The Neurological Deficiency Caused by Enlightenment

[brokenhead]

And my brain is having a difficult time adapting to the environment, as I’m so used to just using my mind to retain more important information that is relevant forever, so as a result I need to keep a notepad all the time just to be able to remember everything that needs to be done for the day.

I have been in dozens of office situations and it is the same everywhere. You are not supposed to remember everything, you just have to know where it is. I don't agree with Carl that writing something down makes you forget it. I think it's just the opposite - you tend to remember what you wrote down. You have been trained to do so in school when you took notes during lectures. In a business, this is often a hindrance to oneself, because you need to keep that short term memory free. Instead, you have to train yourself to forget what you wrote down: you are writing it down so you don't have to remember it. You just have to develop a routine where the only things you need to remember are to write it down, where you are writing it down, and that you have wrtten it down.

This is just what happens to the brain as it ages - it loses its plasticity, and short term memory takes more work. It probably doesn't have much to do with philosophy, just biology.

I'm not sure this is the whole picture. It's more of an input/output thing. When you are in school, it's all about the input. Later on, responsibilities require an output. It goes back to what I was trying to point out above. You not only learn in school, but you train yourself to retain what you learn, or as much of it as you can. This is the whole point of education. But on the job, while you still must learn things in order to be productive, you must also learn which things to retain and which things not to. In school, it is set up for you so that it is advantageous to retain everything. At work, you would sink with this approach. It's not so much that your mind is less plastic, but that you are given much more to do, much more output to produce, than in school. These are just skills of the the workplace, often: not all problems you encounter are meant for you to solve. Somethimes you need to get others involved or pass it on entirely. Not doing so could be detrimental to your organization and may even get you called onto the carpet or even axed. Writing something down then freeing up your short-term memory for the next task is a skill and can be learned at any age. In other words, it is actually a matter of training yourself to expend less effort and produce more. If you are able to expend less effort simply by becoming more efficient, you will automatically find yourself producing more. That's when you know you are doing your job.

[Ryan Rudolph]

Brokenhead,

You are not supposed to remember everything, you just have to know where it is.

Yes, you have a point, but there is something satisfying about being able to recall a certain amount of work related material without external help and aid.

I suppose it is all about striking a balance between using external aid and help, while at the same time being able to recall a certain about of necessary information that is detrimental to the specific industry you are working in.

[Diebert van Rhijn]

This is just what happens to the brain as it ages - it loses its plasticity, and short term memory takes more work. It probably doesn't have much to do with philosophy, just biology.

Interestingly enough this doesn't seem the case at all, I mean having a biological type of clock causing the lack of plasticity. Not sure if it was Eric Kandel's research or someone else (I'd have to look it up) but all indicators are that the aging is a manifestation of that plasticity - it adapts to different demands. Or the lack of them.

The decade before high school is one of the most demanding periods in terms of new impressions, new skills, new routines - everything in motion. This continuous challenge causes the brain to be in shape - the most flexible at the next years in high school ("impressionable youth"). But now routines, convictions, habits begin to settle. One finds or abandons religion, forms some kind of steady relationship, finishes school, gets into routines, starting to 'figure out' where the world is about, etc.

A decade later the brain starts to optimize itself to this less demanding situation, efficient as the body always is. Certain abilities becomes rusty as the underlying circuits and related routines are put on the back burner. It would take a concentrated effort of many years to even start changing this again. Perhaps later I'd post some examples of how this has been demonstrated.

I do not think it's just related to short-term memory of the neo-cortex though, I think it has to do with the larger picture of training the brain to absorb new things, retaining them and imprinting, creating new pathways and destroying or modifying old ones while doing so. The short-term memory is just one element of the whole learning process.

Ryan's "enlightened individuals" could be suffering not as much from just a lack of "memorization of trivial information" but from the inability to absorb new information at all, or at least anything outside the scope of their "infinity" that has been dwelt in for decades. Of course this implies this "infinity" would be a sort of ideology, a lifestyle, a specific configuration like all people are dwelling in. In other words: not the real infinite.

It would appear that true enlightenment, the beginner's mind would have no problem absorbing anything new as the infinity or spiritual (the whole "aeterno modo") will be expressed through the timely, trivial, empirical as well as the timeless, ultimate, universal.

[Ryan Rudolph]

Diebert,

Ryan's "enlightened individuals" could be suffering not as much from just a lack of "memorization of trivial information" but from the inability to absorb new information at all, or at least anything outside the scope of their "infinity" that has been dwelt in for decades. Of course this implies this "infinity" would be a sort of ideology, a lifestyle, a specific configuration like all people are dwelling in. In other words: not the real infinite.

I’m basically suggesting that an individual is a creature of neurological routine, whether they are enlightened or not, and they are limited by the laws of brain plasticity regardless, meaning that the plastic flexibility of the brain reduces with age so one should develop superior habits and cognition patterns in their early twenties to make it much easier later in life. However, that is not to say that plastic change is impossible in ones late life, but all research suggests that it is much easier earlier in life.

It would appear that true enlightenment, the beginner's mind would have no problem absorbing anything new as the infinity or spiritual (the whole "aeterno modo") will be expressed through the timely, trivial, empirical as well as the timeless, ultimate, universal.

It’s a wonderful idea, but is it true? Or just fanciful thinking? This is what I’m asking?

Personally, I suspect that a person's brain can only become specialized in a certain number of areas, as there are only so many brain maps available for allocation, therefore there must be a limit. A finite brain resource system implies a limit, and this is evident by examining the behavior of labourers, scientists, and philosophers. One chap has mastered building houses, while another one has mastered research under the microscope, while another one has mastered reason…

And how many years of brain training and map building were necessary for being considered an expert in just one field? Or just one area of thinking?

A polymath attempts to develop a broad general understanding of many disciplines, but it is a challenges feat given the current limitation of the human brain…

[brokenhead]

Brokenhead,

You are not supposed to remember everything, you just have to know where it is.

Yes, you have a point, but there is something satisfying about being able to recall a certain amount of work related material without external help and aid.

I suppose it is all about striking a balance between using external aid and help, while at the same time being able to recall a certain about of necessary information that is detrimental to the specific industry you are working in.

Agreed. You would be useless if you couldn't recall much. But I think what I'm saying is that as you learn what to write down and forget, it frees up the short-term memory banks to recall more imporatnt things, or things that jotting down facts is less useful for. A good example is networking. I worked for a number of years in a very large corporation. All my work was internal. I had to know who to call on for certain problems that I encountered, as others had to know to call upon me. I could write down tasks and details - I had to, as there were so many, I'd never recall them. But I had to remember the people - what they were capable of, what their shortcomings might be, how quickly they might respond, as well as the less savory crap like politics. I got along with almost everybody because I am apolitical. But if I had to get two people working on one issue, I had to know that they could function together enough to get it done in a timely manner and properly, as it would often be my own neck on the line for the completion of the task. If they had a history of clashing, I would have to find an alternative route. But again, having my time and memory free to accomplish things was a result of knowing what to write down - or enter into a proper database - so I could function at a higher level.

As satisfying as it is to be able to recall something without looking it up, it is infinitely more satisfying to accomplish larger projects and goals. No matter what you think you remember, or how good your recall actually is, it is a very bad mistake to rely on your memory when you do not have to. If you fuck up because you relied on your memory instead of relying on documentation, you will find yourself working on that document of last resort, namely, your resume. Take my word for it! Get used to writing things down and using what you have written down even if you think it's all in your head. Using documentaion for your decisions and actions is an automatic way to CYA.

[Diebert van Rhijn]

I’m basically suggesting that an individual is a creature of neurological routine, whether they are enlightened or not, and they are limited by the laws of brain plasticity regardless, meaning that the plastic flexibility of the brain reduces with age so one should develop superior habits and cognition patterns in their early twenties to make it much easier later in life. However, that is not to say that plastic change is impossible in ones late life, but all research suggests that it is much easier earlier in life.

Indeed. And evidence indicates that it's quite rare to really change habits and cognition patterns later in life again. The effort and possibly suffering involved might be just too much no matter how seriously one would desire some kind of break.

Perhaps we should here allow for a combination of early life flexibility maintained to a certain extent to allow for adaptability later on. But what was not there at the start certainly won't spontaneously arise later on.

Here would apply the saying: wisdom starts with knowing ones limits. Foolishness here can even lead to premature death or further, even irreversible loss of mental stability.

Personally, I suspect that a person's brain can only become specialized in a certain number of areas, as there are only so many brain maps available for allocation, therefore there must be a limit. A finite brain resource system implies a limit, and this is evident by examining the behavior of labourers, scientists, and philosophers. One chap has mastered building houses, while another one has mastered research under the microscope, while another one has mastered reason…

True but why would enlightenment be some kind of specialization or non-specialization? The only thing that seems needed is some form of unlearning. Unless learning radically new modes of thought would be called specialization but I don't think it really is.

What do you mean with "mastering reason"? Getting to the essence of things doesn't need to be such an intellectual endeavor. Perhaps in some cases, like unwinding a ball of thread to get a way out of the self-made labyrinth constitutes also a single-minded effort.

Having said that, I agree that the brain cannot be only in some unlearning mode so the beginner's mind I mentioned is not some infinite brain resource or any resource at all. It's just continuously undercutting all false beliefs, while carefully not investing in new ones.

What would that have for effect on long-term or short-term memory, conceptual, abstract or practical - manual - skills? It should not change anything at all, if the brain was specialized in manipulation of mathematical abstracts before, it would be still able to do that. If the brain was specialized to constantly work with direct input on a physical level, like an athlete, this would be largely unchanged. Don't you think so and why is that?

[Tomas]

.


Here's a short article from the New York Times, it took me a bit to re-find this, but it reminded me of what Carl said earlier in this thread, then David H, Diebert and finally Brokenhead (you four have gotta be in your late 30s-50's).

Check it out:

Older Brain Really May Be a Wiser Brain

(snippet)
The studies are analyzed in a new edition of a neurology book, "Progress in Brain Research."

"It may be that distractibility is not, in fact, a bad thing," said Shelley H. Carson, a psychology researcher at Harvard whose work was cited in the book. "It may increase the amount of information available to the conscious mind."

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/05/20/healt ... f977ex=121



.

[Ryan Rudolph]

Diebert,

True but why would enlightenment be some kind of specialization or non-specialization? The only thing that seems needed is some form of unlearning. Unless learning radically new modes of thought would be called specialization but I don't think it really is.

Yes, but unlearning implies learning. For instance: if one realizes the delusion of using the imagination to visualize silly unrealistic scenarios for pleasurable purposes then the structure of the brain totally changes.

I believe that the enlightened brain is a certain particular brain, with some wide variety, but I would imagine that it shares certain fundamental characteristics, which can all be isolated by studying genes, glands, and neural topography.

What do you mean with "mastering reason"? Getting to the essence of things doesn't need to be such an intellectual endeavor. Perhaps in some cases, like unwinding a ball of thread to get a way out of the self-made labyrinth constitutes also a single-minded effort.

I think it is intellectual to a degree, it requires above average intellectual abilities in certain areas. For instance: you and I are probably above average in our language skills. And it took quite a bit of mental work and effort to get to this level of communication. Enlightenment also requires an genetically rooted emotional strength that gives one the courage to face up to delusions when they are presented, plus a masculine brain, and a whole host of other factors.

What would that have for effect on long-term or short-term memory, conceptual, abstract or practical - manual - skills? It should not change anything at all, if the brain was specialized in manipulation of mathematical abstracts before, it would be still able to do that. If the brain was specialized to constantly work with direct input on a physical level, like an athlete, this would be largely unchanged. Don't you think so and why is that?

It could change. For instance: If I was a great hockey player, and then I became interested in truth, then the emotional diffusion caused by truth may de-motivate me to get out of sports entirely. However, this is straying away from the present argument, which is posing the question: Does Enlightenment cause certain neurological handicaps due to the nature of enlightened cognition and brain plasticity in general?

How about this question: Is it not inevitable that having great strengths will result in having strength weaknesses in other things?

For instance: I have stated this before, but it seems to me that some of the greatest mathematicians were fairly short sighted as far as simple psychological truths were concerned, they missed such simple truths, but some of the greatest enlightened minds were weak mathematicians...

[divine focus]

How about this question: Is it not inevitable that having great strengths will result in having strength weaknesses in other things?

For instance: I have stated this before, but it seems to me that some of the greatest mathematicians were fairly short sighted as far as simple psychological truths were concerned, they missed such simple truths, but some of the greatest enlightened minds were weak mathematicians...

I would say that realizing the simple truths don't add weakness; the only weaknesses are seen in light of society, in not following the "rules of engagement." The simple truths create efficiency and vantage point in any endeavor. For example, the current world of established mathematics is not the only one.

[Diebert van Rhijn]

_________________
I am the Choicest.

For some reason my brain was reading: " I am the Cockiest " :)

[Diebert van Rhijn]

How about this question: Is it not inevitable that having great strengths will result in having strength weaknesses in other things?

But it's hard to determine if such weakness is inherent to the domain of brain chemistry or neurology at all when a society or culture would be almost appear to be built from the exchange of bullshit or delusion without much interest in depth.

The functioning of our brain cannot be seen as separate to the world we continuously grow and participate in. The moment someone would start "disintegrating" all kinds of "weaknesses" could and will surface.

I do understand your larger point but I doubt one could make a reliable list of "greatest enlightened minds" to examine and draw conclusions. One would examine only ones own presupposition, mostly. If we'd introduce the alcohol parable again: an infested brain is clearly different than a sober one but while one could formulate the specific problems of the brain of an alcoholic (not to mention the liver) it's way harder to describe a "healthy" brain. This is because there's just too much variation there. The lack of serious impairment? And how tricky is this with a possible bias in defining what's impairment? This is why I'm cautious.

[divine focus]

_________________
I am the Choicest.

For some reason my brain was reading: " I am the Cockiest " :)

:D

Your brain does not lie.

[Ryan Rudolph]

Diebert,

If we'd introduce the alcohol parable again: an infested brain is clearly different than a sober one but while one could formulate the specific problems of the brain of an alcoholic (not to mention the liver) it's way harder to describe a "healthy" brain. This is because there's just too much variation there. The lack of serious impairment? And how tricky is this with a possible bias in defining what's impairment? This is why I'm cautious.

There is variation, but I suspect that the variation is only minor, and it does not prevent the overall understanding of the material qualities that are shared within enlightened masculine minds. Moreover, even if science engineered humans to exhibit the masculine foundation of genius, there would still be variation, but the foundation would still be shared, and therefore one can understand it, and use such knowledge to engineer humans.

[Diebert van Rhijn]

Ryan, I went back to your first post here after thinking a bit further on the subject, trying some other angles.

It seems to me that one’s short-term memory degenerates a bit, as one becomes trained to analyze the totality through vast long-term trends that require very little short-term retention, and so the brain naturally allocates more brain maps to what is being done most of the time.

My view on the phenomenon you describe [degeneration short-term memory or overall capability or patience to deal with smaller scale details - the nauseating stuff] is a bit different. In my experience this happens not only with philosophizing people but is actually way more common and has to do with a certain detachment from life, or the unconscious, down-to-earth, near meaningless 'minutes' that often go with it.

While you see it in terms of brain specialization, I see it as a matter of desire. Ones home lies where the heart is. And the heart of the masculine lies across the next horizon, what can be, the future and not yet known. So attention lies elsewhere and it's possible our brains will indeed function differentially after a while.

Which is something I do not see as necessarily a good thing or connected to enlightenment. If it comes this far a dead end has been reached and spiritual progress would mean a 180 degrees turn, thereby incarnating the gained consciousness into the ordinary or what once appeared ordinary but has changed in meaning, signification and therefore ultimately also appearance. It's like Zarathustra carrying his wisdom down from the mountain. And it's not about becoming preacher, it has to do with being rich beyond belief and behaving like it.

For no obscured reason, no ultimate goal, not more or less than a river flowing down hill. The poor thinker however is still driven to go against the stream, strengthening the legs as he goes. Any other character on this stage would be like an ugly duckling or unkissed frog.

[Ryan Rudolph]

Diebert,

While you see it in terms of brain specialization, I see it as a matter of desire. Ones home lies where the heart is. And the heart of the masculine lies across the next horizon, what can be, the future and not yet known. So attention lies elsewhere and it's possible our brains will indeed function differentially after a while.

Which is something I do not see as necessarily a good thing or connected to enlightenment. If it comes this far a dead end has been reached and spiritual progress would mean a 180 degrees turn, thereby incarnating the gained consciousness into the ordinary or what once appeared ordinary but has changed in meaning, signification and therefore ultimately also appearance. It's like Zarathustra carrying his wisdom down from the mountain. And it's not about becoming preacher, it has to do with being rich beyond belief and behaving like it.

Yes, you do have a point there with your view on the relationship between desire/interest and memory. And when I used the term specialization, I basically mean that the brain is specialized in preferring or desiring a certain type of thinking, and so the brain structure changes to accommodate what the individual wants most of the time. Constant desire molds the material brain, and so wanting one thing most of the time results in not wanting other things most of the time. This is why many philosophers find a subject like mechanical engineering boring and uncomfortable to learn, so I suspect that masculine desire has a sort of focus to it, and that focus has its pros and cons. I would think that eventually after one has fully matured, to achieve a balance would involve turning the more focused desire into a broad and general desire.

And as I read through your comments, I believe I have another way of looking at this.

To fully understand the nature of this subject, one must examine the way in which the hippocampus works. First of all, I would define the hippocampus as the upper region in the hierarchy of the neocortex, and its function is to register new short-term memories from immediate events and register them into the long-term memory.

However, the way in which this mechanism works is that an event must be interpreted as either important, novel, foreign, threatening or so on. In other words, there needs to be some sort of emotional involvement with the event itself. In other words, without the passions, the brain has a difficult time registering short-term memories as long term ones. This is probably why in a general sense, men are not able to remember small trivial events in the same sort of tedious detail as women, as women are more emotionally engaged with the world around them. Women are able to remember birthdays, anniversaries, or that time her husband flirted with his co-worker on the phone ten years ago. It has to do with interpreting an event as threatening.

However, a scientist or philosopher uses the same passion mechanism – For instance – his passionate interest causes him to ask the right questions, and stick with them over the long term, and his passion or discontent fuels the seeking and understanding of a certain subject manner. Although, In one sense, the enlightened mind registers many less new novel events into the long-term memory because each moment is interpreted as non-threatening, familiar, yet totally different. However, there are still times when passion is needed to register new memories like if one is traveling in a strange place, or learning a new skill, or learning how a scientific process or theory works. The only way the hippocampus can register these events into the long term as 'learning' is if the event or interest is deemed as important, novel, foreign, and so on. And so a subtle passionate interest in consciousness is necessary for this.

[Diebert van Rhijn]

The only way the hippocampus can register these events into the long term as 'learning' is if the event or interest is deemed as important, novel, foreign, and so on. And so a subtle passionate interest in consciousness is necessary for this.

But the involvement doesn't have to be called emotional. It appears to be less refined and would fall under more basic drives like survival, reflexes, instincts and so on. What I believe you're exploring here is the source of all attention and focus: what directs this energy?

The idea behind the philosophy of enlightenment would be that higher reason and the higher intuitions can supply this direction when developed enough. It doesn't have to be emotional investment. When the web of emotion would weaken without any higher faculty in place one would fall back on the more primitive drives or become aimless and void of energy. Folding back into the mob becomes natural or otherwise psychological dysfunction of some kind surely will follow.

All these developments might be reflected in neurological realities but I see not much base to link it to the differences in the ability to "register short-term memories". When it comes to women I even doubt the suggested sensitivity to "small trivial events". If anything I found their memory equal or even worse, less complete and more fragmented.

When one or two fragments are lifted out of a murky context it might appear as a triumph of memory but it only appears that way because the whole context has been forgotten, the meaning disconnected and distortion starts right there.

Ryan, having said that, training of concentration and memory skills seems like a useful avenue for conceptual thinkers who have stuck their heads too high into the clouds. Any further practical suggestions?

[Ryan Rudolph]

Diebert,

The idea behind the philosophy of enlightenment would be that higher reason and the higher intuitions can supply this direction when developed enough. It doesn't have to be emotional investment. When the web of emotion would weaken without any higher faculty in place one would fall back on the more primitive drives or become aimless and void of energy. Folding back into the mob becomes natural or otherwise psychological dysfunction of some kind surely will follow.

You still haven’t answered the question in my view. Higher reason cannot guide attention because higher reason is not the ultimate cause, it is the affect of being interested in the first place. Interest creates direction, it causes higher reason, it causes directed cognition, but what causes interest?

I have heard the QRS throw out statements like, “I am merely caused to be interested in enlightenment, I’m caused to value truth, but what is the cause?” There must be a cause, and higher reason is directed by something, so that can’t be it, and higher intuition is a very vague statement to me, it implies very subtle emotion anyway.

Btw, I’m not using the word passion in the same context as the ego, I’m suggesting that the passion becomes very concentrated, subtle, and directed. Perhaps passion goes through a sort of transformation, where it becomes so subtle, that it no longer operates in the dualistic world of samsara – in the world of love, hate, attachment and all the rest of it.

The danger of adopting this "without passion" idea that learning new ideas requires a passionate interest, so if we all adopt this idea, everyone will be content debating wisdom only, but existence is about much more than just wisdom alone. And the danger is that this ideal of the superman creates a sort of self-satisfied man that feels his journey is over, he feels he has found all he needs to know, and he stops developing himself by expanding his field of knowledge.

Ryan, having said that, training of concentration and memory skills seems like a useful avenue for conceptual thinkers who have stuck their heads too high into the clouds. Any further practical suggestions?

Yes, - Retrain the brain to also be interested in the details (not just the big picture) by continual exposure. That means you need to give up the single-focus mentality, and be interested in other things that only relate to enlighenment indirectly. So if all your energy has been focused on wisdom alone, this can be a difficult transition for some.

[Diebert van Rhijn]

Higher reason cannot guide attention because higher reason is not the ultimate cause, it is the affect of being interested in the first place. Interest creates direction, it causes higher reason, it causes directed cognition, but what causes interest?

Aren't we arriving at a familiar chicken and egg situation? Seeing any affect as cause of some behavior seems to me a slippery slope. Such affect might very well be a peripheral experience, a side-effect or a somatic indicator for potential feedback purposes.

Sliding down a glide creates a sensational experience and pleasure. The memory of this and the craving for pleasure (new and/or strong experiences) causes a child to repeat it many times. The repetition creates a strong kind of experience and this might (re)shape brain structures.
In a more general sense the feeling of well-being indicates us that no corrective action is needed and the organism can relax or repeat the circumstances. Very primal stuff. Even thinking itself might be experienced positively by a thinker, like a child on a glide. The faster and more turns the better!

But higher reason is not an intellectual endeavor or some isolated brain function. The way I use the term here is a bit different, like a more integrated superior cognition altogether.

There must be a cause, and higher reason is directed by something, so that can’t be it, and higher intuition is a very vague statement to me, it implies very subtle emotion anyway.

Why not letting higher reason be directed by truth? And what directs us to truth or any faith in truth? What starts the spark? Nature? (too vague), God? (too anthropomorphic), Chance? (not saying anything). It's perhaps worthy of another thread as I believe it has ties with the core of many religions: that one prefers truth over lie, no matter the benefit initially. It's a belief that truth is worthy of pursuing in and of itself that started so many pioneers to lay foundations for others to tread and build further upon.

Btw, I’m not using the word passion in the same context as the ego, I’m suggesting that the passion becomes very concentrated, subtle, and directed. Perhaps passion goes through a sort of transformation, where it becomes so subtle, that it no longer operates in the dualistic world of samsara – in the world of love, hate, attachment and all the rest of it.

This makes it hard to differentiate the "transformed passion" with an average emotion and possibly also very hard, in all its subtlety and inherent 'non-dualism', to bring such passion into awareness. In other words: it would become impossible to examine. Tricky!

The danger of adopting this "without passion" idea that learning new ideas requires a passionate interest, so if we all adopt this idea, everyone will be content debating wisdom only, but existence is about much more than just wisdom alone.

But wisdom is essentially the Way, the Life as well as the Truth. One cannot debate it truthfully without living it too, admitting one is already living it in the tiniest detail.

That means you need to give up the single-focus mentality, and be interested in other things that only relate to enlightenment indirectly. So if all your energy has been focused on wisdom alone, this can be a difficult transition for some.

It's hard for me to imagine a range of interests that is related to "enlightenment directly" (what you call wisdom here) and another range that is "indirect". Enlightenment has a lot to do with how is dealt with everything - the dealing itself really.

[Ryan Rudolph]

Diebert,

Why not letting higher reason be directed by truth? And what directs us to truth or any faith in truth? What starts the spark? Nature? (too vague), God? (too anthropomorphic), Chance? (not saying anything). It's perhaps worthy of another thread as I believe it has ties with the core of many religions: that one prefers truth over lie, no matter the benefit initially. It's a belief that truth is worthy of pursuing in and of itself that started so many pioneers to lay foundations for others to tread and build further upon.

How can higher reason be directed by truth alone? It seems to me that truth is just an idea, and has no reality in itself. All that exists is billions of subjective centers that are feeling their way through reality based on negative consequences that they experience. Truth is an abstraction formed after one senses their way through reality, and maps a moral map how one should behave. It is one’s sensory system, one’s complex subjective center that is responsible for the creation of the abstraction ‘truth’ in the first place.

[Diebert van Rhijn]

It seems to me that truth is just an idea, and has no reality in itself. All that exists is billions of subjective centers that are feeling their way through reality based on negative consequences that they experience.

Give me one example then of what you think is not ""just an idea" but has some reality in itself.

Still you cannot help attempting to create a description, to navigate. No way of telling the use of it. Millions of plant and animal species appear to do fine without it.

Truth cannot be just another abstraction when you just supposed a 'reality' to be navigated through. That would be self-contradicting. Using abstractions to navigate through abstractions? How do you then navigate the navigation?

[Ryan Rudolph]

Diebert,

Give me one example then of what you think is not ""just an idea" but has some reality in itself.

You have strayed off the original topic, which is – what causes interest? But to answer your question – the reality I experience in each moment is not an abstraction, it is reality itself, which is a subjectively experienced phenomenon. The abstraction “Truth” is only created in reaction to having a subjective sensory system that experiences suffering. The sensory system is primary, and the abstraction “truth” comes afterwards, it is a response to subjectivity.

Truth cannot be just another abstraction when you just supposed a 'reality' to be navigated through. That would be self-contradicting. Using abstractions to navigate through abstractions? How do you then navigate the navigation?

But this reality of blind causality does not depend on or need “Truth” the abstraction though, as you just demonstrated. The plants and the birds do not need truth. However, I agree that Human thought requires abstraction to navigate, but abstraction is a limited tool, unique to the human sensory experience. Moreover, Humans have to navigate through reality using the abstraction called “Truth” because we are sensual beings that live in a material world of pleasure and pain, and we possess a complicated subjective center that needs to avoid tragedy, suffering, and delusion.

[Diebert van Rhijn]

You have strayed off the original topic, which is – what causes interest?

However, it is related to your question on what would direct "higher reason". And indirectly it goes back to your statement that there's "more to existence" than wisdom. I did suggest it might belong in other discussion as it seems a very challenging topic.

But to answer your question – the reality I experience in each moment is not an abstraction, it is reality itself, which is a subjectively experienced phenomenon.

It's still a lower level abstraction as we cannot speak of some raw sense experience that we'd be aware of. The strength, speed or seemingly 'immediacy' of a signal does not make it less a sign, or less subjective. It only means the process is more ingrained but not beyond change or influence. Not beyond truth either as truth is the signifier in the first place.

But this reality of blind causality does not depend on or need “Truth” the abstraction though, as you just demonstrated. The plants and the birds do not need truth.

Well, I said appear. Upon closer inspection they too navigate by signs, models, feedback mechanisms, reflexes, instincts, etc. The more complex the behavioral patterns, the more extended navigational maps have to be. Relatively they also have their truths reflected through simple functionality and effectiveness with at most a very dim awareness of those [expressed in e.g. degrees of joy, contentment or raw adaptivity]. In the human realm there's more to truth than that though. Not that there are many people in that realm in general.

and we possess a complicated subjective center that needs to avoid tragedy, suffering, and delusion.

Did you ever consider we just as well desire those, crave the tragedy, suffering and delusion in all kinds of forms and shapes, in others or ourselves, but we need more than anything to avoid admitting such? Wrapping it up in lie and contradiction?

[Ryan Rudolph]

Diebert,

Well, I said appear. Upon closer inspection they too navigate by signs, models, feedback mechanisms, reflexes, instincts, etc. The more complex the behavioral patterns, the more extended navigational maps have to be. Relatively they also have their truths reflected through simple functionality and effectiveness with at most a very dim awareness of those [expressed in e.g. degrees of joy, contentment or raw adaptivity]. In the human realm there's more to truth than that though. Not that there are many people in that realm in general.

Yes, but you are studying the truth of the bird through your own perceptive filter. I’m just saying that the bird doesn’t need the abstraction “truth” to get it on. Humans only introduce the abstraction “Truth” to make sense of the bird, but “Truth” is a relative emergence based on the human subjective experience, not the birds. However, I don’t deny that “truth” is relatively consistent within the human experience mostly because we share the basic sensory equipment.

However, without the sensory equipment, and the cognitive brain, there is no “truth”