[Mind's Eye] Re: Enlightenment

I enjoyed reading this post- thank you.

On Jul 24, 8:36 pm, archytas <nwte...@gmail.com> wrote:
> 'Zhuangzi' is the name of the second foundational text of the Daoist
> philosophical and religious tradition.  This is fairly typical:
> "So if the gentleman is left with no choice but to preside over the
> world, his best policy is Non-action. Only by Non-action will he find
> security in the essentials of his nature and destiny. So if you value
> regard for you own person more than governing the world, you are fit
> to be entrusted with the world; if you love the care of your own
> person more than governing the world, you deserve to have the world
> delivered to you. If then a gentleman does prove able not to dislocate
> his Five Spheres [of vital energy] and not to stretch his eyesight and
> hearing, then sitting as still as a corpse he will look majestic as a
> dragon, from the silence of the abyss he will speak with a voice of
> thunder, he will move like a spirit and veer like Heaven, he will be
> relaxed and take no action".
>
> Such, I suppose has messages.  I can dream something like this.  Yet I
> would not want to be encumbered by such putting the door in after a
> couple of violent criminals.  There are thoughts, but I am not my
> thoughts and I am not sure of any inner place.  I feel instead
> distinction between individual and society and want understanding and
> movement in people.
> Bacteria sense each other and cooperate in highly complex ways.
> Bioluminescent marine bacteria sometimes use quorum sensing to ensure
> that they only produce luminescent chemicals when there are enough of
> them to ensure a worthwhile amount of light is produced, such as the
> Photobacterium fischeri that provide light for their fish or squid
> hosts.
>
> Slime bacteria called Myxococcus xanthus hunt in packs like wolves,
> swimming together in huge swarms and rippling back and forth over
> their bacterial prey, releasing enzymes to break it down.
> Collectively, they can tackle much larger prey than they could alone -
> much the same reason that real wolves pool their hunting efforts.
>
> It seems that even bacteria of different species are capable of
> extremely close cooperation. In a recent study, two species of
> Geobacter were grown in a medium containing ethanol and sodium
> fumarate. One of them, G. metallireducens, can break down ethanol, but
> in this medium it had no way of getting rid of the excess electrons
> this produces. G. sulfurreducens, on the other hand, can offload
> electrons onto sodium fumarate, but cannot break down ethanol. In
> theory both species should have perished, but instead they thrived. It
> turned out that they had grown a network of tiny "nanowires"
> connecting them into an electron-conducting grid that enabled them to
> pool their talents
>
> A lot of current psychology considers us as 'social animals' and in a
> sense my enlightenment is grubby - I've noticed scientists are
> generally regarded as grubby by certain kinds of 'inner light
> engineers'.
>
> On Jul 24, 6:21 pm, ornamentalmind <ornsmindseyes...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> > While we can ascertain apparent differences, in any ultimate sense,
> > both 'minds' are one.
>
> > For now, I'll remain honestly ignorant about your topic of beta maps…
> > sorry.
>
> > I'm guessing by 'mind' that you mean thoughts? More clarification will
> > be needed for me, sorry.
>
> > Regardless, all relative stuff is added after the spark of conception.
> > We do experience this stuff; however, it is temporary as is our body.
> > So we do experience both…consubstantially.
>
> > On Jul 24, 2:16 am, paradox <eadohe...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > Hmm...why do you say that the distinction between "absolute" and
> > > "subjective" is synthetic, OM?
>
> > > Re global beta maps, i was loosely referring to the frequency and
> > > structure of integrated neuro-electrical activity which would
> > > correlate with that state of awareness i'm referring to as the
> > > "organic self"; my point is that we could reproduce, for example, a
> > > connectionist network to simulate these system-wide electrical
> > > characteristics, yet derive no mind.
>
> > > So, is it misdirected and misleading to wonder why we have mind in one
> > > and not the other?
>
> > > On Jul 23, 7:14 pm, ornamentalmind <ornsmindseyes...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > > > Actually, I see no contradiction paradox.
>
> > > > A few observations:
> > > > Any bifurcation of the absolute/objective and relative/subjective is
> > > > synthetic.
> > > > We weren't born with thoughts (words/concepts). A return to the
> > > > absolute is always possible, thus 'accessible'.
> > > > Yes, we have what you call an organic self. We also have other 'self's
> > > > along with the unity of all of them.
>
> > > > I'm not clear at all about your views on what a global beta map is nor
> > > > how it 'works' in this context. More unpacking may help.
>
> > > > Yes, I agree that we all have a 'spark' within. And the notion of a
> > > > source for the One is at once misdirected and misleading.
>
> > > > And, as we know, we can experience all of the relative aspects of
> > > > consciousness too…consubstantially.
>
> > > > On Jul 23, 4:13 am, paradox <eadohe...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > > > Bear with me while i dig deeper into this one, OM.
>
> > > > > By direct apprehension, or deep introspection, i can come to that
> > > > > "pure" consciousness; no thoughts, no relational maps in space and
> > > > > time, just presence of "being"; now, that organic sense is self, not
> > > > > autobiographical self. It "emerges" from, the full integration of our
> > > > > neural circuitry minus sensory input/feedback (and thats the
> > > > > contentious point, because one could argue that this quality of being
> > > > > isnt accessible from birth to early adulthood, which would suggest
> > > > > some cultural substructure to the sense; but lets go with the organic
> > > > > view for now); now, if the organic self is not reducible to a global
> > > > > "beta map" (because if we re-created the latter we would not derive
> > > > > the former), what is the source of the "spark", or is it a spark? You
> > > > > see, if we cannot get to this question, we would have to concede to
> > > > > the anthropocentric view of consciousness; which doesn't quite sit
> > > > > comfortably with me, for now at least. What do you think?
>
> > > > > On Jul 22, 8:20 pm, ornamentalmind <ornsmindseyes...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > > > > > How?...if so, by direct apprehension.
> > > > > > Where?...if so, I don't assign any one locality
>
> > > > > > On Jul 22, 11:31 am, paradox <eadohe...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > > > > > That would be a breakthrough for me OM; how do we know where the
> > > > > > > "more" comes from?
>
> > > > > > > On Jul 21, 7:44 pm, ornamentalmind <ornsmindseyes...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > > > > > > > paradox,  thanks again for your attempt at clarification.
>
> > > > > > > > Assuming I grok your restated question, I will respond that the 'more'
> > > > > > > > can be known equally as well. One caveat: I don't embrace (yet do
> > > > > > > > recognize them as existent) Faith nor Revelation as methodology… so
> > > > > > > > this may not fit within your personal context as an answer.
>
> > > > > > > > On Jul 21, 10:26 am, paradox <eadohe...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > > > > > > > The question was more mine, OM. Here's what i'm thinking; we can
> > > > > > > > > "know" and "feel" mind in the nude, without the accoutrements of the
> > > > > > > > > autobiographical self (this is contentious though, i admit, but i'm on
> > > > > > > > > the same page as Molly and yourself on this); the quality of that
> > > > > > > > > conception is not the "sum" of neurobiological processes, it's more
> > > > > > > > > (hence non-reductive); question (for me) is where the "more" comes
> > > > > > > > > from (you can infer by this that i'm still on my journey of Faith).
> > > > > > > > > It's the concept that science terms "Emergence".
>
> > > > > > > > > On Jul 16, 7:06 pm, ornamentalmind <ornsmindseyes...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > > > > > > > > > Thanks for the response paradox.
>
> > > > > > > > > > I'm not sure that we raised nor intended to raise a question.
> > > > > > > > > > Apparently you see one though. With this assumption along with your
> > > > > > > > > > opinion about an *unresolved* question about 'quality of mind', what,
> > > > > > > > > > for you, could/would resolve said question?
>
> > > > > > > > > > On Jul 16, 5:15 am, paradox <eadohe...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > > > > > > > > > More relationship than locality, OM; yes, movies we watch; i was re-
> > > > > > > > > > > framing; our inner lives are a result of our neuro-physiological
> > > > > > > > > > > architecture, yet non-reductive. Molly (and you) raise an interesting
> > > > > > > > > > > (and as yet unresolved IMO) question regarding the quality of sheer
> > > > > > > > > > > presence of mind.
>
> > > > > > > > > > > On Jul 15, 10:36 pm, ornamentalmind <ornsmindseyes...@yahoo.com>
> > > > > > > > > > > wrote:
>
> > > > > > > > > > > > Paradox, IF I grok your question re: paradox, apparently … since you
> > > > > > > > > > > > broached the notion.
>
> > > > > > > > > > > > As to 'movie' etc., perhaps you are asking as to its locality? Here
> > > > > > > > > > > > I'm guessing (clearly not knowing) that you mean actual movies we
> > > > > > > > > > > > watch. If not, your question is way too esoteric for me. An unpacking
> > > > > > > > > > > > would be of benefit in such a case.
>
> > > > > > > > > > > > Thanks!
> > > > > > > > > > > > OM
>
> > > > > > > > > > > > On Jul 15, 11:33 am, paradox <eadohe...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > Could this be the ultimate paradox, i wonder (no reference intended),
> > > > > > > > > > > > > o'mind; where is the "movie"? celluloid or storyline? Both?
>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > On Jul 14, 5:34 pm, ornamentalmind <ornsmindseyes...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > When it comes to Mind, awareness, thought, brain,
>
> ...
>
> read more »- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -