Archive for thought


Posted in Cosmos with tags , , , on September 26, 2010 by ellocogringo

My minds work differently from those of other people’s. One could say I have a closer rapport with my sub-conscious. Most have no rapport. Most that do, hide it. With this rapport comes an exagerrated sense of body language, which enables me to “read” people, which is why I can say that most people have no rapport with their subconscious. To me, they are half-witted, literally. Mentally mutilated. I do not think of myself as smarter, but them as dumber. All of the centered I speak to are of the same opinion.

About 15 years ago I began taking atenolol for a heart condition. One of the known side effects of this drug is lucid dreaming. That’s not really what’s happening. The drug allows us to remember the lucid dreams that were always there. (follow the link) I have posted the first 50 or so of these dreams in a seperate blog AtenololDreams if you’re curious.

One of the main characters in these dreams is Ann (ANN?), the only character (besides myself) who is aware that it is a dream. We speak of many things, Ann and I. In one dream I recall a conversation about the “self'”. I said “I think, therefore I am” she replied “No, I think, therefore you are”

Hmm! So where am I going with this? I am of the opinion that the brain is entirely too simple a mechanism for thought to originate in it, and that it is an organ which was created/evolved/unfolded that concentrates the consciousness that was always there.

We only think we’re thinking.


Posted in Cosmos with tags , , , , on September 25, 2010 by ellocogringo


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


blind spot

Posted in Travel with tags , , , , , , on September 11, 2010 by ellocogringo

Blind Spot

The human eye has a blind spot where the optic nerve goes back into your brain. You normally don’t notice it because your other eye and brain compensate to fill in the missing information. The brain can also be confused by the above image. It is static, but your brain interprets it as moving. ScotomaIn like manner the mind has a logical blind spot. You can be looking right at something and not see it. And like the optical blind spot the minds “fill in the blanks” so that the picture seems complete. Everyone has these “blind spots”, depends on imprinting. A person with an aboriginal world view will have a blind spot  in conceptualizing my european worldview. My blind spot is in conceptualizing the aboriginal world view. The crucial point is that I know I have this blind spot, he doesn’t.  OrangesVerbese essays with myriad authorative quotes only obfuscate the issue. The issue being that the mind’s logical processes are fundamentally flawed. It is crucial that homo sapiens understand this or we will become homo extinctus. There is, however, one blind spot I do NOT have. One that afflicts 99.953% of the population. (heyleighn estimate) This blindspot is the failure to recognize the slogan on the top of the page. i.e. the overwhelming majority of people think and act as if there were a single cognitive operation going on inside the skull, convoluted, contradictory, complex and twisted. Ain’t so. There are two relative simple processes going on. I have met 3 in my lifetime. I know of a few others. Plato was one. A credible contemporary one is Jill Bolte Taylor. Be sure to watch “stroke of insight” at the bottom ChrysalisThese people must be found, nurtured and protected. Their insight is desperately needed. This is the most important issue facing mankind today. And I don’t know what to do about it. There’s things we know

Things we know we don’t know

Things we don’t know we don’t know

And things we know that ain’t so

That last one will bite you in the ass

Brain Soup

Posted in Circular with tags , , , , , , , , on August 16, 2010 by ellocogringo

Inclusive <===> Collating —> Pathfinder

Amerind Iterative concept processing

Different from the western top down/bottom up processing which correlates non inconsistencies, the amerind concept processing appears to iterate between inclusive and collating modes until consistencies are exclusively resolved when it flips over to the pathfinder mode, presenting in an inclusive serial mode.


Or………………….I could be full of shit, I am crazy, don’t you know


Bifurcated Fart

Posted in The Minds with tags , , , , , , , , , , , on June 17, 2010 by ellocogringo



This is an exchange between Mr Ted and myself  homing in on the nature of the thought process.  I am going to ignore the OPL because MrT’s essays do tend to be verbese.  It’s not glare, it’s just the way he thinks.  We’re herding cats here.

Gang of 3 (Mr Ted 07/17/10)

Found Here>

1. We can imagine dynamics to be one-sided and male (with space as a non-participant) in which case the individual is deemed fully responsible for the results of his actions which ‘play out in time’.  This ‘male’ view of dynamics is impossible in ‘reality’ but it is employed extensively in Western thinking.  We use it to establish ‘credit’ and ‘blame’ for emergent ‘results’.  This is the legacy of Aristotelian notion of ‘purpose’ (‘intrinsic final cause’) as in the ‘acorn-to-oak-tree’ dynamic where we conceive of the encoded knowledge and purpose encapsulated within the acorn, pushing out of itself (self-actualizing) to produce its final form in such a manner that it is deemed fully and solely responsible for this result.  This simplistic (“not that which is most true but that which is most easy”) view of dynamics is used as the foundation for ‘genetics’ and for ‘Darwin’s theory’ and dominates in western architecture/design of organization (government and commercial enterprise)..

2. We can imagine dynamics to be two-sided and androgynous (with space as a non-participant) so that there will always be ambiguity as to the respective ‘male’ and ‘female’ combination; i.e. the dynamic is assumed to be one dynamic of an androgynous character.  This understanding we use when we observe a tree moving in the wind or a flag flapping in the breeze.  There is no ‘time’ separation in this view, between the re-forming of the tree-boughs and the re-forming of the airflow, since the one is simultaneously reciprocal to the other.  This leads us to complexify our understanding of dynamics to the point of seeing dynamics as geometric transformation; e.g. if we start with a simple dynamic view where Lulu is leaving work and heading for the party, we have two entities; ‘Lulu’ and ‘the party’ which are converging.  But the party is not the same party that Lulu was moving towards when Lulu is included in it, and work is not the same ‘work’ when Lulu has been removed from it.  That is, movement of things can also be understood as the transformation of the relational geometry of space where intrusion (male) and accommodation (female) are flip sides of the same coin (the transformation of the geometry of space).  This is still ‘one step short’ of including space as a participant in dynamic phenomena.

3. We can understand dynamics in terms wherein space is a participant is characteristic of ‘flow’ as is the worldview in a Heraclitean philosophy; i.e. the male-assertive fountaining-forth is in conjugate relation with the here-receptive-there-resistive accommodating of the fluid medium.  There are not ‘two dynamics’ going on in this view, but one dynamic which we can interpret as two.  For example, within a community, there is generally a mixture of ‘pushy’ and ‘accommodating people.  The pushy ones tend to have an ‘ego’ that gives full credit to themselves for ‘the results’ that ‘they achieve’ and regards their accommodating brethren as ‘weak’ and ‘inferior performers’ as trees that are whipped about by the wind..  This is the ‘social Darwinist’ view that gives zero credit to the female accommodative aspect and sees all results as if they derived from male competition.  This is at the origin if the feminist complaint; ‘my grandfather was a famous engineer, my grandmother had no name’.  But the big step in ‘complexification’ of our view of dynamics (bringing our understanding closer still to the reality of our experience) is when we ‘let go’ of the notion of the persisting identity of ‘local objects’ and acknowledge that they are transient ‘forms’ that gather in the flow.  As Emerson says, all material objects are essentially like the cataract; i.e. there is a persisting form there even though it derives purely from flow.  Material objects that gather and are re-gathered in the flow are not only ‘inhabited’ by the dynamic of the flow-medium but are created by it.  The flow is a ‘holodynamic’ in which material objects are flow-forms that are continually being gathered and re-gathered.

Hi Mr Ted


Damn you’re getting good at this. I am reduced to contesting only one word in your summary of 3.

where you say

*3. We can understand dynamics in terms wherein space is a participant is characteristic of ‘flow’*

I would substitute imagine for understand.

This is entirely attributable to:

*3. The precedence of nonlocal over local

Caught you. I caged that cat. The aboriginal Brain Fart! (sorry about the graphic in this link, I couldn’t find a animated brain farting with a feather )  This is the “it is obvious that” which has no place (literally, no neurons) in bottom up/top down thinking (Aristotelean/Taoist Brain Fart.) This leads me to speculate on the bifurcated fart, IE sometime in pre-history The basic imprinting pattern changed from the ABF/TBF pattern which are two minds of the same brain to something different. Fascinating!

This is my take on the gang of 3 (occidental)

Consider “A centered’s thoughts are governed by his own truth, an idiot’s thoughts are governed by someone elses truth.” – el Loco Gringo (to Mr Geoff)

1.This is the stupidity you speak of. An idiot has no “me”. No inner voice that whispers “back off” when someone else tries to occupy “rent free space” in their mind. They become zombies, robots, hollow, golems pretending to be wise, clanking around in this meaningless ant warren of a society we inhabit. They are, in fact, without volition.

2. The centered, being pragmatic, understand and accept the ambiguity of the situation, pretending to be idiots, doing what ever it takes to survive but maintaining their individuation, however surreptitiously.

3.Then there are the nexialists, what Maslow called the transcendents. They understand and do not accept the ambiguity of the situation, and they’re going to do something about it. Their minds have not been hijacked.

This “difference” I attribute entirely to my having data you are not privy to IE we have two cognitive minds.

Overall, very, very impressive analysis, a sidereal view of the ABF/TBF brainfart. Far superior to Plato.