It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.


Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.


Mind at Large Theory

page: 1

log in


posted on Jan, 5 2005 @ 01:01 PM
I'm not quite sure where to post this, but I would like everyone's thoughts on the "Mind at Large" theory. Basically it is just saying that human consciousness is capable of letting the person perceive almost anything, and that the brain filters out the incredible amount of information all around us into just what we need to survive.

Most people think of the brain as creating everything that we see, hear, touch, etc. But mind at large means the brain is actually filtering other things out. Here is a better explanation:

Reflecting on my experience, I find myself agreeing with the eminent Cambridge philosopher, Dr. C. D. Broad, "that we should do well to consider much more seriously than we have hitherto been inclined to do the type of theory which Bergson put forward in connection with memory and sense perception. The suggestion is that the function of the brain and nervous system and sense organs is in the main eliminative and not productive. Each person is at each moment capable of remembering all that has ever happened to him and of perceiving everything that is happening everywhere in the universe. The function of the brain and nervous system is to protect us from being overwhelmed and confused by this mass of largely useless and irrelevant knowledge, by shutting out most of what we should otherwise perceive or remember at any moment, and leaving only that very small and special selection which is likely to be practically useful." According to such a theory, each one of us is potentially Mind at Large. But in so far as we are animals, our business is at all costs to survive. To make biological survival possible, Mind at Large has to be funneled through the reducing valve of the brain and nervous system. What comes out at the other end is a measly trickle of the kind of consciousness which will help us to stay alive on the surface of this Particular planet. To formulate and express the contents of this reduced awareness, man has invented and endlessly elaborated those symbol-systems and implicit philosophies which we call languages. Every individual is at once the beneficiary and the victim of the linguistic tradition into which he has been born--the beneficiary inasmuch as language gives access to the accumulated records of other people's experience, the victim in so far as it confirms him in the belief that reduced awareness is the only awareness and as it bedevils his sense of reality, so that he is all too apt to take his concepts for data, his words for actual things. That which, in the language of religion, is called "this world" is the universe of reduced awareness, expressed, and, as it were, petrified by language. The various "other worlds," with which human beings erratically make contact are so many elements in the totality of the awareness belonging to Mind at Large. Most people, most of the time, know only what comes through the reducing valve and is consecrated as genuinely real by the local language. Certain persons, however, seem to be born with a kind of by-pass that circumvents the reducing valve. In others temporary by-passes may be acquired either spontaneously, or as the result of deliberate "spiritual exercises," or through hypnosis, or by means of drugs. Through these permanent or temporary by-passes there flows, not indeed the perception "of everything that is happening everywhere in the universe" (for the by-pass does not abolish the reducing valve, which still excludes the total content of Mind at Large), but something more than, and above ah something different from, the carefully selected utilitarian material which our narrowed, individual minds regard as a complete, or at least sufficient, picture of reality.

Quoted from "The Doors of Perception" by Aldous Huxley

posted on Jan, 5 2005 @ 01:49 PM
Sorry i beat you too it.

EDIT: I would however like to see where this thread goes.

[edit on 5-1-2005 by Linux]

posted on Jan, 5 2005 @ 03:07 PM
Cheers Linux...I'd say you placed your topic well

Shoktek, thanks also for this thread, always good to get some more perspectives/thoughts on the subject.

As it is a duplicate type of thread though *Linuxs include url is still active* I'm locking this down. Thank you for your input though, and please feel free to contribute to the one already 'in action' :

Mescalin and Universal Conformity


new topics

log in