When we say that an idea (a story, a joke, a theory, a work of art) has “taken on a life of its own”, our language betrays an intuitive understanding that science has not yet grasped.
Cool Post! So being conscious and "possessing a healthy mental ecosystem" is much like being a gardener; you can take account of what idea plants shoot up and select which to encourage to shoot up and grow and which to cut, but you only have indirect control of what you will discover in the next generation of your garden. Self-awareness is the conscious gardener's taking inventory of his visible garden ecosystem, but there are sub-surface processes below the ground and inside the plants that he cannot directly observe, these are the subconscious subset of ideas that the gardener may discover soon.
> Fire lives the death of air, and air lives the death of fire; water lives the death of earth, earth that of water.
You are basically saying ideas live our death. They come to play in the Indra's web of our brain, and when we die, they are released to roam around for other playgrounds...
This is true of language generally. Linguist Nikolaus Ritt says, “there is a sense in which languages are insensitive to the existence of their users as conscious beings.” See also 1dimensional.com.
Wow, this is so beautifully written! As a musician who leans heavily on improvisation, I've physically felt ideas surging through me. I absolutely loved that you included David Abrams beautiful imagery of ideas as animals... I like to think of thoughts/ideas as inter-dimensional beings that are passing through our realm. Much like Carl Sagan's example of a 3D apple passing by a 2D being. They would see unexplainable shapes appear and disappear before their eyes! Similarly, thoughts pass through our minds and reveal themselves in fragments. We become decencitized to the strangeness of fleeting thoughts but perhaps each one is the tip of a much larger "iceberg" that we're not yet ready to grok.. patiently waiting to be discovered in the realm beyond.
Namaste. This is Krishna Keshava Das with the Princeton Bhakti Vedanta Institute. You may be interested in checking out "Idols of the MInd vs. True Reality" by our Serving Director, Dr. Bhakti Madhava Puri. https://bviscs.org/books/
“'It is probably justified in requiring a transformation of the image of the real world as it has been constructed in the last 300 years… [for] now it seems to work no longer. One must therefore go back 300 years and reflect on how one could have proceeded differently at that time, and how the whole subsequent development would then be modified. No wonder that puts us into boundless confusion!' :: a letter from Schrödinger to Einstein in 1950
The theme of the new book, Idols of the Mind vs True Reality by Bhakti Madhava Puri, Ph.D. is concerned with the clear exposition of the pivotal conceptions and misconceptions of Galileo’s and others’ ideas that produced the subsequent development of what would become modern mathematized science.
The confusions and almost complete ignorance that exist today regarding something so fundamental as consciousness is immediately cleared up when the obvious errors are seen in the ad hoc presumptions of the original founders of modern science who were blindsided by the metaphysical ontologies that held sway during their lives, but to which we no longer adhere, thanks to the development of philosophy beyond that period. We trace this progress out in a concise way in the book.
The modern mind, thanks to science education, is focused on the one-sided empirical approach to knowledge by sensuous perception, but this fails to account for the role of subjective cognition or conception – the role of consciousness in such perceptions. This artificial separation of the original unity-in-difference between conception and content has been rendered impossible to broach because of the historical metaphysical tradition of dualism firmly held by the fathers of modern science such as Galileo and Descartes.
The presumed impossible gap between subject and object is bridged once we realize that the object is what the subject knows it to be. This does not reduce the object to the subject as the abstract idealists (monists) naively are only too hasty to presume as an immediate identity (oneness). Mediation is involved; there are both difference and identity at play. It is merely lazy un-thinking that ignores the intricate dynamic in the mediating activity that is the heart and life of consciousness. The main purpose of the book is to restore the central importance of the conceptual moment that is integral to science and which makes it truly worthy of the name Science or scientific knowledge."
Unless I missed something: The tell here is the absence of quotes of scientists, some of whom are as creative as any of the artists cited. Feels a bit unduly pessimistic and atomistic, to me.
Cool Post! So being conscious and "possessing a healthy mental ecosystem" is much like being a gardener; you can take account of what idea plants shoot up and select which to encourage to shoot up and grow and which to cut, but you only have indirect control of what you will discover in the next generation of your garden. Self-awareness is the conscious gardener's taking inventory of his visible garden ecosystem, but there are sub-surface processes below the ground and inside the plants that he cannot directly observe, these are the subconscious subset of ideas that the gardener may discover soon.
You mentioned the pre-socratics, which is funny, because Heraclitus roughly expressed the same notion (https://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Fragments_of_Heraclitus#Fragment_76):
> Fire lives the death of air, and air lives the death of fire; water lives the death of earth, earth that of water.
You are basically saying ideas live our death. They come to play in the Indra's web of our brain, and when we die, they are released to roam around for other playgrounds...
So what do I do with this information to enhance my life and the life of others?
Love the contrast (or is it compliment?) of this post with "The Myth of the Myth of the Lone Genius".
Read more The Selfish Gene, chapter 11.
This is true of language generally. Linguist Nikolaus Ritt says, “there is a sense in which languages are insensitive to the existence of their users as conscious beings.” See also 1dimensional.com.
Wow, this is so beautifully written! As a musician who leans heavily on improvisation, I've physically felt ideas surging through me. I absolutely loved that you included David Abrams beautiful imagery of ideas as animals... I like to think of thoughts/ideas as inter-dimensional beings that are passing through our realm. Much like Carl Sagan's example of a 3D apple passing by a 2D being. They would see unexplainable shapes appear and disappear before their eyes! Similarly, thoughts pass through our minds and reveal themselves in fragments. We become decencitized to the strangeness of fleeting thoughts but perhaps each one is the tip of a much larger "iceberg" that we're not yet ready to grok.. patiently waiting to be discovered in the realm beyond.
Namaste. This is Krishna Keshava Das with the Princeton Bhakti Vedanta Institute. You may be interested in checking out "Idols of the MInd vs. True Reality" by our Serving Director, Dr. Bhakti Madhava Puri. https://bviscs.org/books/
“'It is probably justified in requiring a transformation of the image of the real world as it has been constructed in the last 300 years… [for] now it seems to work no longer. One must therefore go back 300 years and reflect on how one could have proceeded differently at that time, and how the whole subsequent development would then be modified. No wonder that puts us into boundless confusion!' :: a letter from Schrödinger to Einstein in 1950
The theme of the new book, Idols of the Mind vs True Reality by Bhakti Madhava Puri, Ph.D. is concerned with the clear exposition of the pivotal conceptions and misconceptions of Galileo’s and others’ ideas that produced the subsequent development of what would become modern mathematized science.
The confusions and almost complete ignorance that exist today regarding something so fundamental as consciousness is immediately cleared up when the obvious errors are seen in the ad hoc presumptions of the original founders of modern science who were blindsided by the metaphysical ontologies that held sway during their lives, but to which we no longer adhere, thanks to the development of philosophy beyond that period. We trace this progress out in a concise way in the book.
The modern mind, thanks to science education, is focused on the one-sided empirical approach to knowledge by sensuous perception, but this fails to account for the role of subjective cognition or conception – the role of consciousness in such perceptions. This artificial separation of the original unity-in-difference between conception and content has been rendered impossible to broach because of the historical metaphysical tradition of dualism firmly held by the fathers of modern science such as Galileo and Descartes.
The presumed impossible gap between subject and object is bridged once we realize that the object is what the subject knows it to be. This does not reduce the object to the subject as the abstract idealists (monists) naively are only too hasty to presume as an immediate identity (oneness). Mediation is involved; there are both difference and identity at play. It is merely lazy un-thinking that ignores the intricate dynamic in the mediating activity that is the heart and life of consciousness. The main purpose of the book is to restore the central importance of the conceptual moment that is integral to science and which makes it truly worthy of the name Science or scientific knowledge."
Unless I missed something: The tell here is the absence of quotes of scientists, some of whom are as creative as any of the artists cited. Feels a bit unduly pessimistic and atomistic, to me.
2 questions:
Memetics?
Kahlil Gibran?