That is to say, a creationist believes what he believes because (besides the natural survival element of fear) he learned it at a young age through repetition and follows the routine in order to achieve a sense of comfort regarding the unknown. Scientists do this as well, filling in the bits of reality that simply do not make sense with placeholders of sorts, which over time become less than placeholders and more of "obvious" fact.
So by this measure, once someone has established something as "true" by repitition of dogma (either religious or scientific) they will not change thier stance?
If changing what has become rote is possible what factors influence the difficulty of changing what has been established?
Posted by Subey on Oct-02-2007 15:17:
quote:
Originally posted by atbell
This analogy seems to lead to thoughts about different contious capacities. In the past sentances were much longer, paragraphs were longer, chapters were longer, and (I think) books may have even been longer. Is this because people had a larger capacity to take information in thier contiousness?
I think I'd lean to the idea that a sentence today contains more information in it. Since the connotations of a word like 'information' is probably significantly more dense that it was a hundred years ago.
quote:
Originally posted by atbell
I don't like this model. The reason I take issue with it is because I've done schooling on the design and analysis of machinery which means that hearing "piston, drive shaft, and axle" sparks all kinds of thoughts.
Essentially my sub-contious goes nuts. The first thoughts are visual, what do these things look like, how big are they. Then I think of thier motion, do they spin, do they translate. Then there are material considerations, what they are connected to, the forces that are working on them, etc...
The most strinking thing about the way I react to "piston, drive shaft, axle" is that I am able to think of them independantly, having each one alone in my contiousness, or as a single entity. I know that the reason I can choose which way I conceive of these things as three seperate objects or a single object is because sometimes in analysis it is useful to treat a system as a single item.
But this is a trained response. It took a few years to develope with some rather intense schooling.
This leads me to beleive that it's possible that the subcontious can be trained.
If VenomX uses a drum, naturally I'd have a drum. If I use my vague understanding of drive trains, naturally you'd have lots of experience with them But I'm all for training. The simple analogy being that if your brain hammers nails all day, then your brain's arm will become big and strong, but if your brain sews thread all day, then your brain's fingers will become nimble and fine etc.
I've never had a reason to contemplate a 'torque device' on its own, well except when I studied the Inquisition ( the preceding has been a hilarious joke!)
So let's toss that model out the window. I think the one that works the best at the moment is the 'puzzle model'. Which I'll expand, in order to have it attacked to test its robustness.
Each sentence you receive is a piece of a puzzle. Your conscious experience of reading this paragraph is localized on the individual word or sentence. Paragraph/sentence/page/chapter/book/decalogue all have cohesive meanings implying that some location you can't consciously access (The 'thought workshop') something (The 'third eye') is combining these pieces into their cohesive meanings.
Combining these pieces requires lots of thought. Therefore the 'third eye' is doing most (all) of your thinking because your conscious is busy consuming the current sentence it is reading.
Since I never see into this 'thought workshop'. When you ask me if I understand a cohesive meaning (Example: what is the puzzle analogy?), then the model that would best describe my conscious mind thinking, "I understand your analogy" is that the 'third eye' looks at the cohesive puzzle it has created. Evaluates it. And then passes onto the conscious mind the thought text, "I understand your analogy"
Proof of the above: Close your eyes, and recreate the analogy I've presented. It is never 'held' in totality in your conscious mind as a single thing, instead, you step through it, as if your 'third eye' were scanning the completed puzzle in its 'thought workshop'.
Double Proof: The only way to summarize all the above in a single unit that the conscious mind can hold is to think, "I understand the puzzle analogy", it seems to me that "puzzle analogy's" only real meaning is as a pointer to a completed puzzle that your 'third eye' sees in the 'thought workshop'
Posted by DJ Shibby on Oct-03-2007 01:07:
quote:
Originally posted by atbell
So by this measure, once someone has established something as "true" by repitition of dogma (either religious or scientific) they will not change thier stance?
If changing what has become rote is possible what factors influence the difficulty of changing what has been established?
Often right, but it also depends on the information they cognate and the individual. We're talking generalities, as few people throughout history have ended up reaching the "higher" levels of consciousness (I quote "higher" because it is 100% relative). I think that's changing as the information age progresses, and things are looking interesting, to say the least.
That is to say... each piece of information, if powerful enough, can act as a "virus" of sorts, some determining their own limitations and regulations, and some opening the floodgates of the unknown. IE: Christianity vs Buddhism
The reason the idea of Christianity, as a lifeform, has survived and become dominant in the western world is because it has utilizied all the base foundational "skills" of an organism following Darwin's model of survival of the fittest.
How's that for a piece of irony?
But basically, Christianity invoked violence when necessary to assuage "followers", creating a power vacuum. The structure of the idea itself prevents its incapacitation through careful metaphorical categorization of what people perceive as unknown.
IE: Got a problem? Have faith. Don't know why something has happened? It's God's will.
I like to believe that when people gain enough information, which is rampant nowadays through certain TV stations, books, google/wiki, etc, they come to a sort of self-realization of themselves and their potential once the data pieces itself together in the right way.
Don't get me wrong... some people are just crazy. Posted by Trancer-X on Oct-04-2007 05:36:
quote:
Originally posted by DJ Shibby
I like to believe that when people gain enough information, which is rampant nowadays through certain TV stations, books, google/wiki, etc, they come to a sort of self-realization of themselves and their potential once the data pieces itself together in the right way.
Don't get me wrong... some people are just crazy.
Posted by Trancer-X on Oct-04-2007 06:56:
or if you want to get all Masonic about it:
or Hindu:
or Buddhist:
Posted by Trancer-X on Oct-04-2007 07:27:
or Kabbalistic:
Posted by Subey on Oct-04-2007 13:06:
Trancer-X you've been doing your homework!
Posted by Trancer-X on Oct-04-2007 18:38:
nosce te ipsum
quote:
Originally posted by Subey
Trancer-X you've been doing your homework!
I was just scratching the surface
Highlights from D�sseldorf 2006 International Scientists Conference
"Wisdom and Science in Dialogue: The New Planetary Consciousness."
Originally posted by Subey
To clarify the players then with some terms that are getting less and less useful as the thread develops.
Sleeping Eye: Deals with things like breathing and heart rate
Trained Eye: Deals with things like walking, playing the drums
Third Eye: Manipulates complex concepts
Conscious Eye: Emotes and Experiences
I'll go ahead and suggest that now you are just describing different parts of the brain to some extent. For example, your sleeping eye could easily be translated into the medulla. The trained eye into the cerebellum (where most motor programs are stored). The third eye would be the conjunction of all the different processing parts of the brain. The conscious eye is usually associated with the frontal cortex, and is sometimes called 'the executive'.
quote:
I'll use a new analogy to clarify my weighting of the third eye. I apologize if it is seen as unnecessary repetition.
If I think, 'a forum is a useful method of exchanging information', then I have just exchanged information with you. And it has taken you no time to process that. But I've invoked a number of ideas, and relationships, that if I asked you to explain fully would take a large essay.
So using an essay analogy this is the relationship I see between the Third eye and the conscious mind. The complexity of most sentences is such that they invoke a nexus of multiple concepts and relationships between those concepts such that even a relatively simple sentence, yet alone one that involves the manipulation of complex ideas is so great that the amount of active thinking that must be done to make sense of it to me is let's say a 30 page essay.
derived from that essay an author will include 2 things. A title, and maybe a 1 page summary or abstract.
Conscious thought to me is that derived information. Except I would also mention that I doubt 'words' are likely involved in any real form in the 'thought workshop' where the third eye does its thinking. I think the 'asbtract/summary' is a translation into words after the fact. In the same way a 'wall' is composed of bricks and not the word 'brick'. Thinking only appears to involve words, because it gets translated into them when the 'third eye' creates the abstract/summary for the conscious mind of what it has been thinking.
If I were to now ask you, do you understand my new analogy? (not necessarily that you agree with it) you would probably say "Yes".
What do you feel in your conscious mind about this concept? You feel you understand it. But it isn't 'anywhere' in your conscious mind really, your conscious mind isn't holding the concept.
To explain this, the most reasonable explanation to me again, is that your third eye is now visualizing the entire 'essay analogy' castle, and it just sends your conscious mind the signal, 'valid castle', and this gets translated to your consciousness as, 'I Get it' or something to that effect.
I don't disagree with this explanation. The reason is that you are no longer, to my understanding, stating that the conscious eye is merely a reflection of the third eye, but a holder of the summary/abstract of the third eyes mind. So if we could say that the third eyes output is a summary of the aggregated information that is in the castle, then we could say that the conscious eye deals with those summaries, feeling as you say or in my opinion more like deciding.
This is what I mean by deciding. Say you ask me if I understood your new analogy. I would probably get different inputs into my conscious eye from the third eye (or more likely 'eyes'). I might get an input related to the potential perception you have of me and how I could keep it/improve it. So say that initially my third eye sends "Yes I understand (because I want to appear smart)". Now, say secondly I also recieve "No I don't understand (because the language in the analogy is not enterily clear)". Now I am not saying this is the case, it is just an example. So now that I have conflicting information from the third eye, who decides? That is where the conscious eye comes in. It takes the information from the third eye(s) and decides which one is more relevant. For example, for my conscious eye appearing smart is not relevant, therefore, if I were to receive this conflicting inputs I would lean to say No.
***
quote:
Using your drum example with the essay analogy.
So my drum teacher says, hit the rim like this. And then I try and hit the rim like that a second later. In that time consciously, I've only thought a few words, such that I would still conclude that those words were derived from some larger essay of thought the 'third eye' had.
Once my 'third eye' is finished learning the mechanics, at that point I will 'lean' towards the feeling nature of your conscious self becoming the driver and feeling out rhythms and the like.
However, I don't think there is a need for any distinction between the 'trained eye' and the 'third eye'. I think the third eye is still operating the same way it always does, it is just that your conscious is busy 'feeling' rather than relaying any information about what is happening in the 'thinking workshop'.
I am in agreement with this analogy.
***
quote:
I think that is reasonable from my perspective that the consciousness is the part that 'feels'. That something can feel right or wrong, and on that basis be rejected or modified.
To use a restaurant analogy. The 'third eye' delivers to me a meal of thought. As my conscious mind experiences the thought, it feels/tastes it. I might then reject it as being too spicy, or not spicy enough. It then gets sent back to the kitchen (aka the third eye's workshop) re-spiced and sent back to the conscious mind to be experienced again.
The preceeding took me three hours to write, note how each section got shorter
P.S.
The simplest (which only retains 1 dimension but an important one) analogy yet... just for TA
'Thought text' is a mono 24kps mp3 created from the third eye's orchestra of the mind
I agree with most of this. The problem is that you use the word feel, and the decision being a felt right/wrong. Now, on a lot of occasion this happens. You can see it when people make their decision on the basis of intuition or 'gut feeling'. Now my issue with it is that this is not what always happens. The glorification of logic in recent times is a product of people trying to rely less on their intuition because it is sometimes flawed. In my opinion not all decisions are made solely by intuition.
Continuing with your restaurant example, say I receive a pate of food from the kitchen (I am keeping with the definitions you used of each). Now there are more reason to send it back to the kitchen (third eye), not just because it feels wrong, or taste wrong. I can compare it to tangible things such as with other plates from other restaurants (thoughts of other people on the matter). Or with past plates from the same kitchen. This comparison and decision making is not necessarily a felt one. Assuming that I consider a plate from another kitchen to be better than the one 'prepared' in my kitchen. Now say that the other plate has a particular structure that I am fond of. If my kitchen doesn't deliver my plate with that particular structure then I would signal the mistake and send it back. This decision is a logical one, analyzing the difference between the plates, and then sending the plate back to the kitchen with guidelines for betterment.
To wrap up, if you are stating that the conscious eye is merely a reflection of the third eye(s) then we are in disagreement. If you are stating that most of the processes that turn raw data into information occur in the third eye, and are then relied to the conscious mind as aggregates, then we are in agreement.
I will also go ahead and say that I am having quite a bit of fun with this conversation .
Posted by Trancer-X on Oct-04-2007 19:39:
quote:
The first peace, which is the most important, is that which comes from within the souls of men when they realize their relationship, their oneness, with the universe and all its powers, and when they realize that at the center of the universe dwells Wakan-Tanka, and that this center is really everywhere, it is within each of us. This is the real peace, and the others are but reflections of this. The second peace is that which is made between two individuals, and the third is that which is made between two nations. But above all you should understand that there can never be peace between nations until there is first known that true peace which is within the souls of men.
- Black Elk
Black Elk (Hehaka Sapa) (c. December 1863 � August 17 or August 19, 1950 (sources differ) was a famous Wichasha Wakan (Medicine Man or Holy Man) of the Oglala Lakota (Sioux). He was the second cousin of Crazy Horse. Black Elk participated, at about the age of twelve, in the Battle of Little Big Horn of 1876, and was wounded in the massacre that occurred at Wounded Knee in 1890.
In 1887, Black Elk travelled to England with Buffalo Bill's Wild West Show,[1] an unpleasant experience he described in chapter 20 of Black Elk Speaks.[2] He was accidentally left behind and had to make his own way back to his homeland.
Black Elk married his first wife, Katie War Bonnett, in 1892. She became a Catholic, and all three of their children were baptized as Catholic. After her death in 1903, he too became baptized, taking the name Nicholas Black Elk, and continued to serve as a spiritual leader among his people, seeing no contradiction in embracing what he found valid in both his tribal traditions concerning Wakan Tanka, and those of Christianity. He remarried in 1905 to Anna Brings White, a widow with two daughters. She bore him three more children, and remained his wife until she died in 1941.
Towards the end of his life, he revealed the story of his life, and a number of sacred Sioux rituals to John Neihardt and Joseph Epes Brown for publication, and his accounts have won wide interest and acclaim. He also claimed to have had several visions in which he met the spirit that guided the universe.
Originally posted by venomX
To wrap up, if you are stating that the conscious eye is merely a reflection of the third eye(s) then we are in disagreement. If you are stating that most of the processes that turn raw data into information occur in the third eye, and are then relied to the conscious mind as aggregates, then we are in agreement.
Do you hear that beeping noise? It's the sound of a truck backing up with a brand new bunch of analogies!
I've now got a new model of how I think things work, that will complicate things, and since it is built on my old model (which it is clear that you do not agree with ) it will be problematic. But I'll throw it out there anyway.
First to address your last post. For simplicities sake at this time I am going with a model of the 'thought workshop' that delivers its conclusions to a conscious mind that does zero processing based on some mechanism of distilling whatever it is thinking into an output of 100 thought words per minute. I will throw this conclusion out the window in a minute...
***
I have a brand new model of everything... I'm keeping how the 'thought workshop' thinks. But how it relates to the conscious mind is new.
Let's start by equating 'thought workshop' as being equivalent to 'sight'. And let's make 'feeling' or the 'heart workshop as being equivalent to 'hearing'.
What I'm trying to do by creating this parallel is suggest that 'feeling' is a separate and distinct method of deciphering the world around us that is similar to thinking but that works in a different way.
The problem with discussing the 'heart workshop' is that all of the language that we use to describe it, are terms that were developed to describe modes of thought, and therefore when applied to this different realm results in a somewhat awkward attempt to capture its essence.
A better analogy to discuss these two mental faculties would be to say that Spock = 'thought workshop' and Kirk = 'heart workshop'. Each is using a different tool set with which to evaluate things.
Some sample 'heart workshop' dominated activities would include painting and playing music and listening to music and looking at paintings.
***
What my new conception of the conscious mind then is, that it is the place where these two workshops meet.
My conception of how they meet, is that let's say 'thought' outputs Oxygen, and 'heart' outputs 'hydrogen', then the conscious mind is water (aka 'water is everything you experience as consciousness). This water is *more* than either faculty alone. The net effect that it is this water that turns the steering wheel of your mind.
If it turns left, then it is relying on a higher 'thought' ratio, if it turns right, then it is relying on a higher 'heart' ratio.
To repeat that with related analogy it is like a hybrid car's engine. Where instead of a computer deciding if it should be running on gas or electric or a combination of both, *YOU* whoever that is, is the natural product of these two elements mixing. And *YOU* naturally shift the mix as *YOU* wander through life.
quote:
Originally posted by venomX
I will also go ahead and say that I am having quite a bit of fun with this conversation .
My own experience of TA in general is like having a bath in a mildly corrosive acid Posted by Trancer-X on Oct-06-2007 01:36:
quote:
Originally posted by Subey
Here's your mission should you choose to take it!
What's the Ven diagram of your research reveal?
If someone were to draw a Venn diagram of all of this it would probably look similar to the Seed of Life
On the outskirts of a village a statue was erected in honor of one of its hero. It had a sword in one hand and a shield in the other. One side of the shield was covered with gold while the other one was covered with silver. Two unknown persons came there each from the opposite direction and began expressing their views. One said that the statue was beautiful and more so because its shield was covered with gold. The other said that the shield was not covered with gold but was with silver. A quarrel ensued between them. A wise man came from the village by that time and said that the shield was covered with gold as well as silver. Let both of you just exchange your places and see the other side of the shield. Both realized their error and apologized to each other for fighting falsely.
Parable 2 - Blind Men and Elephant
Once a royal retinue was stopping at a village to spend their afternoon. The village folks came there and amongst them there were six blind men. All had heard a lot about elephants but none had ever been able to see one. They requested the care-taker to allow them to touch the elephant so that they may be able to make out what the elephant could be like. They were permitted to do so. The first who came across the ears stated that the elephant was like a tusk weeding tool (Supada). The other caught hold of the trunk and stated that the elephant was like a big wooden pestle. The third touched the tusks and said it was like a big windpipe. The fourth touched the legs and said it was like a big pillar. The fifth felt the stomach and said it looked like a water-bag. The sixth had a tail in his hand and said it appeared to him like a broom. Each thought that his version was right and others were wrong. The care-taker said that none of them had ever seen the elephant fully. Each one had merely seen one limb and from that data each one had given his surmises about the whole elephant. This was, therefore, the cause of their quarrel. He explained the whole position, and all the blind men became silent and departed.
By these parables, one thing certainly becomes clear that the same thing can be explained from different stand points and any description of a thing would be true from one stand point but from this it cannot mean that the other points of view cannot be right. From the above it follows that to comprehend the real nature of any thing one must pay due regard to all points of view. Viewing things in this light, one will have to admit that everything in this world involves endless points of view and has endless characteristics.
Posted by Subey on Oct-07-2007 00:16:
quote:
Originally posted by Trancer-X
If someone were to draw a Venn diagram of all of this it would probably look similar to the Seed of Life
Originally posted by Subey
Trancer-X you've been doing your homework!
I wish I could challenge others to do the same!!
quote:
�Every one who is seriously involved in the pursuit of science becomes convinced that a Spirit is manifest in the laws of the universe � a Spirit vastly superior to that of man, and one in the face of which we with our modest powers must feel humble. In this way the pursuit of science leads to a religious feeling of a special sort, which is indeed quite different from the religiosity of someone more naive.�
- Albert Einstein, 1936
Posted by shaolin_Z on Jan-27-2008 22:16:
quote:
Originally posted by Trancer-X
?
What I find really interseting about the New Age movement and it's followers is that most of them are completely oblivious about the fact that the counter cultural movements incorperating 'free love' hippy ideas and psuedo-mysticism are movements largely pushed and encouraged by well known satanist (yes, literally member of Anton LaVey's Church of Satan in SF) and 33rd and 32nd degree masons who also happen to be IRREGULAR masons, and I'm not just refering to the Memphis Lodge or a variety of US Lodges that are not considered regular Masonry. People are so ignorant and gullible it's amazing. The most amusing part is how contrived movement and counter cultural phenomenon is somehow considered rebelious and resistance from the people against the system in one way or another when it's anything but... * shakes head * Crowley and what the OTO started left a imprint on post modern society that couldn't be more glaringly obvious to any informed person. But Crowley already 'prophesied' this in his life time, which he was absolutely correct about. Hopefully you know what I'm talking about.
Posted by Trancer-X on Jan-28-2008 07:48:
quote:
Originally posted by shaolin_Z
What I find really interseting about the New Age movement and it's followers is that most of them are completely oblivious about the fact that the counter cultural movements incorperating 'free love' hippy ideas and psuedo-mysticism are movements largely pushed and encouraged by well known satanist (yes, literally member of Anton LaVey's Church of Satan in SF) and 33rd and 32nd degree masons who also happen to be IRREGULAR masons, and I'm not just refering to the Memphis Lodge or a variety of US Lodges that are not considered regular Masonry. People are so ignorant and gullible it's amazing. The most amusing part is how contrived movement and counter cultural phenomenon is somehow considered rebelious and resistance from the people against the system in one way or another when it's anything but... * shakes head * Crowley and what the OTO started left a imprint on post modern society that couldn't be more glaringly obvious to any informed person. But Crowley already 'prophesied' this in his life time, which he was absolutely correct about. Hopefully you know what I'm talking about.
I don't really believe in organized religion because I think that people need to follow their own paths. I wouldn't want to rely on any one group or train of thought to get me anywhere (except maybe indoctrinated.) Over time we have created both entrance and exit ramps on the road to enlightenment so I think it's really just up to each of us to try and figure out the best way to get there.
For all we know, the Shamans of Central and South America might know the best way.
Posted by shaolin_Z on Jan-28-2008 08:29:
quote:
Originally posted by Trancer-X
I don't really believe in organized religion because I think that people need to follow their own paths. I wouldn't want to rely on any one group or train of thought to get me anywhere (except maybe indoctrinated.) Over time we have created both entrance and exit ramps on the road to enlightenment so I think it's really just up to each of us to try and figure out the best way to get there.
For all we know, the Shamans of Central and South America might know the best way.
I'll say this much about the Shamans, they were definetly tripping on some damn potent mushrooms .
Posted by Trancer-X on Jan-28-2008 08:55:
quote:
Originally posted by shaolin_Z
I'll say this much about the Shamans, they were definetly tripping on some damn potent mushrooms .
But I'm all for training. The simple analogy being that if your brain hammers nails all day, then your brain's arm will become big and strong, but if your brain sews thread all day, then your brain's fingers will become nimble and fine etc.
.
