"A thinking mind cannot feel."

[Hammer of Los]

...

So only an unthinking mind can feel?

I think not.

I don't like absolutes.

Feck! I sound like HoL.

Absolutely relative are all conceptions of human thought.

So, yeah man.

...

[vanlose kid]

Via Ran Prieur, who writes:

October 1. A set of ten studies suggests that intuition promotes cooperation, but rational thought turns us selfish. This reminds me of a strange speculative piece from a few years back: In a fast society slow emotions become extinct. A thinking mind cannot feel.

so, a feeling mind cannot think? does that make sense?

and what if one thinks that there is, in these times, to much feel and not very much think?

thinking is slow. feeling is quick. is that not so?

it isn't is it?

rhetoric. does it make you feel or think?

*

why's my avatar over here yo?

[vanlose kid]

a reminder...

Xenophon
From Memorabilia or Recollections of Socrates
Translated by H. G. Dakyns



I see (replied Euthydemus) you are afraid I cannot expound the works of righteousness! Why, bless me! of course I can, and the works of unrighteousness into the bargain, since there are not a few of that sort within reach of eye and ear every day.

Shall we then (proceeded Socrates) write the letter R on this side, and on that side the letter W; and then anything that appears to us to be the product of righteousness we will place to the R account, and anything which appears to be the product of wrong-doing and iniquity to the account of W?

By all means do so (he answered), if you think that it assists matters.

Accordingly Socrates drew the letters, as he had suggested, and continued.

Soc. Lying exists among men, does it not?

Euth. Certainly.

To which side of the account then shall we place it? (he asked).

Euth. Clearly on the side of wrong and injustice.

Soc. Deceit too is not uncommon?

Euth. By no means.

Soc. To which side shall we place deceit?

Euth. Deceit clearly on the side of wrong.

Soc. Well, and chicanery or mischief of any sort?

Euth. That too.

Soc. And the enslavement of free-born men?

Euth. That too.

Soc. And we cannot allow any of these to lie on the R side of the account, to the side of right and justice, can we, Euthydemus?

It would be monstrous (he replied).

Soc. Very good. But supposing a man to be elected general, and he succeeds in enslaving an unjust, wicked, and hostile state, are we to say that he is doing wrong?

Euth. By no means.

Soc. Shall we not admit that he is doing what is right?

Euth. Certainly.

Soc. Again, suppose he deceives the foe while at war with them?

Euth. That would be all fair and right also.

Soc. Or steals and pillages their property? would he not be doing what is right?

Euth. Certainly; when you began I thought you were limiting the question to the case of friends.

Soc. So then everything which we set down on the side of Wrong will now have to be placed to the credit of Right?

Euth. Apparently.

[MacCruiskeen]

Maybe substitute "cogitating" for "thinking".

I was thinking (ha!) about why I always feel (ha!!) better after meditating for at least half an hour. Indeed, nearly everyone does feel better, at least once they get over the initial agony, which can be both physical and mental.

The very idea of meditation sounds like an insult to most of the clever and capable people I know, not least my closest brother (Fairly frostily: "I'm not the meditating type."). It can only be a waste of time, can't it? Because the time is not used, neither for pleasure nor for profit nor for learning (in any conventional sense). Nor does it affect the world in any obvious way.

- I've just reminded myself to order a non-fiction book by a ferociously clever* English novelist called Tim Parks, about his unexpected experience with Vipassana meditation and the effect it had on both his hyperproductive mind and his sick body.

*Yup, that's the adverb and that's the adjective.

[Hammer of Los]

...

Meditating does actually effect change in the world.

Astrology was a bridge too far for me.
I was eager for new stories, but they had to be stories I could
believe in, or at least such that I could suspend disbelief.
‘Let’s go back to the physical side.’ But I stopped myself:
‘Or are you telling me it’s entirely psychosomatic?’
A slow smile spread across the doctor’s face. ‘That’s not a
word we have much use for, Mr Parks.’
I looked at him.
‘You only say psychosomatic,’ his wife explained, ‘if you
think that body and mind are ever separate.’

The psychosomatic origin of illness is proven.

...

[compared2what?]

Reminds me of something I read this morning:

http://pastehtml.com/view/cdoca09bx.html

"The Urge to Self Destruction" by Arthur Koestler ... definitely a bit dated, which kind of enhances the brainfood value....for instance:

This leads to the third symptom: intraspecific warfare in permanence, with its sub-varieties of mass persecution and genocide. The popular confusion between predatory and bellicose behaviour tends to obscure the fact that the law of the jungle permits predation on other species, but forbids war within one's own; and that homo sapiens is the unique offender against this law (apart from some controversial warlike phenomena among rats and ants).

Well, these days the data is telling us something pretty different -- we are far from unique in that respect. Lots more paradigm shift gems in the mix, but you can connect your own dots, after all.

It was a pretty productive paradigm while it lasted, though. My apologies in advance to those at RI with whose interpretation of the movie this doesn't align, as well as my respects, since I'm really only speaking for myself. But it's pretty much what I'd say this was about, too:



For some reason, I couldn't find a clip that included the stupendous match cut, sorry. But since whoever posted the above chose to describe it as "Just the part where the monkey figures out how to smash things," it's not without its own little touch of genius. Happily.

[jcivil]

So only an unthinking mind can feel?

I think not.

I don't like absolutes.

Feck! I sound like HoL.

the basis is flawed. people feel all the time, in all circumstance, except "psychopaths" apparently.

[Ben D]

Fwiw,...If you use thought to study reality, you won't understand your thoughts or reality, if otoh you study reality without using thought (meditation), you will understand both. - Bodhidharma

[MacCruiskeen]

thought (meditation)

I think those are two radically different things worth distinguishing between. I know people say "I meditated on my divorce/near-death-experience/business failure/artistic success", meaning: they thought about those things. But that's not meditation as I understand it. Meditation as I understand it is just breathing and being, and allowing thoughts to arise and pass, and noticing them as they arise and pass. And then carrying on breathing, without making a meal of it, for ever and ever, so to speak.

[Allegro]

...Meditation as I understand it is just breathing and being, and allowing thoughts to arise and pass, and noticing them as they arise and pass. And then carrying on breathing, without making a meal of it, for ever and ever, so to speak.

BINGO.

I might be wrong, but I don’t recall someone saying it quite like that at RI. That’s almost my personal definition of meditation, too.

Thanks, Mac.

[Ben D]

thought (meditation)

I think those are two radically different things worth distinguishing between. I know people say "I meditated on my divorce/near-death-experience/business failure/artistic success", meaning: they thought about those things. But that's not meditation as I understand it. Meditation as I understand it is just breathing and being, and allowing thoughts to arise and pass, and noticing them as they arise and pass. And then carrying on breathing, without making a meal of it, for ever and ever, so to speak.

Sorry for the misunderstanding, but it was the phrase 'study reality without using thought' for which I intended (meditation) to apply.

Meditation is the general meaning given to the sanskrit term 'Dhyan' which actually means 'still mind', i.e. a mind that has ceased all thought. So in fact, when a person says they are meditating, what they should be saying is that they are practicing meditation as it is generally only after many many years of practice that the mind can be free of thought.

Btw, the Chinese word Chan is derived from the Sanskrit Dhyan, and from that come the Japanese Zen, and the goal is to bring conceptual thinking to an end, so the mind deals non-dualistically with reality directly in the eternal now, not through dualistic conceptual representations that involves neuron firing time space patterns.

[Hammer of Los]

...

...Meditation as I understand it is just breathing and being, and allowing thoughts to arise and pass, and noticing them as they arise and pass. And then carrying on breathing, without making a meal of it, for ever and ever, so to speak.

BINGO.

I might be wrong, but I don’t recall someone saying it quite like that at RI. That’s almost my personal definition of meditation, too.

Thanks, Mac.

Grrr.

You wouldn't like me when I'm angry.

I'm certain I said it just as well years and years ago.

But I was cribbing from Jiddu, god bless 'im.

It all flows from the heart of the many worlds.

Or is it the average Joe?

Names say a lot.

Hmm.

It all comes flooding back.

You have no idea.

I have no idea.

That's the idea.

Er, what was I saying?

Ha ha ha ha.

Meditating is all I do.

If you do it properly, oh my goodness me.

It's properly understood as being that state which arises after you've had the thoughts blasted out of your head. Because then the empty vessel is filled. It involves direct knowledge of reality of unity through and beyond time. Some call it knowledge of the truth of reincarnation. I wouldn't dispute that.

They call it nirvana I think.

I dunno 'bout that.

I don't think maya has quite calmed down just yet.

I dunno.

S**t is wyrd man.

But i'm doin' super fine.

Thanx for askin'.

Homo superior over an' out.

...

[Hammer of Los]

...

Er, what Mac said?

Very nicely put.

I bow to Mac.

...

[compared2what?]

...

Meditating does actually effect change in the world.

Astrology was a bridge too far for me.
I was eager for new stories, but they had to be stories I could
believe in, or at least such that I could suspend disbelief.
‘Let’s go back to the physical side.’ But I stopped myself:
‘Or are you telling me it’s entirely psychosomatic?’
A slow smile spread across the doctor’s face. ‘That’s not a
word we have much use for, Mr Parks.’
I looked at him.
‘You only say psychosomatic,’ his wife explained, ‘if you
think that body and mind are ever separate.’

The psychosomatic origin of illness is proven.

...

I think I might have passed on that one a couple of times while dreaming of other threads or something. Because it looks kind of familiar. And also because I'm sure this isn't the first time I've asked myself: "Really? Its origin has? How?"

But IIRC, then echo answers "Ow," and that's about it. Because I don't actually even know enough about it to know what to ask. Elucidation would be welcome, however.

[brainpanhandler]

Empathy = Sadness + Worry ( for the suffering of others )
It will be found that empathy activates the same parts of the brain (neural circuits ) which are activated by sadness and worry. The chemical changes in the brain and the rest of the body are also the same.

Sadness and worry ( for the suffering of others ) are emotions of the highest level.

No room for joy in that equation then?

I think it's safe to say most if not all of us here take great joy in thinking, however one wants to define thinking, which for me should be pretty wide open and inclusive of many different cognitive abilities/pursuits. Really the op is as mac says "strange and thought provoking". But the ideas rpesented are so broad and poorly defined as to be not much more than that.