Even though Paradox used the term ‘more’ initially, since I have attempted to respond to his/her notion, I’ll give a provisional response to gabbydott’s question about ‘definition’ and her wish to argue the point.
One caveat here too is that I’m not clear with what she means by thus cannot be very conversant with her 2nd half of bifurcation: “there will be growth as long as there will be life”, so will have to learn more from her before directly addressing that part of her inquiry. So far in the current discourse with paradox, I’ve interpreted his/her notion of ‘more’ as an attribute of ‘the One’ in the age-old issue of the One and the Many. [1] As can be seen below, this issue/topic can be approached in numerous areas of pursuit such as physics, psychology, philosophy, theology etc. When I used it in the particular post gabby questions, I not only used it in the sense of the One, I’ve included the entirety of being, knowledge, thought, metaphysics, experience etc. too in an integral sense. Of course, my reply may not have been at all acceptable to paradox since he/she was apparently asking more about origins (“Emergence”), something I did not address specifically. And, in an attempt at responding to gabby’s request for a definition, I will add that I’m more pointing to Plato’s “The Fifth” when it comes to categories rather than his “Name”, “Definition”, “Resemblance”, or “True Opinion”. [1] http://www.fordham.edu/gsas/phil/klima/ONE.HTM http://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/living-life-purpose/201006/the-one-and-the-many http://www.spaceandmotion.com/Metaphysics-One-Many-Infinite-Finite.htm http://www.authorama.com/pragmatism-5.html On Jul 22, 3:06 am, gabbydott <[email protected]> wrote: > This more concept, the way it has been presented here, does not convince > me. It is not clear whether it's being used in the sense of "the whole is > more than the sum of its parts" or "there will be growth as long as there > will be life". > > Please provide us with a proper definition of the more you refer to for us > to be able to argue against. Thank you in advance. > > On Thu, Jul 21, 2011 at 8:44 PM, ornamentalmind > <[email protected]>wrote: > > > > > > > > > paradox, thanks again for your attempt at clarification. > > > Assuming I grok your restated question, I will respond that the ‘more’ > > can be known equally as well. One caveat: I don’t embrace (yet do > > recognize them as existent) Faith nor Revelation as methodology… so > > this may not fit within your personal context as an answer. > > > On Jul 21, 10:26 am, paradox <[email protected]> wrote: > > > The question was more mine, OM. Here's what i'm thinking; we can > > > "know" and "feel" mind in the nude, without the accoutrements of the > > > autobiographical self (this is contentious though, i admit, but i'm on > > > the same page as Molly and yourself on this); the quality of that > > > conception is not the "sum" of neurobiological processes, it's more > > > (hence non-reductive); question (for me) is where the "more" comes > > > from (you can infer by this that i'm still on my journey of Faith). > > > It's the concept that science terms "Emergence". > > > > On Jul 16, 7:06 pm, ornamentalmind <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > Thanks for the response paradox. > > > > > I’m not sure that we raised nor intended to raise a question. > > > > Apparently you see one though. With this assumption along with your > > > > opinion about an *unresolved* question about ‘quality of mind’, what, > > > > for you, could/would resolve said question? > > > > > On Jul 16, 5:15 am, paradox <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > > More relationship than locality, OM; yes, movies we watch; i was re- > > > > > framing; our inner lives are a result of our neuro-physiological > > > > > architecture, yet non-reductive. Molly (and you) raise an interesting > > > > > (and as yet unresolved IMO) question regarding the quality of sheer > > > > > presence of mind. > > > > > > On Jul 15, 10:36 pm, ornamentalmind <[email protected]> > > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > Paradox, IF I grok your question re: paradox, apparently … since > > you > > > > > > broached the notion. > > > > > > > As to ‘movie’ etc., perhaps you are asking as to its locality? Here > > > > > > I’m guessing (clearly not knowing) that you mean actual movies we > > > > > > watch. If not, your question is way too esoteric for me. An > > unpacking > > > > > > would be of benefit in such a case. > > > > > > > Thanks! > > > > > > OM > > > > > > > On Jul 15, 11:33 am, paradox <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > > > > Could this be the ultimate paradox, i wonder (no reference > > intended), > > > > > > > o'mind; where is the "movie"? celluloid or storyline? Both? > > > > > > > > On Jul 14, 5:34 pm, ornamentalmind <[email protected]> > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > When it comes to Mind, awareness, thought, brain, subconscious, > > True > > > > > > > > Self etc., it is all too easy to get lost in semantics and > > personal > > > > > > > > beliefs based on limited experience. > > > > > > > > > Some skeptical materialists demand that, in a sense, we are our > > > > > > > > thoughts…our thoughts are entirely electrochemical > > mechanisms…thus, we > > > > > > > > are only physical ‘beings’. This is understandable. There is > > plenty in > > > > > > > > current day realms of science to keep them busy. On the other > > hand, > > > > > > > > for those who have experienced that which is not thought, the > > > > > > > > awareness prior to thought or the unity of this emptiness and > > relative/ > > > > > > > > subjective thinking or the infinite, radiant oneness that is > > the > > > > > > > > Ultimate Ground of existence, simple mental constructs are > > known for > > > > > > > > what they are. > > > > > > > > > Molly has this one right…’right’ in the sense of knowing a > > larger > > > > > > > > view. > > > > > > > > > On Jul 14, 5:09 am, Molly <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > I am suggesting that unless you clear the mind of thought, > > feeling, > > > > > > > > > sensation, belief, image - and allow it to be filled only > > with the > > > > > > > > > eternal presence that is you - your experience and mind will > > preoccupy > > > > > > > > > itself with the limits of mind and nothing more. There is > > more to > > > > > > > > > life. There is more to me. All ways more. > > > > > > > > > > On Jul 14, 7:42 am, Lee Douglas <[email protected]> > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > Hey Molly, > > > > > > > > > > > Yes indeed there are many parts of the human dedicated to > > keeping it > > > > > > > > > > alive. > > > > > > > > > > > The mind is a function of the brain though isn't it, rather > > like > > > > > > > > > > running is a function of the legs and the heart and the > > lungs? > > > > > > > > > > > So without the legs, heart and lungs, there will be no > > running. Like > > > > > > > > > > without the brain there would be no mind. > > > > > > > > > > > It is not hard to see that we use our intelect to study; > > intelect a > > > > > > > > > > funtion of the mind, which in turn is a function of the > > brain, so as I > > > > > > > > > > say I see no problems in seeing that the mind is used to > > study the > > > > > > > > > > mind, yes even our own minds. > > > > > > > > > > > I don't agree that there exists an awareness beyond mind, I > > have > > > > > > > > > > throughout my short span of life experianced all sorts of > > weird and > > > > > > > > > > wonderfull things, yet still I say that all awareness takes > > place in > > > > > > > > > > the mind. When I have had periods of expansion of the > > mind, it is > > > > > > > > > > still all taking place in my brain. > > > > > > > > > > > Think of it this way,I am dyslexic and this is because > > something about > > > > > > > > > > my brain causes certain senseory inputs to be inturpreted > > in a way > > > > > > > > > > that differs from the non dyslexic. This is most evidant > > in my > > > > > > > > > > spelling and if you read through enough of my posts you'll > > notice > > > > > > > > > > things like the way I often write 'Form' instead of 'From' > > > > > > > > > > > Would you suggest that my dyslexcia stems form a place > > independant of > > > > > > > > > > my brain? > > > > > > > > > > > Nope I don't think it would be correct to suggest such a > > thing. Yet > > > > > > > > > > dyslexcia is a huge part of who I am, it has shapped my > > mind since my > > > > > > > > > > birth, it forces me to approach things in ways that the non > > dyslexic > > > > > > > > > > would not consider, I need to think about things in certian > > ways to > > > > > > > > > > ensure that my dyslexcia does not hinder my day to day > > life. > > > > > > > > > > > What I'm saying here is that my dsylexic experiances which > > we could > > > > > > > > > > say take place in my mind, are a function of my brain. If > > these > > > > > > > > > > experiances take place in my brain, so have all of my > > experiances, > > > > > > > > > > includeing all of the trances, and dream states, all of the > > > > > > > > > > meditations, all of the high magiks and ceremonies, all of > > this has > > > > > > > > > > taken place in my brain, the home of my mind. I have not > > encountered > > > > > > > > > > one iota of evidance nor experiance to suggest other wise. > > > > > > > > > > > Perhaps though the most telling is in the use of LSD, or > > any other > > > > > > > > > > pschyotropic substance. When 'tripping' all sorts of > > things can > > > > > > > > > > happen, you can just enjoy the buzz for what it is, you can > > use it to > > > > > > > > > > 'open the doors of perception', but all who have partaken > > more than a > > > > > > > > > > few times know that to stave off a 'bad trip' it is useful > > to remind > > > > > > > > > > yourself that it is just the drug, and when the chemical > > reactions of > > > > > > > > > > the drug in your brain whare off, then all goes back to > > normal. > > > > > > > > > > > It is possible to use LSD to expand the mind? Yes of > > course it is, > > > > > > > > > > and chemicaly speaking the same result from a differant > > > > > > > > > > meathod(meditiaon for example) cause the same chemical > > changes in the > > > > > > > > > > brain. > > > > > > > > > > > Almost finished now honset, so to reiterate in the shortest > > possibel > > > > > > > > > > way. > > > > > > > > > > > The mind is seated in the brain, there is no other place > > that the mind > > > > > > > > > > exists. > > > > > > > > > > > On Jul 14, 11:20 am, Molly <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > I do not follow you Lee. The same (that you say of the > > brain) could > > > > > > > > > > > be said of the heart, circulatory system, respiratory > > system, liver, > > > > > > > > > > > kidneys etc. If they are not working, the life of the > > body ends, > > > > > > > > > > > unless extended mechanically. We don't know if it > > continues in > > > > > > > > > > > another form - or I could say, our knowing is not > > contained in the > > > > > > > > > > > mind. > > > > > > > > > > > > While the brain is not the same as the mind, there is an > > awareness > > > > > > > > > > > beyond mind. If you have not experienced it, you may > > think me out of > > > > > > > > > > > my mind. If you have never had a completely quiet mind, > > you may not > > > > > > > > > > > have had the opportunity to go beyond it. (and I mean > > you in the > > > > > > > > > > > general sense of everyone, not you in particular, Lee) > > My mind is > > > > > > > > > > > located in me, with my thoughts, feelings and sensations > > - and is non > > > > > > > > > > > local, and that is the infinite aspect. > > > > > > > > > > > > On Jul 13, 9:01 am, Lee Douglas <[email protected]> > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > Molly says: > > > > > > > > > > > > > 'it is the mind that is aware - if you are > > ... > > read more »
