The most simple truth about oneself takes too many words to say. It is like cooking a meal every day that takes six hours to prepare and two seconds to eat. Meaning is instantaneous, so words are discourteous to it. It is hard to accept even benign discourtesies.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Meaning is profound. The significance of having something to call 'life' or 'soul' associated with organisms is that this 'life' or 'soul' is profound. Our question then is whether or not it is possible to raise human language, and hence even human knowledge, to profundity.

Language and knowledge must begin at zero, which is at having none of either thing. We add the first word, and after a few more words we can finally add the first and most simple knowledge. This is a separate skill; it is not a mind in itself any more than architecture, auto-mechanics or cooking constitutes a mind in itself. The mind is still functioning, but language and knowledge are not the mind. The mind remains exactly what it was before language and knowledge were added.

But what is the mind to begin with? It is what gives us the sense to do the right or the beautiful thing under a huge variety of circumstances. The mind keeps up with the evolution of life's diversity and its various niches and adapts us to fit into an available niche both physically and socially (socially here not meaning something separate and private as conscious self is, but something utterly immersed in and transparent to the lives of others) so that despite the changes represented by evolution, despite a perpetually new social environment, we maintain a delightful harmony (as does every species).

So if we add knowledge, is this competing with the mind? Knowledge also wants to be the thing telling us what to do. That is to say that it competes for the position of mind! And as man is retired from nature, which is from evolution and its utterly transparent relationships, this 'dark horse candidate' has a very good chance. So our question becomes rather a pertinent one: can language ever become profound? --can 'the new mind', the conscious, ever become a mind in reality, or will it perpetually underestimate the wonder of things created by evolution or the cosmos, and thus overestimate or over-prize (pardon if I am coining that word) the things invented and produced by man?

When we have a small vocabulary speaking is a game. You can tell your friends how to play new games with you. Even dogs can be trained to play dead, for example, but it takes longer than teaching a child who wields a bit of vocabulary. The child can learn several games while the dog is learning just the one, because the dog's vocabulary is more limited, perhaps because the dog will never speak a word of it. But at some point we are expected to grant language a greater role, and we seem to be assuming that this is the function of language, that eventually everyone has enough language and thus enough knowledge to be considered 'legally responsible' for his behavior and actions.

Does it happen like this: first we are divided, with the mind on the one hand and the conscious or the knowledge on the other hand? Do we weigh situations and circumstances with our minds and also with our accumulated conscious. But then authority figures always refer to the knowledge contained in conscious, so eventually, as we must defend our choices and decisions in the face of accusing authority figures, we come to rely more and more on the conscious.

Or is it more like this: language and the knowledge it imparts to us are a form of deceit. Authority figures claim to rely on this and that knowledge for arriving at their behavior and decisions, but only the original mind is helplessly true to what it perceives. The conscious self can claim to have God in its grasp and still permit itself every malignant manner and deed. So the more we wish to or need to conceal our true natures the more we apply to conscious for the law by which we should be living.

So the mind will not liberate us from strict adherence to the perceived, while the conscious will grant us any liberty no matter what knowledge regarding reality it contains. There is a liberty at stake, so that conscious does not ever really aspire to become profound like the mind.

The mind will not liberate us from strict adherence to the perceived because it is not divided into observer and observed. The observed IS the mind. The mind can not divide the observed into what it will care about and what it will disdain, but allows it all to inscribe itself into law, and with no divider of the observed there is no observer. The observer is the divider, existing only to divide and ceasing to exist when we will not divide, which is when we will not exploit.

Exploitation is a translation of the observed, implying a translator, the observer. Originally all of the observed worked as one (paradise is a myth founded on that time, before man left nature), and nothing exploited any of it. This is harmony, and harmony evolves. Harmony is prerequisite to evolving. To exploit means to become so alienated to the original purpose of life on Earth or anywhere else in the cosmos that one collects ideas of what it could be used for. Horses, for example, were never ridden before man rode them, but to the experienced or conditioned person a horse seems to be made for riding; it seems a motorized vehicle, a 'hay-burner'. This is not where horses fit into niches in a harmonious system. This is not where a horse's mind works.

If we lived with horses in harmony we would be emotionally uplifted by horses, to a degree modern people can not conceive of (because optimum diversity means optimum evolution, more radically new and newly wonderful days; diversity fulfills something like the desire to meet God). When we exploit horses, driving them from the life of their minds, we are no longer living in harmony with them and we are no longer emotionally uplifted by them (even if some children get fairly excited by them). So what is happening is emotional decay, an emotional crash. Everything uplifting becomes, through exploiting it, something merely gratifying. People become neurotic, because there is never enough gratification, just as water is never enough nutrition even if you can try to fill your belly with it. Your mind finds the uplift of emotions while your conscious finds only the gratification, and your conscious represses your awareness through the mind as demonstrated when one begins to call the conscious 'me' or 'I' or 'myself'. When the conscious has repressed the mind and its awareness you do not see any alternative to seeking a lifetime's saturation of gratification, and time becomes a powerful pressure to get enough crammed into it.

Från
    Kom ihåg mig
URL

Säkerhetskod
     

Kommentar

  If we accept that evolution is an upgrading process, what is it that is not always remaining the same? Simple forms and niches are joined by more complex ones. Is the diversity of life becoming more beautiful, more graceful, more precious? And if s...

 Conscious is a conditioned inadequacy of mental outlook and perspicacity. And those who condition us with this inadequacy from the moment we are born are themselves conditioned, so that they condition us out of the same inadequacy.   What do we mean...

  The conscious is called that because it is consciously observable, and the subconscious is called that because it is not consciously observable. At one time even our species had a mind that operated without any aspect of the operation becoming obse...

Gullibility is an opiate. The one who tries to correct it will seem more cruel than kind this side of time's horizon.   ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~   Some thousands of years ago a nearly four billion year old process of evolution...