Occupy Heart 6/1: Occupy "New Mind" - Occupy Cafe2024-03-28T22:46:54Zhttp://www.occupycafe.org/forum/topics/occupy-heart-6-1-occupy-new-mind?commentId=6451976%3AComment%3A25551&feed=yes&xn_auth=noNice. I'm with you on roughl…tag:www.occupycafe.org,2012-06-06:6451976:Comment:258262012-06-06T20:22:15.410ZJitendra Darlinghttp://www.occupycafe.org/profile/JitendraDarling
<p>Nice. I'm with you on roughly 95% of what you're expressing here, Pawel. You inspire me to qualify any and everything I've said to this point with "so far". In other words (in case "so far" is strictly an American idiom), I am prepared to have a different experience with regard to any previous assessment at any moment. </p>
<p>As limited as our typed sound bytes may be, I am still typing. Better to exchange incomplete or imperfect thoughts, than exchange none at all (Well, usually. I'm…</p>
<p>Nice. I'm with you on roughly 95% of what you're expressing here, Pawel. You inspire me to qualify any and everything I've said to this point with "so far". In other words (in case "so far" is strictly an American idiom), I am prepared to have a different experience with regard to any previous assessment at any moment. </p>
<p>As limited as our typed sound bytes may be, I am still typing. Better to exchange incomplete or imperfect thoughts, than exchange none at all (Well, usually. I'm not an advocate of abusive exchanges in the name of free speech, for example.)</p>
<p>My lone point of contention is that I do believe in the possibility of new mind. I say that with the caveat that new is perpetually relative and highly subjective. I use the term "new mind" to describe access to thought fields of possibility the that orbit outside current dominant memes. Another expression of new mind is analogous to beginners mind, when we access spaces beyond our reactive, reductive, analogous mind; which, as I write this, that territory which goes further and further outside of consensus reality to the point where language breaks down. The moment one begins to speak, "old" mind often reasserts/re-forms.</p>
<p>That's why new mind is experimental, a budding possibility on the leading edge of evolutionary emergence. The character of true emergence is novelty, something new and previously unknown. </p>
<p>I think the fewer the people that understand us, the greater the likelihood we're encroaching on new mind, psychosis withstanding.</p>
<blockquote><p>You wrote:<br/>Personally I am convinced that integrating faith and system logic<i> </i>we can define the primary flaw (original sin) of our cognition and <i>intuit novel framework all together</i> to reset the common knowledge (and common sense)<i>.</i></p>
</blockquote>
<p>We may debate semantics, but it seems we're pulling on similar strands from the same cloth.<i><br/></i></p>
<p>I appreciate and value your sharing, Pawel. Thank you.</p>
<p></p> The mind is most complex appl…tag:www.occupycafe.org,2012-06-05:6451976:Comment:255752012-06-05T18:42:37.215ZPawel Klewinhttp://www.occupycafe.org/profile/PawelKlewin
<p>The mind is most complex appliance, thinking is most complex process, and the data feeding it is transmitted from (or through?) most complex universe.</p>
<p>I read your post as an attempt to present the complexity as an argument for not deepening our/any(?) conversation. I really like your <i>ping pong with impressions</i> - marvelous expression describing the alternative you/we practice on the OC forum.</p>
<p>Considering current state of science, practicing reductive approach, you…</p>
<p>The mind is most complex appliance, thinking is most complex process, and the data feeding it is transmitted from (or through?) most complex universe.</p>
<p>I read your post as an attempt to present the complexity as an argument for not deepening our/any(?) conversation. I really like your <i>ping pong with impressions</i> - marvelous expression describing the alternative you/we practice on the OC forum.</p>
<p>Considering current state of science, practicing reductive approach, you certainly are right. But, on the other hand, the possibility of reaching simplicity through complexity should be considered.</p>
<p>I do not think “new mind” is possible. Understood as hardware of consciousness mind has been given to us – no matter how we imagine the donor we have no way to change it. One cannot lift himself up pulling own hair.</p>
<p>So let’s leap forward to your conclusion (if I am allowed to use the concept;-) …<i>value the spirit of deepening our connection</i>.</p>
<p>You say we should value it <i>at least</i> as much as gain of material/informational exchange. I think we can invent new experimental conversation integrating both. We should not forget the fact that material/informational exchange has provided us with real, instant and global connectivity.</p>
<p>Your expertise concerns <i>unseen processes behind our conversation</i> – you continue long tradition of spiritual teaching, using new medium of communication. I am no expert and there is no tradition to support my position. On the other hand my four years’ experience with social networking allows me to say that (hopefully) I represent European attitude towards understanding the whole: information received through perception and cognition is as important as information coming from unseen internal processes. Or maybe you are right and it is less important, but anyhow cannot be ignored.</p>
<p><i>The trees of current circumstance are thick</i> and we desperately seek the framework to order the apparent chaos. Personally I am convinced that integrating faith and system logic<i> </i>we can define the primary flaw (original sin) of our cognition and <i>intuite novel framework all together</i> to reset the common knowledge (and common sense)<i>.</i></p> Hi Pawel-
Please, no apologie…tag:www.occupycafe.org,2012-06-04:6451976:Comment:257222012-06-04T20:49:33.886ZJitendra Darlinghttp://www.occupycafe.org/profile/JitendraDarling
<p>Hi Pawel-</p>
<p>Please, no apologies for disturbing my thinking. That's the purpose of this forum—to purturbate each other's thinking. We could go many times around in the discussion as to what has or has not evolved in the past 2000 years, never mind right here in the forum over the past 9 months ;-)</p>
<p>My feeling about the past 2000+ years covers an entire spectrum from: quite a lot has changed, to not much has changed at all, depending on the context. Also, being inside the forest…</p>
<p>Hi Pawel-</p>
<p>Please, no apologies for disturbing my thinking. That's the purpose of this forum—to purturbate each other's thinking. We could go many times around in the discussion as to what has or has not evolved in the past 2000 years, never mind right here in the forum over the past 9 months ;-)</p>
<p>My feeling about the past 2000+ years covers an entire spectrum from: quite a lot has changed, to not much has changed at all, depending on the context. Also, being inside the forest of present time, I have a very limited perspective with which to gauge the difference between past and present evolution as the trees of current circumstance are thick. I can only go by the evidence of historical legacy and my own intuition and direct experience of the field of consciousness in which this play is arising.</p>
<p>(I hope my words translate adequately. I was just wondering if I might need to speak more plainly to</p>
<p>Multidimensional conversations are incredibly challenging on flat printed pages. I could use an an entire page to describe all the angles to each sentence I write, either that, or simply ping pong back and forth with our impressions as they arise, such as we're doing now.</p>
<p>I noticed your later comments about thinking and new thinking. What you highlight for me is how imprecise my language has been here. However, I don't have the time to be more precise, while actually accomplishing the work I have before me.</p>
<p>"Thinking" occurs on a near infinite scale of inclusion, from the most self-interested, narrow thought to bigger-than-the-universe-sized considerations. The principle of "new mind" can likewise span a gamut of relativity, from a perceiving a novel way of assembling an old framework or intuiting a completely novel framework all together.</p>
<p>That's why I like to consider this entire exploration/conversation as an experiment. In fact, our entire human experiment we call existence seems to be a mind boggling array of attempts to translate the infinite realm of potential in which thought arises to the explication of material forms.</p>
<p>With regard to these conversations themselves, I surrender to the unseen processes behind them, which seem to serve connecting us to have contact across the globe, sharing the spirit of our commitment to change, which may be more important than whatever content we exchange.</p>
<p>Perhaps this is an inkling of our new economy, where we value the spirit of deepening our connection at least as much as any apparent gain or loss of material/informational exchange.</p>
<p>Thanks for sharing, Pawel.</p> A week ago, commenting Jim Ma…tag:www.occupycafe.org,2012-06-04:6451976:Comment:257212012-06-04T19:36:29.252ZPawel Klewinhttp://www.occupycafe.org/profile/PawelKlewin
<p>A week ago, commenting Jim Macdonald’s blog post, you said:</p>
<blockquote><p>I think the questions we must ask are: Is there a global solution that can end most global injustice in less than 5 years, what is it, how can it be made to happen? </p>
</blockquote>
<p>Can it be made to happen any other way than through our/human common decision = conclusion? (equals sign following wiktionary definition of conclusion)</p>
<p>A week ago, commenting Jim Macdonald’s blog post, you said:</p>
<blockquote><p>I think the questions we must ask are: Is there a global solution that can end most global injustice in less than 5 years, what is it, how can it be made to happen? </p>
</blockquote>
<p>Can it be made to happen any other way than through our/human common decision = conclusion? (equals sign following wiktionary definition of conclusion)</p> I understand what you mean –…tag:www.occupycafe.org,2012-06-04:6451976:Comment:257202012-06-04T18:54:35.923ZPawel Klewinhttp://www.occupycafe.org/profile/PawelKlewin
<p>I understand what you mean – it makes a good match with my four years’ experience of American social networking.</p>
<p>But on the other hand…</p>
<p>This thread opening by Jittendra addresses thinking. Conclusion is a <i>decision reached after careful thought</i> [wiktionary]. I dream of understanding what use you see in thinking - following the premise you state. Is <i>not thinking</i> always a good thing? What is the thread for?</p>
<p>I assume it is a premise, because otherwise it…</p>
<p>I understand what you mean – it makes a good match with my four years’ experience of American social networking.</p>
<p>But on the other hand…</p>
<p>This thread opening by Jittendra addresses thinking. Conclusion is a <i>decision reached after careful thought</i> [wiktionary]. I dream of understanding what use you see in thinking - following the premise you state. Is <i>not thinking</i> always a good thing? What is the thread for?</p>
<p>I assume it is a premise, because otherwise it should be understood as a conclusion ( <i>I think that…)</i> and would not fit the general meaning of your reply.</p>
<p>P.S. Please be tolerant of my wording – on this level of discussion it is really hard to use nonnative language.</p> I think that avoiding conclus…tag:www.occupycafe.org,2012-06-03:6451976:Comment:255622012-06-03T21:06:49.437ZChristopher Wrothhttp://www.occupycafe.org/profile/ChristopherWroth
<p>I think that avoiding conclusions is pretty much always a good thing.</p>
<p>I think that avoiding conclusions is pretty much always a good thing.</p> Reading this thread I cannot…tag:www.occupycafe.org,2012-06-03:6451976:Comment:257022012-06-03T18:57:18.802ZPawel Klewinhttp://www.occupycafe.org/profile/PawelKlewin
<p>Reading this thread I cannot help posting again. Sorry to disturb your way of thinking;-).</p>
<p>Cognition is the process within the individual mind. The thought is fed by experience of our “true nature" from the inside and physical perception from the outside. The thought interacts with behavior.</p>
<p>Our generation can no longer believe individual existence, perception and thoughts are a kind of illusion. Interacting (via behavior) with reality our ego-centered thought can and do change…</p>
<p>Reading this thread I cannot help posting again. Sorry to disturb your way of thinking;-).</p>
<p>Cognition is the process within the individual mind. The thought is fed by experience of our “true nature" from the inside and physical perception from the outside. The thought interacts with behavior.</p>
<p>Our generation can no longer believe individual existence, perception and thoughts are a kind of illusion. Interacting (via behavior) with reality our ego-centered thought can and do change the world and we do experience the consequences.</p>
<p>An individual has only one mind and one consciousness and it cannot “evolve itself”. Feedback is the principle of evolution. There is a feedback between consciousness and reality - both coevolve interacting through social system, knowledge and matter/technology. The world and the average worldview have changed (evolved) immensely over 2 thousand years.</p>
<p>Digression: <i>Achieving no success in asynchronous continuous communication within the movement I went back to study ancient thinkers. What is interesting – from that point of view - in American spiritualism is the striking similarity between your way of thinking (and the context you use) and that of authors of gnostic gospels (parallel time scale, roughly 2 thousand years).</i></p>
<p>It seems that going round and round (no evolution) concerns, contrary to perception, only inner experience. And no wonder - there is no environment (background, platform, space, whatever) to establish the evolutionary process, communicate with feedback. The effects of enlightenment(s) and other one-way communication with our spiritual source are erased when the body and mind die. Every “new mind” starts from the beginning, using the same, given and brought up kind of thinking.</p>
<p>My past experience trying to discuss on the OC forum makes me withhold the conclusions, please treat this post as a question. What do you think?</p> Yes, I'm smiling, Jitendra. Y…tag:www.occupycafe.org,2012-06-03:6451976:Comment:254002012-06-03T17:21:14.822ZMark E. Smithhttp://www.occupycafe.org/profile/MarkESmith
<p>Yes, I'm smiling, Jitendra. Your words always tend to be uplifting.</p>
<p>One of the ways in which shoplifters used to operate was to have several people go into a store at once. Two or more would start a staged fight. Once the shopkeeper, clerks, security guards, and customers had been drawn to the fight, the others would rob the store because nobody was paying attention to them. They'd leave with their booty, and when the cops arrived, the "fighters" would show that nobody had been hurt…</p>
<p>Yes, I'm smiling, Jitendra. Your words always tend to be uplifting.</p>
<p>One of the ways in which shoplifters used to operate was to have several people go into a store at once. Two or more would start a staged fight. Once the shopkeeper, clerks, security guards, and customers had been drawn to the fight, the others would rob the store because nobody was paying attention to them. They'd leave with their booty, and when the cops arrived, the "fighters" would show that nobody had been hurt and that they didn't want to press charges, and would also be allowed to leave, as they apparently hadn't caused any damage or harm.</p>
<p>That's how I see the US electoral system, Jitendra. The candidates stage the distraction so that we won't pay attention as the rest of the gang robs us blind. ALL the candidates, not just some of them. It has been pointed out that Ron Paul has made a career of railing against the US government--a government he has been a part of for the past 30 years. Dennis Kucinich made a career of speaking out for peace and against war, but in '08 he threw his support to Obama, an openly pro-war candidate. One of the 10 Key Values of the Green Party is decentralized government, however they betray that value when they run for office in a centralized government. In my view it is all just staged distraction so that the thieves can get away with robbing us.</p>
<p>From that perspective your statement that, "...<span>the true purpose of our actions is taking place perpendicular to our line of sight, just out of our periphery," is much too literally true. Enough to make me smile once again. ;)</span></p> Glad you were able to chime i…tag:www.occupycafe.org,2012-06-03:6451976:Comment:253992012-06-03T16:31:45.745ZJitendra Darlinghttp://www.occupycafe.org/profile/JitendraDarling
<p>Glad you were able to chime in. Hope we have your live presence again soon. </p>
<p>I have been playing with various forms of the ALOHA practice for 40 years. I started with 15 years of just, Aha. (For those unfamiliar, <a href="https://docs.google.com/document/d/1ZyxZ6xsHbppVt4gsj7dOf8in4LYjiR3lwGaRxZ3ERks/edit" target="_blank">ALOHA covers 5 dynamics of internal relationship</a>) I look forward to seeing what emerges from this practice 40 years from now...it's unfolding mystery is…</p>
<p>Glad you were able to chime in. Hope we have your live presence again soon. </p>
<p>I have been playing with various forms of the ALOHA practice for 40 years. I started with 15 years of just, Aha. (For those unfamiliar, <a href="https://docs.google.com/document/d/1ZyxZ6xsHbppVt4gsj7dOf8in4LYjiR3lwGaRxZ3ERks/edit" target="_blank">ALOHA covers 5 dynamics of internal relationship</a>) I look forward to seeing what emerges from this practice 40 years from now...it's unfolding mystery is ceaseless. </p> Here's a man that seems to re…tag:www.occupycafe.org,2012-06-03:6451976:Comment:253982012-06-03T16:23:58.775ZJitendra Darlinghttp://www.occupycafe.org/profile/JitendraDarling
<p>Here's a man that seems to relish swimming in air and breathing water...you continually make me smile, Daniel!</p>
<p>Here's a man that seems to relish swimming in air and breathing water...you continually make me smile, Daniel!</p>