I personally know that an individuals mind is somehow grouped together with the entire universe. This is a genius forum, and, explaining this to an ordinary person would just blow over their shoulder.
Hi. My name is RUBEN and this is how I visualize deep space exploration....
The mind cannot be truly attached to ones body
Re: The mind cannot be truly attached to ones body
So, when is your explanation coming? Asserting a belief is not an explanation, old chap.! :)Anti-christ wrote:I personally know that an individuals mind is somehow grouped together with the entire universe. This is a genius forum, and, explaining this to an ordinary person would just blow over their shoulder.
Hi. My name is RUBEN and this is how I visualize deep space exploration....
Re: The mind cannot be truly attached to ones body
minds and bodies are both ideas, basically they are the sameAnti-christ wrote:I personally know that an individuals mind is somehow grouped together with the entire universe. This is a genius forum, and, explaining this to an ordinary person would just blow over their shoulder.
Hi. My name is RUBEN and this is how I visualize deep space exploration....
the original post is correct in understanding that fundamentally there is only one ultimate continuum. However, it is wrong to suppose that the body is outside of this same continuum.
It is correct to conclude that any sense of particualar spatial or temporal location (which is what the body serves to 'create') is essentially illusory.
That said, the body is simply an emanation of mind, as is the perceived solid universe.
Try this: hold out your hand, and move your index finger around. What is the difference between the mind that is moving the finger, and the body that is the finger? Can you find a place/location where the one is not the other?
Pay attention to your thoughts when sitting quietly. Can you separate the thought from the mind that keeps 'thinking' them? The thought is the 'body' of 'the mind', similar to how the finger is the body and the mind is what moves the finger.
You cannot separate them anywhere or any time.
And yet this also is true: the index finger is not the same as the pinky, and 'my' finger is not the same as 'your' finger. So we have both particularity and universality co-existing and inseparable.
We can see a flame and feel the heat. They are different. And yet also there is not one without the other in the sense that whenever there is flame there is also heat.
Whenever there is particular temporal or spatial location, there is also the opposite : vast limitless space and eternity. Both coexist.
This is the meaning of yin and yang, by the way.
It is correct to conclude that any sense of particualar spatial or temporal location (which is what the body serves to 'create') is essentially illusory.
That said, the body is simply an emanation of mind, as is the perceived solid universe.
Try this: hold out your hand, and move your index finger around. What is the difference between the mind that is moving the finger, and the body that is the finger? Can you find a place/location where the one is not the other?
Pay attention to your thoughts when sitting quietly. Can you separate the thought from the mind that keeps 'thinking' them? The thought is the 'body' of 'the mind', similar to how the finger is the body and the mind is what moves the finger.
You cannot separate them anywhere or any time.
And yet this also is true: the index finger is not the same as the pinky, and 'my' finger is not the same as 'your' finger. So we have both particularity and universality co-existing and inseparable.
We can see a flame and feel the heat. They are different. And yet also there is not one without the other in the sense that whenever there is flame there is also heat.
Whenever there is particular temporal or spatial location, there is also the opposite : vast limitless space and eternity. Both coexist.
This is the meaning of yin and yang, by the way.
Re:
tharpa wrote:the original post is correct in understanding that fundamentally there is only one ultimate continuum. However, it is wrong to suppose that the body is outside of this same continuum.
It is correct to conclude that any sense of particualar spatial or temporal location (which is what the body serves to 'create') is essentially illusory.
That said, the body is simply an emanation of mind, as is the perceived solid universe.
Try this: hold out your hand, and move your index finger around. What is the difference between the mind that is moving the finger, and the body that is the finger? Can you find a place/location where the one is not the other?
Pay attention to your thoughts when sitting quietly. Can you separate the thought from the mind that keeps 'thinking' them? The thought is the 'body' of 'the mind', similar to how the finger is the body and the mind is what moves the finger.
You cannot separate them anywhere or any time.
And yet this also is true: the index finger is not the same as the pinky, and 'my' finger is not the same as 'your' finger. So we have both particularity and universality co-existing and inseparable.
We can see a flame and feel the heat. They are different. And yet also there is not one without the other in the sense that whenever there is flame there is also heat.
Whenever there is particular temporal or spatial location, there is also the opposite : vast limitless space and eternity. Both coexist.
This is the meaning of yin and yang, by the way.
-
Pincho Paxton
- Posts: 1305
- Joined: Fri Sep 28, 2007 10:05 am
Re: The mind cannot be truly attached to ones body
I know it already. The post is too short.
Re:
Not really, the "illusory" spatial location will still be there if you are not, making it part of reality and not illusory at all. It is the mind that is subjective, not the world around us.tharpa wrote:the original post is correct in understanding that fundamentally there is only one ultimate continuum. However, it is wrong to suppose that the body is outside of this same continuum.
It is correct to conclude that any sense of particualar spatial or temporal location (which is what the body serves to 'create') is essentially illusory.
Once again, not really. I have an organ in my head called my brain, my finger is not an organ but rather composed of various muscles and bones, and there is a definite difference between my brain (the part that sends the message) and my finger (the part that receives the message to move). I can most assuredly find where one is not the other, however your method for discovering this difference is flawed because the electrical impulses from our brain to our finger travel too fast to use them as a distinguishing factor. It is very easy to separate the finger from the body - you cut it off. For a while you'll have a phantom limb which is your brain trying to get used to the fact that your finger is no longer there. After a while, your brain adapts and the phantom limb goes away - and your finger, both the physical finger and the representation of your finger in your mind separates.tharpa wrote: That said, the body is simply an emanation of mind, as is the perceived solid universe.
Try this: hold out your hand, and move your index finger around. What is the difference between the mind that is moving the finger, and the body that is the finger? Can you find a place/location where the one is not the other?
Pay attention to your thoughts when sitting quietly. Can you separate the thought from the mind that keeps 'thinking' them? The thought is the 'body' of 'the mind', similar to how the finger is the body and the mind is what moves the finger.
You cannot separate them anywhere or any time.
An obvious truth.tharpa wrote: And yet this also is true: the index finger is not the same as the pinky, and 'my' finger is not the same as 'your' finger.
Not really, you're basing your idea on the semantic difference between 'my' and 'your,' which basically means you're bullshitting. If I wanted, I could talk about how 'your' finger is different from 'our' fingers, changing the particular from the in-group to the out-group, and making the in-group a universal. To take it a step farther, 'their' fingers compared to 'our' fingers creates TWO universalities coexisting at once. Doesn't that sound ridiculous? That's what you sound like.tharpa wrote: So we have both particularity and universality co-existing and inseparable.
You're really good with psuedo-philosophy, but flame and heat are no different - when there's a fire, the flame is what you see, the heat is what you feel. The only distinction between heat and fire is which sense you use to interpret them.tharpa wrote: We can see a flame and feel the heat. They are different. And yet also there is not one without the other in the sense that whenever there is flame there is also heat.
Whenever there is particular temporal or spatial location, there is also the opposite : vast limitless space and eternity. Both coexist.
No, no it's not.tharpa wrote: This is the meaning of yin and yang, by the way.
Also, the OP sounds like the result of a drug trip taken too seriously. In actual reality, we have no idea if it's possible to separate the mind from the body. The only natural way we've come across it is in death and we haven't been able to artificially create a method to transfer a conscience, either. There are some that might point you towards psychedelic drugs to achieve this, but regardless: Your mind is very much confined to your body. We're very similar to animals - if life was like software we'd be the latest version, everything you do is related to your body and your natural survival instincts, whether you realize it or not. It gets more complicated for us compared to other animals due to our ability to reason.
-
astronesia
- Posts: 2
- Joined: Sun Oct 28, 2007 11:22 am
Re: The mind cannot be truly attached to ones body
Speaking authoritatively does make one correct.
Openness toward understanding is a powerful tool. Cooperation toward mutual ends, regardless of perspective, is more valuable than the perspective itself. In every statement lies a question. What questions are being asked? And with so many questions being asked, will we ever find answers? And do we need to? If curiosity is more tantaount to fascination, we are off track of our natural selves and are abiding an evolutionary dictum.
Think? Ask? Allow? Observe? Share.
Openness toward understanding is a powerful tool. Cooperation toward mutual ends, regardless of perspective, is more valuable than the perspective itself. In every statement lies a question. What questions are being asked? And with so many questions being asked, will we ever find answers? And do we need to? If curiosity is more tantaount to fascination, we are off track of our natural selves and are abiding an evolutionary dictum.
Think? Ask? Allow? Observe? Share.
-
Dan Rowden
- Posts: 5740
- Joined: Sun Sep 09, 2001 8:03 pm
- Contact:
-
astronesia
- Posts: 2
- Joined: Sun Oct 28, 2007 11:22 am
Re: The mind cannot be truly attached to ones body
obviously 'the mind' means one thing to antichrist and another to responders.
obviously 'body' too, is a philosophical instrument in this conversation.
'conversation' is inherently subjective. to reduce all subjectivity is to allow greater and greater possibility and then, by happenstance, in the midst of information and falsity, truth can erupt.
it seems that many posters like to speak from a POV of authority. This is common in intelligent people. But the most intelligent do not form closed opinions, but remain open and curious and fascinated. to me, sharing information is more relevant than hearing opinion. sharing and excahnge are not the same thing. One is open and the other is combative. Even if welcome, it is a form of conflict if there is attachment, ego. and there seems to be a great deal of ego in this conversation.
beyond curiosity lies fascination. Curiosity, which spurs genius development (and since this site is called genius forum -- and let's not even go into the socially engineered ego associated with the word genius -- i thought it may be of interest to raise this point as well) but beyond curiosity is another veil... curiosity requires activity. Even for those in whom curiosity comes easily. Curiosity is an animal trait. It's associated with groth and survival. If we could move beyond curiosity, we could discover something different, I bet. Curiosity without activity shifts into a different form.. something closer to "fascination". When observing briliance, truth, intelligence, etc... without attachment or judgement... it is possible to sit in a form of fascination.
We can discuss mind and body all week. But I'm guessing that 'mind' is something that antichrist considers to be closer to 'essence' or 'thought' or -- take a look at Mary Baker Eddy for further of this sort of reference.
There are many schools of thought that demand an understaning that material and spiritual are not the same. In fact, to again reference MBE above, she writes that material is unreal and temporal, but spirit is real and eternal... These are not value judgements. But they do touch on antichrists points. Antichrist's statemnet WAS complete, but it requires assumption and understanding to grasp it.
One of the members totally disagrees with that. That is a closed opinion.
Are we getting this? Words are finite instruments and here we are trying to use them to convey the infnite.
obviously 'body' too, is a philosophical instrument in this conversation.
'conversation' is inherently subjective. to reduce all subjectivity is to allow greater and greater possibility and then, by happenstance, in the midst of information and falsity, truth can erupt.
it seems that many posters like to speak from a POV of authority. This is common in intelligent people. But the most intelligent do not form closed opinions, but remain open and curious and fascinated. to me, sharing information is more relevant than hearing opinion. sharing and excahnge are not the same thing. One is open and the other is combative. Even if welcome, it is a form of conflict if there is attachment, ego. and there seems to be a great deal of ego in this conversation.
beyond curiosity lies fascination. Curiosity, which spurs genius development (and since this site is called genius forum -- and let's not even go into the socially engineered ego associated with the word genius -- i thought it may be of interest to raise this point as well) but beyond curiosity is another veil... curiosity requires activity. Even for those in whom curiosity comes easily. Curiosity is an animal trait. It's associated with groth and survival. If we could move beyond curiosity, we could discover something different, I bet. Curiosity without activity shifts into a different form.. something closer to "fascination". When observing briliance, truth, intelligence, etc... without attachment or judgement... it is possible to sit in a form of fascination.
We can discuss mind and body all week. But I'm guessing that 'mind' is something that antichrist considers to be closer to 'essence' or 'thought' or -- take a look at Mary Baker Eddy for further of this sort of reference.
There are many schools of thought that demand an understaning that material and spiritual are not the same. In fact, to again reference MBE above, she writes that material is unreal and temporal, but spirit is real and eternal... These are not value judgements. But they do touch on antichrists points. Antichrist's statemnet WAS complete, but it requires assumption and understanding to grasp it.
One of the members totally disagrees with that. That is a closed opinion.
Are we getting this? Words are finite instruments and here we are trying to use them to convey the infnite.