|
Post by tenka on Dec 14, 2019 3:32:22 GMT -5
If you read the whole line that you underlined then you would see the very last word was 'thought' and certain peeps here don't agree with this from a zen perspective, so it is incorrect for you to say what you have . Have you found the letter E yet without entertaining a thought of it? While it's probably usual when someone looks at the e on a keyboard, they recognize it as an e, it's not necessary. You still don't understand autopilot and unconscious processing. Jack Kerouac could type 120 words per minute, and this on an ordinary mechanical typewriter. So he could not possibly type that fast and mentally recognize every letter. And he wrote via stream of consciousness, he virtually invented it. He got tired of changing sheets of paper and famously typed one version of On The Road on a scroll he made by taping sheets of paper together. So when he typed when or time or escape or the, fingers just went to the keyboard and letters appeared on the page. He didn't think e. Test yourself. Or better, just think back to just now reading this. When there was an e in a word did you think e? No, you didn't. Unconscious processing took place. mytypewriter.com/authors/featured/kerouac.htmlwww.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=11709924The beginning and the end, Jack reading from On The Road. www.kerouac.com/lostletter/www.npr.org/2014/11/24/366349721/long-lost-letter-that-inspired-on-the-road-style-has-been-foundYou don't accept that where there is recognition of the letter E and what the letter represents doesn't constitute a thought . It doesn't matter how fast you type pilgrim, for you know what your writing about and it's thought based . I am not sure why you can't see this .. I mean how can a poet write about stuff without having a self referential thought regarding themselves and what the topic at hand is . Otherwise one would type this hfepuhpiuechogecozuhcpiu instead of something that makes sense to you and I . I am finding these conversations a bit unbelievable to be honest, I mean I am literally dumbfounded here ..
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 14, 2019 4:42:01 GMT -5
I live in that forest. I'm aware of my cousins in the snowpeaks though. In fact I remember when those peaks were Ocean floors. Like above, so below. The mind will bring forth all forms of ideas to accept as truth. Be true to what you KNOW in your deepest depths to be true. But, yes. It IS possible to be aware of memories and assumptions. Yeah, I'm well versed in the flexibility of palindromes. I agree. 'Worship the Inner.' ~ said the quiet man.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 14, 2019 6:04:19 GMT -5
While it's probably usual when someone looks at the e on a keyboard, they recognize it as an e, it's not necessary.. You don't accept that where there is recognition of the letter E and what the letter represents doesn't constitute a thought . It doesn't matter how fast you type pilgrim, for you know what your writing about and it's thought based . I am not sure why you can't see this .. I mean how can a poet write about stuff without having a self referential thought regarding themselves and what the topic at hand is .
Otherwise one would type this hfepuhpiuechogecozuhcpiu instead of something that makes sense to you and I . I am finding these conversations a bit unbelievable to be honest, I mean I am literally dumbfounded here .. Is this a genuine question? As in, is there any receptivity to a broader answer, or is this just another way to reinforce your belief that poetry can't be written without a someone to write it about?
|
|
|
Post by enigma on Dec 14, 2019 10:11:32 GMT -5
If you read the whole line that you underlined then you would see the very last word was 'thought' and certain peeps here don't agree with this from a zen perspective, so it is incorrect for you to say what you have . Have you found the letter E yet without entertaining a thought of it? While it's probably usual when someone looks at the e on a keyboard, they recognize it as an e, it's not necessary. You still don't understand autopilot and unconscious processing. Jack Kerouac could type 120 words per minute, and this on an ordinary mechanical typewriter. So he could not possibly type that fast and mentally recognize every letter. And he wrote via stream of consciousness, he virtually invented it. He got tired of changing sheets of paper and famously typed one version of On The Road on a scroll he made by taping sheets of paper together. So when he typed when or time or escape or the, fingers just went to the keyboard and letters appeared on the page. He didn't think e. Test yourself. Or better, just think back to just now reading this. When there was an e in a word did you think e? No, you didn't. Unconscious processing took place. Nobody's talking about having to mentally think. Unconscious mental activity is unconscious, so you aren't going to consciously see yourself thinking it. I think it's you who still doesn't understand unconscious processing.
|
|
|
Post by someNOTHING! on Dec 14, 2019 10:38:05 GMT -5
Like above, so below. The mind will bring forth all forms of ideas to accept as truth. Be true to what you KNOW in your deepest depths to be true. But, yes. It IS possible to be aware of memories and assumptions. Yeah, I'm well versed in the flexibility of palindromes. I agree. 'Worship the Inner.' ~ said the quiet man. Cool. And since you brought up the subject of the bottom of the ocean up there, I got a story. 🙂 I was hanging out getting ready to spend the night in a shepherds hut at the base of Thorung La on the Annapurna Circuit in Nepal. It was from here that you did a tough 1000m climb to the pass at 5400m, give or take. I decided to go for a walk along the rocky glacial stream and look at the mountains of the area. While walking I looked down and noticed a piece of a fossil, which of course caught my interest at that altitude in the Himalayas. Looking at the nondescript black stone that it was encased in I looked around and noticed quite a bit of it. I found one decently sized roundish one and proceeded to strike it with a chunk of granite several times. Finally, the stone gave and perfectly sheered off down the middle exposing a rather perfectly preserved spiraling ammonite/nautilus. Later I found out that the sadhus (wandering homeless Hindus) and maybe even some Tibetans revered the stones as as Vishnu (of whom Buddha was also an incarnation). I was offfered some pretty nice trades for that beautiful fossil, but I still have it to this day. On another occasion, my wife and I were trekking independently in El Cocuy in Colombia. The trek requires one to scale a series of 4-5-6 passes of about 42-4600m that punctuate the different valleys. Gorgeous. Anyway, one of the passes proved to be quite a tough one, was taking longer, the rain and snow slush had been pissing down off and on for a while. Needless to say, we were getting tired. We got to the top and, exhausted, put our packs down and sat beneath a series of large stones jutting out to eat some nuts and biscuits and make some tea. A large cloud bank came in and visibility went to damm near zero, so we decided to wait it out a bit longer because we were already pretty wet and our packs were starting to take on a little water. So, we broke out the sleeping pads and chilled. As I started to pick around on the sedimentary looking rocks, I found a vein of almost coal-like stone. I slid a 2cm layer out of the wall to check it out and get a feel for it. It was very unstable and was easy to break it down into thinner layers. As I was doing that, I suddenly noticed some perfectly preserved fern-like fossils in it. They were so beautiful, as if created for an art piece. Anyway, yeah they, too, made it into my collection of artifacts, hehe. I do enjoy the wondrous gifts of exploring nature in its simplicity. It seems you do too. Very nice.
|
|
|
Post by stardustpilgrim on Dec 14, 2019 12:34:33 GMT -5
While it's probably usual when someone looks at the e on a keyboard, they recognize it as an e, it's not necessary. You still don't understand autopilot and unconscious processing. Jack Kerouac could type 120 words per minute, and this on an ordinary mechanical typewriter. So he could not possibly type that fast and mentally recognize every letter. And he wrote via stream of consciousness, he virtually invented it. He got tired of changing sheets of paper and famously typed one version of On The Road on a scroll he made by taping sheets of paper together. So when he typed when or time or escape or the, fingers just went to the keyboard and letters appeared on the page. He didn't think e. Test yourself. Or better, just think back to just now reading this. When there was an e in a word did you think e? No, you didn't. Unconscious processing took place. mytypewriter.com/authors/featured/kerouac.htmlwww.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=11709924The beginning and the end, Jack reading from On The Road. www.kerouac.com/lostletter/www.npr.org/2014/11/24/366349721/long-lost-letter-that-inspired-on-the-road-style-has-been-foundYou don't accept that where there is recognition of the letter E and what the letter represents doesn't constitute a thought . It doesn't matter how fast you type pilgrim, for you know what your writing about and it's thought based . I am not sure why you can't see this .. I mean how can a poet write about stuff without having a self referential thought regarding themselves and what the topic at hand is . Otherwise one would type this hfepuhpiuechogecozuhcpiu instead of something that makes sense to you and I . I am finding these conversations a bit unbelievable to be honest, I mean I am literally dumbfounded here .. I refuse to use your word thought for unconscious brain processing. The post stands. When the elephant is charging at you, do you think, Oh, elephant starts with an E? And...Oh...actually, elephant has two Es in it.
|
|
|
Post by zendancer on Dec 14, 2019 12:36:31 GMT -5
Yeah, I'm well versed in the flexibility of palindromes. I agree. 'Worship the Inner.' ~ said the quiet man. Cool. And since you brought up the subject of the bottom of the ocean up there, I got a story. 🙂 I was hanging out getting ready to spend the night in a shepherds hut at the base of Thorung La on the Annapurna Circuit in Nepal. It was from here that you did a tough 1000m climb to the pass at 5400m, give or take. I decided to go for a walk along the rocky glacial stream and look at the mountains of the area. While walking I looked down and noticed a piece of a fossil, which of course caught my interest at that altitude in the Himalayas. Looking at the nondescript black stone that it was encased in I looked around and noticed quite a bit of it. I found one decently sized roundish one and proceeded to strike it with a chunk of granite several times. Finally, the stone gave and perfectly sheered off down the middle exposing a rather perfectly preserved spiraling ammonite/nautilus. Later I found out that the sadhus (wandering homeless Hindus) and maybe even some Tibetans revered the stones as as Vishnu (of whom Buddha was also an incarnation). I was offfered some pretty nice trades for that beautiful fossil, but I still have it to this day. On another occasion, my wife and I were trekking independently in El Cocuy in Colombia. The trek requires one to scale a series of 4-5-6 passes of about 42-4600m that punctuate the different valleys. Gorgeous. Anyway, one of the passes proved to be quite a tough one, was taking longer, the rain and snow slush had been pissing down off and on for a while. Needless to say, we were getting tired. We got to the top and, exhausted, put our packs down and sat beneath a series of large stones jutting out to eat some nuts and biscuits and make some tea. A large cloud bank came in and visibility went to damm near zero, so we decided to wait it out a bit longer because we were already pretty wet and our packs were starting to take on a little water. So, we broke out the sleeping pads and chilled. As I started to pick around on the sedimentary looking rocks, I found a vein of almost coal-like stone. I slid a 2cm layer out of the wall to check it out and get a feel for it. It was very unstable and was easy to break it down into thinner layers. As I was doing that, I suddenly noticed some perfectly preserved fern-like fossils in it. They were so beautiful, as if created for an art piece. Anyway, yeah they, too, made it into my collection of artifacts, hehe. I do enjoy the wondrous gifts of exploring nature in its simplicity. It seems you do too. Very nice. Oh man, I, too, have fossil and artifact stories that are totally mind-blowing. At the age of about nine or ten I was walking in a limestone creek bed when I looked down and spotted a perfect fossil gastropod (a snail for those who don't know what a gastropod is) from the Ordovician Period that totally captivated me, and turned me instantly into a rabid paleontologist. A few weeks later I was hiking in another nearby creek bed finding arrowheads and all kinds of cool stuff, and I spotted a five inch long fossilized siphuncle (the central muscular tube that propels a squid through the water). The following year I was climbing around in an old rock quarry and found a six foot long cephalopod projecting out of the limestone cliff, and the siphuncle was visible in the center of it. The center of the siphuncle had celestite crystals inside of it which was really rare. At the age of 11 a surgeon in Nashville who was a big collector of artifacts and a friend of the family learned that I was interested in Indian relics and fossils. He gave me some gorgeous stone tools and battle axes from the Woodland era, and he gave me the skull of an Indian that he had dug up that was perfectly intact except for the left side of the temple area. When he cleaned out the dirt inside the skull, he found several fragments from the temple area along with a perfect arrowhead formed from a piece of crystal (it was translucent). I called the skull "George," and I used to stare at it in wonder while imagining the battle that the guy had died in. Three years ago our office security alarm accidentally went off, and the police came. My helper let them into my office, and when the policemen saw George's skull sitting on a shelf, they concluded that it was a crime scene! You can't make this stuff up. They called me, and I told them that I had been given George 60 years ago, but they confiscated it anyway and sent it to the crime forensic lab in Nashville. I guess it's still there because I've never gotten around to calling the lab about its return. For all I know there may be new laws that now outlaw owning those kinds of relics. At the age of about 16 I was working at a museum in Nashville (I sold fossils and minerals I had collected over the counter to interested kids for ten or fifteen cents) when someone called the museum and said that there was something odd beside their mailbox. I drove out to the guy's house and saw mastodon teeth sticking up out of the clay with part of the lower jaw attached under the surface of the ground. At the age of 20 I was working for a crushed rock company in Ocala, FL during the summer as a geologist's helper. One afternoon as I was leaving work, I happened to look into a new area where two big pans were removing topsoil to expose the limerock underneath. I noticed that the two pans were parked and the operators were down on the ground looking at something. On a hunch I rushed over to take a look. They had uncovered an ancient sinkhole full of incredibly well preserved vertebrate fossils. I called the University of Florida and it turned into a major dig from which the paleo guys pulled out lion, saber tooth tiger, giant sloth, alligator, camel, horse, mammoth, and all kinds of other skulls and skeletons. I think that material may still be on display at the Gainesville museum. I have dozens of other similar stories, but they would fill a book, so I'll stop here. The stories ended at the age of 35 or 36. By that time I had a huge collection of exotic fossils, but every time we moved to a new house, transferring the collection became a real hassle. I eventually donated the whole collection to Tenn Tech University rather than continue moving it, but sometimes I wish that I had kept a few of the best beauties like a 5 inch perfect carcharodon megalodon tooth (a tooth from the monster ancient shark that was the size of a whale), a perfect Cretaceous crab I found at Coon Creek, TN (a world-famous fossil site), and a perfect 3 inch Calymene niagarensis trilobite that I found in two separate pieces separated by 300 yards. Too much fun!
|
|
|
Post by stardustpilgrim on Dec 14, 2019 12:56:52 GMT -5
While it's probably usual when someone looks at the e on a keyboard, they recognize it as an e, it's not necessary. You still don't understand autopilot and unconscious processing. Jack Kerouac could type 120 words per minute, and this on an ordinary mechanical typewriter. So he could not possibly type that fast and mentally recognize every letter. And he wrote via stream of consciousness, he virtually invented it. He got tired of changing sheets of paper and famously typed one version of On The Road on a scroll he made by taping sheets of paper together. So when he typed when or time or escape or the, fingers just went to the keyboard and letters appeared on the page. He didn't think e. Test yourself. Or better, just think back to just now reading this. When there was an e in a word did you think e? No, you didn't. Unconscious processing took place. Nobody's talking about having to mentally think. Unconscious mental activity is unconscious, so you aren't going to consciously see yourself thinking it. I think it's you who still doesn't understand unconscious processing. Reading tenka's post, and now yours, I just looked up the definition of thought. I could find no reference to ~behind the scenes~ brain processing. I would ask tenka to link to a definition as he uses the word. NOBODY uses thought the way tenka uses it.
|
|
|
Post by tenka on Dec 14, 2019 15:31:42 GMT -5
You don't accept that where there is recognition of the letter E and what the letter represents doesn't constitute a thought . It doesn't matter how fast you type pilgrim, for you know what your writing about and it's thought based . I am not sure why you can't see this .. I mean how can a poet write about stuff without having a self referential thought regarding themselves and what the topic at hand is . Otherwise one would type this hfepuhpiuechogecozuhcpiu instead of something that makes sense to you and I . I am finding these conversations a bit unbelievable to be honest, I mean I am literally dumbfounded here .. I refuse to use your word thought for unconscious brain processing. The post stands. When the elephant is charging at you, do you think, Oh, elephant starts with an E? And...Oh...actually, elephant has two Es in it. You are quite welcome to refuse anything I say - but you are bringing forth the end game and you are ignorant of the primary foundation of mind . You talk about speed typing butt forget to realise that a peep needs to have self a referential thought in order to know what they are in reflection of the keyboard and in reflection of what is written . You are putting the cart before the horse by speaking solely upon the end game scenario where the peep speed types without thinking per se . When you do this you only portray half the story . You need the first part .
|
|
|
Post by zendancer on Dec 14, 2019 15:33:49 GMT -5
Nobody's talking about having to mentally think. Unconscious mental activity is unconscious, so you aren't going to consciously see yourself thinking it. I think it's you who still doesn't understand unconscious processing. Reading tenka's post, and now yours, I just looked up the definition of thought. I could find no reference to ~behind the scenes~ brain processing. I would ask tenka to link to a definition as he uses the word. NOBODY uses thought the way tenka uses it. I think most of us would agree about that. There's nothing wrong with defining a word differently, but it certainly makes communication more difficult. It took a long time before I realized that Tenka considered perceptions, sensations, and feelings to be thoughts.
|
|
|
Post by stardustpilgrim on Dec 15, 2019 9:27:23 GMT -5
I refuse to use your word thought for unconscious brain processing. The post stands. When the elephant is charging at you, do you think, Oh, elephant starts with an E? And...Oh...actually, elephant has two Es in it. You are quite welcome to refuse anything I say - but you are bringing forth the end game and you are ignorant of the primary foundation of mind . You talk about speed typing butt forget to realise that a peep needs to have self a referential thought in order to know what they are in reflection of the keyboard and in reflection of what is written . You are putting the cart before the horse by speaking solely upon the end game scenario where the peep speed types without thinking per se . When you do this you only portray half the story . You need the first part . I think you have understood nothing of what I've said.
|
|
|
Post by stardustpilgrim on Dec 15, 2019 9:47:30 GMT -5
Reading tenka's post, and now yours, I just looked up the definition of thought. I could find no reference to ~behind the scenes~ brain processing. I would ask tenka to link to a definition as he uses the word. NOBODY uses thought the way tenka uses it. I think most of us would agree about that. There's nothing wrong with defining a word differently, but it certainly makes communication more difficult. It took a long time before I realized that Tenka considered perceptions, sensations, and feelings to be thoughts. www.macmillandictionary.com/us/dictionary/american/thought_1
|
|
|
Post by enigma on Dec 15, 2019 11:40:32 GMT -5
Nobody's talking about having to mentally think. Unconscious mental activity is unconscious, so you aren't going to consciously see yourself thinking it. I think it's you who still doesn't understand unconscious processing. Reading tenka's post, and now yours, I just looked up the definition of thought. I could find no reference to ~behind the scenes~ brain processing. I would ask tenka to link to a definition as he uses the word. NOBODY uses thought the way tenka uses it. Thought is not behind the scenes processing. You know how Tenka defines it, so why pretend you don't and tell him he doesn't understand it?
|
|
|
Post by stardustpilgrim on Dec 15, 2019 11:43:48 GMT -5
Reading tenka's post, and now yours, I just looked up the definition of thought. I could find no reference to ~behind the scenes~ brain processing. I would ask tenka to link to a definition as he uses the word. NOBODY uses thought the way tenka uses it. Thought is not behind the scenes processing. You know how Tenka defines it, so why pretend you don't and tell him he doesn't understand it? That's not what I'm doing.
|
|
|
Post by zendancer on Dec 15, 2019 12:07:37 GMT -5
Thought is not behind the scenes processing. You know how Tenka defines it, so why pretend you don't and tell him he doesn't understand it? That's not what I'm doing. Agreed. You're simply saying that most people define thought in a particular way that is different than the way Tenka defines it. That's okay; it just means that communication about that subject will be limited in what can be conveyed or agreed upon. No problem.
|
|