(one) thought can't survive alone, it needs it's opposite

Hi everyone, I apologize for my unstable zoom connection during our Wed. dialogue (2/2/2022). After zoom failed multiple times, I decided not to return as I was loosing the thread of the dialogue.

I am back here to say that the topic of today was interesting; what came to me as a mini discovery was that thought can’t survive alone, thought would be nothing in isolation, so it’s survival depends on it’s opposite; this perpetual “creation” of opposites is what “sustains” conflict; thinking generates more thinking or conflict; pain was suggested as the starting point in our dialogue; in this context, we said that thought can only approach pain (or conflict) by it’s opposite, which is peace; thought is incapable to stay alone in pain, it only knows to approach pain with the assistance of the thought of “no pain”; hence, pain can’t be a fact for thought. Few more interesting remarks were made" the blank paper & time, the center with/without its periphery.
See you next week,

1 Like

One idea breeds another idea. Psychologically, this is what is happening all the time. Can thought operate in the world without forming a single idea until it is absolutely necessary? Can I live in the everyday world of my normal daily existence without adding ideas, ideals and images to what is already going on around me?

There is no answer to this question as an idea. So it all depends on when and how we put the question.

Can thought operate in the world without forming a single idea ….“until it is absolutely necessary” ? ( I think we can even skip the “until it is absolutely necessary”, if we refer to the psychological mind).
To this I would say: so far, I see that the intrinsic mode of operation of thought is to reproduce it self.
The question now sounds like: is there another kind/mode of operation that “moves” thought in such a way that does not stimulate thought to (re)produce it self ?
A new mode of operation of thought and a new force that moves thought, not generated in and by thought.

But what if there is only the psychological mind and no other mind? What if the practical use of thought is only a variation of the psychological use of thought? Then everything hinges on the right use of thought in both areas of the same field. Our challenge as people who must live and work among other people is then to find out if there is a way of operating together that keeps these two areas in harmony. We seem naturally to assume that thought is necessary for our practical navigation of the world. After all, the practical use of thought is what protects the body from harm; and we all consider this as something absolutely necessary. But is our deepest concern throughout the course of our whole life really about the protection of the body? Or are we generally concerned with something which is much more difficult to identify?

I think you are pointing to two kinds of thoughts: practical and psychological.

#1. In practical matters the psychological thought/mind is not needed. There is action followed by the practical thought.
#2. In psychological matters, thought initiates action. This is the field of the psychological mind.

So the difference between #1 & #2 stands in the role of thought vis-a-vis action: thought serves the action or dictates the action. (Thought is a “servant or a dictator”. )

What would be the harmony you are suggesting ?

Yesterday, for instance, we drove out to the coast; and on the journey there we listened to some music. Thought was involved in the decision to make the journey. So there was the idea of travelling to a specific place and then the use of thought to ensure a safe journey. On the journey, there was the idea of listening to a piece of music and then the use of thought to obtain the music through the application of technological skills.

The whole trip was not for the benefit of the body; it was for the benefit of both the mind and the body. But the mind generated the ideas, the decisions and the activities; the body just went along with it.

So I am wondering if there are any practical matters where the psychological mind is not needed. The disharmony only seems to arise when the mind creates a conflicting idea that it should not make a journey or that it should not listen to music.