Yes, thanks for the clarification OM, and the links too. I have a clear sense of your meaning.
On Jul 22, 5:15 pm, ornamentalmind <[email protected]> wrote: > 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.HTMhttp://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/living-life-purpose/201006/the-on...http://www.spaceandmotion.com/Metaphysics-One-Many-Infinite-Finite.htmhttp://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 > > ... > > read more »- Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text -
