IPBFacebook



POSTS MADE TO THIS FORUM ARE THE SOLE RESPONSIBILITY OF THE AUTHOR AND DO NOT NECESSARILY REFLECT THE VIEWS OF PILOTS FOR 911 TRUTH
FOR OFFICIAL PILOTS FOR 9/11 TRUTH STATEMENTS AND ANALYSIS, PLEASE VISIT PILOTSFOR911TRUTH.ORG


DIGITAL DOWNLOADS

WELCOME - PLEASE REGISTER OR LOG IN FOR FULL FORUM ACCESS ( Log In | Register )

4 Pages V   1 2 3 > »   
Reply to this topicStart new topic
Learning How To Be Free: An Invitation, from a painter

painter
post Oct 17 2008, 09:51 PM
Post #1


∞* M E R C U R I A L *∞


Group: Respected Member
Posts: 5,870
Joined: 25-August 06
From: SFO
Member No.: 16



NOTE: The original Topic Title of this thread was "Learning How To Read . . ." but I've changed it in hopes that we can begin to escape the literal associations of the word "read". If "free" suffers the same fate, I may change the Title yet again.


I've been thinking about this for a long time. Months.

Over the course of being a member of this forum, especially in the context of "Alternative Theories," I've occasionally mentioned the necessity of "knowing how to read." Of course what I mean by this isn't directly related to knowing how to read the words you see before you here. All of us know how to do that more or less. If you're not familiar with my having said anything about this, I point you specifically to this post on my pinned and closed 'esoteric' thread here: http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum//index....t&p=7894218

A few members of this forum have asked me to say more about what I mean by this "learning how to read" business and it is this that I've been contemplating for a long time now. Having given it some serious consideration I've decided to post and pin this thread here as an open "invitation."

First I am inviting you to engage with me and one another in some discussion here about this topic. However, I am very aware that discussion of this topic is by necessity limited so long as it remains nothing more than discussion. To go further requires something more of us: Specifically a willingness to engage in exercises and experiments which can begin to move us beyond mere discussion into the realm of actual experience and knowledge based upon that experience.

This invitation, therefore, is offered as a starting point in the hope that some of you may wish to go further and take all this to another level. All I will say about that at this point is that the possibility exists, although necessarily limited by this forum/text medium within which we correspond. For this purpose I'm in the process of establishing another forum, participation in which will be by invitation only and will require that users not be anonymous and have a genuine interest in coming to a more direct understanding through observation.

So, I will leave this as it is. Feel free to ask whatever questions you wish and we'll see how this goes.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
bill
post Oct 18 2008, 12:11 AM
Post #2





Group: Guest
Posts: 1,922
Joined: 23-October 06
Member No.: 147



There are quite a few of us here that are of the vintage (that is to say well seasoned old coots) that actually had a real educational experience available to us

We got through the 'system' before the serious Deliberate Dumbing down of America began to really take effect (borrowing a title from Charlotte Iserbyte)

http://www.deliberatedumbingdown.com/pages/author.htm

But I am not sure if you are talking about simply the skill of reading comprehension or something in a deeper more semantic vein

(knowing your considerable intellect painter I am sure you are getting at something much more complex than basic decoding of symbols on a page.)

(-- an aside, I found Semantics 204 one of the toughest courses I completed, I was damn proud to squeek out a "B")

Having spent a little time in other radically different cultures/languages I am sure that language and culture are closely linked

and that language shapes the thinking of human beings and vice versa

for example the Hopi language is completely devoid of tense -- IIRC they have no word for 'time' at all

This post has been edited by bill: Oct 18 2008, 12:12 AM
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
painter
post Oct 18 2008, 01:47 PM
Post #3


∞* M E R C U R I A L *∞


Group: Respected Member
Posts: 5,870
Joined: 25-August 06
From: SFO
Member No.: 16



Thanks, bill. That's correct, I'm not talking about reading in the ordinary sense or not only in the ordinary sense. I don't know if you've looked at the "esoteric" thread linked above. Although it has been left incomplete, in it I've attempted to point toward something and perhaps arouse some curiosity.

I appreciate your mention of my "considerable intellect," education (or the lack thereof), semantics and the relationship between language and culture. All these things are relevant to some extent but what I'm getting at is that regardless of how "smart" we are or think we are, how "educated" we are or are not, there is another level of intelligence and education that, for the most part, neither our language or our culture has touched or awakened in us. It isn't that what I'm getting at is "more complex than basic decoding of symbols." it is actually something quite simple: We do not really know ourselves from the inside out. We've not even been taught that such a thing is possible. And for this reason, no matter how much we know or think we know or how many years of schooling we've had, we're all ignorant, all "asleep" in relation to this other level or quality of intelligence that may be possible for us.

In the West, so called "education" relies primarily on the formation of the ability to recall certain pieces of information and the ability to put those pieces of information together in a way that our culture and society finds "useful." All this comes from outside and is inscribed upon the more or less "blank slate" that we are when we are born into this world. There is nothing wrong with this in and of itself. Human society has its needs.

The problem is this so called "education" is both fragmented and incomplete. It produces what I call "educated idiots." That is, people who know or think they know a great deal but who do not know themselves from direct observation and, therefore, do not know how they know and do not know the limits of their so called "knowledge." Such people may make good sheep or good robots for maintaining, implementing, propagating and perpetuating a culture or so called "civilization," but, as such, they are less than fully human. The full potential of the human being is neither developed or actualized in us because it is neither needed nor wanted. To the extent that any lip-service is even given to the possibility, it is usually presented in the context of some rather narrowly defined, limited and often perverted sense of "excellence." Society makes roll-models of geniuses who dazzle us with their ingenuity or creativity or physical ability while everywhere they forget their umbrellas, can not sustain meaningful relationships and/or are addicted to behaviors, thoughts and feelings they can scarcely acknowledge, let alone control. I don't mean to single out any one group or class of people. All of us are unique specimens and yet all of us are in the same boat. We're all "neurotic" in the sense of fragmented, divided against ourselves and one another, living lives that are largely fictions, mostly cut off from and unaware of the possibility of connecting with something deeper, a form of intelligence within ourselves that doesn't come from "out there," can not be found "out there."

It is this possibility of discovering something from within ourselves that is my focus.

I mentioned some of this in the 'esoteric' thread but just to underscore it on a personal note, I was born and raised on a farm in Indiana and came of age in the 1950s/60s. By accepted standards I was not a particularly "good" student. Although I was the first person from my family to even get accepted into an "institution of higher learning," I soon dropped out. Up into my mid twenties, early thirties, I was incapable of writing a coherent sentence, much less connecting together a complex series of thoughts. I say this because I'm aware that my ability to write now often gives people a wrong impression -- that this is something I've always been able to do or is a result of being 'educated'. Not so. Not exactly. I was fortunate enough to have had a 'nontraditional' high school education and have continued my education on my own throughout my life. Much of this has been through my own curiosity, interest and inquiry. Then in about 1980, I began to come into contact with a few people who have significantly influenced and guided my own inner search. This has come in the form of introducing me to certain ideas as can be found in books but, more importantly, introducing me to the possibility of coming to know something from within myself, for myself. Influences in life can not be avoided. We're all influenced by the world around us. To pursue the kind of search I had embarked upon, it was necessary to come into contact with certain ideas to, in a sense, 'till the soil'. Guidance, then, became necessary to cultivate the seed and sprout and help clear away the competing weeds of distraction. But the real 'fruit' and 'harvest' of what I'm pointing toward has to come from within as a result of my own interest and willingness to engage. Nothing of this nature can be given to anyone from anyone -- which is as it should be. Although 'help' is needed, ultimately the responsibility lies with us. One can not free slaves who are satisfied with their slavery or, using another metaphor, free inmates who have grown accustomed to and comfortable in their prison. (Edit to add: especially if they are slaves or prisoners from birth -- as we all are -- perhaps knowing nothing of or only heard rumors of some mysterious thing called 'freedom'.) Perhaps we can sneak the tools in past the slave master or the guards but the slave or the prisoner has to free himself. He has to know that he is a slave and a prisoner and he has to want to escape. Only then will he make use of the tools provided.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Sanders
post Oct 18 2008, 02:25 PM
Post #4



Group Icon

Group: Administrator
Posts: 7,990
Joined: 13-September 06
Member No.: 49



Thanks painter, I'm finally starting to understand what you are getting at. Very worthwhile discussion indeed.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
painter
post Oct 18 2008, 02:34 PM
Post #5


∞* M E R C U R I A L *∞


Group: Respected Member
Posts: 5,870
Joined: 25-August 06
From: SFO
Member No.: 16



Welcome to the discussion, Sanders. I was hoping you would participate.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Rickysa
post Oct 27 2008, 09:49 AM
Post #6





Group: Contributor
Posts: 289
Joined: 18-February 08
From: USA: N.C.
Member No.: 2,762



I've been working my way through "A Sense of the Cosmos" as best I can....but am having difficulty.

Discussion would be most well received.

Rick
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Sanders
post Oct 27 2008, 01:09 PM
Post #7



Group Icon

Group: Administrator
Posts: 7,990
Joined: 13-September 06
Member No.: 49



I'm truly an amateur at this, and I only have a vague idea of what painter is talking about.

However, I have learned more in the last 10 years of my life than I had in the first 40 ... painter has an additional 10 on me, and he started way earlier. Add on top of that, painter, of all of the posters here, is surely the most eloquent when it comes to the use of words .... and here painter is talking about understanding apart from words.

???

I live, eat, dream, think and talk in Japanese 23/6. My English use is mostly just here. Japanese and English are so completely different, that thinking in one and talking in the other is impossible. Learning Japanese was so traumatic that it caused a personality split - I'm not joking. (Thankfully the "Japanese "me" and the English "me" finally were able to "merge".) .... So, I know more than most (first-hand) about the importance and the limitations implicit in LANGUAGE pursuant to THOUGHT.

I think more in patterns - whether intentionally or not. Geometry is the language of math, of music. I see geometry in the world, I see patterns. Learning a new language was very difficult for me, because language by nature is very haphazard, not "geometric". I'm much more confortable living in a world without words, but of patterns, notes and chords, sounds and images. I sometimes have epiphanies and when I start to explain, I realize words fail me.

Very frustrating.

Words however, are a MEDIUM unto themselves. Just like paint (colour), or sound. How do you express something with words? You use the words that are available. The limitation inherent in the medium promotes the beauty that can be achieved.

Not sure if I am on-topic, but ... hey.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
painter
post Oct 27 2008, 01:51 PM
Post #8


∞* M E R C U R I A L *∞


Group: Respected Member
Posts: 5,870
Joined: 25-August 06
From: SFO
Member No.: 16



QUOTE (Rickysa @ Oct 27 2008, 06:49 AM) *
I've been working my way through "A Sense of the Cosmos" as best I can....but am having difficulty.

Discussion would be most well received.

Rick


I'm here to help in any way I can, Rickysa. I haven't read that book in a long time but am familiar with what lies behind it. What question or questions do you have about it?
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
painter
post Oct 27 2008, 02:26 PM
Post #9


∞* M E R C U R I A L *∞


Group: Respected Member
Posts: 5,870
Joined: 25-August 06
From: SFO
Member No.: 16



QUOTE (Sanders @ Oct 27 2008, 10:09 AM) *
I'm truly an amateur at this, and I only have a vague idea of what painter is talking about.

However, I have learned more in the last 10 years of my life than I had in the first 40 ... painter has an additional 10 on me, and he started way earlier. Add on top of that, painter, of all of the posters here, is surely the most eloquent when it comes to the use of words .... and here painter is talking about understanding apart from words.

. . .

Not sure if I am on-topic, but ... hey.


You are very much on topic and on track. (Thanks for the complements, by the way, but I kinda wish people would let go of that. I'm just a guy. Like everyone, I have my pluses and minuses, my ups and downs.)

To everyone: "Learning how to read" is a metaphor. As pointed out above, this isn't about "reading comprehension." Everyone here already knows how to read well enough in that sense. As Sanders said, I'm talking about "understanding apart from words". I could just as well have made this an invitation to "learn how to see (as opposed to merely 'look at')" or "learn how to understand (as opposed to merely 'think about')" or "learning how to be (as opposed to 'merely exist')".

The focus needs to be more on the "learning" part of the word phrase, not the stated 'subject' of what is learned.

How do we learn? Is "learning" merely a "recording" process, only a process of informing one's self, or is there some deeper possibility?

Above, Sanders brings up his interest in patterns, rhythms and geometry. This is what we are -- this is what life and intelligence is -- and there are more levels and dimensions than the obvious. But it doesn't help much to be told this or to read it in a book or on a forum post. For this idea to have real meaning for me, the kind of meaning that can change the quality of my life, I have to see this for myself, I have to sense or feel this more directly. This is what I'm pointing toward. It is humanly possible to know reality directly. It is very simple, actually, but it may not be 'easy'. We're not 'conditioned' or 'educated' or 'programmed' to do this. Quite the contrary.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
lunk
post Oct 27 2008, 03:08 PM
Post #10



Group Icon

Group: Administrator
Posts: 4,983
Joined: 1-April 07
Member No.: 875



I think it's more learning to discern the truth out of the vast increasing amount of information we are bombarded with every day. So much of it propaganda but little truth. I know I have been indoctrinated my entire life with misleading theories portrayed as facts like everyone else. I know that I had a wrong understanding about many things, and I'm trying to correct them, but there is no book or person, that I can find, that has this all written out for me... and I think that's a good thing.

As for learning to read, I am starting to see the workings of the minds of others like a photograph, just through their words.

So strange
So beautiful

imo, lunk
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Christophera
post Oct 27 2008, 09:55 PM
Post #11





Group: Active Forum Pilot
Posts: 494
Joined: 14-November 07
Member No.: 2,482



QUOTE (painter @ Oct 16 2008, 04:47 PM) *
The full potential of the human being is neither developed or actualized in us because it is neither needed nor wanted.


I would have to say this is a sentence that has elements basic to the subject.

I percieve a fork in the road for humanity. It relates to humanities perceptions of need and want. Then a paradox is evident because it is quite possible to not know what is needed, and to also not want it if it is discovered.

Accordingly I would re state painters sentence, "The full potential of the human being is needed but is unknown so therefore unwanted."

Otherwise, I see an effort to describe what human sentience might be, or what exists in it's place in western society and the role that a formal education has taken in the most practical sense as an inadequate proxy for sentience.

Good item for discussion, but heavily rooted in psychology and philosophy, so a grounding, centralizing purpose congruent and on a similar fundamental level that keeps it focused on eventual function or relation to threatened dysfunction of soceity and development/recovery of true culture, would be a good beginning. And I suppose what you've done with this thread is potential way to institute that.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
lunk
post Oct 27 2008, 11:05 PM
Post #12



Group Icon

Group: Administrator
Posts: 4,983
Joined: 1-April 07
Member No.: 875



QUOTE (Christophera @ Oct 27 2008, 06:55 PM) *
I would have to say this is a sentence that has elements basic to the subject.

I percieve a fork in the road for humanity. It relates to humanities perceptions of need and want. Then a paradox is evident because it is quite possible to not know what is needed, and to also not want it if it is discovered.

Accordingly I would re state painters sentence, "The full potential of the human being is needed but is unknown so therefore unwanted."

Otherwise, I see an effort to describe what human sentience might be, or what exists in it's place in western society and the role that a formal education has taken in the most practical sense as an inadequate proxy for sentience.

Good item for discussion, but heavily rooted in psychology and philosophy, so a grounding, centralizing purpose congruent and on a similar fundamental level that keeps it focused on eventual function or relation to threatened dysfunction of soceity and development/recovery of true culture, would be a good beginning. And I suppose what you've done with this thread is potential way to institute that.


I know,
it's just not fair.

imo, lunk
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
bill
post Oct 28 2008, 01:05 AM
Post #13





Group: Guest
Posts: 1,922
Joined: 23-October 06
Member No.: 147



Learning

learning implies that an organism can increase the complexity of their interaction and understanding of reality (or matter or external conscripts) by experience with that interaction.

I think this is true

A child grows and learns how to interact with his environment (it is fascinating to see my 2 year old grandson learn and begin to understand his 'world')

The difficulty is, as I see it, that at some point (if we are fortunate) we see that what we are experiencing in this life is not consistent with what we are experiencing in our spirit.
I am speaking to those of us that are called to the light (not to the darkness) we understand at some level that there is a guide/spirit/force/love/grounding/intelligence, that transcends and supersedes our existence.

We are a part of a larger being.
we are a part of it, not outside of it trying to understand it

We are not an element apart from this larger intelligence but integrated into it --

It is difficult to express this in words

There is a dissonance between our (life) experience and our spiritual reality

How do we resolve this dissonance ?

Today, now, on this forum we are talking about concepts that have been discussed since the beginnings of civilization
These are questions that are part of our DNA, part of our soul. We are not different from
the ancient Greeks. We have the same questions. We have the same vacuum of real knowledge, reality.

It is a mystery
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Omega892R09
post Oct 28 2008, 12:25 PM
Post #14





Group: Respected Member
Posts: 2,194
Joined: 29-September 07
From: Hampshire, UK.
Member No.: 2,274



QUOTE (Sanders @ Oct 25 2008, 04:09 PM) *
I think more in patterns - whether intentionally or not. Geometry is the language of math, of music. I see geometry in the world, I see patterns.

I once unravelled the patterns in the progression of Roman Numerals in front of my Primary School class. I was a teacher briefly after RN service and a bit of photography. Those kids were entranced and displayed their enthusiasm by translating numeral strings with ease and also creating works of art out of them.

Some parents expressed their appreciation.

The powers at the school however were less than pleased. I had strayed off the set mathematics curriculum by giving a whole period to a minor topic.

Sheeesh! And they wonder why I lost heart and gave up, that being only the tip of the ice-berg of narrow thought.

To Science and history being broken I will add Education.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Christophera
post Oct 28 2008, 06:09 PM
Post #15





Group: Active Forum Pilot
Posts: 494
Joined: 14-November 07
Member No.: 2,482



QUOTE (bill @ Oct 26 2008, 04:05 AM) *
Learning

learning implies that an organism can increase the complexity of their interaction and understanding of reality (or matter or external conscripts) by experience with that interaction.

I think this is true

A child grows and learns how to interact with his environment (it is fascinating to see my 2 year old grandson learn and begin to understand his 'world')

The difficulty is, as I see it, that at some point (if we are fortunate) we see that what we are experiencing in this life is not consistent with what we are experiencing in our spirit.
I am speaking to those of us that are called to the light (not to the darkness) we understand at some level that there is a guide/spirit/force/love/grounding/intelligence, that transcends and supersedes our existence.


I think the above is true as well. However, as Bill states below, "difficult to express this in words". For one impossible. For many possible, for all a certainty. Our collective effort brings breadth we'd never find on our own. A valid point is that words are general symbols for sometimes very complex things. So a word can be taken as on e part, another part or the whole of the meanings intended.

The readers perogative. However, in some ways this thread is about the exercise of that perogative and which exercises might have the most value or function to our existence.

So a minimal amount of semantical looping appears needed in order to extract and define what might serve us. For example the phrase "A child grows and learns how to interact with his environment".

Interact is a big word. To derive from the obvious understanding of this post, below Bill mentions DNA. Phylogenetic DNA controls the structure of our developing behavioral patterns. Instincts control the immediate perogatives we know as options before we choose to exercise the meaning we assimilate from a word when we read. Instincts are something of the unconscious mind.

QUOTE (bill @ Oct 26 2008, 04:05 AM) *
We are a part of a larger being.
we are a part of it, not outside of it trying to understand it

We are not an element apart from this larger intelligence but integrated into it --

It is difficult to express this in words

There is a dissonance between our (life) experience and our spiritual reality

How do we resolve this dissonance ?

Today, now, on this forum we are talking about concepts that have been discussed since the beginnings of civilization
These are questions that are part of our DNA, part of our soul. We are not different from
the ancient Greeks. We have the same questions. We have the same vacuum of real knowledge, reality.

It is a mystery


Because we sleep 1/3 of our lives, and we have no idea of what our brain is doing with the possible meanings of the universe while we are asleep, or, if it is doing anything, if even we are doing it, the assumption that there is a collective unconscious gains serious possibility. And, ....... we, if such exists, are a part of it, just as Bill states.

I would say the dissonance is in the fact that we know so little about it. If it is of the unconscious, and we were to become aware of our entire unconscious, we would be catatonic. Overwhelmed beyond description. The notion is an oxymoron and can be reconciled by a subtle distinction of words. To be conscious of our unconscious fits the paradox, but, to just take on our past unconscious, limits events to something that has already happened, so therefore easier to reflect upon. If that knowledge would come a little bit at a time, we could know MORE than we do now, and that, i postulate will relieve the dissonance we feel.

Or, our unconscious knows that to be so deeply ignorant of our unconscious existence is very dangerous, so the very purpose of life seems potentially countered eventually, hence the dissonance.

I'll paste something written by Colin Wilson which very relevant to the processing of language relating to writing and speaking so we can see how it might effect reading. It is actually one of the very best complete writing in condensed form I've ever found on the subject.



Parapsychology
Two Brains, Or 'The Two Modes Of Consciousness"!
By ColinWilson

Hudson was in his fifties when he wrote "The Law of Psychic Phenomena" With the sub-title "Working Hypothesis for the Systematic Study of the Vast Potential of Man's Mind".

In the first statement of the problem of the two selves in modern scientific literature he starts from the problem of hypnotic phenomenon as demonstrated by Liebault and Bernheim. Like Freud he draws the conclusion that man's mental organization is of a dual character (Freud, of course, was totally unknown at the time). That is to say, man has, or appears to have, two minds. Each endowed with separate and distinct attributes and powers, each capable, under certain conditions, of independent action. It is the objective mind which deals with the external world through the medium of the five senses and it is the subjective mind which perceives by intuition. It sees without the use of the natural organs of vision, that intelligence which makes itself manifest in a hypnotic subject when he is in a state of somnambulism.
Hudson has recognized the differing functions of the right and left cerebral hemispheres a half a century before they were investigated experimentally. It is an incredible piece of intuitive thinking.
In the middle of the nineteenth century, doctors noticed that the two halves of the brain seem to have two different functions! "A man whose left hemisphere is damaged finds it hard to express himself in words; yet he can still recognize faces, appreciate art or enjoy music. A man whose right hemisphere is damaged can speak perfectly clearly and logically; yet he cannot draw the simplest patterns or whistle a tune. Left cerebral hemisphere deals with language and logic the right deals with recognition and intuition.
Oddly enough, the right side of the brain controls the left side of the body the left arm and leg and vice versa. The same applies to our eyes, though in a slightly more complicated fashion! (Each of our eyes is connected to both halves of the brain, the left side of each eye to the right brain, the right side of each eye to the left brain.) In the 1930s, scientists wondered whether they could prevent epilepsy by severing the corpus callosum also called the 'commissure' (a bridge of mass nerve fibers that connects the two halves of the brain), to prevent the 'electrical storm' from spreading from one half of the brain to the other. In fact, it seemed to work. And, oddly enough, the severing of the 'bridge' seemed to make no real difference to the patient. However, sometime later and when Dr. Roger Sperry in 1950 began investigating 'split-brain' patients, he made the interesting discovery that they had, in effect, turned into two people!
Everything we have seen so far indicated that the surgery has left each of these people with two separate minds, that is, with two separate spheres of consciousness. For example, one split-brain patient tried to button up his flies with one hand, while the other hand tried to undo them. Another tried to embrace his wife with one hand, while his other hand pushed her violently away, as if his conscious love for his wife was being opposed by an unconscious dislike! We all do this, one way or another, from time to time.! And the irony is that, we are not split-brain patients, or are we!
Sperry made his most interesting discovery about the eyes of split-brain patients! If the patient was shown an apple with his left eye and an orange with his right and asked what he had just seen, he would reply 'Orange'. Asked to write with his left hand what he had just seen, he would write 'Apple. Asked what he had just written, he would reply 'Orange. It would prevent one half of the brain learning what the other half knew. If a split-brain patient bumped into a chair or a solid object with the left side of his body controlled by the right brain hemisphere, the 'silent partner' the patient was unable to 'verbalize' his complaint -to 'voice' it! The left-brain controlling language, talking, did not seem to register or 'feel' it, and therefore, failed to - or didn't respond! Naturally, the 'right brain' cannot talk! Not only did the split-brain operation give the patient two separate minds it also seemed to restrict his identity, or ego, to the 'left side'
Another interesting experiment, revealed this valuable piece of information: If a split-brain patient is shown a picture of nude - among a number of neutral images - he grins or giggles (a woman would blush); asked why he is grinning (or she is feeling shy), he or she replies I don't know. With the implication that driven by some 'unconscious' forces, we may be doing things, all the time, most of which, we don't seem to know why!
The implications are clearly staggering. It seems,then, that we have two different people living in the two halves of the brain and that the person you call 'you' lives in the left side of your brain. And a few centimeters away there is another person, a completely independent identity, who is virtually a stranger - yet who also believes he is the rightful occupant of the head. Where language is concerned, this other person is almost an imbecile. In other respects, he is more competent than the inhabitant of the left-brain, he can make a far more accurate perspective drawing of a house! The 'left-brain' operates in an 'analytical' manner, 'linear time', and 'sequences'; the 'right-brain' sees through 'relational', 'space' -spatial-, and rather 'holistic'! In effect, the 'left-brain' person is, more or less, a 'scientist', the 'right-brain', again more or less, is an 'artist'. A little introspection also makes us aware that the left seems to be turned outward towards the external world while the right is turned inward towards our inner-being. The business of the 'left is to 'cope' with everyday problems The business of the right' is to deal with our inner-state and feelings (And it also seems to be in charge of our energy supply).
Consider this. If I were to wake up one morning, with many things to do through the day, and then realized that it was cold, cloudy and rainy outside; now if 'I' (the 'left') -discouraged by the weather- reflected gloomily about the situation and wished that 'I could stay home instead'; the 'right' would overhear 'me', and soon it would feel depressed too and will recoil on it-self, 'depriving' me from the energy necessary to go out and do the work! (Unless I vanquish my 'scruples', i.e. re-state my need to go out to do these things, I will be dragging myself through a very dull and boring day!)
Now, on the other hand, if I was suffering from a long day of work, fatigued, and was almost half asleep, then something of an emergency -or crisis- happens, like the neighboring house being on fire, the fatigue would immediately vanish and I would become wide awake, with an 'energy' that will be difficult for me to explain its 'real' source, or its 'magnitude!
Using Wilson's simile It is the Stan/Ollie relation. Ollie consciousness the 'left- is basically the boss. Stan the right, the unconscious takes his queues from Ollie. If Ollie is cheerful, Stan is positively ecstatic. If Ollie is angry or unsatisfied, Stan would recoil onto himself, feeling puzzled and at loss Stan always 'over-reacts. In short there is a build-up of 'feedback' between the 'two', both 'negatively' and 'positively!
Norman Vincent Peale may not have been a great intellect, but he understood something about the human mind that Freud managed to overlook. It also seems that the so-called 'other mode of consciousness' perceiving horizons of distant facts and meanings, is the work of the right brain the subjective or the unconscious mind! What Freud described as 'a moldering cellar full of rats and centipedes, an ocean full of squids and sharks', is quite simply a libel on that invaluable and highly creative area of the brain. For instance, we are bound to 'enter into' music if it is more than just a meaningless noise... But when we become so 'absorbed' in a piece of music, and feel like 'identifying' ourselves with the composer, with his inner-feelings at the time of composing, we would be experiencing an unusually deep sense of empathy, ten times as deeply as usual! In fact, this 'other mode' of consciousness is a state of perception rather than empathy or an awareness of a wider range of 'fact'-of the actuality of the world outside.
Much of the law of Psychic Phenomena is concerned with the incredible powers of the subjective mind, but, we must avoid falling into the obvious trap of regarding the right as a hero and the left as a villain. The error is more dangerous because it is not entirely without foundation. The left does tend to behave like a nagging and self-opinionated housewife, obsessed with its own trivial purposes, continually imposing its own simplistic notions on the complexity of reality.
However, Hudson made another basic observation about the objective and the subjective that would shed much light on the 'two brains' functioning's and domain of specialty, which, again, would prove indispensable to the inter-connectivity, and essential synchronicity, between the two and the work of so called Inspiration! And would also, put the left in its proper place! It would restore its original function or purpose! The objective mind is capable of reasoning both inductively and deductively while the subjective mind is only capable of deductive reasoning. Induction is the ability to swoop from a number of given 'facts' to the general principle underlying them; i.e. the recognition of laws. Deductive reasoning starts out from the laws and can predict the facts that follow from them. This seems at first contradictory; surely, if the right brain, subjective mind, sees over-all patterns -another name for laws- then it should be capable of reasoning from the particular to the general? The answer is that it can only do so after the left-brain has provided the 'facts'. When the left-brain has provided the trees the right will recognize a forest. But inductive reasoning is a feedback between the left and the right. So if; the left-brain has been put to sleep by hypnosis, the right can only operate deductively. Its deductions may be as brilliant as those of Sherlock Holmes; but it cannot see its way to new laws or principles. Only the left can do that, with the aid of the right.
So, and in a sense, what we call inspiration, is the result of the 'two brains simultaneously working together' at their best. One -the right, provides the idea, the theme, and the other -the left works on executing it perfectly or as perfect as possible! i.e. It seems that, again, we are talking about one form or mode, so to speak, of FacultyX. Towards the end of The Law of Psychic Phenomena Hudson made these extraordinary statements:
1. The subjective mind exercises complete control over the functions and sensations of the body.
2. The subjective mind is amenable to control by the suggestions of the objective mind.
These two propositions being true, the conclusion is obvious, that the functions and sensations of the body can be controlled by suggestions of the objective mind.
T. J. Hudson's last statements, described by Wilson as, "Extraordinary Statements" are the 'hinge' on which Psychology, and probably everything else hangs! The implications are that, the Psychology of Freud along with the rest of the unconscious school (that the Unconscious is nothing but a dungeon full of spiders and monsters) and that the Unconscious for its massive powers, is also -or according to 'their' observations, should be- the 'real' master (the driver) of the Psyche, and therefore of the rest of the 'body'; and that the Conscious mind in this respect, is no more than a carriage (carrying orders), or at most, a passive observer or 'partner' that cannot do a thing before, or towards, the massive powers of the Unconscious; anyway is a psychology of Total Miscalculations!
The brain may be a Frankenstein's Castle', but we shall not find "mad monsters lurking in its cellars". Also, it is apparent that the unconscious mind with its 'real' massive powers can do miraculous things, but it also needs the conscious mind to steer it out, to steer the 'whole (of us) out! Just as the safety -and the maneuvering- of the 'huge' ship, depends on the intelligence of the 'little' man behind the wheel! Or, as in the 'little boy leading the 'elephant'! In fact, this is where the 'Freudians' went totally wrong: It is the 'little man' -the captain- that actually 'drives' -controls- the 'ship'; and that the 'size' -the massive powers of the 'unconscious'-, in this case, is totally irrelevant! A misconception! It is only Our 'pessimistic romantic nature or temper', that 'drives' us to believe otherwise; no more, no less (and Freud was not an exception!)
It would certainly lead us to 'false observations' like this one; that the 'right', the 'subjective', the 'unconscious', (because of its massive size and great powers) is -or should be- the 'real leader'! It may be that, 'right-brain moods -of relaxation and expansion- are so obviously desirable, they fill us with optimism and replenish our energies, but the ' unconscious (Stan) is not cut out to drive or to control, to be the 'leader' and make decisions! (If cases of 'secondary personalities' is anything to go by, 'surrender to the right' would be no solution at all.) But even in cases or moods less extreme or drastic than that, the 'right' should not be the one to lead or make decisions about it! i.e. for its deductions, or rather for its inability to perceive logical consequences for instance, if things are done under 'its' supervision, or command, nine times out of Ten, it would lead to a disaster! Again, the 'right' may produce the 'musical theme', the 'idea', but the 'left' is the one that should 'write' the score down, 'conduct' it, or 'execute' it!
All this underlines something that should be quite clear in any case; that in a sense, we are all split brain patients. Hysterics! For part of the time, we are entrapped in our 'left-brain' ego of 'everydayness trivialities'! And for the rest of the time, we are doing things, 'driven' by some mysterious force, not knowing why we are doing them! And this is what mostly hindering us from arriving at the so-called "Totality of Oneself".
(H.S.) 17-2-2000 "Frankenstein's Castle" The Right Brain "Door To Wisdom" ©1980.ColinWilson.
"Poltergeist" A Study In Destructive Hauntings";. ©1981.ColinWilson.
"Two Sides of the Brain" An Essay by Robert E. Ornstein. From
"Understanding Mysticism" Edt. by Richard Woods.©1980.R.Woods.
"The Laurel and Hardy Theory of Consciousness" From "The Essential Colin Wilson". ©1985. ColinWilson.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
painter
post Oct 28 2008, 08:44 PM
Post #16


∞* M E R C U R I A L *∞


Group: Respected Member
Posts: 5,870
Joined: 25-August 06
From: SFO
Member No.: 16



Whoa whoa whoa!
Let's slow down a bit.


Each of us has a point of view informed by all the influences we've incorporated in our lives. However, what I'm aiming toward is not a discussion of our various points of view but something else. As I said above:

QUOTE (painter @ Oct 18 2008, 10:47 AM) *
. . .
We do not really know ourselves from the inside out. We've not even been taught that such a thing is possible. And for this reason, no matter how much we know or think we know or how many years of schooling we've had, we're all ignorant, all "asleep" in relation to this other level or quality of intelligence that may be possible for us.
. . .
All of us are unique specimens and yet all of us are in the same boat. We're all "neurotic" in the sense of fragmented, divided against ourselves and one another, living lives that are largely fictions, mostly cut off from and unaware of the possibility of connecting with something deeper, a form of intelligence within ourselves that doesn't come from "out there," can not be found "out there."

It is this possibility of discovering something from within ourselves that is my focus.


I'm asking that those of you who wish to engage in this thread try something different. For the time being, leave aside everything you think you know, everything you've heard and read and been influenced by, accepted as fact or disagreed with, and ask yourself this simple question: "What do I know without doubt to be true?"

Now, of course, I'm not asking about our knowledge of the external world. Hopefully that is obvious. What do we know from the inside out?

Lets see if we can have a discussion from a different place in ourselves. We're all very clever. Our brains never cease their chatter and commentary. Opinions form, come and go. We all have a lot of information stored in us and at our disposal, literally at our finger tips. But that isn't what this is about, isn't what I'm getting at. Not at all. So, lets slow down, take this one step at a time. Tell me who you are -- and how you know.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Christophera
post Oct 28 2008, 11:17 PM
Post #17





Group: Active Forum Pilot
Posts: 494
Joined: 14-November 07
Member No.: 2,482



QUOTE (painter @ Oct 26 2008, 11:44 PM) *
What do we know from the inside out?


Tell me who you are -- and how you know.


Our feelings, the limbic system. Thoughts creating feelings with past and present structures of memory and cognition or memory of it.


Christopher A. Brown. I know because of various direct experience percieved by sensory organs managed and coordinated unconsciously. I suspect I have not been given a copy of the complete, unedited, original information. Limited evidentiary excursions have created some consistency, knowable when they find the same thing, or when there is selectable repeatability over time. Other people, having faces and names known to me communicate to me that amongst themselves they have similiar perceptions while the findings have created structures of instinctual response in me through the limbic system called feelings.



Somehow I feel I might have not gotten the context of the questions right, but have tried to provide a fitting answer to what context I could find that had definition for me.

This post has been edited by Christophera: Oct 28 2008, 11:29 PM
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
painter
post Oct 29 2008, 01:29 PM
Post #18


∞* M E R C U R I A L *∞


Group: Respected Member
Posts: 5,870
Joined: 25-August 06
From: SFO
Member No.: 16



QUOTE (Christophera @ Oct 28 2008, 08:17 PM) *
Christopher A. Brown.


That is your name but is your name who you are? Many of the other ideas you express for 'how' you know sound second hand, ideas, concepts read in books and accepted as factual.

What do you know about yourself that no one has told you, that you've seen for yourself?


To all: I'm having computer issues and for the next several days will not have regular on-line access.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Christophera
post Oct 29 2008, 03:03 PM
Post #19





Group: Active Forum Pilot
Posts: 494
Joined: 14-November 07
Member No.: 2,482



QUOTE (painter @ Oct 27 2008, 04:29 PM) *
That is your name but is your name who you are? Many of the other ideas you express for 'how' you know sound second hand, ideas, concepts read in books and accepted as factual.

What do you know about yourself that no one has told you, that you've seen for yourself?



Okay, context expands.


What I read being expressed could be interpreted that you seek to identify if an archtypical basis might exist for each of us, or that an archtypes intentions are in a sense what we are, if not who we are. If such were true, it would undoubtly be unconscious, but have conscious manifestations occasionally that transcended our modern western motivational basis and be equitable with ancient beliefs.


Ancient belief systems include such concepts. The concept of an avatars expression for example. Or, dharma and it's meaningful product.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
KP50
post Oct 29 2008, 03:04 PM
Post #20



Group Icon

Group: Administrator
Posts: 843
Joined: 14-May 07
From: New Zealand
Member No.: 1,044



I am a product of my background and random events that have taken place. I used to think I knew what I was, these days I just know what I am not.

I'm in for the discussion.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post

4 Pages V   1 2 3 > » 
Reply to this topicStart new topic
1 User(s) are reading this topic (1 Guests and 0 Anonymous Users)
0 Members:

 




RSS Lo-Fi Version Time is now: 6th December 2019 - 01:42 AM