|
|
Post by stardustpilgrim on Aug 29, 2022 8:57:39 GMT -5
Please regard the word rational, in context.  Your expression is premised on your notion of "I". Anyone who would attempt a rational explanation of the underlying notion would necessarily resort to the concept of separation, yes.
Even if the notion of I am is minimal there is a reflective minimal thought of oneself through awareness of that .
Various aspects of mindfulness doesn't change anything that is of the foundation of mind .
Climb up on top of the fence, look over. |
|
|
|
Post by stardustpilgrim on Aug 29, 2022 9:10:36 GMT -5
tenka, for years we've been saying to you it's best for everyone to get on the same page concerning definitions of words. So I will correct your post to reflect how most people talk here. But first, an example. maxprophet's slugs certainly do not think, they do not use abstract language to communicate. But all life is aware enough to hunt and find food, even slugs. By thought everybody here means abstract representation via symbols. ... and yet many have different takes on Consciousness, mind, self, Self, awakened, asleep, the dream etc . I have explained my premise in depth regarding why thought is mind based and peeps still can't prise apart being aware of something and having a thought of that something .
If a peep has the comparison for no self and no mind then it will be clear in what I am saying .You Kant be of the mind, being aware and yet not be entertaining thought .I am not bothered what dictionary definition peeps want to refer thought too, if you look it can vary across a wide spectrum of meaning . All you need to do is understand the nature of the mind and how thought plays it's part in or of it that reflects an awareness of self . Thought IS mind based, I don't think anyone here will disagree with that. So that problem is solved. The blue, is what everybody here is arguing against you, about. EVERYBODY understands "being aware of something" and "having a thought of that something", are two entirely different things. That problem is solved. So it seems you are shadow boxing tenka. But then we get this: Can't you see that this contradicts the first? |
|
|
|
Post by stardustpilgrim on Aug 29, 2022 9:20:04 GMT -5
tenka, for years we've been saying to you it's best for everyone to get on the same page concerning definitions of words. So I will correct your post to reflect how most people talk here. But first, an example. maxprophet's slugs certainly do not think, they do not use abstract language to communicate. But all life is aware enough to hunt and find food, even slugs. By thought everybody here means abstract representation via symbols. Thought, symbolic abstraction, is a very very tiny aspect of brain processing. A newborn baby does not think, does not use abstract representation. But a newborn baby is intimately connected with the world, through its awareness, through its sensing and brain processing of the data so collected. A baby collects more data about the world in its two first years than it will the rest of its life in a similar period. All without abstraction(thinking, as most of use the word). Babies learn to ~think~, only because of all the data they collect by not-thinking (not-abstracting), by cognition. Cognition is the word you should use instead of the word thinking. Cognition = brain processing. Use the word thinking for abstract representation. It would make things much simpler here, for you. I have said many times before . You guys speak as if thought means some sort of constant thinking when it doesn't . A babe doesn't need to think about the mechanics behind the scenes in order for it to breathe in order for it to breathe . A babe doesn't need to think about what things mean in the grand scheme of things in order to entertain a thought of itself in reflection of everything perceived . A babe as an example is flawed because the foundation is already in place for thought to be . When a babe reaches a point to understand the nature of self or the mind then it will understand but just because a babe hasn't reached that point it doesn't negate anything of what can be eventually understood . tenka, sorry, I don't have the time or inclination to try to unfold all of this. You precisely understand what we mean, you have explained it very clearly concerning a baby. So I actually don't know where everything goes off the rails, how you do not understand other people, and how they do not understand tenka. (Mostly the first, well, no, the second, the mind shuts down...) |
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Aug 29, 2022 10:51:57 GMT -5
Clear definitions can only go so far. Clear definitions are a pandering to the rational mind. The rational mind must recede in order for a holistic process to proceed. I choose not to doubt how other people understand, themselves. If I can't understand tenka, maybe it's my problem. I 100% support some of tenka's points. But sometimes the easiest thing is to climb to the top of the fence, look over, see both sides. That's not so easy to do, especially when we are sure we are right. What you responded to was impersonal, simply a comment on the functioning of mind, generally. |
|
|
|
Post by stardustpilgrim on Aug 29, 2022 11:40:14 GMT -5
I choose not to doubt how other people understand, themselves. If I can't understand tenka, maybe it's my problem. I 100% support some of tenka's points. But sometimes the easiest thing is to climb to the top of the fence, look over, see both sides. That's not so easy to do, especially when we are sure we are right. What you responded to was impersonal, simply a comment on the functioning of mind, generally. How the mind operates is one thing. How we communicate with others is another. If we don't use the same definitions of words, communication is thwarted. Poetry can say more in less words. Symbol can say more with less. Allegory can say more with less. But I think tenka is trying to use language in an ordinary sense. I basically gave up trying to understand tenka a long time ago, at least a year ago, probably two. That doesn't mean tenka doesn't know significant things. It just means there are only so many hours in the day. |
|
|
|
Post by zendancer on Aug 29, 2022 11:45:57 GMT -5
What you responded to was impersonal, simply a comment on the functioning of mind, generally. How the mind operates is one thing. How we communicate with others is another. If we don't use the same definitions of words, communication is thwarted. Poetry can say more in less words. Symbol can say more with less. Allegory can say more with less. But I think tenka is trying to use language in an ordinary sense. I basically gave up trying to understand tenka a long time ago, at least a year ago, probably two. That doesn't mean tenka doesn't know significant things. It just means there are only so many hours in the day. It helps to know that Tenka has a much broader definition of thought than many of us. ATA-T, for example, still involves thoughts from his POV. After his definition is understood and accepted, his views are much easier to understand. |
|
|
|
Post by stardustpilgrim on Aug 29, 2022 11:54:32 GMT -5
How the mind operates is one thing. How we communicate with others is another. If we don't use the same definitions of words, communication is thwarted. Poetry can say more in less words. Symbol can say more with less. Allegory can say more with less. But I think tenka is trying to use language in an ordinary sense. I basically gave up trying to understand tenka a long time ago, at least a year ago, probably two. That doesn't mean tenka doesn't know significant things. It just means there are only so many hours in the day. It helps to know that Tenka has a much broader definition of thought than many of us. ATA-T, for example, still involves thoughts from his POV. After his definition is understood and accepted, his views are much easier to understand. Yea, I understand. But reading tenka is like reading a foreign language. You have to translate too many words. I finally gave up. But, yes, everybody needs to know what you write. |
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Aug 29, 2022 12:21:22 GMT -5
What you responded to was impersonal, simply a comment on the functioning of mind, generally. How the mind operates is one thing. How we communicate with others is another. If we don't use the same definitions of words, communication is thwarted. Poetry can say more in less words. Symbol can say more with less. Allegory can say more with less. But I think tenka is trying to use language in an ordinary sense. I basically gave up trying to understand tenka a long time ago, at least a year ago, probably two. That doesn't mean tenka doesn't know significant things. It just means there are only so many hours in the day. Only rational communication is thus thwarted. Sometimes the line where rationality leaves off can blur, at other times there is a bright line distinction. There's quite a bit of dialog here, and always has been, that involves either people talking past each other because they're not talking about the same thing, or actually arguing over definitions. The identity of the guy driving the bus becomes instantly well known once the demands for clear, crisp definitions or the fine distinctions about definitions start appearing in the text. It's not an anonymous gig. He's wearin' a name tag, after all. |
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Aug 29, 2022 12:30:20 GMT -5
How the mind operates is one thing. How we communicate with others is another. If we don't use the same definitions of words, communication is thwarted. Poetry can say more in less words. Symbol can say more with less. Allegory can say more with less. But I think tenka is trying to use language in an ordinary sense. I basically gave up trying to understand tenka a long time ago, at least a year ago, probably two. That doesn't mean tenka doesn't know significant things. It just means there are only so many hours in the day. It helps to know that Tenka has a much broader definition of thought than many of us. ATA-T, for example, still involves thoughts from his POV. After his definition is understood and accepted, his views are much easier to understand. It also always helps when corresponding here to know when someone is going to be stubborn about a particular point. I don't always respond the same way to stubborn. It's situational. Still, it helps to know.  |
|
|
|
Post by stardustpilgrim on Aug 29, 2022 12:30:36 GMT -5
How the mind operates is one thing. How we communicate with others is another. If we don't use the same definitions of words, communication is thwarted. Poetry can say more in less words. Symbol can say more with less. Allegory can say more with less. But I think tenka is trying to use language in an ordinary sense. I basically gave up trying to understand tenka a long time ago, at least a year ago, probably two. That doesn't mean tenka doesn't know significant things. It just means there are only so many hours in the day. Only rational communication is thus thwarted. Sometimes the line where rationality leaves off can blur, at other times there is a bright line distinction. There's quite a bit of dialog here, and always has been, that involves either people talking past each other because they're not talking about the same thing, or actually arguing over definitions. The identity of the guy driving the bus becomes instantly well known once the demands for clear, crisp definitions or the fine distinctions about definitions start appearing in the text. It's not an anonymous gig. He's wearin' a name tag, after all. Read. |
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Aug 29, 2022 12:33:45 GMT -5
Only rational communication is thus thwarted. Sometimes the line where rationality leaves off can blur, at other times there is a bright line distinction. There's quite a bit of dialog here, and always has been, that involves either people talking past each other because they're not talking about the same thing, or actually arguing over definitions. The identity of the guy driving the bus becomes instantly well known once the demands for clear, crisp definitions or the fine distinctions about definitions start appearing in the text. It's not an anonymous gig. He's wearin' a name tag, after all. Read. Fewer words don't always facilitate the mutual understanding of simple, clear, conceptual expressions.  |
|
|
|
Post by stardustpilgrim on Aug 29, 2022 12:44:24 GMT -5
It helps to know that Tenka has a much broader definition of thought than many of us. ATA-T, for example, still involves thoughts from his POV. After his definition is understood and accepted, his views are much easier to understand. It also always helps when corresponding here to know when someone is going to be stubborn about a particular point. I don't always respond the same way to stubborn. It's situational. Still, it helps to know. Yea, don't you just hate to see someone follow someone else all around the forum, pointing out their mistakes, continually, unendingly? No, it's actually quite entertaining. |
|
|
|
Post by stardustpilgrim on Aug 29, 2022 12:49:49 GMT -5
Fewer words don't always facilitate the mutual understanding of simple, clear, conceptual expressions. Read (past tense). |
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Aug 29, 2022 12:57:36 GMT -5
It also always helps when corresponding here to know when someone is going to be stubborn about a particular point. I don't always respond the same way to stubborn. It's situational. Still, it helps to know. Yea, don't you just hate to see someone follow someone else all around the forum, pointing out their mistakes, continually, unendingly? No, it's actually quite entertaining. |
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Aug 29, 2022 12:59:59 GMT -5
Fewer words don't always facilitate the mutual understanding of simple, clear, conceptual expressions. Read (past tense). as the Universe formerly known as farmer would say .. whatever .. |
|
