one recognize the great mystery and

miracle of being an authentic human individual within the oneness of the

divine whole.

Oh, not that we have to be in great haste to recover... Good thing is that

we have time on our hand and... on our side. That is a wonderful mystery as

well, really!

That is all I'd like to say. I sincerely hope that you can see this as a

positive contribution to our interaction. I went through some of our

previous emails, it is not the first time that we seem to clash. Is there a

need for it? I know I write directly, differently than most, but by gosh, do

I try to be true and loving to you and myself... so that we realize our true

nature individually and together! Or as you say, "And all the while we rest