Nobady did

[Guest guest]

"Mirror" <mirror

 

Well, well, well,

Look at all you those lovely human minds!

Still any questions as to what it is?

It is capable of creating THIS EMAIL THREAD!

WOW!

I'm impressed :-)

 

Love always,

 

Mirror

 

> > GLORIA ASKS:

> >

> > And some of us have rocks in our heads for brains?? Where did the

> > labeling

> > of who said what break down here?? I had to guess. Me, I'm just

> > waiting for

> > the dust to settle on this latest go-round about conscious mind, so

> > we can go on and discuss the really good unconscious stuff.

> >

> > Look here------------> (insert picture of a brain with no memory

> > cells)

> >

> > Ok, how functional can this be?

>

> Who claimed it could be?

> Were any recommendations

> at all proferred?

>

> > The very ability for you guys to have this stupid ..er, I mean

> > brilliant

> > discussion is wholly dependent on your memory and yet you ( Bruce?)

> > keep

> > wanting to imply we all just appear here moment by moment with no

> > continuity.

>

> This is only paradoxical

> the comparative "mind."

>

> > That is like a person with Alzheimer's reality, not anyone with

> > a normal, everyday sense of reality. I know you guys enjoy making

> > these

> > abstruse distinctions, but Bruce, really... without thought's

> > comparative

> > activity.. there is no nothing...

>

> You think so? See how

> tenacious thought as

> "mind" gets about its

> indispensibility? Don't

> sweat it, it'll be there

> as you need it, let it

> fall away in the absence

> of any service to render.

>

> > your simplest sensory perception is

> > a learned activity of your brain/mind.

>

> No, the simplest *labeling*

> of a sensory perception is a

> learned (conditioned)

> activity. Not knocking

> thought, not noting its

> nature.

>

> > Continuity is essential for memory and

> > learning to occur and so what if people also create a sense of

> > identity with

> > that process... you have done the same, whether you care to admit

> > it or not.

>

> Of course I have, where have I

> denied it? You've got the

> relationship of continuity and

> memory entirely bassackward,

> though.

>

> > Its a bit more than just convenient. Geesh...

>

> It is convenient for the

> survival of an organism and a

> species, but it is a just a

> transient event comprising

> the momentary contents of

> consciousness. I'm not

> denying its utility, I'm

> simply pointing toward its

> nature to the best of its

> remarkable but limited

> communicative ability.

>

> > If you don't notice and

> > measure change,,you won't last long enough to know what you are

> > missing,

> > either.

>

> Yes, it's a survival trait

> and a dandy!

>

> > Not to mention that I have barely the least idea even who I

> > am talking TO by this point... :)

>

> ...and I notice it's not

> unenjoyable. Can you even

> imagine the perceptual impact

> of the merest instant of pure

> awareness in the absence of

> labeling, of comparison, of

> measurement, a moment with

> thought fallen silent in the

> absence of any useful thing

> to do, the pure void -- and

> then the resurgence of

> thought in joy and wonderment,

> unable to depict but on fire

> with discovery?

> >

> > Glo

> >

> Much love -- Bruce

 

 

ivan: ...Oh well....(realy popular list members use lots of ohwells)

If one wants to go into this question of mind, i think that a good starting

point could be the begining.

 

There is the localised mind of man/women (LM). At this point

i feel it is not usefull, or practical, to ask whether mind is

real or not. This LM may have two distinct functions. One sane

and another insane (feels good to be straight forward :^))

The sane aspect of the LM is it's hability to recognise a friend,

sometimes remember ones own name, recognise a beautifull

sunset, a nice flower. Also it is part of the healthy aspect of this

LM of man/woman, the hability to efectuate calculations, design

computers, elaborate complicated scientific theories.

The insane aspect of this mind is a peculiar activity that projects

an inner separate observer as an ongoing reality. Also it is inherent

to this insane aspect of LM the ihability to separate a thought from

non-thought, or in other words, there is identification with thought objects.

Now....when the insane aspect of this LM is not functional,

when this mind is working sanely, something interesting

arrises into sight. It is not a localised mind of a particular

individual anymore!! All man/woman have very similar minds.

They are so similar, in fact, because they came from the same

potential source....it is the mind of mankind as a whole (MM)

We must use words, but at this point it would be good to look at this

from ones own perspective. Obviously the LM is and always

was a part of of this mind of mankind, only the individual LM

didn't see it because of it's malfunctioning. It was fragmented

from the entirety of the MM. This MM could almoust be seen as

a "mode of existence" instead of a mind as a conteiner with

events as content. This conclusion is not a thought process at all,

it is the now clear perception that any parameter that could be

called a mind, would imediatly bring it to the category of mind-

object, as perception. The moment one realises that this MM

as an entirety is not a separate thing, that it has no separate

esistence from its content, one is in the universal mind (UM)

...i love this abreviations....makes me feel realy.....realy...oh well...

 

So when describing mind functions as recognition, as swamy

Gloria , or ever-loving Mira are pointing to, that is just the sane aspect

of the localised mind of man/woman, an aspect of the MM as

a whole. From the UM point of wiew they are all just contents,

or just awareness, without a mind containing them.

...oh well...

 

ivan