I see what you’re describing as the next level up from the low level thought I described. Without this low level thought, higher level thought would not be possible. Just like without awareness, low-level thought would not be possible. It’s a causal chain, non?
High-er level thought. Not highest level! I don’t know how ‘high’ thought can go.
The root perhaps of the higher level thought you equate with thought in general, yes.
A memory is an encoded recording of a thought, feeling, experience, object, event. It is a kind of pattern that resides somehow in the brain, nervous system, body. The recording is distorted by the nature of the recorded and the recorder/retriever. All conventional knowledge is grounded in memory.
I don’t know if memory is outside space and time, but I see no reason to think it is. I’m not a big fan of the Akashic records!
The mind (cognition), body, nervous system and brain are of course all interconnected elements that go to make up our perception of the world. Any animal that proactively hunts for prey, defends itself from predation, communicates with its environment and seeks reproduction has all the elements of what you are calling “low level thought”.
So I am not talking about that.
A capacity for abstract thought of course depends on a functioning brain (probably mostly in the region called the neo-cortex), which depends on older parts of the brain that are shared by all animals, which depends on the brain stem, which depends on the nervous system (and functioning sense perceptions), which depends on functioning bodily organs (including skin, the movement of blood to the whole body), a skeletal structure, motor capacity, which depends on the whole biological evolution of life on our planet, which depends on chemical compounds, atoms of matter, the evolution of the universe, the emergence of space and time, etc etc - all of which make abstract thought possible.
And you agree that the root of abstract thought is memory.
So what is memory?
I understand by this that you are saying that memory (or the process of memory) is when an actual perception (of an object ‘inside’ the mind, or ‘outside’ - in the world of physical objects) is put into code.
A code, or a cipher, or language itself, is information about an object in the form of a short-hand abstraction.
So, for instance, language is a code for preserving previous experiences (all experience being originally some form of animal perception), which can then be communicated with others who share a knowledge of the same code.
For instance, the word “sun” (which was originally a perception of the warm, bright object prevailing in the sky by day and disappearing by night) is code - in language - for that thing perceivable by the eye and nervous system. But the word “sun” is not the actual bright yellow burning object in the sky.
Language and thought are apparently deeply interrelated. Language is the outward expression of abstract thought, just as abstract thought then in turn becomes the inward impression of the words we use to communicate with each other.
And together, abstract thought and language create human culture: religions, political structures, laws, science, all the institutions of human society.
But all abstract thought, and all language, is based on memory.
They cannot exist without memory: there can be no thinking without memory - thinking being the active relating (through proprioception) of one assumption in memory to another assumption in memory, which can then be articulated in words or images, symbols or numbers.
So all memory is simply code for some actual experience (of either inward or outward perception), and is not the perception itself. Memory borrows from experience an abstraction of what has occurred, a short-hand to keep in mind, which is stored in the brain or nervous system in
The pattern being a representation of an original event.
So all memory, all encoded thought, all abstract ideas and images of perceptual events (whether inward or outward), are un-original. Memory is an echo of an experience, the shadow of an occurrence, a secondary representation of an original experience.
And this secondary representation of experience then enters into our ongoing perception of the world around us, helping to inform our actions (intelligently or stupidly).
But the representation is not what actually happened, the map is not the territory, the description is not the described, the word is not the thing - the code is not the original it refers to.
Would you agree or disagree with this general assessment of memory?
Abstract thinking does seem to require memory, abstraction is a stepping back from the present moment.
But there might be another type of mentation that does not make use of abstraction. I might call this thinking, you might call it insight. We need to remember words are just pointers.
Agreed.
Hmm … it seems to me that a memory, once ‘formed,’ can take on a life of its own. So to reduce it to being a mere flawed representation of an original experience might be selling it short.
Perhaps you could suggest another root? (apart from sensation, perception, experience, etc)?
I’m not sure what you mean by this? I didn’t say that memory is completely static - it is constantly being added to or taken away from. Memory is a movement in the brain and nervous system. That is the life that it has. It contributes to every new incident as it occurs (in perception), tinges experience, and some memories can preoccupy the mind almost to obsession. But it is still just memory.
Again, I don’t think I follow. You already agreed that memory is an image of a perceptual event (inward or outward), and so is unoriginal. All I did was repeat this in different words.
That is, memory is only a representation. It is never more than that. My memory of you is not you - it is an image, an abstraction of you. It cannot be a substitute for the full actuality of what you are. Do you not agree with this?
If there is a form of thinking without thoughts, then I wouldn’t call it thinking. I would call it intelligence (probably the same proprioception of the body but expressed at the level of the mind). The movement of the mind without thought and memory is something completely different from thinking. So I don’t accept using the same word for two totally different actions. - So we are discussing memory-based thought, not intelligence.
They are obsessed with their thought. As you said quite a bit earlier “piece of work”… *G
They never did what K suggested (the “work”): observing without (the world) and seeing what thought has wrought in the world, then observing within (and seeing what damage thought has done in their life), then doing this again and again. To them, thought is more important and relevant than observation. And if one points this out, they make subtle ad hominem attacks… And, they lived obliviously ever after in pleasurable ignorance. The end.
You can look at memory from the pov of its origin: encoded recordings of experiences. You can also look at memory without any reference to its origin: a set of stored ‘dormant’ patterns that can be made active by being retrieved from memory into consciousness. Each time a memory is retrieved, it changes, i.e. its pattern changes. And when it is present in consciousness, it is not limited to being framed from the pov of the original experience. Its scope is larger, it’s more its own thing. Perhaps like a child. You can look at a child from the pov of its origin, parents, family tree. But that is not all the child is, it is also its own entity, attributes of which might have nothing to do with its origin story.
Memory can be, but is by no means necessarily mechanical for me. It’s … a-liiiiiiiive!
Reasoning can only take place from assumptions stored in memory. Logic (which is a form of reasoning) is merely the sequential order of relations that have been abstracted from experience (as assumptions). Analysis is sequential reasoning (logic) by another name, with reference to a specific object.
Physical desire, instinct, survival, biology is all part and parcel of animal perception. We have already discussed the fact that animal perception needs to be there for thought to have any existence. There is no thought without biology.
But the immediate root of thought remains memory
Rick, will you permit me to repeat my question?
Do you accept that my memory of you is not you, and never will be you? My memory of you can change, be added to or taken away from, be mixed with new perceptions of you, fade or be corrupted over time, or captured in a work of art. But it will never be the living thing that is you. Do you accept this?
Wow! - maybe I should take a screen shot of this moment, because no-one will ever believe that we are in agreement on something!
Just kidding you understand?
So this is what I mean by thought being limited.
My thought, my memory of you, image of you, my imagination of who you are (based on my memories of you) will never be you, or satisfactorily replace you.
Memory has its own vitality, its own genius, I agree - but in relationship to you, you are the living flower; and memory is just the dead petals, pressed between the leaves of a book that no-one will ever open.
Btw - do you read much poetry? I used to love reading poetry. But so much poetry is about lost love, lost delight, lost youth, so that I was driven away from it for a long time because the feeling of loss that poetry evoked in me was all too real…
That’s probably why I tend to deal in ‘facts’ more these days. But poetry is still an occasional delight.
I’ve had phases when I read a fair amount of poetry. Still dip a toe in from time to time.
Funny you should mention loss in poetry, I always wanted to set Rilke’s Duineser Elegien to music, but by the time I had the wherewithal to do it I’d lost interest in their elegiacal quality. Rilke has a genius for getting to the psycho emotional essence of things, but most of his poems are so filled with pain!
Oh yes, I used to love Rilke (although the particular translations mattered a lot to me, and some I liked more than others). The Duino Elegies were a big deal to me at one point, but I ended up preferring the shorter, more meditative Sonnets to Orpheus. So effervescent and pure. Particularly this one:
Be ahead of all parting, as though it already were
behind you, like the winter that has just gone by.
For among these winters there is one so endlessly winter
that only by wintering through it all will your heart survive.
Be forever dead in Eurydice - more gladly arise
into the seamless life proclaimed in your song.
Here, in the realm of decline, among momentary days,
be the crystal cup that shattered even as it rang.
Be - and yet know the great void where all things begin,
the infinite source of your own most intense vibration,
so that, this once, you may give it your perfect assent.
To all that is used-up, and to all the muffled and dumb
creatures in the world’s full reserve, the unsayable sums,
joyfully add yourself, and cancel the count.
I love this poem - it is so joyous and sad, so full of (personal) love and Buddhist renunciation, all at the same time.
At some point (maybe in private?) I would like to hear more about the place of music in your thinking, in your point of view - because music (or the imagination generally) seems to be an important but unspoken undercurrent in what you write.
I just saw this comment, and even though it is not addressed to me I feel compelled to respond.
Are you saying that the “watcher” (which for Krishnamurti - as I understand it - is still a part of thought) can choose to stop thought (through will, decision, choice)?
If you are saying this - and maybe I have misunderstood you - then are you not attributing to this “watcher” a power that it does not have? The “watcher” (as I understand it) is merely a part of thinking that has broken itself off into a separate fragment that “watches” another fragment of thought (the “watched”). But the watcher is the watched, they are not two separate movements.
So the “watcher” can only temporarily suppress thought; it cannot end thought because it is itself thought. It is only when there is a watching without the “watcher” (if this occurs) that something other than thought might be said to be operating.
So, as I understand it, thought has to see itself for what it is - or rather (because this language of thought “seeing” anything is confusing) thought has to be seen for what it is through insight. And an insight cannot be willed, cannot be chosen or decided. It must happen naturally, spontaneously, through understanding; that is through an act of choiceless, will-less, intelligent perception.
Maybe you are right Charley. - But are you so certain that the other person is not “doing the work” of observation? I wonder how you derive this kind of judgmental certainty? And I wonder, is this judgmental attitude (if this is what it is) a product of intelligence or reaction?
I have noticed before that you have a tendency to become impatient with some conversations (usually because of some misunderstanding, and a reaction to this misunderstanding); and your response is then to become highly critical of the other person (while at the same time claiming to be free - yourself - from all error, all blame).
When this occurs you usually cast yourself as being the one who has seen, while the other person is guilty of being ignorant. You are the wise one, while the other has fallen short of right comprehension. Or you are the victim, and the other person has done or said something dreadful. We all do this sometimes, but you don’t seem to admit that you yourself are doing this.
Yet, as I understand it, the situation is usually the result of some miscommunication or misunderstanding, which has then become reified as something “bad”, something “wrong” (or even malicious), when it is nothing of the kind.
So I wonder why one does this? As you claim to be “doing the work” of observation, you must be somewhat aware of this tendency of yours, right? (not that others do not have this tendency too).
Much of what you write is interesting, informed, highly lucid. You can be affectionate when you feel like it, as well as insightful, direct. So, in my understanding, there is no reason why you cannot remain engaged in a conversation without becoming impatient, and so help others (including myself - including yourself too) to understand themselves and the world better. And isn’t this what you would prefer to be doing?
I don’t know, but I’ll guess that whether it’s psychological thought, practical thought, or incoherent thought, the common thread is that it’s attempting to maintain the status quo, its conditioning.
This is what I meant by subtle ad hominem attack…lol
There is the seeing of what is happening on this site (clarity and intelligence) and makes a statement as regards that, and one is accused of being “judgemental”, etc. etc. etc.
Yes, you are right, one did “nail” it. And, insofar as trying dialogue again, one would like to get paid to do that with the ones who value words and thought over the “work”, which isn’t likely to happen, lol. Narcissists are too selfish to wanna pay for things like that. lol
You know, Dan, were one of these were to show up at one’s door, one would call 911 (police). (thought = fear, dark and cold, the dark side - there was the seeing of this within).
Btw, you are one of the very few from whom one has seen veritable glimmers of intelligence and they have increased in the past year, love your little posts (too few and far between - ) of nature, etc. *S
It is spring here, and while waiting for the bus across the street from where one lives, they were hanging the flower baskets, two per lamppost. While only a week ago, some of the trees were entirely bare of leaves, and now the young light green leaves are finally making an appearance. These trees haven’t been here for a long time, because in the past ~dozen years, the Chinese have invested in mini-towers where one lives (4 on the block where one lives!) and these were planted at that time (have no idea the names of such trees). The weather is wonderful, a little cool, 60ish.
Charley - I made an earnest attempt in reaching out to you, to attempt to meet you where you are, while at the same time challenging you in what you were saying.
Yet instead of responding in kind, you have resorted to the same toxic language as before - with the same toxic means (not even deigning to reply to me directly). You judge me guilty of
while in fact you are the one being personally spiteful here (while at the same time claiming to be a font of “clarity and intelligence”).
I don’t know what has gone on in your life to make you so defensive and reactive, but - sadly - I realise that I am not capable of breaking through to your better nature on this forum.
I hope that you are able to have better relations with others here than I have managed to have with you.
) of nature, etc. *S