you think you think.

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.

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.

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?

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]

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.

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”?

It is hard to let go of the thinking grasping mind and experience the truth as it is.

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]

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.

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.

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.