|
|
Post by laughter on Nov 22, 2015 22:51:08 GMT -5
At it's best the expressions here are noncompetitive and completely free of intellect. Even challenging an idea or a mental position can be done impersonally. Seriously? Yes, completely. Obviously, most of the dialog on the forum is very far from such an ideal, and of course I'm not excluding much of what I generate. |
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Nov 23, 2015 4:56:31 GMT -5
And you believe that it is impossible for anyone here to converse here without comparing, analysing and evaluating? Impossible I would say. Even reading a newspaper requires mental activity. Perhaps ironically, we can distinguish between two different possible flavors of that activity: one in which the words on the page are read for the facts, and another in which emotional entanglements and/or conditioned intellectual beliefs spin an over opinionated interpretation of the content. Everyone reads with some sort of conceptual screen, but the question is, how conscious of their biases are they in the reading? The mind is like a butcher's blade, and overuse of it dulls the edge. |
|
|
|
Post by justlikeyou on Nov 23, 2015 8:21:37 GMT -5
And you believe that it is impossible for anyone here to converse here without comparing, analysing and evaluating? Impossible I would say. Even reading a newspaper requires mental activity. Do you wordlessly know to walk around a hole in the sidewalk you come upon or do you have to engage verbal thinking about it first? Is there a need for a conversation in your head that says "Oh, there is a hole. I better be careful or I could break my leg. Better move slowing to the left. Someone should fix that. Someone could get hurt. Oh my God, what unthinking fool would have left this like this, etc, etc" Isn't seeing enough for your body/mind to know to step around the hole? Do you have to mentally say to yourself the word "tree" every time you see a tree in order to know you are looking at a tree? Or can you know without naming things? Can you not read some words and know what is being said without having to compare, evaluate and analyze the words and know what is being said or better, what is said between the lines? I can see, understand and respond to many things without forethought or any thought to act and respond intelligently. For example, I surprised myself that other day with a sudden booming command that froze all traffic movement in a coffee shop parking lot that prevented an accident. I assure you I had no forethought about any of it. This body/mind did not engage in any "Oh what should I do" thinking before acting. No evaluating, deciding, analysing or comparison was required to act in a way that prevented a minor disaster. It simply happened that I knew what to do and acted without engaging in mentation. This is what I am saying when I say that some folk can sometimes see quite clearly what's what here without the need to engage (the thinking) mind. I call it discernment, and to me, discernment is "wordless knowing" independent of mentations like evaluating, deciding, analysing or comparison. I never suggested mentation was ever and always unnecessary, or doesn't or didn't happen, only that it is possible to see what is going on without the need to engage it in every instance. My 2 cents. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 23, 2015 8:57:54 GMT -5
Impossible I would say. Even reading a newspaper requires mental activity. Do you wordlessly know to walk around a hole in the sidewalk you come upon or do you have to engage verbal thinking about it first? Is there a need for a conversation in your head that says "Oh, there is a hole. I better be careful or I could break my leg. Better move slowing to the left. Someone should fix that. Someone could get hurt. Oh my God, what unthinking fool would have left this like this, etc, etc" Isn't seeing enough for your body/mind to know to step around the hole? Do you have to mentally say to yourself the word "tree" every time you see a tree in order to know you are looking at a tree? Or can you know without naming things? Can you not read some words and know what is being said without having to compare, evaluate and analyze the words and know what is being said or better, what is said between the lines? I can see, understand and respond to many things without forethought or any thought to act and respond intelligently. For example, I surprised myself that other day with a sudden booming command that froze all traffic movement in a coffee shop parking lot that prevented an accident. I assure you I had no forethought about any of it. This body/mind did not engage in any "Oh what should I do" thinking before acting. No evaluating, deciding, analysing or comparison was required to act in a way that prevented a minor disaster. It simply happened that I knew what to do and acted without engaging in mentation. This is what I am saying when I say that some folk can sometimes see quite clearly what's what here without the need to engage (the thinking) mind. I call it discernment, and to me, discernment is "wordless knowing" independent of mentations like evaluating, deciding, analysing or comparison. I never suggested mentation was ever and always unnecessary, or doesn't or didn't happen, only that it is possible to see what is going on without the need to engage it in every instance. My 2 cents. Yes, I do understand what you are referring to. Another example would be that you don't have to consciously remember to put one foot in front of the other when walking. But what of it? The mind is still doing this unconscious kind of behavior. It is still mental activity. But what is more to the point in a thread called "After SR" is that what you describe is no different before or after SR. |
|
|
|
Post by justlikeyou on Nov 23, 2015 9:05:27 GMT -5
Do you wordlessly know to walk around a hole in the sidewalk you come upon or do you have to engage verbal thinking about it first? Is there a need for a conversation in your head that says "Oh, there is a hole. I better be careful or I could break my leg. Better move slowing to the left. Someone should fix that. Someone could get hurt. Oh my God, what unthinking fool would have left this like this, etc, etc" Isn't seeing enough for your body/mind to know to step around the hole? Do you have to mentally say to yourself the word "tree" every time you see a tree in order to know you are looking at a tree? Or can you know without naming things? Can you not read some words and know what is being said without having to compare, evaluate and analyze the words and know what is being said or better, what is said between the lines? I can see, understand and respond to many things without forethought or any thought to act and respond intelligently. For example, I surprised myself that other day with a sudden booming command that froze all traffic movement in a coffee shop parking lot that prevented an accident. I assure you I had no forethought about any of it. This body/mind did not engage in any "Oh what should I do" thinking before acting. No evaluating, deciding, analysing or comparison was required to act in a way that prevented a minor disaster. It simply happened that I knew what to do and acted without engaging in mentation. This is what I am saying when I say that some folk can sometimes see quite clearly what's what here without the need to engage (the thinking) mind. I call it discernment, and to me, discernment is "wordless knowing" independent of mentations like evaluating, deciding, analysing or comparison. I never suggested mentation was ever and always unnecessary, or doesn't or didn't happen, only that it is possible to see what is going on without the need to engage it in every instance. My 2 cents. Yes, I do understand what you are referring to. Another example would be that you don't have to consciously remember to put one foot in front of the other when walking. But what of it? The mind is still doing this unconscious kind of behavior. It is still mental activity. But what is more to the point in a thread called "After SR" is that what you describe is no different before or after SR. The point is you don't need to resort to thinking to know something. Mind yes. Thinking no. Before or after SR, as you rightly say. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 23, 2015 9:12:03 GMT -5
Yes, I do understand what you are referring to. Another example would be that you don't have to consciously remember to put one foot in front of the other when walking. But what of it? The mind is still doing this unconscious kind of behavior. It is still mental activity. But what is more to the point in a thread called "After SR" is that what you describe is no different before or after SR. The point is you don't need to resort to thinking to know something. Mind yes. Thinking no. Before or after SR, as you rightly say. Yes okay, but then you may be challenged on the definition of thinking which could be broader or narrower. |
|
|
|
Post by justlikeyou on Nov 23, 2015 9:30:40 GMT -5
The point is you don't need to resort to thinking to know something. Mind yes. Thinking no. Before or after SR, as you rightly say. Yes okay, but then you may be challenged on the definition of thinking which could be broader or narrower. Thinking, from the POV, is the verbal, internal voice in the head most of us take to be our very self. Freedom, from this POV, involves seeing this identification as false. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 23, 2015 9:32:27 GMT -5
Yes okay, but then you may be challenged on the definition of thinking which could be broader or narrower. Thinking, from the POV, is the verbal, internal voice in your head most of us take to be our very self. Freedom, from this POV, involves seeing this identification as false. Agreed. |
|
|
|
Post by figgles on Nov 23, 2015 11:30:52 GMT -5
Hehe...and yet you say this; How did you conclude that about me if you did not 'analyse, compare of evaluate' my understanding against your own? And, you seemed intent enough on convincing me that you actually were in agreement with Jed when I suggested you were saying something different. So clearly, you still do have some capacity still to compare in that way. What's behind the use of extreme exaggerated, inaccurate language..? It only serves to confuse that which is already not so easy to talk about. Seems when you question someone else here, words are taken at face value and have a certain validity, and yet when your own words are questioned, suddenly 'all words uttered are a lie'. No doubt, words are an imperfect means to relay these understandings, but particularly on a forum, that's all we got. We make the best of it. I do not have a fixed "theory of everything". There are no conclusions, Silver. I just feel who you are, deep inside. This does not require any higher psychological functions, Cortex has nothing to do with 'this'
It is always about Intuition... which precedes thought.  It's important not to vilify those psychological functions. |
|
|
|
Post by zendancer on Nov 23, 2015 11:31:54 GMT -5
Tano: Check the private message function via a tab at the top of the screen.
|
|
|
|
Post by silver on Nov 23, 2015 11:38:55 GMT -5
There are no conclusions, Silver. I just feel who you are, deep inside. This does not require any higher psychological functions, Cortex has nothing to do with 'this'
It is always about Intuition... which precedes thought. It's important not to vilify those psychological functions. Ah. I just caught this.  I think maybe tano thinks all us girls - or some of us girls - can be interchangeable or something.  |
|
|
|
Post by figgles on Nov 23, 2015 11:39:56 GMT -5
How is anything I say there 'limiting'? That would only be true IF mental activity is the enemy of clarity. It is not. Clarity can exist in the face of mental activity. Mental activity happens. It is neither good nor bad. You seem to believe that it is bad, more specifically, that it somehow imposes limitation..? & fwiw, you clearly DID mentate; Def. Evaluate: To judge or determine the significance worth or value. You are clearly judging my post to be 'full of beliefs.' ..not just beliefs, but 'limiting' ones. 
Justlikeyou doesn't judge. He merely states the fact as perceived. 'Judgement' would be this: "You clearly don't have any idea what you are talking about, and that makes you ignorant and a 'lost cause'" How about that difference? Can you feel it?Ah yes, got it. & from what I've seen, JLY would never go there. I was referring more to a judgment that is more of a discerning nature. |
|
|
|
Post by figgles on Nov 23, 2015 11:42:55 GMT -5
It's important not to vilify those psychological functions. I don;t vilify them. They certainly have a role to play. They are the tools of the Mind, and quite remarkable at that. Except Humanity doesn't use those tools responsibly and with respect. Indeed...They DO have a role to play yes....helps folks on a forum to respond to the one who actually posted..and stuff like that.  |
|
|
|
Post by figgles on Nov 23, 2015 11:48:08 GMT -5
Ah yes, got it. & from what I've seen, JLY would never go there. I was referring more to a judgment that is more of a discerning nature. OK, let's say 'discernment'.. how do you discern that the water in the shower has suddenly turned freezing cold? How much thinking is involved before you jump out of that icy cold shower? Jumping out of an icy splash is very different in terms of mental processes involved than reading and responding to posts (and posters) on a forum. I am speaking of the 'discernment' required to read a post, conclude it's meaning, and then respond... To the proper poster. There is mental activity inherent in that....jumping out way of any icy splash.....no contemplation or observable mental discernment necessary. The body responds. |
|
|
|
Post by figgles on Nov 23, 2015 12:01:13 GMT -5
It's important not to vilify those psychological functions. Ah. I just caught this. I think maybe tano thinks all us girls - or some of us girls - can be interchangeable or something.   |
|
It's important not to vilify those psychological functions. 
