freewrite: focused stream-of-consciousness

[novapsyche]

"Indeed, the crowd has for a long time misjudged and mistaken the philosopher, whether for a scientific man and ideal scholar or for a religiously elevated, desensualized, 'desecularized' enthusiast and sot of God. And if a man is praised today for living 'wisely' or 'as a philosopher,' it hardly means more than 'prudently and apart.'

"Wisdom--seems to the rabble a kind of escape, a means and trick for getting well out of a wicked game. But the genuine philosopher--as it seems to us, my friends?--lives 'unphilosophically' and 'unwisely,' above all imprudently, and feels the burden and the duty of a hundred attempts and temptations of life--he risks himself constantly, he plays the wicked game--"

--Friedrich Nietzsche, Beyond Good and Evil, pp. 124-125.

8:08 a.m.

There exists a duality known as the solipsist and the mystic. The solipsist wonders if anything other than himself exists. The mystic, on the other hand, wonders if anything beyond a whole exists. This duality is false for this reason: both views are monist. In both, one's self is the whole.

The most whole person, it seems to me, would not be a compromise struck between these two dichotomous views, but a marriage of them into a new whole. For all dualities can be married.

The key is to see the arbitrariness in the words "other" and "beyond".

* * *

"If we cling to belief in God, we cannot likewise have faith, since faith is not clinging but letting go."

--Alan Watts, The Wisdom of Insecurity, p. 106.

8:25 a.m.

The problem I have with Alan Watts is, I'm coming to see that he's already written down many of my thoughts and feelings--and did so years before my birth.

It is a bit hard for me to realize how radically changed my idea of God is than the concept I held a decade ago. When I was 16, I believed in a third-person-perspective God, a God that existed not in human existance but apart from it. At 26, I believe that God is a projection of our emergent consciousness, and as such represents a meld of what is human and what is the Godhead.

With that view, what does "clinging to belief in God" mean? It means clinging to the idea of an idea. The problem with modern (and post-modern) man is that we constantly confuse the idea or the word of something for the thing itself. When I look at my candle, I see a light source I call flame. I do not see what chemical processes are going on in the production of fire, which is just as legitimate a description of the action as the scene playing on my retinas.

This tells me that I cannot trust my senses to give me the totality of what is going on around me. I "see through" air, but that is simply because to me the composition of the gases around me does not register on my optic nerves. I hear music, but I know it to be vibrations translated into electrochemical impulses. How is it that I am able to enjoy the anticipation of rhythm? How is it my body's sense of rhythm can imitate outside vibration so easily, readily, and accurately? This is not to say that I am the most graceful being; I'm not. I can't dance, can't swim, cannot roller skate. There are some rhythms in life I do not comprehend. But you don't have to know how to dance to appreciate the medium that impels it.

There are things beyond the reach of my conscious mind, yet is understood and dealt with by my unconscious. There is a multitude of processes going on just underneath my skin of which I am almost wholly unaware. When I am content, my mind wanders off to think; it is only in the midst of sensation, of pain or pleasure, that I pay attention to my body.

If the body is the thing that senses, then what is the brain? The brain is not sensed. When the brain is injured, it does not report pain--for there is no higher process to which to report. The brain seems to be in the body, but not of it. It seems to stand apart. Personally, I believe the mind to be an emergent quality of the brain's normal properties and processes. Thus, for me, "clinging to belief in God" is like the mind imagining the word 'mind' over and over, ad infinitum. It is to constantly see only the symbol of something, and never experience the thing in itself. To think about God is to distance one's self from the thing itself. It is only by being, by letting go of the concept of God--indeed, to let go of all concepts held--can one experience the thing in itself.

Comments

[sulphuroxide.livejournal.com]

so you think the brain, and thoughts are as simple as one level chemistry? push and pull here, and the brain thinks or does this?

[novapsyche.livejournal.com]

I don't know what 'thought' is, other than my own experience.

I know that, for myself, my thoughts originate from some depths and come up as through ripples, escalations.

I have an idea as to how the brain works, based on research I've done. I believe that, though the brain is the last major frontier of human anatomy, much of it can be understood in terms of physical and physiological processes. That includes chemistry, electricity, electromagnetism, as well as other phenomena of which I'm not yet familiar.

My worldview is molecular. Perhaps my blind spot is the same as the atomists' 200 years ago. I'm not sure. For me, the question is, "Is thought molecular, or sub-molecular?"

My instincts tell me that, in a universe filled with particles and waves, our thoughts probably consist of the same stuff.

*shrug* I don't know how to explain it. I think of the universe, and I think of a four-dimensional field. This field is completely filled; there is no such thing as "empty space". It's like a surfaceless bubble, or a moebius-strip infinity. Everything is contained in this field. And, for me, that has to include what we experience as thought.

[sulphuroxide.livejournal.com]

yeah. i understand now. you do re-interpret thoughts as being physical or atleast atomic movements in stuff and energy...

but you know, sometimes you get these sensations that most people dismiss as "oh it's nothing". what is a thought is what people can most often translate into words... so in a sense, what is a thought is what is connected with words. after all, there seems to be a difference between being angry and having a thought like, "i should refill this cup!" atleast, there is a linguistic difference... (since ive never studied neuroanatomy whatever it is you look at.)

but being angry isn't called a thought, it's more a state of mind. but sometimes you just sorta know what to do; how to compose a musical piece, but that's not a thought, though thoughts could be used... it would be hard to explain this.

maybe thoughts are just one way of understanding the world... that is a way consisting of language. sometimes, like in a relationship, you just know what to do... and that's not a thought bound process, though no specific word is available to express this.

[ex-suki-blue622.livejournal.com]

excellent post!

Hmmm...

[gracejustis.livejournal.com]

I like your take on the duality between the mystic and the sophist... I'm tucking that away for later rumination.

Thank you for the insight.