Mind Map

How well do you know yourself?

If you were asked to build a mind map of your mind, could you even get started?

Where would you start? What is the core idea or core operation of your mind?

Is there a core or is your mind more of a conglomeration of ideas? (An accumulation of miscellaneous ideas.)

Do you think your core is at everyone's core?

Should it be at everyone's core?

Though maybe unrecognized at times, has your core always been the core, or has your core genuinely shifted throughout your life?

Relatively speaking, how far do you think you could actually get if you tried to map out your beliefs?

Is there cohesion in your beliefs? Have you ever thought on this? (How cohesive your own beliefs are?)



I ask just to see where you guys are on the subject of knowing yourselves.

As for myself, I think I could get started with conception itself being my core belief but I don't think that I could very far from there before I had to start writing in ideas that are not very well thought out.


So, what do you guys think?

And as a bonus question: Is it just me or is it really freaky how mind maps, and thinking in general, sort of mirrors neural networks? How the mind became almost a mirror of its physical self? Or maybe that's actually backwards and the physical self became the image of the conceived self? Anyways... really weird.

a reply to: Bleeeeep

I know I am a complex person. I have many internal conflicts when it comes to views and feelings. I value deep, critical thinking and strive to take part in them when I am able to do so. I also understand I am a human, which at times allows my emotions to override my sense of reason and logic.

Still, I would struggle immensely to compile a mind map which accurately mirrors the nature of my mind, how it works and the belief systems I maintain.

I believe self-examination is a significant practice that we should all take part in from time-to-time and thank you for creating a thread which encourages people to do so.

Its a very good question, which for me I can answer easily. You may take it as me just being cheeky or even rude. That is not my intention. All I want to do is share a view and I am sure many others will come after this one.
Firstly we are not our mind, we just think we are. So we can not know ourselves as the mind, The mind is a tool or a kind of organic machine. We can try and map the mind, but the mind is a never ending story. We can observe the mind and watch its general movements and have a general idea of what’s going on, if we give time and awareness to that process. As to knowing oneself, that is a very strange and different process. Normally the best road map so far, has been simply said or pointed to as being described via the negative. In other words one only explains what is not self. Ex. "these words I am not" a reply to: Bleeeeep

a reply to: ancientthunder

So you would go more with the operation of the mind rather than the mental constructs of the mind?

I guess I would partially agree with that. I think awareness is definitely a process of conception, one which creates and accesses beliefs or memories by its operation. I mean, what is a thought without thinking, right?

As far as defining our minds or its construct byway of negative beliefs, I think I would personally just get to the boundary and stop there - no need to venture out into what isn't connected while mapping beliefs.

a reply to: Dark Ghost

The ability to be a thinker, or to be self-conscious, almost definitely seems to be a privilege that all cannot afford; and I do not mean that in any negative way, just that a lot people really can't afford the time - living costs too much.

But if we all could, I think it would seriously make for an exciting existence. The conversations we could have with one another if we could just trade maps and see people at their core would be amazing. Actually, that is kind of scary exciting now that I think about it - could get to know someone really quick, though.

originally posted by: Bleeeeep
a reply to: ancientthunder

So you would go more with the operation of the mind rather than the mental constructs of the mind?

(yes I think I would stick to how it operates, kind of like a skeleton blue print.)

I guess I would partially agree with that. I think awareness is definitely a process of conception, one which creates and accesses beliefs or memories by its operation. I mean, what is a thought without thinking, right?

As far as defining our minds or its construct byway of negative beliefs, I think I would personally just get to the boundary and stop there - no need to venture out into what isn't connected while mapping beliefs.

Yes I Have to agree with you on your last paragraph, that is how it is for me. But some others are on the same track but at a different location. From their standpoint, some obvious marker can be of great benefit. From what I can gather the pencil of your mind is sharpened well!

"...you will be called 'the one who knows himself'. For he who has not known himself has known nothing, but he who has known himself has at the same time already achieved knowledge about the depth of the all."

Similarly, The Hindus believed self-realization would result in atman (self) meeting brahman (all) - the lucidity and control of the waking world merging with the endless possibility of your dreams. Nothing will be impossible for you.

a reply to: Bleeeeep

A body map is a more sufficient concept.

originally posted by: LesMisanthrope
a reply to: Bleeeeep

A body map is a more sufficient concept.

Interesting reply, could you elaborate on why? I could take a guess at where you are coming from, but I am interested in your reason.

a reply to: ancientthunder

For the simple reason that the mind is the body, and an accurate map of the body would be also an accurate map of the mind.

a reply to: LesMisanthrope

Yes, the physical part of the body is the biological component. But what of the psychological/mental aspect? What about thought processes and ideas that cannot be represented by just referring to the biological component?

a reply to: Dark Ghost

They are one and the same. We can explain it abstractly, referring and pointing to words or concepts, or we can explain it biologically by referring and pointing to what is actually there.

a reply to: LesMisanthrope

How do you explain "courage" or "fear" in such a context? That simply certain areas of the brain are triggered, among other physiological responses, when each emotion is experienced? Do you think that description does justice to the actual meaning of the word?

a reply to: Dark Ghost

From a first-person view I think it does.

From the first person view, thought appears one way, while from the second person view, thought appears differently, for instance, as electrical impulses in an fMRI. Either way, the first-person and second-person are viewing the same thing, just in different ways. So "fear" would be a way of conceptualizing the various feelings to the one who has them, but fear viewed from the outside appears very different.

a reply to: LesMisanthrope

Let us explore my examples further.

You are correct that I couldn't directly explain my definition of FEAR to you, because we both have unique perspectives. So everything is relative.

However, which of the following do you think more accurately describes to you what fear represents as a CONCEPT: "shortness of breath, increased heart rate, chills down the spine" compared to "concern about the unknown, a deep sense of worry, filled with dread" ?

originally posted by: LesMisanthrope
a reply to: Bleeeeep

A body map is a more sufficient concept.

Brain-Body Maps:

Dermatomes

Sensory and Motor Maps (Homunculi)

Despite how much we can map the body-brain interface, it tells us nothing of the user. Our brain/body, The organic computer, has its user - consciousness - I Am. Coming to know "I Am" is self-realization. In my humble opinion.

a reply to: Bleeeeep

Your opening salvo (first few points on the 'core') had a sort of neuro-linguistic programming effect when I read it..! Are you trying to control us?

a reply to: Bleeeeep

Further, this is an excellent thread premise, and I'm surprised there haven't been more takers.

I've made a few attempts to map out the processes & components of my own mind in the past - beliefs, expectations, ambition, concerns, and so forth. It's a worthy goal, which can benefit a person psychologically; any reflection on such matters of self is known as 'intraception' - literally 'perception of the internal'.

I have considered that it's possible to generate a complete map, but it needs a fair bit of time devoted to it, and a willingness to be brutally honest with oneself in some areas - although the overall process I feel is empowering & generative of peace. I find that the concept of 'nodes' is important to help navigate the data which arises. The central core node might not be revealed immediately, but if you shuffle a bunch of nodes around, each containing a set of related ideas, ascribe ratings according to the subjective value of each, and if you study the pathways between them, the circumstances of invocation of the nodal content, any tendency towards evolution or devolution, etc, and you have a great opportunity to better order your own mind - to find your core, and the orbital thought-stuff surrounding it.

I suppose it really is like imagining a cosmic system, with the star of True Self at the centre, and radially dispersing orbital bodies of values, beliefs, loves, aspirations, etc. Now that I've come across this thread, I'm re-inspired to have another go! I will post an abbreviated map of myself at some point; I'm interested to see how other members create their maps, to see what kind of values, ideas & abstract thought will be incorporated.. Good thread!

The bonus question got me pondering about certain evolutionary traits, in certain animals.

How some animals have more natural tools then others, while some develop psychological defenses, like patterns in Moth Wings, or how snakes develop the camouflage of particular surroundings, to some animal mimicking other scarier animals, like a primate I saw on documentary, that supposedly has physical feature that have something to do with a snake.

Why didn't a Polar Bear be a Brown bear instead, because it would be to easy to spot if it were brown in the arctic? How come all Sharks have white bellies to blend in with sunlight shining in the water, is it a water burn? Or Zebra Stripes belnding in with each other but not their environment, while Tiger stripes could blend with the tall grass, and are usually lone hunters .

Do animals think or wish they can, and do they become physio?

I think LesMisanthrope was suggesting the Mind Map is actually a habit of thought map.

A real mind map would have hidden treasure at places that are off the beaten paths of habit.

On the other hand, when things become second nature the mind can go places it can't go any other time.