differences in attention/toombaru (et. al.) (correction: less)

[Guest guest]

Nisargadatta , " skywhilds " <skywords wrote:

>

> 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.

>

* read: " less " (Freudian slip -- how " enlightened " could " I " be?)