100% FREE ONLINE DATING
sponsored links
Previous
| Topic: Is thought unspoken language? | |
|---|---|
|
|
|
I have been busy creating a planet. LOL  Thank you JB. You may not know it, but a lot of us really look up to you for not being afraid to be unique
THERE IS NOTHING TO FEAR. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
James,
I appreciate your participation in this thread, and I do not want you to think that I have been flippantly dismissing what your presenting. Something tells me that you most likely already realize this... be that as it may, I wanted to say it.
I want to think about your words until I absorb the intention as completely as I am able. That will require a little more careful reading of what you wrote. Without having read it twice, as of this moment, I remember that you mentioned a few things more than once. If I remember correctly, every memorable teacher that I have also did the same with the most important aspects of the lecture... 
I do not want to respond too soon... |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
THERE IS NOTHING TO FEAR.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
"Feeling will get you closer to the truth of who you are than thinking" - Ekchart Tolle.
I agree with JB, Ekchart's realization is that living in the now is profoundly more rewarding and fulfilling than constantly fretting about the past or the future. Although, I think the philosophy actually goes much deeper than this. For some people this is a profound "awakening" because they had become so lost in their ego-sense of self that when they awaken from it it's a profound earth-shaking experience. Ekchart Tolle isn't conveying anything different from many spritual teachers of this kind of enlightenment, including Deepak Chopra and many teachers of Buddhism. They all refer to Jesus as a teacher of the very same thing. In fact, Tolle brings the parables that Jesus taught to life and shows how the authors of the gospels didn't even understand what they were writing. They thought Jesus was predicting an end to the world and a coming of a rapture, but he was speaking solely about personal transformation. In any case, I personally feel that this kind of personal enlightenment is quite different for different people. In fact, I actually like Deepak Chopra's presetations of it much better because he seems to recognize this more profoundly. Perhaps because the enlightenment came more natural for him. Eckhart's enlightement was induced by extreme stress. Therefore, for him is was a profound awakening. In any case, all spirituality aside, the point is that one of the main things to recognize in enlightenment is that the true nature of "being" is beyond thought. At least beyond analytical thought. This is why when you suggest that thought is unspoken language, I have to ask, "Which thought are you referring to? Pre-enlightened thought? Or post-enlightened thought?" Because they are clearly different concepts entirely. But again that might just come down to semantics. Post-enlightened thought is actually pure awareness so if you're demanding that thought only refers to analytical thinking then pure awareness wouldn't count as thought by that definition. But as I've stated earlier this would make Descartes' statement, "I think therefore I am" a bit silly by that definition of thought. I really feel he should have said, "I percieve, therefore I am", or something along those lines. His use of the word think in that context was a bit ambigious. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I am having difficulty equating thought to awareness.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Thought needs - at least - an unconscious memory, which happens to depend upon a conscious state for it's existence.
Awareness does not. I want to adequately explain the necessary steps to enlightenment. It can be done, for it's very cognition is impossible without prior language, a complex one at that. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
"Feeling will get you closer to the truth of who you are than thinking" - Ekchart Tolle. I agree with JB, Ekchart's realization is that living in the now is profoundly more rewarding and fulfilling than constantly fretting about the past or the future. Although, I think the philosophy actually goes much deeper than this. For some people this is a profound "awakening" because they had become so lost in their ego-sense of self that when they awaken from it it's a profound earth-shaking experience. Ekchart Tolle isn't conveying anything different from many spritual teachers of this kind of enlightenment, including Deepak Chopra and many teachers of Buddhism. They all refer to Jesus as a teacher of the very same thing. In fact, Tolle brings the parables that Jesus taught to life and shows how the authors of the gospels didn't even understand what they were writing. They thought Jesus was predicting an end to the world and a coming of a rapture, but he was speaking solely about personal transformation. In any case, I personally feel that this kind of personal enlightenment is quite different for different people. In fact, I actually like Deepak Chopra's presetations of it much better because he seems to recognize this more profoundly. Perhaps because the enlightenment came more natural for him. Eckhart's enlightement was induced by extreme stress. Therefore, for him is was a profound awakening. In any case, all spirituality aside, the point is that one of the main things to recognize in enlightenment is that the true nature of "being" is beyond thought. At least beyond analytical thought. This is why when you suggest that thought is unspoken language, I have to ask, "Which thought are you referring to? Pre-enlightened thought? Or post-enlightened thought?" Because they are clearly different concepts entirely. But again that might just come down to semantics. Post-enlightened thought is actually pure awareness so if you're demanding that thought only refers to analytical thinking then pure awareness wouldn't count as thought by that definition. But as I've stated earlier this would make Descartes' statement, "I think therefore I am" a bit silly by that definition of thought. I really feel he should have said, "I percieve, therefore I am", or something along those lines. His use of the word think in that context was a bit ambigious. Every moment of my life is a spiritual awakening. Therefore, every moment is a post enlightened thought of some degree. I don't think we regress spiritually. We meet new challenges and we learn our way through them. Thought and awareness are one and the same. When a thing is analyzed and compared to something else, this is thought, whether or not it contains language of some kind or not. Thats my thought on it. 
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I believe the Universe is conscious and has a somewhat "unconscious" memory that is information stored. This stored information takes its form in matter. Therefore, matter itself is a form of unconscious stored memory that is linked to the conscious universe. Unlocking the secrets of different forms of matter you will find a storehouse of vast information about the universe. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
CS Wrote:
Thought needs - at least - an unconscious memory, which happens to depend upon a conscious state for it's existence. Awareness does not. JB Wrote:
Thought and awareness are one and the same. Well, I think this makes my point quite vivid. Obviously everyone does not conjure up the same concepts when a word such as thought is being used. In fact, this is one of the greatest difficulties with language because the word and symbols that are used to convey concepts or thoughts often fail miserably. What a label means to one person is not the same as what it means to another person. CS Wrote:
I want to adequately explain the necessary steps to enlightenment. It can be done, for it's very cognition is impossible without prior language, a complex one at that. Yes, language is most certainly necessary to explain the steps to enlightenment. However, language is totally unnecessary for the realization of enlightenment. And that's the point I'm truly attempting to get at. Language is not necessary for realizization. Language is only necessary to communicate a realization to another mind. Language is not fundamental to realization. |
|
|
|
|
|
Edited by
Bushidobillyclub
on
Fri 06/19/09 07:57 AM
|
|
Web Definition: Thought
# idea: the content of cognition; the main thing you are thinking about; "it was not a good idea"; "the thought never entered my mind"
# thinking: the process of using your mind to consider something carefully; "thinking always made him frown"; "she paused for thought" # the organized beliefs of a period or group or individual; "19th century thought"; "Darwinian thought" # opinion: a personal belief or judgment that is not founded on proof or certainty; "my opinion differs from yours"; "I am not of your persuasion"; "what are your thoughts on Haiti?" wordnet.princeton.edu/perl/webwn # Thought and thinking are mental forms and processes, respectively ("thought" is both.) Thinking allows beings to model the world and to deal with it effectively according to their objectives, plans, ends and desires. ... en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thought # an idea; an instance of thinking; the state or condition of thinking; A particular way of thinking-that associated with a group, nation or region en.wiktionary.org/wiki/thought # think - judge or regard; look upon; judge; "I think he is very smart"; "I believe her to be very smart"; "I think that he is her boyfriend"; "The racist conceives such people to be inferior" # think - expect, believe, or suppose; "I imagine she earned a lot of money with her new novel"; "I thought to find her in a bad state"; "he didn't think to find her in the kitchen"; "I guess she is angry at me for standing her up" # think - use or exercise the mind or one's power of reason in order to make inferences, decisions, or arrive at a solution or judgments; "I've been thinking all day and getting nowhere" # think - remember: recall knowledge from memory; have a recollection; "I can't remember saying any such thing"; "I can't think what her last name was"; "can you remember her phone number?"; "Do you remember that he once loved you?"; "call up memories" # think - imagine or visualize; "Just think--you could be rich one day!"; "Think what a scene it must have been!" # think - focus one's attention on a certain state; "Think big"; "think thin" # think - intend: have in mind as a purpose; "I mean no harm"; "I only meant to help you"; "She didn't think to harm me"; "We thought to return early that night" # think - decide by pondering, reasoning, or reflecting; "Can you think what to do next?" # think - ponder; reflect on, or reason about; "Think the matter through"; "Think how hard life in Russia must be these days" Web Definition: Consciousness. # an alert cognitive state in which you are aware of yourself and your situation; "he lost consciousness"
# awareness: having knowledge of; "he had no awareness of his mistakes"; "his sudden consciousness of the problem he faced"; "their intelligence and general knowingness was impressive" wordnet.princeton.edu/perl/webwn # Consciousness has been defined loosely as a constellation of attributes of mind such as subjectivity, self-awareness, sentience, and the ability to perceive a relationship between oneself and one's environment. ... en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Consciousness # Strong AI is artificial intelligence that matches or exceeds human intelligence—the intelligence of a machine that can successfully perform any intellectual task that a human being can. or see where he defines strong AI as "machine intelligence with the full range of human intelligence. ... en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Consciousness_(artificial) # Vijñāna (Sanskrit; Devanagari: विज्ञान) or viññāa (Pāli; Devanagari: विञ्ञाण) is translated as "consciousness" or "life force" or simply "mind".See, for instance, Rhys Davids & Stede (1921-25), p. ... en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Consciousness_(Buddhism) # The state of being conscious or aware; awareness en.wiktionary.org/wiki/consciousness # conscious - intentionally conceived; "a conscious effort to speak more slowly"; "a conscious policy" # conscious - knowing and perceiving; having awareness of surroundings and sensations and thoughts; "remained conscious during the operation"; "conscious of his faults"; "became conscious that he was being followed" wordnet.princeton.edu/perl/webwn # consciously - with awareness; "she consciously played with the idea of inviting them" wordnet.princeton.edu/perl/webwn # Conscious - Dredg (commonly typeset as dredg) is an American progressive/alternative rock band formed in 1994 in Los Gatos, California. The band consists of vocalist Gavin Hayes, guitarist Mark Engles, bassist Drew Roulette and drummer Dino Campanella. ... en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conscious_(EP) # Conscious - This article contains episode summaries as well as directing and writing credits from Season 3 of the American drama/adventure television series Alias. Season 3 aired starting on September 28, 2003 (U.S.) and concluded on May 23, 2004. ... en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conscious_(Alias_episode) # conscious - alert, awake; aware en.wiktionary.org/wiki/conscious # A process arising out of one or more types of mind activities that are associated with the brain and that involve awareness and/or thought. See Text, Chapter 10. See also, " Altered State of Consciousness," "State of Consciousness" and "Transpersonal Consciousness." www.hissofasp.com/glossary.htm # n. 1. The state or condition of being conscious. 2. A sense of identity, esp. the complex of attitudes, beliefs, and sensitivities held by or considered characteristic of an individual or a group.** www.geocities.com/seaskj/glossary.html # The awareness on an individual level of information, thoughts, patterns and processes taking place within the various bodies: physical, mental ... www.bodysoulmagic.com/glossary.htm I tend to think both of these are emergent properties of a mind. I do not believe we will find any thought inside the brain, the brain is the function, we enter data, and the output is thought. No single part of the internal working of the function is actually thought, only the output. If you take a care engine and pull it apart we do not find the property of movement anywhere inside, only the combination of all the parts can create the needed torque to allow for motion. Thought and consciousness are the same as movement, we do not find them inside the brain, they are emergent properties of the combination of devices that make up the brain/engine. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Jeremy wrote:
If you take a car engine and pull it apart we do not find the property of movement anywhere inside, only the combination of all the parts can create the needed torque to allow for motion. Thought and consciousness are the same as movement, we do not find them inside the brain, they are emergent properties of the combination of devices that make up the brain/engine. This is the atheistic analogy of human awareness. This is also how Chaos Theory explains the rise of "consciousness". In this view we are nothing more than the result of the structure of our brains. If we are to believe this, then we must also believe that we can indeed build an 'artificial' or man-made neural net (an andriod), and that andriod would indeed be every bit equivalent to a human (assuming it achieves self-awareness). Of course, if our premise is that our own consciousness and self-awareness is nothing more than the complext structure of our biological neural net (our brain), then there is no reason to believe that if we create an andriod with an artificial neural net, it too, can then become sentient. So athesist must necessarily believe that if we build a robot, that robot can potentially have the same ability for sentient existence as we have. I'm not saying that this is necessarily true or not. In fact, I tend to believe it is true to some degree. Yet at the same time, I still have difficultly with "what" it is that is actaully achieving sentience. With a car engine, there is no awareness so the analogy breaks down at that point. In the case of the human brain becoming aware, there is still the question of what is is that has become aware? Even if we view the Chaos Theory of the strange attractor arising from the complext patterns of the structure of the brain, then we still have to ask,... "What is aware?" Is the strange attractor aware? Clearly not. The strange attractor is nothing more than the sum total affects of all the parts. But it has no existence of its own to be aware of anything. So the analogy of the brain to a car engine is failing in this regard. This analogy does not explain the ability of the brain to become aware of it's functions. I had previously posted in another thread that I saw how Chaos Theory could explain consciouness without the need for spirit. I confess, that I'm still unclear on this and it ultimately seems ellusive and circular. I see how the brain can be more than the sum of it's functions, but at the same time, I still see no way for anything to become aware. What is it that actually becomes aware? I still can't buy into pure atheism. It just makes no sense to me. It seems to me that beneath it all there is necessarily an element of mysticism. Even if we take away awareness, or consciousness, I'm still stuck with a need for mysticism on a purly physical level. I can't even see quantum fields existing from a purely atheistic point of view. In other words, I'm convinced that there is something going on that's beyond physics. Because the mere fact that physics exists at all is already mystical to me. Even aprior to awareness. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Edited by
creativesoul
on
Fri 06/19/09 09:07 AM
|
|
If enlightenment is a heightened(more acute) sense of understanding, then it is necessarily dependent upon first having one which is not so accurate, is it not?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Edited by
creativesoul
on
Fri 06/19/09 09:49 AM
|
|
In other words, the fact that language creates boudaries which correspond to definitions necessitates the notion that one can have an understanding based upon what that person thinks those words mean. It is only after other experiences add to and/or develop the meanings behind the terms that an epiphany is even possible.
So unless one just so happens to have a very accurate understanding of things on the very first attempt(unconsciously) at establishing a world-view, there will be some form of enlightenment within one's own mind somewhere along the way... assuming of course that that person is capable of admitting the possibility of being wrong... I so despise that word, not for reasons of not wanting to admit having an inadequate perspective, but for the reasons of black and white-ness.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
If enlightenment is a heightened(more acute) sense of understanding, then it is necessarily dependent upon first having one which is not so accurate, is it not? Based on my understanding of what enlightenment means, I would beg to differ with your description above. Enlightenment is (as taught by most spiritual teachers) is not a heightened or more acute sense of understanding, but rather it's an entirely different perspective. It's a tranformation of vantage point altogether. It requires no understanding at all. This is why they speak of it in terms of the unspeakable. They have said, "If you know of the Tao, then you know it is not speakable. If you can speak of the Tao, then you do not know it." This may seem like a contradiction in from the point of view of understanding, but if you know of it, then you understand. In fact, enlightement is taught as a spiritual tranformation for this very reason. It is that which cannot be expressed though normal means of understanding (i.e. language) Although this isn't entirely true. Most spiritual teachers do say that enlightenment can achieved intellectually, and even conveyed intellectually. Just the same, the actual experience is non-intellectual. The experience itself cannot be put into words, or conveyed through words. But then this is also true of love, and really of all emotions and experiences. Language is merely an attempt to convey the experience of these emotions and feelings. Surely you're aware of experiences that you cannot describe. You can only tell other people, "You would have had to have been there". Language cannot be the basis of understanding in its truest form. On the contrary, exposing life as being based on that kind of understanding is precisely what enlightenment is all about. Enlightenment is all about the realization that life is not the understanding that our thinking brain presents to us. Enlightenment is all about the vantage point of pure awareness which is far more valid than the understanding that we thought we had through the symbolic logic of our brains. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
So unless one just so happens to have a very precise understanding of things on the very first attempt(unconsciously) at establishing a world-view. There is no need to establish a world-view. On the contrary that's what's to be avoided to achieve pure awareness. This doesn't mean that world-views have no value. They certainly do have value. But they are all entirely constructed by us. And that's the enlightenment. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
James,
Doesn't enlightenment, in your view, depend upon first being 'un-enlightened' ? |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Edited by
Jeanniebean
on
Fri 06/19/09 10:01 AM
|
|
That which becomes aware is the authentic SELF. IT has no form. It manifests and inhabits form.
The universe is the body of a conscious entity, and IT imparts consciousness (in all degrees) unto its parts. Everything is alive and part of a living thing. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
If enlightenment is a heightened(more acute) sense of understanding, then it is necessarily dependent upon first having one which is not so accurate, is it not? Enlightenment is not a more acute or heightened sense of understanding in the analytical sense of understanding. It can better be describe as an awakening. It would feel like coming out of a fuzzy dream and into being more awake and aware of self and your perceptions of reality. It is a change of perspective, a change of attitude, a different way of looking at the same thing. It is an AH-HA moment. Every moment of my life is a spiritual awakening. If you are not growing and awakening, you are stagnant and going to sleep. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
James, Doesn't enlightenment, in your view, depend upon first being 'un-enlightened' ? No, absolutely not. But here again, we could get lost in semantics. To become enlightened would indeed depend on first being 'unenlightened'. However, the state of enlightenment itself is in no way dependent upon having been 'unenlightened'. Once you have the point of view of being enlightened you can see BOTH perspectives clearly. So there is no need for any prior experience of having not been enlightened. Therefore 'unenlightenment' is not a prerequesite for enlightenment. In other words, a person can be born enlightened. In fact, I believe that some people clearly have been born in this state of mind. I also believe that enlightenment is not an 'all-or-nothing' situation. There are varying degrees of enlightenment. In fact, Deepak Chopra teaches seven levels on the path of enlightenment, where each level if an increased awareness of pure awareness. As an example, one day I had the profound realization that now and eternity are one in the same. I laughed thoughtout that entire day at my folly. It was quite an enlightenment. So intellectually I can tell you, "Now and eternity are one in the same". Does that mean anything to you? Or is that just a string of words that that requires analysis? I had been told that before too, but even though I thought I understood the words, I didn't truly understand them until the day I realized their truth. To me it was a simple awareness no analysis required. Can language ever hope to help you understand this truth? I doubt it. We use language to create linear time and give it reality. In a very real sense language is what prevents enlightenment. |
|
|
|
|
