GENIUS FORUMS

We sometimes think, speak or act as if there are different kinds of minds, such as “Western minds” or “Christian minds” or “English speaking minds” or “masculine minds” or “whatever minds”. If we examine these concepts we see that they are, at best, approximations and generalizations, and exist only in contrast to other approximations and generalizations, such as “Eastern minds” or “non-Christian minds” or “non-English speaking minds” or “feminine minds” or “other minds”. They are categories that we create and project on reality, including “enlightened minds” and “ignorant minds”. Whether the use of such concepts and terms has descriptive or predictive value seems context dependent. And regardless of the measure of the descriptive or predictive value of such concepts and terms, it remains critical to see and understand, experience and interact with people as they are, in their uniqueness, without such concepts and terms.

Do no harm <http://donoharm.us/>,
clyde

Clyde, as long as we think, talk, interact; can we be anything other than concepts and terms?

Do you mean stop labeling? But the moment they open their mouth, it becomes quite obvious, and that does not necessarily mean an insult, it turns out that they are exactly as they are.

clyde wrote:...it remains critical to see and understand, experience and interact with people as they are, in their uniqueness, without such concepts and terms.

No, it's delusional to think so and quite arrogant to assume some 'neutral' or 'objective' position in any interaction you can imagine. To have such a 'clear' view is what so many think they have and the first of a whole chain of serious mistakes is already made.

The only way to come close to this 'ideal' is to reject our own context, destroy our own culture and being on the altar of some Universalist God. A new form of religion that sacrifices all others because it's more hungry than any other has been in history.

Perhaps Clyde, you could try to view some militant terrorist as unique being, who views you as harmful monster out to destory what he values. And in his view it makes perfectly sense to slay the dragon he perceives. The more you'd encourage to go beyond his concepts and terms, the more harmful he'd think you are to what he beliefs.

Whether his mindset or your mindset are equal in any sense doesn't matter, one just will end up destroying the other. It has to be that way.

In matters of the world, escaping context is just another context, going 'beyond category' is a very specific category. You cannot escape subjectivity in living.

Sapius;

I am not a category of mind, which is not to say that such concepts and terms may not be applied to me, some of which will have descriptive or predictive value; nevertheless, I am not a category of mind.

Which category of mind are you?

Do no harm <http://donoharm.us/>,
clyde

Diebert;

I agree that we cannot escape our subjectivity. But neither must we be a prisoner to all concepts in all contexts. We can know the nature and value of concepts and so realize our true subjectivity.

Do no harm <http://donoharm.us/>,
clyde

Open mouth -
already a mistake.

Ah, the good stuff is our ability to know one another - through our self.

:-)

clyde wrote:Sapius;

I am not a category of mind, which is not to say that such concepts and terms may not be applied to me, some of which will have descriptive or predictive value; nevertheless, I am not a category of mind.

Which category of mind are you?

Do no harm <http://donoharm.us/>,
clyde

I would like to think a 'rational mind'. Are you not?

Steven Coyle wrote:Ah, the good stuff is our ability to know one another - through our self.

:-)

Absolutely; know ones self to know the world.

Sapius;

No, I am not a “rational mind”, although I think that term may sometimes be applied to me with some descriptive value; i.e., I sometimes exhibit behavior (including communication) that appears to others as based on rational thinking.

Do no harm <http://donoharm.us/>,
clyde

clyde wrote:Sapius;

No, I am not a “rational mind”, although I think that term may sometimes be applied to me with some descriptive value; i.e., I sometimes exhibit behavior (including communication) that appears to others as based on rational thinking.

Do no harm <http://donoharm.us/>,
clyde

May be it does. Is there a reason I should believe otherwise?

Sapius;

Maybe, but in either case, it would only be your belief, not reality.

Why do you identify yourself with "rational mind"? What would happen if you exhibited a "playful mind" or an "irrational mind" or, heaven forbid, an "emotional mind"? Would you cease to be you?

And does this "rational mind" come with a body?

Do no harm <http://donoharm.us/>,
clyde

Clyde,

Maybe, but in either case, it would only be your belief, not reality.

I see… well, I didn’t mean that as in blind faith, but wouldn’t that same reasoning apply to all else, including ‘Do no harm’? Generally I look for a bit more certainty than that.

And is “reality” something that “I” am not? Is there anything that reality doesn’t encompass? Including my “beliefs” that is… What is reality to you?

The rest of your post is irrelevant for now.

Sapius;

You asked,

Is there anything that reality doesn’t encompass?

No.

What would it take to make the questions in my previous post relevant?

Do no harm,
clyde

Clyde.

C: Is there anything that reality doesn’t encompass?

S: No.

Then I wonder what did you mean by this…

C: Maybe, but in either case, it would only be your belief, not reality.

I think that there has to be some coherent consistency in ones thinking.

For example, you said…

They are categories that we create and project on reality, …

Here you seem to suggest that WE are not reality, or that reality is something apart from us.

Now that I see you agree there is nothing that reality doesn’t encompass, then isn’t categorizing a part of reality too? If you feel or have a reason that it is wrong to categorize, then please elaborate.

I do know that every jot or a title in existence is absolutely unique, however, no thing holds any meaning if not categorized, which basically means defining.

What would it take to make the questions in my previous post relevant?

Your answer to my question, which you already did.

Why do you identify yourself with "rational mind"?

I tend to think rationally rather than irrationally.

What would happen if you exhibited a "playful mind" or an "irrational mind" or, heaven forbid, an "emotional mind"?

What do you expect to “happen”? I would then be just that.

Would you cease to be you?

No, I would not cease to be “me”, but I would be just that.

A mind can be all that you mention and more, and categorizing would mean what it displays predominantly, as you have categorized or defined. And I think you are barking up the wrong tree when you say ‘ heaven forbid, an ‘emotional mind’. For me, emotions play a very essential part in and of reality; but it can make one a slave or grant freedom; it all depends on which thought it fuels, and that depends on ones values, and in turn that depends on ones reasoning.

And does this "rational mind" come with a body?

If I said yes, it does, what would your relevant point be to this particular discussion?

Sapius;

We are part of reality as are believing and beliefs, categorizing and categories, conceptualizing and concepts. But we are not a belief, category or concept. Our believing creates beliefs, our categorizing creates categories, and our conceptualizing creates concepts. These (like emotions) may be useful, but they may also be misused, especially if we mistake our beliefs, categories, and concepts for absolutes or actual events or unique things.

Rather than using the verb “to be” (as in, “I am a rational mind.”), I think we exhibit a “rational mind” when we are thinking rationally and that we exhibit many other minds depending on causes and conditions. We may prefer one mind to another or prefer to identify ourselves with one mind, but these preferences arise due to causes and conditions. We are not our preferences, though we are not separate from them.

My question regarding the body was an inquiry into how you identify yourself.

Do no harm,
clyde

Clyde, nice of you to explain, I do understand what you say and may generally agree, but we need to clear some things just to know where you and I come from.

We are part of reality as are believing and beliefs, categorizing and categories, conceptualizing and concepts. But we are not a belief, category or concept.

Yes we are part of reality, but do you mean to say that ‘we’ is not a concept? However, then what are we?

Our believing creates beliefs, our categorizing creates categories, and our conceptualizing creates concepts. These (like emotions) may be useful, but they may also be misused, especially if we mistake our beliefs, categories, and concepts for absolutes or actual events or unique things.

Yes, we could misuse them through making mistakes, but that can be decided only through our mutual agreement or disagreement.

Rather than using the verb “to be” (as in, “I am a rational mind.”), I think we exhibit a “rational mind” when we are thinking rationally and that we exhibit many other minds depending on causes and conditions.

Yes, ‘we’ display different ‘kinds’ of mind depending on causes and conditions.

We may prefer one mind to another or prefer to identify ourselves with one mind, but these preferences arise due to causes and conditions. We are not our preferences, though we are not separate from them.

If we are not separate from them, then what is it that makes you say that we are not our causality created preferences? Isn’t the “I” a causally created condition? Can you separate the ‘I’ from what thinking is?

My question regarding the body was an inquiry into how you identify yourself.

I

Sapius;

Sapius wrote:

We are part of reality as are believing and beliefs, categorizing and categories, conceptualizing and concepts. But we are not a belief, category or concept.

Yes we are part of reality, but do you mean to say that ‘we’ is not a concept? However, then what are we?

The word “we” is the name of a concept, but points to something that is not a concept.

Sapius wrote:

We may prefer one mind to another or prefer to identify ourselves with one mind, but these preferences arise due to causes and conditions. We are not our preferences, though we are not separate from them.

If we are not separate from them, then what is it that makes you say that we are not our causality created preferences? Isn’t the “I” a causally created condition? Can you separate the ‘I’ from what thinking is?

Our preferences change. Yes. Yes.

Sapius wrote:

My question regarding the body was an inquiry into how you identify yourself.

I

: )

Do no harm,
clyde

Clyde;

The word “we” is the name of a concept,

Like ‘tree’? Then every concept is but a name, and are you trying to say what’s in a name? Yes, we do name a concept, but without the concept for which the word stands for it would mean nothing. So what do you understand by a word? The word itself or its meaning?

but points to something that is not a concept.

Is this something like the finger pointing to the moon? Are we something more than what we are?

Our preferences change. Yes. Yes.

What is it that is not subject to change… except ‘change’ itself… or its truth…

Sapius;

Sapius wrote:

The word “we” is the name of a concept,

Like ‘tree’? Then every concept is but a name, and are you trying to say what’s in a name? Yes, we do name a concept, but without the concept for which the word stands for it would mean nothing. So what do you understand by a word? The word itself or its meaning?

It depends on context, causes and conditions.

Sapius wrote:

but points to something that is not a concept.

Is this something like the finger pointing to the moon? Are we something more than what we are?

Yes. No, but we sometimes believe we are something more than what we are.

Do no harm,
clyde

Clyde,

It depends on context, causes and conditions.

Exactly. However, although we cannot match up any two individual causal chain of conditions, that’s where the uniqueness comes in, but we could surely agree on a context, making our conversations and thereby reality meaningful.

we sometimes believe we are something more than what we are.

True, yes we do.

Now that we have come to some kind of mutual understanding…

...go and multiply… and make sure… that you do no harm :D

All that are Awake, do exactly just that, in their own unique way :)