Hey back to you Mark, albeit a bit belatedly,
Hey John, > Rather than discuss paragraph by paragraph I will respond to just one part. > > Let me first say that I enjoy this discussion, it kind of tingles my brain. > > Me too! I guess that's our whole purpose in being here. To tingle and be tingled. And could it not be said that what we mean by "Quality" is in fact, that particular tingle we get when our thoughts/words/mind matches our experience? > The part is, about thinking in words. In my opinion, words are just the > last aspect of a thought. Kind of the culmination of a rumination which is > transcribed into a communicative form. Yes, we do talk to ourselves. Such > communication allows a congealment, if you will, of the thoughts into an > easily accessible memory databank. However, in my opinion there is a lot > more than goes on before the words. One has to look for it as one is > thinking. > > Perhaps I miss this point because I'm just SO verbally oriented, but when playing chess or picturing a problem in framing a house, I can see how I'm using a spatial reasoning that isn't dependent on words but uses abstract things like shapes and relations. But even here, I'm thinking conceptually at least. For a relation to exist it must involve discrete "things". And that has a verbal component, even if I'm just thinking to myself, "that thing over there". Does that make sense? > Thoughts tend to arise from a deeper region, I could call it emotional, but > that only leads to silly semantic discussions, so I will cal it awareness. > I think "emotional" is a good word, but you're right. It has to be fully understood semantically and metaphysically. In this view, the prime emotion is caring - caring for the self or the extensions of self. A good illustration is the contrast with machine thinking. Computer's don't care if you unplug them. They only "care" about what they're programmed to care. Thus we find at the roots of all true thinking, emotionality. I agree completely. > When we feel fear, we convert that to thoughts, such as Why? But the > thoughts are secondary. The same can be said for love, (how do I love > thee, > let me count the ways). Now, thoughts are important because it causes the > brain to focus, and thus survive the next onslaught of danger, or whatever. > Indeed, thoughts can hold an awareness even when such holding becomes > counterproductive, hence all the neurotics and psychologists. We are > taught > that such focussing and rational deliberation is the human way (and I would > hate to be called stupid). To let ones thoughts be free is the easiest way > to escape their hold, otherwise it is just one thought trying to control > another. > And another aspect of this dilemma, is that our thoughts influence what feelings we have. Many fears have to be reasoned before they're realized. For instance, you might have to reason out the moves of an enemy bent on attacking you before you'd know to feel the fear that would drive you to reason out the moves to avoid his attack. Thus feelings and thoughts move in a coordinated and co-dependent way, back and forth constantly. > > There is thinking going on all along which is not in focus. You know, the > Eureka moment, the poem that comes into your head in a shower, the > certainty > that you have reached a definite decision. These are wordless, they are > much more complicated that the simple dictation of a letter. > > But even though the Eureka moment seemingly comes of itself, there is always thinking _about_ the thinking or the Eureka isn't realized. And an unrealized Eureka is a non-existent Eureka! > Now that I'm started, how about a slight divergence? The question is, do > we > control our thoughts, or do thoughts happen to us? Both. Always. Just like the thought and the feeling, our volition ebbs and flows, back and forth. > If one chooses control, > then one perhaps has to assume a controller. Is there a specific region > that > directs the thought process? And if so, how is this region controlled? We > are not getting into the whole free will thing here, just the aspect of our > thoughts being within our control. When one decides to think about > something, what makes that decision? The reason for this divergence is to > bring forth the notion that we are not our thoughts. I agree. We are not our thoughts. We are the flow. > For whatever reason we > identify more with these thoughts than, say our heartbeat, but they are not > the sum total of our awareness, just a flower on a big tree with lots of > leaves and branches. Now, the flower is necessary for communication. Thus > the emphasis on communication as one of the levels. > > It is so nice to get away from all of it, not having to be prepared to make > the next communication, take a walk. The mind wanders laterally, and who > knows what kind of thoughts it will come up with, I can certainly not > predict what I will think about tomorrow. > > The essence of perfect freedom! To be free to think about whatever I want to think about. Something afforded few humans. Usually only those in prison are free to think about whatever they want. An interesting irony. Thanks Mark. Good stuff. John Moq_Discuss mailing list Listinfo, Unsubscribing etc. http://lists.moqtalk.org/listinfo.cgi/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org Archives: http://lists.moqtalk.org/pipermail/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org/ http://moq.org/md/archives.html
