Thoughts

[Physics131]

It feels like I am spamming this section with threads.
Instead I will open a thread and post some of my thoughts.
Feel free to contradict, argument against, critisize, extend, adjust, correct my thoughts.

 

[Physics131]

To be so and/or to know it as well.
It is irrelevant how something or someone is, for how something or someone is defines only itself.
However, this alone says nothing about how that something or someone affects anything.
For everything can have an effect, and it is nothing extraordinary.
But what matters is knowing how something or someone is defined and how this definition comes into being.
Because with the awareness of the definition, one can act consciously.
And even more: one can also consciously refrain from acting.
Thus, even definitions that appear static are closer to dynamism than to staticness itself.
And if conscious action influences the definition, then conscious action can bring about a new definition.

 

[Physics131]

improved with chatgpt:
To Be and to Know
Ultimately, it is irrelevant how something or someone is, for the way something or someone is defines only that thing or person itself.
However, this alone says nothing about how that thing or person affects others.
Everything has an effect, and there is nothing extraordinary about that.
What truly matters is understanding how something is defined and how this definition comes into being.
Because with awareness of the definition, conscious action becomes possible.
Moreover, it also allows for conscious inaction.
In this way, even definitions that appear static prove to be more dynamic than they initially seem.
When conscious action influences a definition, it can give rise to new definitions.

 

[Nydex]

Definition, as a natural byproduct of linguistics, is a vessel of latent, potential energy. It can drastically influence how one experiences everything in life.

I can't find exactly which talk he expressed this in, but Terence McKenna definitely talked about this at least once, by giving an example of a baby lying in its crib in a room with an open window. All of a sudden, through that open window a creature of indescribable beauty flutters in, gliding through the air, its iridescent wings reflecting light in millions of nuanced colours. It's like a piece of magic floating through the air, majestic, an ode to nature's ingenuity and shameless splendour.

Then the mother comes in and says "Oh, this? This is just a butterfly."

And by saying so, the magic of this mystical, unknown, indescribably beautiful being is collapsed under the simple label of "butterfly". From that moment on, a certain portion of the magic inherent to experiencing phenomena that lack a label/description is irrevocably lost, and with it, a portion of the magic in life itself is lost.

With that in mind, I have concluded for myself that the moments in which I experience the largest amount of sheer awe and divine bliss are the moments in which I am interacting with something truly unknown, something to which I can attach no known label or description, something completely...original?

Fortunately, the world of psychedelic experience is chock full of such encounters, so I count my participation in that as one of my biggest blessings.

Thank you for sharing this. I'll keep a close eye on this thread, I like the way you think.

Cheers.

 

[Physics131]

Definition, as a natural byproduct of linguistics, is a vessel of latent, potential energy. It can drastically influence how one experiences everything in life.

I can't find exactly which talk he expressed this in, but Terence McKenna definitely talked about this at least once, by giving an example of a baby lying in its crib in a room with an open window. All of a sudden, through that open window a creature of indescribable beauty flutters in, gliding through the air, its iridescent wings reflecting light in millions of nuanced colours. It's like a piece of magic floating through the air, majestic, an ode to nature's ingenuity and shameless splendour.

Then the mother comes in and says "Oh, this? This is just a butterfly."

And by saying so, the magic of this mystical, unknown, indescribably beautiful being is collapsed under the simple label of "butterfly". From that moment on, a certain portion of the magic inherent to experiencing phenomena that lack a label/description is irrevocably lost, and with it, a portion of the magic in life itself is lost.

With that in mind, I have concluded for myself that the moments in which I experience the largest amount of sheer awe and divine bliss are the moments in which I am interacting with something truly unknown, something to which I can attach no known label or description, something completely...original?

Fortunately, the world of psychedelic experience is chock full of such encounters, so I count my participation in that as one of my biggest blessings.

Thank you for sharing this. I'll keep a close eye on this thread, I like the way you think.

Cheers.

Thank you very much for the reply.
This is very mind expanding.
It shows that this can be viewed from 2 directions.
One is how definitons, its components and compositions assemble.
The other way is how definitions dismantle and affect.

 

[MAGMA17]

Your thoughts are always interesting Physics131. Thank you for sharing. It didn’t feel like spamming to me

I totally agree with what was said by Nydex.
In that example it’s also about how you say certain things…it’s that “just” that is ruining a lot.

I would say that, in my opinion, what really causes the most problems are the definitions of concepts, of emotions, of all those abstract things that we cannot simply point our finger at. In that case the different definitions that everyone has greatly influence communication between human beings (because I am talking about x and you understand x+1), and they highly influence our consciousness and worldview. To define comes from Latin and means "to establish limits": if we place a limit on something, we effectively prevent our consciousness from seeing it in a certain way which could fall within its spectrum.

 

[Physics131]

Your thoughts are always interesting Physics131. Thank you for sharing. It didn’t feel like spamming to me

Thank you very much.
I thought about the combination of the words "my thoughts" a while and I think they are less mine then our or just "thoughts".

It is interesting that single terms have not only a definition but can also provide content.
But not only that because in a certain composition the initial definition of that term could influence the content in a way where it contradicts with the definition of the term itself.
I think "just" in combination with something beautiful is a very good example because it brings one to a different construct.
The construct I am talking about is the combination of "just" with something "not-beautiful".

While "just" itself has some devalueing aspects in terms of "only", I think it can have a grounding aspect as well.
But that does not mean that it can not be destructive on context and subject.
In the example of "just" + "not-beautiful" it would act normalizing same as with the butterfly.
But while it does so, it also destroys firstly negativity and lastly beauty.

But there is one critical aspect with the example of the butterfly.
The child is helplessly exposed to the influence of not only the definition of the term butterfly but also its way it is used.
What is interesting here is that I did exactly the same with the sentence above where I striked the devalueing terms.
While using this mechanics, it makes the content more dramatik, it also causes distortions.
And it is interesting that we are able to provide content but also thoughts by speech.
And I differenciate both because the content provides information while thoughts provide reflective informations.

Thank you for the replies!

 

[jamesisleo]

To be so and/or to know it as well.
It is irrelevant how something or someone is, for how something or someone is defines only itself.
However, this alone says nothing about how that something or someone affects anything.
For everything can have an effect, and it is nothing extraordinary.
But what matters is knowing how something or someone is defined and how this definition comes into being.
Because with the awareness of the definition, one can act consciously.
And even more: one can also consciously refrain from acting.
Thus, even definitions that appear static are closer to dynamism than to staticness itself.
And if conscious action influences the definition, then conscious action can bring about a new definition.

So, are you saying that understanding the nature of something or someone is less important than understanding how we define it and how that definition can change through conscious action?

 

[Physics131]

because I am talking about x and you understand x+1

That equation is interesting.
Because x=x.
But x+1 can never be the same as x that means it must be a different result.
That means Z=x+1.
While x is part of Z it is not the same.
That means that we are creating something new with every added information by +1.

But this implicates that x must have been understood the way it was intended to be understood.
That is maybe not required but at least sufficient.
Because Y= (one form of x)+1.
Because even this can provide a new creation of something.

 

[Nydex]

 

[Physics131]

So, are you saying that understanding the nature of something or someone is less important than understanding how we define it and how that definition can change through conscious action?

What I wrote lets lots of things open because of the way I wrote it.
It probably allows different ways of interpreting things and allows application on different things.

But I think it is not about something being less important.
It is not only about definitions and understanding.
It is about how it is used and how it is formed.
And that nothing is chiseld in stone.

In aristoteles virtue ethics he wrote about people being able to form themselfs by conscious acting.
In order to get "ideal" one must act "ideally".
That means one can programm himself to get how he wants to be.

But before this programming is applied one already existed in some way.
And in that way he/she was affecting in some way.
And not the definitions are defining the definition.
Instead the characteristics, actions and its results define the definition.

 

[Physics131]

I think it’s important to distinguish between cause, causal, essence, and essential.
While the cause is something from which something consists, the cause itself was not the causal.
The causal is what led to the cause.
The essence is the core of something that can bring about something essential.
For the essential is what constitutes the essence.

If something consists of something, it fulfills a purpose.
And the purpose is the essential.
Thus, a product of something is the essence, causally derived from a cause, and fulfills an essential purpose.

 

[MAGMA17]

I thought about the combination of the words "my thoughts" a while and I think they are less mine then our or just "thoughts".

My idea of an artist is for example that of a vector, a medium, which is used by the entity called "novelty" or "unexpressed potential" to actualize ideas. Therefore, despite the apparent active aspect of the artist, in my opinion there is a totally passive nature behind it (obviously I consider it a positive thing). Consequently, even when we express ideas and thoughts, it is as if we are a vector that is used. In fact, the important thing is the care of the vehicle on our part. We must try to become the best possible medium for the transmission, and as a result the idea will naturally be attracted to us and use us.

While "just" itself has some devalueing aspects in terms of "only", I think it can have a grounding aspect as well.
But that does not mean that it can not be destructive on context and subject.
In the example of "just" + "not-beautiful" it would act normalizing same as with the butterfly.
But while it does so, it also destroys firstly negativity and lastly beauty.

Yes, it's very interesting. Delimiting strongly with the word "just" apparently has this quality of flattening the object of reference, and has both its pros and cons. It detaches us from the emotional aspect.

I want to make a little provocation about your signature
I don't believe you when you say you don't want to be liked or loved. I find this completely impossible for a human being.

 

[Physics131]

My idea of an artist is for example that of a vector, a medium, which is used by the entity called "novelty" or "unexpressed potential" to actualize ideas. Therefore, despite the apparent active aspect of the artist, in my opinion there is a totally passive nature behind it (obviously I consider it a positive thing). Consequently, even when we express ideas and thoughts, it is as if we are a vector that is used. In fact, the important thing is the care of the vehicle on our part. We must try to become the best possible medium for the transmission, and as a result the idea will naturally be attracted to us and use us.

Thank you thats thought provoking and I want to think about this before I reply to it.

I want to make a little provocation about your signature
I don't believe you when you say you don't want to be liked or loved. I find this completely impossible for a human being.

I view it as being liked, disliked, hated or loved affects how others communicate with someone.
When any of the above happens it may affect the responses in some way.
What you are mentioning makes sense though because what is the middle between being liked or dislikey? Does that exist?
But depending on how much someone is liked or disliked the responses could depart from objektivity.
But the objective information is the one required in order to enhance.
If a subjektive reply can be considered as objective is a completly different question tho.
What I want to achieve with my signature is that I welcome non-judgemental and honest feedback, even when it is hurting.
If that works out or is possible at all is for itself definetly questionable as well.

 

[MAGMA17]

I view it as being liked, disliked, hated or loved affects how others communicate with someone.
When any of the above happens it may affect the responses in some way.
What you are mentioning makes sense though because what is the middle between being liked or dislikey? Does that exist?
But depending on how much someone is liked or disliked the responses could depart from objektivity.
But the objective information is the one required in order to enhance.
If a subjektive reply can be considered as objective is a completly different question tho.
What I want to achieve with my signature is that I welcome non-judgemental and honest feedback, even when it is hurting.
If that works out or is possible at all is for itself definetly questionable as well.

Ok! I understand better what you mean. Probably I interpreted it too generally. You mean this more in the context of research and growth. In this case, that is certainly true. The truth is the only thing we have to aspire to, even though it is very likely that it does not exist.



I will add one thought (also a bit provocative, as I like ) that I had for a long time: the banal is an absolute truth, or a truth more likely to be true than others. It's an idea that returned to me while reading Schopenhauer's introduction to "The world as will and representation":

"...I offer the book with intimate gravity, with the confidence that sooner or later it will reach those to whom it can only be addressed; and moreover calmly resigned to see its fate befall it in full measure, which has always befallen the truth, in every dominion of knowledge, and even more so in what matters most: for which truth only a brief triumph is destined, between the two long spaces of time in which it is condemned as paradoxical or despised as banal..."

(I translated from Italian so it definitely sucks how it's written)

 

[Physics131]

It is not only important what one says, but also how one says something.
Because the emphasis of something and the use of language mechanisms can highlight certain parts but also direct them in a certain way.
Furthermore, what is said does not necessarily have to align with what is meant, and vice versa.
But it is up to the observer how something is viewed and what is extracted.
In my opinion, it is a matter of focus that affects the interpretation of a subject.
Thus, a perspective changes the interpretation of something and enables multiple interpretations through conscious and selective perception.
However, it is not only the focus that matters in how something is perceived or in how we consciously choose to perceive it, but also who perceives it.
By that, I don’t mean different physical people, but rather it is confined to a single subject itself.
For it is the physical body that perceives information.
But it is the parts of the mind that are the entities actually processing this information.
Thus, perhaps it is a matter of to what extent one might stand in their own way.
And if “feeling attacked” is an emotion that exists in a part of the being, then it is also this that stands in the way of another being wanting and being able to understand something informatively.

 

[Physics131]

I will add one thought (also a bit provocative, as I like ) that I had for a long time: the banal is an absolute truth, or a truth more likely to be true than others. It's an idea that returned to me while reading Schopenhauer's introduction to "The world as will and representation":

"...I offer the book with intimate gravity, with the confidence that sooner or later it will reach those to whom it can only be addressed; and moreover calmly resigned to see its fate befall it in full measure, which has always befallen the truth, in every dominion of knowledge, and even more so in what matters most: for which truth only a brief triumph is destined, between the two long spaces of time in which it is condemned as paradoxical or despised as banal..."

(I translated from Italian so it definitely sucks how it's written)

I haven’t read the book, so I can only refer to your quote.
Perhaps this means that truth is sometimes relative to knowledge, time, and understanding.
Just because something is true at the moment doesn't mean it can’t later be proven false.
Solutions to paradoxes are only true as long as that truth hasn’t been disproven.

To add something:
I wrote that they are sometimes relative.
But if one says that film A was released in year B, then this statement will always remain true.

 

[NormPeterson]

@Physics131 I’ve always appreciated your topics although often cannot keep up mentally with the discussion they generate. Don’t feel that you’ve been spamming us.

I’ve recently become aware of the distinction between conceptual thinking and linguistic thinking. I’ve always struggled to put my thoughts into words. I have this feeling that what I am thinking is somehow in the back of my brain and to get it out, to share with someone else, I’ll need to translate that thought into words. That seems to suggest I’m a conceptual thinker. Only rarely do I use words such as “butterfly” in my thinking. Up until the time I want to share a thought with someone else that butterfly is just swirls of thought that I must reduce to the label “butterfly.” It is a revelation to me that some people are linguistic thinkers and have immediate access to the words for their thoughts. Yet, this explains so much. For me, if I try to think in words, the placeholders for concepts, I build this house of cards that is in danger of collapsing as each new word is added.

The discussions you invoke are intricate houses of cards to me.

I think this may be in line with what is being said here and would be very interested in how the participants feel they fit on this spectrum of conceptual vs linguistic thinking. Also, I think a major factor in my interest in psychedelics is how they strip away the words leaving raw feelings.

 

[Physics131]

@Physics131 I’ve always appreciated your topics although often cannot keep up mentally with the discussion they generate. Don’t feel that you’ve been spamming us.

I’ve recently become aware of the distinction between conceptual thinking and linguistic thinking. I’ve always struggled to put my thoughts into words. I have this feeling that what I am thinking is somehow in the back of my brain and to get it out, to share with someone else, I’ll need to translate that thought into words. That seems to suggest I’m a conceptual thinker. Only rarely do I use words such as “butterfly” in my thinking. Up until the time I want to share a thought with someone else that butterfly is just swirls of thought that I must reduce to the label “butterfly.” It is a revelation to me that some people are linguistic thinkers and have immediate access to the words for their thoughts. Yet, this explains so much. For me, if I try to think in words, the placeholders for concepts, I build this house of cards that is in danger of collapsing as each new word is added.

The discussions you invoke are intricate houses of cards to me.

I think this may be in line with what is being said here and would be very interested in how the participants feel they fit on this spectrum of conceptual vs linguistic thinking. Also, I think a major factor in my interest in psychedelics is how they strip away the words leaving raw feelings.

Thank you for your honest and respectful feedback.
This is something I appreciate and respect a lot.

I would not think of this the way that the discussions invoked seem for you as intricate houses of cards.
Instead it could very likely be the way it seems.
Very often I do not know what I should or want to think of something while I am thinking.
And very often the replies help with getting to new and very different thought routes.
Sometimes responses create a feeling which I review for plausibility with my thoughts and then describe the conclusion of that, instead of directly replying to a response.
That explains the plurality of the card houses you mentioned.
But that does not help the readers in any way.
Thank you, that is something I want to consider and think about how to handle this better in the future.
I welcome hints.

I only knew about visual and linguistic thinking but it is the first time I read about conceptual thinking.
Thinking of myself as being more conceptually thinking then linguistic but not visually thinking at all.
THe reason why I think this is because my mind likes to conceptualize or abstract thoughts away.
But I am using language for conceptualizing my thoughts.
That is also an interesting topic I want to explore more.

Thank you for your reply!

 

[NormPeterson]

...But I am using language for conceptualizing my thoughts.
That is also an interesting topic I want to explore more.

If I understand correctly, that is quite different from me. I have thoughts that I work around in my head independent of words. Words only come into play when I want to articulate what is on my mind. It’s a bit of a painful task, and I often have a running dialog going on in my head hoping to find the right words. Over my lifetime I’ve apologized many times for what I’ve said, yet seldom for what I’ve tried to say.

I too am fascinated with how the mind works and this DMT thing is bring on a whole new perspective. With respect to the visual thinking I’ve got a couple of tidbits that might interest you: I’d always assumed that I dreamt in color, because I am aware of colors in my dreams. But DMT has shown me what it is like to see colors in my mind – blows me away. That has to be what is meant to dream in color. The other thing is I am realizing is that some people can picture peoples faces in their mind. That is not me. My wife has labelled me face-bind and has the internet quizzes to prove it. Unless I put the effort in to remembering select features, I don’t easily recognize people. I cannot image what it is like to be able to visualize someones face.