String Theory.........Imagine Nation./Psychological Model

[Guest guest]

Nisargadatta , " stuartkfmn " <stuartkfmn wrote:

>

> Nisargadatta , " pliantheart " <illusyn@> wrote:

> >

> > Nisargadatta , " toombaru2006 " <lastrain@> wrote:

> > >

> > > Nisargadatta , " pliantheart " <illusyn@> wrote:

> > > >

> > > >

> > > > >

> > > > > The mind of man is a survival biased mechanism designed to

> > connect the

> > > > > dots.

> > > >

> > > > is there such a thing as " the mind of man " ?

> >

> > >

> > > There is a mentation unique to all organisms with a brain.

> > >

> > > This 'mind' within the human species is uniquely designed to connect

> > > dots and then give the resulting observation a name.

> > >

> > > From this conceptual milieu emerges an imaginary overlay that

obscures

> > > the natural world.......and results in the illusory dream of

> > > frightening separation.

> > >

> > >

> > >

> > > toombaru

> >

> > you know so

> > or imagine so?

> >

> > have you observed this directly

> > or inferred it from observing yourself and others?

> >

> > if the latter

> > then I suggest that you do not know so

> > but imagine so

> >

> > yes, there does seem to a prevalent maladay of

> > human thinking that wraps into local strange

> > attractors that seal off into a confined state

> > of non-openness, non-sensitivity...

> >

> > but " the mind of man " as an abstraction for that

> > seems very limited to me... too specific

> >

> > there are myriad ways to be closed off

> >

> > there is no particular pattern of " mental confusion "

> > that accounts for the myriad forms of closed-off

> > thought-systems

> >

> > my view anyhow

> >

> > in a nutshell: I am suggesting that looking at these matters

> > in terms of dynamic systems rather than in terms of

> > human psychological models opens up to subtleties of

> > nuance and variation...

> >

> > for one, the notion of the " human entity " becomes not

> > so central... there is no need to posit a " someone there " ...

> >

> > so there is no need to posit an " actor " to discuss compulsive

> > patterns, etc.

> >

> > it is all just " programming " ...

> >

> > even these words typing back and forth across cyberspace...

> > just programming

> >

> > Bill

> >

>

> Bill, I see " who we are " as programming also, but isn't that just one

> view? If I see the elephant from behind it I see something quite

> different that if I see an elephant from in front of it.

>

> Stu

>

 

Absolutely, Stu. Just another view.

 

And seeing in terms of more than one view helps

to wean one of attachment to any particular view.

 

The Kundalini model is yet another view...

 

But not all views are equal. Some are less limited

than others. The psychological model is a particularly

limited one, IMO, and one that, as it seems to me,

many take to be *the* view, i.e. tend to assume as

fact.

 

Because of that, the psychological model is one well

deserving of severe attack for its inadequacy...

again, IMO.

 

Note: by " psychological model " I mean discussion that

centers around notions such as consciousness, awareness,

self, ego, " I am " , awakening, etc. Other models may use

those terms, but when the whole discussion is based on

those terms as starting points, that I refer to as

the psychological model.

 

 

Bill