Is this Sanity

What does it mean that thought is fragmented?

Good question.

My guess is that thought is fragmented in the sense that it serves some personal interest rather than universal interest. It divides people instead of uniting them. It is based on fear rather than love.

Your turn.

WendyDarling

Actually, that is not a bad analogy. A thought is like a pattern quantification involving analogy and vicinity(time) - the memory is a hierarchical component, temporal in its nature. Each ‘quantified thought’ is generated by the ‘continuous loop’ which is in search for analogies from the past that closely fit the present circumstances involved in the thought.

What we refer to as present is close enough to be practical - all thinking is based on the past - we live up to 300 milliseconds in the past - transmission speeds among the neurons vary - synaptic speed in some cases is 1 - 5 milliseconds. When the thought is quantified it has generally taken somewhere between 10 - 300 milliseconds to reach that point.

Memory is accessed as close to now as possible - as long as the analogy found is a really close match it is used - otherwise you would ask a question - or possibly tell a lie. The further up the hierarchy of time the ‘loop’ has to search the slower the recall. When we are rushed or feel rushed to respond to our circumstance the accuracy of our response is affected.

Now as for the source of being, I believe this would be a separate conversation . . . I could possibly take a guess at it. I know the source of being is related to socializing. The seed of the source however would be what would constitutes a conversation by itself.

Just saying.

:-k

Aaron,

I like this phrase “the seed of the source,” where can we go with it? :mrgreen: If you can come up with any alternative angles in which to corral this concept, I’m all eyes. :open_mouth:

WendyDarling

Keep in mind this is but one persons thoughts on the matter(namely mine).

:laughing:

The story does not end here . . .

Where can we go with it indeed? My guess would be just as confined as every other theory I am afraid. I guess we would have to start with the idea of “get real”.

So how do we get real? That in itself is a big question with a simple answer. People have a tendency to confound themselves with many different notions leading to over complicating the matter of what is real and what is not real.

So the following is an example of how I choose to get real:

I do not know “nothing” and I do not know “everything”. All I understand is somewhere in between.

All I understand would constitute my version of reality - so do I believe in the concept of an atom? Kind of. I understand that atomic physics gets results so the physicist is obviously on to something. But you do not need to understand electricity to use it. I do not believe you need to get physics and chemistry one hundred percent right to exploit these disciplines either. So how do we understand things that are too small for the human eye to see? We don’t really. We have a level of precision that works - enough to be practical - in the early days we did not even understand the consequences of playing in these disciplines and still today we are paying for our misunderstanding.

So now we can say:

We do not know “nothing” and we do not know “everything”. All we understand is somewhere in between.

I am certain this is something that is permanent.

The seed of the source - gets viewed in many ways as is evident in historical contexts.

If we take two definitions from google for the word source:

General definition

  1. a place, person, or thing from which something originates or can be obtained.

Technical definition
2. a body or process by which energy or a particular component enters a system.

And use the following definition for the word seed:

cause (something) to begin to develop or grow

You could surmise that my definition for seed of the source is as follows:

cause a place, process, body, person or thing to originate, enter, develop or grow

We are fundamentally talking about causation - cause and effect. To some it would be GOD, to others the Big Bang. To me all theories are illusions of some kind because of what each person should probably admit to themselves:

We do not know “nothing” and we do not know “everything”. All we understand is somewhere in between.

And it is still only probability because of something similar to what I said earlier:

A subjective degree of belief should rationally change to account for availability of related evidence.

:-k

But what would I know? I am just as lost as everyone else . . . People claim they have proofs for this, that and the other but as I said in another thread:

How do we know when to accept objective reality established and accepted through science and philosophy?

None of this is to say that we can not keep increasing our understanding of reality - just that life itself and its raison d’être might remain a mystery to us.

#-o

So the seed of the source could also be - the seed(author) of the source(theory)

. . . or as today shows us . . . the seeds(authors) of the sources(theories)

I could of course explain the seed of the source in a much “prettier” way - a way that is more comfortable for a person to read and maybe accept.
To me reading what other people write is another form of socializing - we read many things that point at the truth even though they may differ.

[-o<

In the end - acceptance is belief.

Belief in oneself requires that acceptance without which does any other acceptance stand unwavering? Is acceptance an absolute or a contingent? Does truth exist?

MA … hope you don’t mind me jumping in … your post feels unusually positive … and truthful/accurate. Let me propose a frame for the picture you painted.

  1. Consciousness … big “C” … -----> pure intelligence … pure energy … infinite … eternal … and so on and so on. In a word … “ineffable”.

  2. Big “C” Consciousness wants to See Itself … Know Itself … Understand Itself … as in a mirror image of Itself. How?

  3. Create an illusion … put a ‘veil’ between ‘I’-tself’ and ‘i’-tself’ … an illusion of separation.

  4. Premature breaching of the veil terminates the experiment … renders the experiment unsuccessful.

  5. Big “C” Consciousness creates a communication grid to connect Itself with itself. Humans are part of this communication grid … perhaps near the top of the hierarchy … perhaps not. St Augustine claims … nature speaks to us through it’s beauty. Animals speak to us through their actions. Humans and other life forms have developed language to articulate and communicate thought.

  6. Conclusion … humans are a ‘fragment’ of big “C” Consciousness … within the illusion of separation … as well as “thought”. At the appointed time, the veil … the illusion of separation … will disappear and all will be ONE again.

Nicely put tom.

tom wrote

Yes, unusually positive and MA doesn’t deal in feelings so consider such positivism a set-up, for who, well that’s up to you to decide tom, now isn’t it? You bit his hook though…careful. :laughing:

an eternal mass consciousness of group consciousnesses and individual consciousnesses that become group consciousnesses in the throes of an eternal compression and decompression balance/imbalance of time and alternate realities.

“didn’t mean to give you mushrooms, girl; didn’t mean to bring you to my world; now you’re sitting in the corner, crying, and it’s my fault, my fault.”

Welcome to life: the greatest acid fry you will ever know.

If this is sanity then sanity is insane. If it is insanity, then it’s remarkably sane.

It is still very much depraved. I have fought to prevent it from dipping, dropping back down, fought to keep myself and I find myself to be the most insane and depraved of the bunch. Ironic. Irony. Delicious satire. Welcome to my eternal tragedy. As promised, it will haunt you forever. It already has.

WendyDarling

I apologize for the length of my previous answer.

For me: nothing is as it seems.

8-[

I love people therefore I must keep some things to myself.

Why is everyone saying, “mum’s the word?”

WendyDarling

I know what you mean.

My reality is changing at the moment so it is difficult for me to pinpoint an exact definition of what my reality constitutes - and what will constitute my reality.

Still I have no problem answering any questions that anyone throws at me - just that my belief might change from my answer sometime in the future. I think that might answer a small part of our correspondence relating to contingency.

#-o

I feel like an anxious little puppy.

PM me Aaron if you ever figure out which beans of yours are worth spilling. A mysterious puppy. :evilfun:

WendyDarling

I can do that. It is very likely they will be fresh beans - my current beans are nearly totally baked.

:laughing:

Begin with a tabula rasa and then sketch, sketch, sketch. :blush:

encode_decode

Feel better now?
C’mon. Let’s go chase some squirrels.

The happy sound of barking echoes through time and space…

encode_decode

Some truer words were never spoken, especially in this day and age. Multitudinous lol things are not what they seem.

But what is your motivation here?
Is it in order not to reveal something that you feel ought not to be revealed? You don’t want to break a confidence? That, to me, is a sign of maturity and heart.

Is the keeping of things to yourself simply based on not wanting to speak, to say things, in such a way, that feelings would be hurt and that some would lose face? That would certainly be a breath of fresh air in ILP. :evilfun:
(Well, you certainly know that this is true, guys).
That is also to me a sign of maturity and heart.

Well, we all know what you’re doing with your free time.

Yeah. That could be misconstrued, but it is true that you all do know what I’m doing.