What is a thought? There’s a lot of definitions of thought, but they all center on how thoughts act, not what they are. I’m gonna posit that a thought is coherrent chemical activity in the brain, at least as it applies to humans. Hmm! This brings up the question of: “Where does this coherrence come from?”

GOD! shouts the majority. Universe, shouts a significant minority. And there are others, karballah, great mysterious, wave nature etc. What all these have in common is “Something “up there” is causing something “down here” (material world)”

But people think backwards. Something down here is causing something up there. Consider the water molecule. H2O. If you’re speaking of the ocean without the water molecule you got squat. How can you even begin to talk about the ocean without understanding the water molecule. I don’t mean it’s particle nature, that’s knowledge, but it’s wave nature, that’s understanding. Even then, one is a shadow of a shadow and the other a shadow of reality. The shadows are, in and of themselves, real however. Until what’s happening inside the skull gets sorted out there’s no point going any further.

I agree with pythagoras that the universe is harmonic in nature (negentropic)

So, unless you’re ready to tell me what change in which law of the universe would cause geese to fly in the x formation, we’re not ready to talk intrinsic/extrinsic.

Beware the black swan.

As always, under construction

Circle Description Wanna


One Response to “thought”

  1. our earliest awareness is ‘experience’ and only following experience is the challenge of ‘expressing’ our experience. a baby smiles and chuckles. a blind baby also smiles and chuckles even though she has never seen a smile and a chuckle. … quite a complex operation, according to later analytical inquiry, if one wants to think of it as an operation. now, with this great desire to express and share our experience, first comes gestures and noises (language comes later). do we need ‘thought yet’. if i am hot and i kick my blankets off, is this pursuit of inner-outer balance necessarily animated by ‘thought’? what about the acorn that grows into an oak tree, … does it really ‘know what it is doing’? is there some kind of ‘thought’ signal in there, or is this ‘just us talking’ to show off our invention called ‘language’ and what an impressive show language can put on, creating whatever we want it to create.

    if the world were a dynamic unity or ‘holodynamic’ would we need the word ‘thought’? maybe thought is just a word we invented AFTER we invented this other word called ‘SELF’ as a foundational pillar in our language, the thing we invented to express ourSELF. there we go, the word-based notion of ‘the will to express ourselves’ has already captured and freeze-dried something that started off as an ‘impetus’ or ‘pregnant potential’, the ‘tensional field’ that is always there in the landscape that we only find out about when it spawns an earthquake and rocks roll down the hill.

    our words, ‘we want to express ourSELF’ are the rocks rolling down the hill, they are not the tensional field. we can never understand the tensional field by understanding that comes from the rolling rocks (transforming material landscape). the pregnant tension that we experience prior to opening our mouth and letting some rocks roll is the stuff that experience is made of, that we would like to share, but rolling rocks are innately unable to convey it because it is ‘immaterial’.

    and we are not producing all of these rolling rocks just to hear ourSELF talk which means that ‘expressing’ must be ‘predicative’, … our pregnant tension is relative to some sort of otherness. it is a relative conjugate inner-outerness.

    experience is conscious but we cannot claim consciousness for ourSELF since it is purely relational and made of conjugate inner-outerness (don’t get too caught up on the rolling rocks, let understanding come from the pregnant tensions).

    but sure, we like to play this game where we start off with the word ‘self’ that rolled down the hill and pretend that the word ‘self’ is the thing to focus on, rather than the pregnant tension upstream from it. then we make it into a thinking self, and the it seems as if all of these rocks are coming out of the mother rock of the ‘self’ and so we have to impute ‘thoughts ‘to this mother rock and then we never have to go back upstream to ‘experience’ which never needed to be coming from a rolling rock, but was the pregnant tension that brings rocks into being.

    rock on, says the wind in the hills.

    * * *

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: