On Jun 28, 10:35Â pm, "tooly"
bellsouth.net> wrote:>> funny, from most of the posts I recall reading that were written by
>> you, Mark, I had you pegged as one of the more level-headed members of
>> this forum. Never would have thought you had a closed mind..
>
>> but when a whole race of sentient beings say......
>
>> oh well, it's all too confusing for me, I haven't figured out if Borg
>> Collective is the same as Borg,
>> K e v
>
> I'd like to pose a more serious angle to the idea of mind. Â We proceed on
> the assumption that we are single entities, defined essentially by that
> organ we call our brain. Â Yet, 'thought' is an organization of waves that
> may, and often do, originate elsewhere. Â The brain then becomes a receptacle
> by which we process another's thought as our own. Â Yet...who OWNS the
> thought? Â The originator? The processor?
Both. "We" are always reinventig ourselves (as a group) and the
internet is the best working model so far, of what you are describing.
No 'owners' just contributors.
> Perhaps it could even be argued that our thoughts are owned by the raw
> resource of the environment itself...as the origin of the originator.
More accurateto say 'the raw resources re 'molded' into thoughts.
>
> In the annals of time, I doubt any of us can trace back any single thought
> to it's originator. Â We are all carbon copies of many other carbon copies,
> arranged and re-arranged to become a cornocopia of mass thought and
> characterization as each thought amasses itself across our organic
> structures to give "sway" and weight to this sense of BEing...as single
> entities. Â Yet...are we 'single entities'....or could the mind itself be a
> structure that crosses any and all brains like polyps upon a coral reef?
> What really seperates us from antiquity...since the mind itself is kept
> alive across generations, evolving, growing, becoming...
There is a tremendous difference between 'being' and a sense of being.
The latter is more of an instinctive 'connection' to the self while
caught up in the group. From this comes conscience, sympathy, empathy
etc. All essential to the realization of self. Also disappointment and
anxiety as one evolves away from the group 'gravitational pull'.
>
> Under such light, a cross venture of existence could possibly exist that we
> do not normally recognize as 'self' beyond the constraints of our singular
> organic structure. Â Perhaps then, it becomes a matter of the gifted who
> might see beyond that singularity [ha, another usage of this battered about
> term these days].
Not 'gifted', just further down the track than the majority. To carry
the concept of 'gifted' is a blockage, ironically because modesty is
one of the necessary attributes.
"May the best man win" is a mantra that is well beyond its shelf
life....for some of course.
>Â Perhaps each and every thought is really a lifeform in
> and of itself...caught for that instant of it's creation, with a certain
> longetivity by the capacity to capture our imaginations. Â We IMAGINE
> ourselves to BE...in whatever form we Imagine. Â Our definitions themselves
> but only conveniences much like a handle on a mug, only functional, but not
> necessarily TRUTH itself.
Good description, but use that in the context that "I the beginning,
god 'imagined'.
Of course, Einstein saw clearly the difference and supreriority of
imagination over intellect.
The world we create around us comes from the 'group imagination"
>
> What indeed, IS the mind [though I'm sure Immort will give us what the
> library says on the subject...not necessarily the truth, but surely a
> definition].
The 'universal stuff' that facilitates creativity. Used by the
'individual' creater to ultimately learn of ones true identity.
If you contemplate this, all the great discoveries of the last century
or so confirm, including quantum mechanics.
BOfL
