Guest guest Posted June 16, 2006 Report Share Posted June 16, 2006 Nisargadatta , " toombaru2006 " <lastrain wrote: > > Nisargadatta , " toombaru2006 " <lastrain@> wrote: > > > > Nisargadatta , " pliantheart " <pliantheart@> > > wrote: > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " toombaru2006 " <lastrain@> wrote: > > > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " pliantheart " <pliantheart@> > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " toombaru2006 " <lastrain@> > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " pliantheart " > <pliantheart@> > > > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " toombaru2006 " > <lastrain@> > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " iietsa " <iietsa@> > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > it seems thou there are differences in attention... > > > > > > > > > one is the focusing of an object...and the enjoing of the > > > > > object... > > > > > > > > > ...another is no focusing at all...the so-called objects > > > > > doesnt own > > > > > > > > > any value to enjoy... > > > > > > > > > can you say something about this ? > > > > > > > > > ...iietsa > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > It is attention that creates the object. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > toombaru > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > focused attention creates an object. > > > > > > > unfocused attention does not. [see msg. 43747] > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > As per the 'thinking mind' and the 'working mind'? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > toombaru > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I have no idea what you are saying. > > > > > > > > > > You surely can't mean by " working mind " unfocused > > > > > attention. I explained " unfocused attention " with > > > > > reference to the K quote. Do you think K was describing > > > > > the " working mind " ? > > > > > > > > > > If you think it is an important point, > > > > > please restate. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Bill > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Ramesh and others speak of the 'working' or natural mind. > > > > > > > > This is the mind from which Nisargadatta spoke. > > > > > > > > > > > > The other mind, the 'thinking' mind is the source of the conceptual > > > > overlay.....the dream of separation...and its illusory self at the > > > center. > > > > > > > > > > > > I was thinking that perhaps the natural mind was unfocused attention > > > > and the thinking mind was the focused or objective attention. > > > > > > > > Perhaps another way of speaking of the bicameral mind. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > toombaru > > > > > > > > > > Oh My! I had you so wrong! > > > > > > Then I agree with you completely. > > > Though the term " natural mind " has more appeal for > > > me, as " working mind " seems to imply effort > > > (just connotation), and there is certainly no effort > > > involved. > > > > > > could you say more about the bicameral mind? > > > I am quite interested in that topic. > > > > > > And do you use that term with reference to the > > > book by J. Jaynes? > > > > > > > > > Bill > > > > > > > > > > > " Origin of Consciousness in the Breakdown of the Bicameral Mind " > > > > > > > > Have you read it? > > > > > > > > toombaru > > > > > Or..........if you really want to blow your mind.....read > > " Consciousness Explained " by Daniel C. Dennett. > I was refering to the " Origin ... " book, yes. As for Dennett... I'm afraid I have a very negative impression of him. Not sure if I recall correctly, but seems that he is on the opposite side of the aisle from Stephen J. Gould, and Gould's approach is much more to my liking. Perhaps I should revisit all of that, given your recommendation. And speaking of books to blow one's mind by... *Endless Forms Most Beautiful: The New Science of Evo Devo* by Sean B. Carroll is a stunner. It explains new insights about evolution from breakthroughs in the study of genetics in developmental biology (Evo Devo refers to Evolutionary and Develomental). The simple uniformity and recurrence of fundamental patterns as occurring in virtually all animal lifeforms is astonishing. Now when I look at any animal form I see things I never saw before. Getting back to your comment about the bicameral mind: as I see it the " working/natural mind " that you refer to comes into play when the langauge-bound left hemisphere relinquishes its attempt to control brain function and slips into its natural role of " adjunctive services " . The natural wholeness of attention that is " everywhere at once " arises only when brain function is managed by the right hemisphere. Incidentally, in my view " everywhere at once " is only metaphor... it is not *actually* everywhere at once, but it is *as if* everywhere at once. More accurate, in my view, than everywhere at once is " no place in particular " . Bill Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted June 17, 2006 Report Share Posted June 17, 2006 Nisargadatta , " pliantheart " <pliantheart wrote: > > Nisargadatta , " toombaru2006 " <lastrain@> wrote: > > > > Nisargadatta , " toombaru2006 " <lastrain@> wrote: > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " pliantheart " <pliantheart@> > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " toombaru2006 " <lastrain@> > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " pliantheart " <pliantheart@> > > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " toombaru2006 " <lastrain@> > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " pliantheart " > > <pliantheart@> > > > > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " toombaru2006 " > > <lastrain@> > > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " iietsa " <iietsa@> > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > it seems thou there are differences in attention... > > > > > > > > > > one is the focusing of an object...and the enjoing > of the > > > > > > object... > > > > > > > > > > ...another is no focusing at all...the so-called objects > > > > > > doesnt own > > > > > > > > > > any value to enjoy... > > > > > > > > > > can you say something about this ? > > > > > > > > > > ...iietsa > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > It is attention that creates the object. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > toombaru > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > focused attention creates an object. > > > > > > > > unfocused attention does not. [see msg. 43747] > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > As per the 'thinking mind' and the 'working mind'? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > toombaru > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I have no idea what you are saying. > > > > > > > > > > > > You surely can't mean by " working mind " unfocused > > > > > > attention. I explained " unfocused attention " with > > > > > > reference to the K quote. Do you think K was describing > > > > > > the " working mind " ? > > > > > > > > > > > > If you think it is an important point, > > > > > > please restate. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Bill > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Ramesh and others speak of the 'working' or natural mind. > > > > > > > > > > This is the mind from which Nisargadatta spoke. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > The other mind, the 'thinking' mind is the source of the > conceptual > > > > > overlay.....the dream of separation...and its illusory self at the > > > > center. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I was thinking that perhaps the natural mind was unfocused > attention > > > > > and the thinking mind was the focused or objective attention. > > > > > > > > > > Perhaps another way of speaking of the bicameral mind. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > toombaru > > > > > > > > > > > > > Oh My! I had you so wrong! > > > > > > > > Then I agree with you completely. > > > > Though the term " natural mind " has more appeal for > > > > me, as " working mind " seems to imply effort > > > > (just connotation), and there is certainly no effort > > > > involved. > > > > > > > > could you say more about the bicameral mind? > > > > I am quite interested in that topic. > > > > > > > > And do you use that term with reference to the > > > > book by J. Jaynes? > > > > > > > > > > > > Bill > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > " Origin of Consciousness in the Breakdown of the Bicameral Mind " > > > > > > > > > > > > Have you read it? > > > > > > > > > > > > toombaru > > > > > > > > > Or..........if you really want to blow your mind.....read > > > > " Consciousness Explained " by Daniel C. Dennett. > > > > I was refering to the " Origin ... " book, yes. > > As for Dennett... I'm afraid I have a very negative > impression of him. Not sure if I recall correctly, > but seems that he is on the opposite side of the aisle > from Stephen J. Gould, and Gould's approach is much more > to my liking. Perhaps I should revisit all of that, given > your recommendation. > > And speaking of books to blow one's mind by... > *Endless Forms Most Beautiful: The New Science of Evo Devo* > by Sean B. Carroll is a stunner. It explains new insights > about evolution from breakthroughs in the study of genetics in > developmental biology (Evo Devo refers to Evolutionary and > Develomental). The simple uniformity and recurrence of > fundamental patterns as occurring in virtually all animal > lifeforms is astonishing. Now when I look at any animal form > I see things I never saw before. > > Getting back to your comment about the bicameral mind: > > as I see it the " working/natural mind " that you refer to > comes into play when the langauge-bound left hemisphere > relinquishes its attempt to control brain function and > slips into its natural role of " adjunctive services " . > > The natural wholeness of attention that is " everywhere > at once " arises only when brain function is managed by > the right hemisphere. Incidentally, in my view " everywhere > at once " is only metaphor... it is not *actually* > everywhere at once, but it is *as if* everywhere at once. > More accurate, in my view, than everywhere at once is > " no place in particular " . > > > Bill > For those few brains in which the tension has dissipated......Life must seem so.........pristine and unspeakably beautiful. Life.....viewing ItSelf through the apex of consciousness....immersed in the clarity of unknowing. Mysterious.......ever evolving....Mystery. toombaru Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted June 17, 2006 Report Share Posted June 17, 2006 Nisargadatta , " toombaru2006 " <lastrain wrote: > > Nisargadatta , " pliantheart " <pliantheart@> > wrote: > > > > Nisargadatta , " toombaru2006 " <lastrain@> wrote: > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " toombaru2006 " <lastrain@> wrote: > > > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " pliantheart " <pliantheart@> > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " toombaru2006 " <lastrain@> > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " pliantheart " > <pliantheart@> > > > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " toombaru2006 " > <lastrain@> > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " pliantheart " > > > <pliantheart@> > > > > > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " toombaru2006 " > > > <lastrain@> > > > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " iietsa " <iietsa@> > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > it seems thou there are differences in attention... > > > > > > > > > > > one is the focusing of an object...and the enjoing > > of the > > > > > > > object... > > > > > > > > > > > ...another is no focusing at all...the so-called > objects > > > > > > > doesnt own > > > > > > > > > > > any value to enjoy... > > > > > > > > > > > can you say something about this ? > > > > > > > > > > > ...iietsa > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > It is attention that creates the object. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > toombaru > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > focused attention creates an object. > > > > > > > > > unfocused attention does not. [see msg. 43747] > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > As per the 'thinking mind' and the 'working mind'? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > toombaru > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I have no idea what you are saying. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > You surely can't mean by " working mind " unfocused > > > > > > > attention. I explained " unfocused attention " with > > > > > > > reference to the K quote. Do you think K was describing > > > > > > > the " working mind " ? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > If you think it is an important point, > > > > > > > please restate. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Bill > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Ramesh and others speak of the 'working' or natural mind. > > > > > > > > > > > > This is the mind from which Nisargadatta spoke. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > The other mind, the 'thinking' mind is the source of the > > conceptual > > > > > > overlay.....the dream of separation...and its illusory self > at the > > > > > center. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I was thinking that perhaps the natural mind was unfocused > > attention > > > > > > and the thinking mind was the focused or objective attention. > > > > > > > > > > > > Perhaps another way of speaking of the bicameral mind. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > toombaru > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Oh My! I had you so wrong! > > > > > > > > > > Then I agree with you completely. > > > > > Though the term " natural mind " has more appeal for > > > > > me, as " working mind " seems to imply effort > > > > > (just connotation), and there is certainly no effort > > > > > involved. > > > > > > > > > > could you say more about the bicameral mind? > > > > > I am quite interested in that topic. > > > > > > > > > > And do you use that term with reference to the > > > > > book by J. Jaynes? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Bill > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > " Origin of Consciousness in the Breakdown of the Bicameral Mind " > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Have you read it? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > toombaru > > > > > > > > > > > > > Or..........if you really want to blow your mind.....read > > > > > > " Consciousness Explained " by Daniel C. Dennett. > > > > > > > I was refering to the " Origin ... " book, yes. > > > > As for Dennett... I'm afraid I have a very negative > > impression of him. Not sure if I recall correctly, > > but seems that he is on the opposite side of the aisle > > from Stephen J. Gould, and Gould's approach is much more > > to my liking. Perhaps I should revisit all of that, given > > your recommendation. > > > > And speaking of books to blow one's mind by... > > *Endless Forms Most Beautiful: The New Science of Evo Devo* > > by Sean B. Carroll is a stunner. It explains new insights > > about evolution from breakthroughs in the study of genetics in > > developmental biology (Evo Devo refers to Evolutionary and > > Develomental). The simple uniformity and recurrence of > > fundamental patterns as occurring in virtually all animal > > lifeforms is astonishing. Now when I look at any animal form > > I see things I never saw before. > > > > Getting back to your comment about the bicameral mind: > > > > as I see it the " working/natural mind " that you refer to > > comes into play when the langauge-bound left hemisphere > > relinquishes its attempt to control brain function and > > slips into its natural role of " adjunctive services " . > > > > The natural wholeness of attention that is " everywhere > > at once " arises only when brain function is managed by > > the right hemisphere. Incidentally, in my view " everywhere > > at once " is only metaphor... it is not *actually* > > everywhere at once, but it is *as if* everywhere at once. > > More accurate, in my view, than everywhere at once is > > " no place in particular " . > > > > > > Bill > For those few brains in which the tension has dissipated......Life > must seem so.........pristine and unspeakably beautiful. > > Life.....viewing ItSelf through the apex of consciousness....immersed > in the clarity of unknowing. > > Mysterious.......ever evolving....Mystery. > > > toombaru > (Now, I don't wish to imply that your words were meant for my ears, by any stretch of the imagination, but) beautifully said. On the other hand, why " mystery " ? Almost sounds like intentional mystification, to me. Too romantic, for my taste. " Brain " sounds reductionistic. But I like " tension has dissipated, " since it invokes the entirely subjective, I hope. Of course, there can be no dissipation of tension without tension. And the tension returns. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted June 17, 2006 Report Share Posted June 17, 2006 Nisargadatta , " skywhilds " <skywords wrote: > > Nisargadatta , " toombaru2006 " <lastrain@> wrote: > > > > Nisargadatta , " pliantheart " <pliantheart@> > > wrote: > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " toombaru2006 " <lastrain@> wrote: > > > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " toombaru2006 " <lastrain@> > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " pliantheart " <pliantheart@> > > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " toombaru2006 " <lastrain@> > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " pliantheart " > > <pliantheart@> > > > > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " toombaru2006 " > > <lastrain@> > > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " pliantheart " > > > > <pliantheart@> > > > > > > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " toombaru2006 " > > > > <lastrain@> > > > > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " iietsa " > <iietsa@> > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > it seems thou there are differences in attention... > > > > > > > > > > > > one is the focusing of an object...and the enjoing > > > of the > > > > > > > > object... > > > > > > > > > > > > ...another is no focusing at all...the so-called > > objects > > > > > > > > doesnt own > > > > > > > > > > > > any value to enjoy... > > > > > > > > > > > > can you say something about this ? > > > > > > > > > > > > ...iietsa > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > It is attention that creates the object. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > toombaru > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > focused attention creates an object. > > > > > > > > > > unfocused attention does not. [see msg. 43747] > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > As per the 'thinking mind' and the 'working mind'? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > toombaru > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I have no idea what you are saying. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > You surely can't mean by " working mind " unfocused > > > > > > > > attention. I explained " unfocused attention " with > > > > > > > > reference to the K quote. Do you think K was describing > > > > > > > > the " working mind " ? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > If you think it is an important point, > > > > > > > > please restate. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Bill > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Ramesh and others speak of the 'working' or natural mind. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > This is the mind from which Nisargadatta spoke. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > The other mind, the 'thinking' mind is the source of the > > > conceptual > > > > > > > overlay.....the dream of separation...and its illusory self > > at the > > > > > > center. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I was thinking that perhaps the natural mind was unfocused > > > attention > > > > > > > and the thinking mind was the focused or objective attention. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Perhaps another way of speaking of the bicameral mind. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > toombaru > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Oh My! I had you so wrong! > > > > > > > > > > > > Then I agree with you completely. > > > > > > Though the term " natural mind " has more appeal for > > > > > > me, as " working mind " seems to imply effort > > > > > > (just connotation), and there is certainly no effort > > > > > > involved. > > > > > > > > > > > > could you say more about the bicameral mind? > > > > > > I am quite interested in that topic. > > > > > > > > > > > > And do you use that term with reference to the > > > > > > book by J. Jaynes? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Bill > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > " Origin of Consciousness in the Breakdown of the Bicameral Mind " > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Have you read it? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > toombaru > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Or..........if you really want to blow your mind.....read > > > > > > > > " Consciousness Explained " by Daniel C. Dennett. > > > > > > > > > > I was refering to the " Origin ... " book, yes. > > > > > > As for Dennett... I'm afraid I have a very negative > > > impression of him. Not sure if I recall correctly, > > > but seems that he is on the opposite side of the aisle > > > from Stephen J. Gould, and Gould's approach is much more > > > to my liking. Perhaps I should revisit all of that, given > > > your recommendation. > > > > > > And speaking of books to blow one's mind by... > > > *Endless Forms Most Beautiful: The New Science of Evo Devo* > > > by Sean B. Carroll is a stunner. It explains new insights > > > about evolution from breakthroughs in the study of genetics in > > > developmental biology (Evo Devo refers to Evolutionary and > > > Develomental). The simple uniformity and recurrence of > > > fundamental patterns as occurring in virtually all animal > > > lifeforms is astonishing. Now when I look at any animal form > > > I see things I never saw before. > > > > > > Getting back to your comment about the bicameral mind: > > > > > > as I see it the " working/natural mind " that you refer to > > > comes into play when the langauge-bound left hemisphere > > > relinquishes its attempt to control brain function and > > > slips into its natural role of " adjunctive services " . > > > > > > The natural wholeness of attention that is " everywhere > > > at once " arises only when brain function is managed by > > > the right hemisphere. Incidentally, in my view " everywhere > > > at once " is only metaphor... it is not *actually* > > > everywhere at once, but it is *as if* everywhere at once. > > > More accurate, in my view, than everywhere at once is > > > " no place in particular " . > > > > > > > > > Bill > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > For those few brains in which the tension has dissipated......Life > > must seem so.........pristine and unspeakably beautiful. > > > > Life.....viewing ItSelf through the apex of consciousness....immersed > > in the clarity of unknowing. > > > > Mysterious.......ever evolving....Mystery. > > > > > > toombaru > > > (Now, I don't wish to imply that your words were meant for my ears, by > any stretch of the imagination, but) > > beautifully said. On the other hand, why " mystery " ? Almost sounds > like intentional mystification, to me. Too romantic, for my taste. > " Brain " sounds reductionistic. > But I like " tension has dissipated, " since it invokes the entirely > subjective, I hope. Of course, there can be no dissipation of tension > without tension. And the tension returns. > Life is tension. toombaru Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted June 17, 2006 Report Share Posted June 17, 2006 Nisargadatta , " toombaru2006 " <lastrain wrote: > > Nisargadatta , " skywhilds " <skywords@> wrote: > > > > Nisargadatta , " toombaru2006 " <lastrain@> wrote: > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " pliantheart " <pliantheart@> > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " toombaru2006 " <lastrain@> > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " toombaru2006 " <lastrain@> > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " pliantheart " > <pliantheart@> > > > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " toombaru2006 " > <lastrain@> > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " pliantheart " > > > <pliantheart@> > > > > > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " toombaru2006 " > > > <lastrain@> > > > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " pliantheart " > > > > > <pliantheart@> > > > > > > > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " toombaru2006 " > > > > > <lastrain@> > > > > > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " iietsa " > > <iietsa@> > > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > it seems thou there are differences in > attention... > > > > > > > > > > > > > one is the focusing of an object...and the enjoing > > > > of the > > > > > > > > > object... > > > > > > > > > > > > > ...another is no focusing at all...the so-called > > > objects > > > > > > > > > doesnt own > > > > > > > > > > > > > any value to enjoy... > > > > > > > > > > > > > can you say something about this ? > > > > > > > > > > > > > ...iietsa > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > It is attention that creates the object. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > toombaru > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > focused attention creates an object. > > > > > > > > > > > unfocused attention does not. [see msg. 43747] > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > As per the 'thinking mind' and the 'working mind'? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > toombaru > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I have no idea what you are saying. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > You surely can't mean by " working mind " unfocused > > > > > > > > > attention. I explained " unfocused attention " with > > > > > > > > > reference to the K quote. Do you think K was describing > > > > > > > > > the " working mind " ? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > If you think it is an important point, > > > > > > > > > please restate. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Bill > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Ramesh and others speak of the 'working' or natural mind. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > This is the mind from which Nisargadatta spoke. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > The other mind, the 'thinking' mind is the source of the > > > > conceptual > > > > > > > > overlay.....the dream of separation...and its illusory self > > > at the > > > > > > > center. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I was thinking that perhaps the natural mind was unfocused > > > > attention > > > > > > > > and the thinking mind was the focused or objective > attention. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Perhaps another way of speaking of the bicameral mind. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > toombaru > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Oh My! I had you so wrong! > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Then I agree with you completely. > > > > > > > Though the term " natural mind " has more appeal for > > > > > > > me, as " working mind " seems to imply effort > > > > > > > (just connotation), and there is certainly no effort > > > > > > > involved. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > could you say more about the bicameral mind? > > > > > > > I am quite interested in that topic. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > And do you use that term with reference to the > > > > > > > book by J. Jaynes? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Bill > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > " Origin of Consciousness in the Breakdown of the Bicameral Mind " > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Have you read it? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > toombaru > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Or..........if you really want to blow your mind.....read > > > > > > > > > > " Consciousness Explained " by Daniel C. Dennett. > > > > > > > > > > > > > I was refering to the " Origin ... " book, yes. > > > > > > > > As for Dennett... I'm afraid I have a very negative > > > > impression of him. Not sure if I recall correctly, > > > > but seems that he is on the opposite side of the aisle > > > > from Stephen J. Gould, and Gould's approach is much more > > > > to my liking. Perhaps I should revisit all of that, given > > > > your recommendation. > > > > > > > > And speaking of books to blow one's mind by... > > > > *Endless Forms Most Beautiful: The New Science of Evo Devo* > > > > by Sean B. Carroll is a stunner. It explains new insights > > > > about evolution from breakthroughs in the study of genetics in > > > > developmental biology (Evo Devo refers to Evolutionary and > > > > Develomental). The simple uniformity and recurrence of > > > > fundamental patterns as occurring in virtually all animal > > > > lifeforms is astonishing. Now when I look at any animal form > > > > I see things I never saw before. > > > > > > > > Getting back to your comment about the bicameral mind: > > > > > > > > as I see it the " working/natural mind " that you refer to > > > > comes into play when the langauge-bound left hemisphere > > > > relinquishes its attempt to control brain function and > > > > slips into its natural role of " adjunctive services " . > > > > > > > > The natural wholeness of attention that is " everywhere > > > > at once " arises only when brain function is managed by > > > > the right hemisphere. Incidentally, in my view " everywhere > > > > at once " is only metaphor... it is not *actually* > > > > everywhere at once, but it is *as if* everywhere at once. > > > > More accurate, in my view, than everywhere at once is > > > > " no place in particular " . > > > > > > > > > > > > Bill > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > For those few brains in which the tension has dissipated......Life > > > must seem so.........pristine and unspeakably beautiful. > > > > > > Life.....viewing ItSelf through the apex of consciousness....immersed > > > in the clarity of unknowing. > > > > > > Mysterious.......ever evolving....Mystery. > > > > > > > > > toombaru > > > > > (Now, I don't wish to imply that your words were meant for my ears, by > > any stretch of the imagination, but) > > > > beautifully said. On the other hand, why " mystery " ? Almost sounds > > like intentional mystification, to me. Too romantic, for my taste. > > " Brain " sounds reductionistic. > > But I like " tension has dissipated, " since it invokes the entirely > > subjective, I hope. Of course, there can be no dissipation of tension > > without tension. And the tension returns. > > > > > Life is tension. > > > toombaru >As you know, I delight in your pronouncements. Spicy! Both didactic and (provocative of) dialectic. So, antithesis: Equally, if life is tension, death is collapse. But also true, life is easy, death is hard. Synthesis: Since to speak of life is like fish discussing the pro's and con's of water (figuratively, they know nothing but), we can only speak of our experience. (Of course there are those who believe that there is the experience that is not experience, but that's merely another provocation.) Our experience is that sometimes we experience relatively more tension, and others, relatively more. But we can also cultivate relatively more or less, and thus, in some ultimate sense, experience relatively more or less tension. Then, we might want to further discuss whether cultivation is volitional or whether it just occurs. Again, you'd have to " be there, " and I don't think we're there yet, kids. I await either silence or antithesis, although approval and acquiescence are always welcome, of course. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted June 17, 2006 Report Share Posted June 17, 2006 <snip> > > Life is tension. > > > toombaru > ohhh... I MUST disagree! Life is vitality. Tension is resistance to life. Bill Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You are posting as a guest. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.