It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

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

Thank you.

 

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

 

you think you think.

page: 1
1

log in

join
share:

posted on Aug, 10 2009 @ 08:24 PM
link   

It is because the thoughts you think you think appear as images that you do not recognize them as nothing. You think you think them, and so you think you see them.

- Lesson 15, A Course In Miracles, Workbook for Students




posted on Aug, 10 2009 @ 08:29 PM
link   
...it is difficult to add anything to this statement that will not detract from it. it is difficult for mere words to capture the ineffable....this is the closest i have found. if you allow it to take on its own life inside of your mind, it will change the way you see.

_____


after you have taken a moment to roll it around for a while, your comments are welcome.




posted on Aug, 10 2009 @ 08:42 PM
link   
reply to post by tgidkp
 


Nice one!! S+F

my version...

Because I am aware of the thoughts I know I think they appear as images that I do not recognize as nothing. I know I think them, I am aware of that - self awareness - and I know I am an individual.

Your statement gives one the idea of there maybe being no self center of self? Al is the process of some chemical reaction? The things that pop up in my head are nothing but random processes of the brain? That processes certain events and experiences, may it be visual, mental or physical...that tickles my critical sense...

Only we humans have the knowing of a self, and a knowing we know we know.
And thus the ability to self reflect.

But, then again, I think I know what I am thinking...making this just my opinion


[edit on 10-8-2009 by Solidus Green eye]



posted on Aug, 10 2009 @ 08:50 PM
link   
reply to post by tgidkp
 


My roommate once said, "When humanity started talking, humanity stopped thinking." While maybe not literally true, this statement holds much meaning. And you are right. Our heads are so embedded with images based on structures that we did not originate. The concept of image is used to deceive, to obfuscate what is bigger and more meaningful. The deceptive logo mindlessly and foolishly and selfishly seeks to block Logos. The steady stream of deceptive images creates fear and anxiety in people, as they feel they must promote these images, for they are what is, when they are what is not. The image and the fear lead to myopic programs, spiritualities, thought constructs, whatever you might call them, it leads to these things taking a life of their own. The roots of deception and fear lead to a self without regard for the other sort of perspective. We become the ourobouros (SP), a seemingly endless cycle that devours itself. If only we could wake up, and many in fact are. We can transcend these cycles, these infinite loops that reduce us to mere beasts, or worse, robots containing infinite loops in our "minds." The second we realize the mindless state to which we have been reduced, is the second we begin to develop a mind. Not judging others, as we are merely judging a projected aspect of ourselves, forgiving others as we forgive ourselves, these are exercises that step-by-step unravel the false images. We need to use our WILL, however. We then see the interconnection of all, and we know that love transcends the cycles.

[edit on 10-8-2009 by orwellianunenlightenment]



posted on Aug, 10 2009 @ 08:58 PM
link   
reply to post by tgidkp
 

Your quote reminds me of something J. Krishnamurti once wrote -


THE FIRST AND LAST FREEDOM CHAPTER 15 'THE THINKER AND THE THOUGHT'

IN ALL OUR experiences, there is always the experiencer, the observer, who is gathering to himself more and more or denying himself. Is that not a wrong process and is that not a pursuit which does not bring about the creative state? If it is a wrong process, can we wipe it out completely and put it aside? That can come about only when I experience, not as a thinker experiences, but when I am aware of the false process and see that there is only a state in which the thinker is the thought.

So long as I am experiencing, so long as I am becoming, there must be this dualistic action; there must be the thinker and the thought, two separate processes at work; there is no integration, there is always a centre which is operating through the will of action to be or not to be - collectively, individually, nationally and so on. Universally, this is the process. So long as effort is divided into the experiencer and the experience, there must be [conflict]. Integration is only possible when the thinker is no longer the observer. That is, we know at present there are the thinker and the thought, the observer and the observed, the experiencer and the experienced; there are two different states. Our effort is to [unify] the two.

Source : Freeweb.hu



[edit on 10-8-2009 by visible_villain]



posted on Aug, 10 2009 @ 09:28 PM
link   

Solidus Green eye:
Your statement gives one the idea of there maybe being no self center of self?


the statement is intended to paralyze the mind and the ego. the only thing that is left beyond that is the center of self.


orwellianunenlightenme:
We become the ourobouros (SP), a seemingly endless cycle that devours itself.


reality is a nested hierarchy of self-reference....also known as ourobouros...the root of abracadabra(cadabracadabracad....). the OP statement begs the question: "exactly WHOM is doing the thinking and the seeing?"


visible_villain:
"dualistic action"


we shouldnt demonize the dualistic nature of our reality. it is necessary.

_____

thanks for your responses! very thought provoking.



posted on Aug, 10 2009 @ 09:58 PM
link   
reply to post by tgidkp
 


You said :
we shouldnt demonize the dualistic nature of our reality. it is necessary.

Sure - it's necessary if you wanna have conflict ...

Suit yourself, but I for one know there's a better way.



posted on Aug, 10 2009 @ 10:12 PM
link   
Maybe it’s the lack of context but I just see a random string of mumbo jumbo masquerading as the profound. It read’s like the writer thought “let’s make it as convoluted and opaque as possible, people will read what they like in it and no one will dare question it for fear of looking stupid!”

I’ve had a look around for this quote and it seems no one else can agree one what the hell it’s about either. I mean is it to do with perception, the nature of reality, imagination, what?



posted on Aug, 10 2009 @ 11:39 PM
link   
reply to post by Mike_A
 


...an interesting perspective. i admit, i didnt see that coming. the only reason i posted the quote is because i assumed that its inherent value would be obvious. do i look like the sorta guy that would sell snake oil?

the first time i read it was around 15 years ago, and it still has the same effect on me as it did then. a nearly physical sensation as it flips the mind in on itself. sorta like when you say your own name over and over and it begins to sound like an unfamiliar string of alien vocalizations.

*boink*

maybe just to stick it in your back pocket for now.

[edit on 10-8-2009 by tgidkp]



posted on Aug, 10 2009 @ 11:59 PM
link   
reply to post by visible_villain
 


whether or not i *want* conflict is irrelevant. on this planet, at this time, no matter how advanced or enlightened we fancy ourselfs: our single solitary task is that of survival. survival implies conflict.

in order for us to evolve beyond conflict, we must traverse through conflict....not attempt to avoid it. it is a necessary stage of development.



posted on Aug, 11 2009 @ 12:05 AM
link   
reply to post by tgidkp
 



do i look like the sorta guy that would sell snake oil?


No but you may have formed an opinion which, though perfectly valid in itself, is actually completely detached from any inherent meaning in that passage.

It just doesn’t say anything coherent.

For example;

the thoughts you think you think

I may be wrong but that strongly suggests that I have a thoughts that I’m not actually having; which is impossible. If I have a thought, I’m thinking, if I’m thinking I have a thought.

Can you break this down and describe what it means, what it’s actually referring to, how you can “think you think”?



posted on Aug, 11 2009 @ 12:13 AM
link   
It is hard to let go of the thinking grasping mind and experience the truth as it is.



posted on Aug, 11 2009 @ 12:51 AM
link   
reply to post by Mike_A
 


i will give it a go....but i do not pretend to give an exhaustive explanation.

________

thoughts cling to each other. each thought built one upon the other. stacking backward in an upside-down pyramid shape back to what can be called the first thought.

in this way, the whole act of perception is highly programmatic, based on events from our infancy and childhood, long long before self-awareness is even possible. for the vast majority of people, thought and perception does not spring forth spontaneously, but rather through this false-self. the false-self is an intermediary layer which exists between the actual self and the outside world. thus: "you think you think".

compounding that problem is the fact that the "reality" of these programmatic thought patterns (richard dawkins has referred to them as "meme") manifests itself in the world outside of us, further reinforcing itself. thus: "appear as images".

meaning is a totally subjective attribute. thus: "do not recognize them as nothing".

you can if you like (and i do), take it one step further and infer that the statement is speaking of a direct link between our ability to percieve and our physical sense of sight. because all sensory data is filtered through the false-self, your physical senses are incapacitated.

(if you would like, i could drudge up some research to show that the occipital lobe of the brain has been shown to respond to subjective thought patterns. literally: the person only sees what they expect to see.)

further (although i dont want to get into a pissing contest about quantum mechanics), it can be shown that physical reality, itself, is at the mercy of the observer. the Course in Miracles teaches that it is the recursion between the layers of the self false self and reality, which generates our 3-dimensional physical experience.

________

all of it boils down to this: you know nothing. even the things you think you know: you dont. you must start ALL OVER AGAIN if you want to make any real progress in this life. how this came to be and how to change it are different topics altogether.

consider even, perhaps, that there is an entire perceptible world of sensory data from which you are shut off.

________

i hope that was satisfactory.



edited twice for content

[edit on 11-8-2009 by tgidkp]

[edit on 11-8-2009 by tgidkp]



posted on Aug, 11 2009 @ 10:56 AM
link   
There’s a good deal of truth in what you say but I just can’t see how you get it from that passage.

It is somewhat true that thought processes and perception is influenced by pre-existing schema and you can say that your thoughts are not necessarily representative of what is actually outside the self. However this isn’t articulated by saying “you think you think”.

It is fair to say that personality influences the environment (which is what I think you’re saying in the third paragraph) but this doesn’t translate into “appear as images”.


all of it boils down to this: you know nothing. even the things you think you know: you dont.


This is the main point of divergence for me. As I said I agree that thought and perception are tainted but not to that degree. The various cognitive biases, heuristics, etc we all have and use have an effect but they don’t blind most people, they come into play in limit areas. Overall our minds work pretty well to filter out the falsehoods.



posted on Aug, 11 2009 @ 10:26 PM
link   

Overall our minds work pretty well to filter out the falsehoods.


...then i guess we are diverged.

what you have proposed here will lead us only to what we have already experienced. the new discoveries, of the underpinnings of our reality, will require new eyes and new minds.



posted on Aug, 11 2009 @ 10:42 PM
link   
Philosophy is word play, the OP is a prime example.

It is trying to separate the process of thought from the creation of though which is the thought coming to tuition within our own minds. If you can prove there is a difference then by all means im willing to listen, the OP doesn't do this, if anything its just material for mental masturbation.





top topics



 
1

log in

join