What causes one memory to respond to (or follow on from, or be associated with) another memory in a causal chain?
One approach might begin by considering that memory works by association - right?
This associative process either begins with a response to a particular, concrete sense-experience (e.g., seeing the face of a person I know); or it can follow from an image or idea in my own mind (e.g., remembering the face of a person I know).
An individual memory must have begun with a concrete experience of some kind: seeing a face for the first time, drinking water, eating a particular fruit, getting hurt, etc. This memory - which is an abstract or simplified image of the concrete event - is then stored up for later use, and is triggered by association: either by an external event (seeing the fruit I ate before, or one that is similar), or by a psychological event (getting hurt again, or thinking about my hurt).
This association, however, is so complex which I find myself more often than unperceptive of the reason behind what is happening right now (inside of me).
Are we asking here: Is response, in fact, the association in action?
Yes, I think so. The response from memory is association.
It is relatively mechanical. I donât know if youâve heard about or read about some experiments they did with people who were placed in an fMRI scanner (a machine that maps the neurological activity of the brain) and shown a series of images (of faces)? They were shown, for instance, the images of George Clooney and Jennifer Aniston, and the scientists found out that specific neurones lit up whenever those specific images were shown - which seems to imply that these images (or faces) are recorded locally in specific regions (neurones) of the brain . So they can be triggered relatively mechanically through association.
Once a chain of association has been established, it can be kept going indefinitely, until a particular chain of associations has lost energy, and then a new chain is begun.
Okay then,
It does seem mechanical, however I wonder if it is so in its entirety and there is no creative element to it.
I have experienced some memory responses (Associations) which sounded creative, as if its a new connection being made. If it is just memory showing itself, then the happening of something new (or at least seem as new) would not take place, no?
Is this an assumption? Why and how would a circuit lose energy? ⌠It sounds logical but still we need to make sure.
A belief in something - like a religion or a nation - might sustain a chain of associations for an indefinite period of time, until it eventually loses its vitality. Indeed, culture enables these associations to be constantly re-triggered in thousands of people, through religious rituals, commemorative events, flags and patriotic songs.
For instance, in Britain this has been very obvious during the recent few years of political upheaval over âBrexitâ, including its attitude to the Royal Family, etc. Eventually this chain of associations will be superseded by something new, but that might be years, decades away.
The brain is creative in making associations - and new associations and memories can be made. But association can only be creative within the limits of what has been stored-up in memory. In that sense, there is no truly new association - it is always a rehashing of the past.
This doesnât mean that the brain cannot have a new perception; or even - as K talks about - the capacity for insight. But perception is hindered by excessive occupation with memory and thought. Therefore, because most of us have been deeply habituated to living in memory and thought, it doesnât take long before a fresh perception - such as seeing someone or something for the very first time - becomes absorbed into the chain of associative memory, and gets imprisoned there.
If the acquisition of more K-quotes and words brings the mind to the realization that the word is not the thing, it may at last be a light to itself, free of dependency on K.
I wonder, words might hint at something. But once those words are believed then the room for perception is limited if not eliminated. It happened with all religious texts.
This forum could be not so different from a Holy book group discussion to the outside eye.
I still wonder. This cannot be the bottom of it, if it was then we would be out of belief and would not have so much charged conflict in our group dialogue for example, but we still do.
I also see belief to be quite a different than simple memory. Some memories are stronger than others and affect one on many different layers.
Sure, we are calling it association. But the name itself does not incapsulate the true magnitude and capacity of such a process.
I am that process of association, and I also add to it by creating new thoughts, hence new associations which sustain the chain and make it even more complex and stretch in a particular direction or another. And it seems also that those chains keep on changing, they are not fixed. Sometimes within a theme and others times switching to different themes.
So this movement of association and response is out of place. What would then make this process orderly?
Ayham - are you saying that we cannot discuss anything until we are completely free from memory and belief? If you are, is that a pre-condition that seems reasonable to you?
You had asked a question:
This question was posed in response to my saying that some associations can be kept going for an indefinite period of time - but which you called
So I was merely responding to your question. It wasnât a question I posed. So I merely pointed out - as an example of how chains of associative memory can be kept going-on indefinitely in our minds - the outwardly obvious fact of religious or cultural belief-systems that operate all over the world (including in the part of the world where I live). It was not meant to be exhaustive - it was just an obvious example that anyone can see.
I didnât make any claim to have gotten to
As I said, all I was doing was responding to your question. And the example I pointed to shows how chains of memory and thought really can be kept going for generations. We can see this all over the world (not just in Britain).
But it is obviously not enough just to talk about this. Memory has to be seen in action - outwardly in society and inwardly in ourselves. This is what we are attempting to point out to each other in all our dialogues, both on and off line. But because we seem to be incapable of communicating clearly, or of observing anything clearly in common, misunderstandings inevitably ensue. - And this is everyoneâs responsibility, correct?
So, we are trying to be clear and accurate in our communication. Thatâs all. We are not claiming to have solved anything.
So, then you say
But is it really? Remember we are talking psychologically, not just physically. Physical memories are relatively neutral. They are images of events and people that are neutral and functional - without much emotional investment.
Psychological memories - on the other hand - are far more charged with feeling and emotion. They are associated with likes and dislikes. And a belief is simply an association (or idea or thought - letâs not get hung-up over the language we use) which is invested with a sense of emotional security or need. It is memory tinged with fear and desire. And it is fear and desire (fear of insecurity, and desire for security) that keeps belief on the road - sustaining the chain of thoughts that nourish it.
Well, clearly we need thought and memory for ordinary, physical functioning. Memory and thought havenât appeared in the animal kingdom for no reason - they are a super-power that humans have used to dominate the planet and create civilisation, science, technology, etc.
But we need to become aware of the problems thought and memory create in the psychological world: outwardly it creates national divisions, religious divisions, racial divisions, class divisions, etc. And inwardly it creates âyouâ separate from âmeâ, and âmyselfâ separate from my âfeelingsâ, etc.
I am saying that for it to be described with complete confidence that it is how it is, then one would be out of it. And in that sense there is no give and take (regarding this particular part of the thread). This is how it seemed to me *
Are not fear and desire also rooted in memory, as they are thought and memory operating in time themselves?
Are you separating fear from thought here?
I am here just trying to point out the complexity of it as it is, nothing more. Which is the human self, the observer, the me. Extremely complex and deeply rooted.
Whatâs quoted here is repeating what was said in Kâs lectures and talks. He said what he said and he must have had his reasons. So Moving forward from that Iâll say what I think:
This perspective puts association and thought in a destructive light, while I am the association condemning itself.
I am, as a conditioned individual, have benefited from these divisions. I am living my life style as we speak due to thought in a big way. Judging oneself to be destructive in theory is so far away from seeing it destructive in action, in oneself.
This thinking, memory and the process of association hold all the content and roots of the me in it. Judging it in a way or another limits it from revealing itself in full without adding to it.
For the conditioned, for my current self: It is a sense of existing, same as the other senses.
I have understood the danger of conclusion, judgement, accumulation, etc. So now, is it possible to see all that and Whatever more in action?
Observing the movement for what it is without a negative or positive charge behind the observation. As a conditioned being, Ill defiantly notice my observation to be conditioned itself.
No. Desire and fear are movements of thought with their roots in remembered experiences of pleasure and pain.
Whatâs quoted here is repeating what was said in Kâs lectures and talks. He said what he said and he must have had his reasons
It would be a surprise to me if someone was on this forum who wasnât interested in finding out if what K has said is true - but I wasnât quoting K. These are actually my own thoughts Ayham.
I donât think one can just dismiss the observation that it is thought that has created religions, nations, cultural identities, etc - or that it is thought that has created the images that separate people from each other, and ourselves from ourselves. It may be difficult for us to see these things in action - which is where awareness and observation come in - but it is not difficult to see at an intellectual level (which is what we are sharing here).
Judging it in a way or another limits it from revealing itself in full without adding to it
I am not judging thinking. We are using thought now, to communicate (or miscommunicate!), to think through these issues. But part of looking at thought is to see its rather obvious side-effects in the world, in relationship, and in ourselves. And yet - and I may be wrong in my intuition - I feel as though you are wanting to deny these facts about thought, so as to defend thought for some reason that isnât clear to me. Is this so?
Thought is not bad or wrong - it is just out of balance. As I see it, we are merely attempting to bring some light and attention to it, so as to restore the balance (through inquiry, observation, and attention). Thatâs all.
What are my thoughts? Can I say it is a psychology? That is it is in the mind, a logic of the psyche. It is an inner voice. It is what I use when I am thinking about something. It is also random recollections from memory, for which I have no control. In the thoughts, I am thinking how to get control, escape, or be free. Although aware of this, I can see this thinking is not the immediate living. I might ask, What is thought? With this awareness I am watching the way thought is affecting my approach to living. Then I might ask, isnât living something much more than this mental affair, and it is this mental affair which has come to dominate perception? All of this thinking, I might see, is self centered. There is an actuality of living which is the natural being, and this part of some place, a country, a religion, is all an idea. It is this part which is trying, psychologically, to find a reconstituted whole.
I feel where you are coming from James.
Not defending thought but trying to Clarify its place.
When you said balance, this what came to me: I am imbalanced, not necessarily only due to thought. Smoking, over eating, any dependence. Remove any sense and oneâs life would be limited. Remove thought and still oneâs life would be limited, if not extremely limited. No?
I have tried to eliminate it from my inner life and it never worked. It is here to stay.
The question that comes to mind now:
I am thinking about it. There is technical, scientific, mathematical, thinking which is all about logic, concepts, theory, etc, and there is inspiration, discovery, etc. Do these have a me? If we mean thought is a human invention, for humans, then thought has grown through the ages along with this thing called me. Me and thought are the same action. Is there a different action, a pure action, with no me?
You say you have tried to eliminate thought from your inner life, but it didnât work. This is not so surprising is it though - seeing as âyouâ are thought! The thinker is the thought, etc.
So just by trying to rid yourself of thought - by another thought who has taken on the CEO role of a âthinkerâ - is obviously not going to work. The CEO has a vested interest in keeping the company afloat - Thinking Incorporated.
Only insight can end psychological thought - at least, this is what K taught if it interests you.
An action that is beyond conflict and opposition. An action that is not constructive or destructive. An action that is not territorial. One that is beyond roles.
Do you think that I have not come across this statement from K?
Did psychological thought end in you?
Whatâs the point of bringing this up if it didnât?
I am merely pointing out that this is a rather empty conclusion. Why should psychological thought have ended in you if the thinker - which is the self - is still active?
It is like saying: âI have tried to eliminate myself from my inner life and it never worked. Therefore I am here to stay.â
If you have concluded that it is not possible for thought to end, then that closes the door to any inquiry into the ending of thought.
Furthermore, you seem to have based that conclusion on a part of thinking which has not been thoroughly investigated: namely, the I, the self, which has no interest in being eliminated.
. So they can be triggered relatively mechanically through association.