Dream terminology

[CFTraveler]

Liminal:

1 : of or relating to a sensory threshold
2 : barely perceptible
3 : of, relating to, or being an intermediate state, phase, or condition : in-between, transitional

from:
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/liminal

[sleeper]

I enjoy often exploring liminal states, they are fun places and are always rewarding. But the only truly liminal thing I've found is my understanding of those states.

[CFTraveler]

:)
Ditto there.

[sleeper]

Not much controversy yet :roll:

[CFTraveler]

I know we're so boring.
http://www.clicksmilies.com/s1106/travesmilies/smilie_bett.gif

[sleeper]

This morning, I laid in bed, reflecting on some of my nocturnal experiences. hehe.

In my nightly meditations, i have startling clarity of thought and often have very powerful realizations. I'll think: "I should write this down," but I keep having the realization. As i arise into waking consciousness, I ask: "how could I write this down? it wouldn't make any sense." Once I'm awake, I can remember the experience but I can't understand it completely and it drives me nuts. I know that waking consciousness is different from the other levels of consciousness, but I'm interested in the details.

As I lay there this morning, I silently asked the question, and had a little chat with a voice in my head. Here is the main part:


The problems of the Brain are Threefold:

1. The Mind is the source of all wisdom and knowledge in the universe, so it is trusted.
2. The Brain will betray you the first chance it gets, because of the limited nature of knowledge.
3. The brain tends to interpret thoughtform stuff as abstract, rather than the singularity, which it is.

the third surprised me. I had assumed that thoughforms were abstract, even though my experiences with them were the opposite. The brain is always accused of being overly simple, even though it's always breaking ideas down into smaller pieces. Even our brain parts are compartmentalized, separate from eachother, which sounds pretty abstract to me.

Anyway, I don't know much about this, and I don't usually talk to spirit guides. i don't even know why he used the word "singularity," because it has a bunch of different meanings and I tend to shy away from the new age quantum spiritual ideas. But I intend to explore the liminal states, with these types of questions in mind, and just observe.

[CFTraveler]

Maybe because....everything is one (singularity) and the one is undifferentiated-but as you said, the brain tries to break it down- and the closest it can get to differentiating without differentiating (or rather informing) is to abstract it- and the simplest form is the abstract (or so we think, I could be wrong about this) hence the abstractification (prob. not a real word) of the undifferentiated.
Does this make sense? It does to me in a way.
The one I find the most interesting is #2-
The Brain will betray you the first chance it gets, because of the limited nature of knowledge I can see how that can be, since to be able to know you have to break down, hence the limited nature of information. And the brain tendency of adding information (matrixing) based on the info it already has.
Interresteeng.

[sleeper]

what you said about abstract things makes perfect sense to me. I'm wondering if that's actually the best way for us to learn, to break everything down into differentiated parts, and experience them individually. If that's true, then it might corroborate some other things i've been considering; namely, that incremental development is the only fair way to develop, from an individual perspective, and it's the only comprehensive way, from a cosmic perspective. So while meditation and divine experiences are no doubt important, mental development (in ever increasing ways) seems to be the critical part for "bridging the gap" between the physical, and the divine.

...

I still haven't learned to trust my guides.

they have told me some mind boggling things.

[Korpo]

I wonder how your brain made the jump from A to Z here, because there seems to be no connection between the message you got and your conclusion.

Meditation is a way to experience the whole directly. Meditation offers the possibility to transcend duality and be what you are contemplating. It therefore is in this regard superior to any analysis as there is no lack of knowledge - being the object, transcending the object is the ultimate "knowledge" of the thing you seek knowledge of.

Abstraction is a problem because it seems to explain things while it does not. Forming a model of something always and inevitably requires dropping information. Abstraction is dropping of information.


Abstraction is the process or result of generalization by reducing the information content of a concept or an observable phenomenon, typically in order to retain only information which is relevant for a particular purpose.(from:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abstraction)

A word like "dog" is a massive abstraction from a certain "breed", "breed" from the individual being. All of these represent loss of information in order to still be able to reason about something without being overwhelmed. This kind of sequential analysis and thought can never iterate enough. It has to always drop information and streamline information in order to continue being able to digest, but the thing digested is no longer the real thing. It is instead an abstraction of no substance, building on other abstractions.

The "Mind" as your message calls it here is strictly distinct from the "Brain". That is IMO no accident. As the brain "channels" the mind, distortions by the brain are limiting access to the "Mind". What if this mind is thinking holographically, from a perspective of the whole and thinks happening simultaneously, seamlessly folding into each other and unfolding, with no real separation? There exist clues that this is so. Try to squeeze this "through" a brain that is addicted to linear, single-item thought. The brain needs to break things down into chunks it thinks it understands, but this chunks put together do not form a whole. On the other hand, if you break a hologram into pieces, the pieces still contain the whole. Each individual mind IMO has the potencial to be this part of the whole, to think holographically.

These two kinds of thoughts are at odds to each other, and might be the explanation why "messages", "visions", "channelings" and "dreams" are often so hard to understand - we process one thing at a time and have a hard time even being mindful of the context, get stuck on words, etc. At the same time we are bombarded with a multi-sensory message chockfull of content. I have encountered something like this at least once.

If you think linear thought is the sole answer, if you think you can iterate the infinite - it can't be done. (It is even mathematically impossible if that has any importance to you.) At some point the perspective of duality needs to be dropped or the whole can never be understood. It cannot be approximated. If you lived forever, that approach would take you forever. While incremental development is necessary for a while, ultimately another approach is required. At some point it requires a plunge into the unknown, the "leap of faith", and meditation and moments of grace provide the opportunity to change the whole approach and change the whole thing at the root.

If I listened to every instrument of a performance separately after each other, is it the same as listening to the performance? Is listening to each tone present in a piece of music only once the same as listening to a tune? Is the same tune played in two different locations the same? Are you really the same listener every time you listen to a CD? Everything changes, even if only subtly. Abstraction "dictates" that things are the same that aren't, and while that may be fine for science it is not for personal experience.

I find it amazing that a lot of things if not all in the brain seem to be arranged holographically, but we think linearly. This might be more of a product of our upbringing than the actual potential of the brain.

Oliver

[CFTraveler]

A word like "dog" is a massive abstraction from a certain "breed", "breed" from the individual being. All of these represent loss of information in order to still be able to reason about something without being overwhelmed. This kind of sequential analysis and thought can never iterate enough. It has to always drop information and streamline information in order to continue being able to digest, but the thing digested is no longer the real thing. It is instead an abstraction of no substance, building on other abstractions. Yet the word 'dog' encompasses more than the word 'poodle', because a poodle is only one kind of dog, while all dogs are 'dogs'. Which is what I was getting at. Abstraction is the brain's (not mind's) way of trying to comprehend the infinite.
I'm still not sure what your objection is to this interpretation.

[Korpo]

Yet the word 'dog' encompasses more than the word 'poodle', because a poodle is only one kind of dog, while all dogs are 'dogs'. Which is what I was getting at. Abstraction is the brain's (not mind's) way of trying to comprehend the infinite.
I'm still not sure what your objection is to this interpretation.

It is just a word. A word is a linear thought. You can think it is a powerful abstraction, but in reality it is an reduction. It is a loss of information, but to the thinking mind it seems like a win. That's why the thinking mind is never whole. It looks at less and less and thinks its on the right track to understand all. A contradiction in itself.

What does the mathematical symbol for infinity tell you about the Universe? It carries almost no informational content anymore besides being useful in a formula. I always found it so disappointing, and only now I can say why that is: It feels like betrayal. If that were all the mind could grasp about infinity, then it is depressing. But see, it really is the ultimate abstraction. It feels hollow.

But from what I "researched" in my own little studies for something else there is an infinite mind, too, and my guess this unifies with experience of non-duality because that mind experiences what it is "thinking" about. Old Gung Fu Master says: Be the rock, grasshoppa! ;)

Oliver

[CFTraveler]

It is just a word. A word is a linear thought. I disagree. A word is a linear representation of a thought that may or may not be linear. The linear thought is a side effect of having a frontal cortex. However, the idea behind the word, is as holographic as you want to think of it.

You can think it is a powerful abstraction, but in reality it is a reduction. I don't think it's a powerful abstraction- I think it's a more inclusive abstraction, more general than the idea of 'poodle'. If I want to get more abstract than 'dog', I can go for 'canine', which includes wolves. It is a limited concept, that of the canine, but it is more complete than 'Poodle'. It doesn't eliminate information, it makes it part of the whole. So the exclusion goes to the more concrete, not to the more abstract. You have to remove more parts (kinds of dogs) to get Poodle than to get dogs. But you have to remove no canines at all if you go to the 'more abstract' abstraction. Ultimately, the only difference between the words 'Poodle' and 'Canine' is how they're defined. And the definition is more exclusive the less abstract it gets.
You seem to understand 'abstraction' as loss of information- I see abstraction as the loss of description. But the information is there, just not partitioned. A matter of perception, really.


It is a loss of information, but to the thinking mind it seems like a win. This seems to me like a contradiction. The brain understands limitation, the mind does not. Loss of information is impossible to the mind, possible to the brain. I'm not sure why you say that it 'seems like a win' to the mind, unless your perception of the mind is one that sees value in information. Or lack of it. Or something like that.


That's why the thinking mind is never whole. It looks at less and less and thinks its on the right track to understand all. A contradiction in itself. I agree with you there. That's the contradiction that pisses off certain religious groups. Remember the term 'Life is not a zero sum game'? The idea of infinity as zero is viscerally rejected by some.
Which is fine with me, it ultimately makes no difference to me.

[Korpo]

What is your message here?

Loss of information can never be more whole. What does the word dog tell you about my dog? You lack any specifical information about my dog, you are just having a set of rules and assumptions about "dog". You lost the more interesting part, the living part, the part that is vital.

Abstraction is dead and IMO the thinking mind (or brain, as opposed to the true Mind or whatever) is so engrossed in it as the ego itself has no real vitality or substance of its own. The ego is just a set of repeating patterns. Observing it long enough and clearly enough reveals it lacks substance of any kind, as the Buddhists do. As the Daoists do.

To abstract something you have to subtract something from it and make it a purely mental item. This something is to me the more important thing. It is that which cannot be understood by the thinking mind or dissected.

It's only fully present in the whole, and not its parts. Dissecting the whole removes the Tao from it. Every whole contains the Tao. The Tao is the whole before the parts. The thinking mind that makes parts moves away from the Tao as is creates more parts and dualities, and the Tao lives in whole and unity.

Oliver

[CFTraveler]

I guess we both will have to agree to disagree, then.

[sleeper]

well, this could be a really long discussion if we're going to nail down main points, so let me just clarify my position on a couple things, then slip back out of the thread.

When I have mindform thoughts, whole, big ideas during super deep trance, I tend to bring most of it back. While my brain tends to abstract things, it does not lose anything in the abstraction process; rather, it only loses what it's not capable of understanding. In other words, a big thought is made up of many parts, and only by understanding the parts can we understand the whole. furthermore, the parts have great value in themselves, and I am always grateful for having them as well.

I have spent too much time arguing over platos philosophy of the forms. It seems that everyone wants me to either take Plato's side, or Aristotle's side, but i don't even care about forms, for two main reasons. First, i find it absurd that the implications of this philosophy are totally ignored, such as the dog analogy. if there is a perfect form of a dog in heaven, or something, then all other earthly dogs are simply poor imitations of the form of the real dog in heaven, who doesn't even exist. etc. etc. Secondly, i am often frustrated at the simply trouble with concepts in general. In philosophy, and religion, and psychology, (and all others, but mostly in these fields), we lack 99% of the knowledge we need, and make up for it with concepts. For instance, we can dissect a brain and point out the language parts, the motor control parts, etc. But the greater levels of the mind are not understood, except to say broad things like: " the cosmic mind is made up of everything," "the unconscious mind of everyone is connected." This is why I don't talk about the ego, or holographic thinking, or consciousness, or concepts like that, so long as i avoid it. I'm interested in the details.

those are just concepts that point towards a greater meaning, but in themselves, don't describe anything. Even the great masters will admit, very willingly, that they don't know what they are talking about. They know where they are talking from, and are trying to help people arrive to the same place, yet, the words they use lack real power, and the masters often feel like failures because of that.

i don't see any reason why my brain, or anyone else's brain can't comprehend big thoughts, if they are developed properly. I'm not talking about ken wilber's big mind concept, or sitting in samadhi all day, I'm talking about developing the brain parts so they're not ... um... let me 'splain.

what i've experienced, speaking broadly, is this: early on, it seemed that my brain was focused only on my body, and reacted only to nervous signals of pain, etc. As I developed real life skills, My awareness expanded to my emotions, and as i transcended many of them, it turned towards the energy body, etc., all of this on it's own. it doesn't sound interesting in any way, except to say that by not skipping any steps in my development, by incrementally developing all the small parts in a comprehensive way, I have not skipped anything, and my development has managed itself. Conversely, the traditional methods of detachment, or kriya yoga, or things like that would have me bypass my incremental personal development and go straight for the big stuff.

but incrementally, I have arrived at big stuff. And I have found that i experience that stuff in small but significantly different ways. And that variation in experience has caused me to disagree with everyone about everything, because I am the minority in my experiences. My brain isn't entirely linear, chronological, and the like, even though everyone assumes it is. and that is why i rarely write anything...because I always disagree, and can't get past those simple things in a discussion, in order to get to the cool stuff.

anyway, speaking of cool stuff, i have found nothing but limitless potential, never boundaries, except that boundaries are always self-imposed. In this case, my boundary, my failure, is to accurately describe what I know. And i'm going to transcend that, because, now that I know what the problem is, it is inevitable that i will eventually overcome it.

[sleeper]

i do agree with CFTraveler pretty often, though. It's kind of unsettling to me, I'm not used to it. :roll:

[CFTraveler]

i do agree with CFTraveler pretty often, though. It's kind of unsettling to me, I'm not used to it. :roll: Ha ha that's a baaad sign. :D It's even worse if you understand me. :D

[sleeper]

i do agree with CFTraveler pretty often, though. It's kind of unsettling to me, I'm not used to it. :roll: Ha ha that's a baaad sign. :D It's even worse if you understand me. :D

i understand you, but in a liminal, abstract way, incomplete way.

What is the Zen of CFTraveler?

[CFTraveler]

That makes sense, 'cause I just is.

[Korpo]

While my brain tends to abstract things, it does not lose anything in the abstraction process; rather, it only loses what it's not capable of understanding.

It loses nothing but what it loses. ;)

What you're saying is: "I'm losing nothing except what my thinking brain does not understand. I find what I retain still interesting and helpful."

I have no doubt of that, but that process IMO inherently loses things. The thinking brain is working in "dual mode", partitioning everything and moving away from wholes, losing information. All I am suggesting is that I believe it is ultimately better to move towards wholes and away from loss and partitioning.


i don't see any reason why my brain, or anyone else's brain can't comprehend big thoughts, if they are developed properly.

I'm not talking philosophy here. I do not like philosophy if it is derived from nothing but the thinking brain. If I want to know something that is of real value, I don't go to a "thinker". I go to someone like Lao Tse, whose philosophy is not derived from what he thought about it, but instead a try to put into words what he found beyond words. He did not "think it through". He does not value the words he speaks, but what he found. He describes by wrapping it into thoughts and words, by writing down what he found when going into stillness. For our benefit not his, since the words are not important to him.


True words aren't eloquent;
eloquent words aren't true.
Wise men don't need to prove their point;
men who need to prove their point aren't wise.(from: http://www.edepot.com/tao4.html)

I lack inherent wisdom because I am even letting myself be drawn into this philosophical discussion, knowing that deeper down it is not a philosophy to me. Part of me wants to be right, but another part of me wants to help you out in a way:

I've been down that road. The road of dissection and analysis leads away from the whole. It can solve many "problems", but not this one. Linear thought is but a tool with a limited use. "Big thoughts" are never big enough to get a hang of the infinite.

Remember your message: Your brain betrays you. I'd say: It applies the same tool over and over, and would use a hammer to unscrew a screw, because all it has is a hammer.

The masters do not lack understanding. We do lack a means of understanding them. We use words and do not understand. We evaluate what we learn in terms of the past and miss the present moment. The cure for the condition of unwhole thought is not "more thought" or "bigger thought". Bigger, more, farther, higher - that's a change in quantity. That's the paradigm of our unwhole time. Quality matters, it is a paradigm change, back to a whole.


Therefore the Master
acts without doing anything
and teaches without saying anything.
Things arise and she lets them come;
things disappear and she lets them go.
She has but doesn't possess,
acts but doesn't expect.
When her work is done, she forgets it.
That is why it lasts forever.(from: http://www.edepot.com/tao4.html)

IMO the path of "big thoughts" is walked until the thinking mind hits its inherent limit. It induces lots of unhappiness and unnecessary suffering as you struggle with what "must be true" and "how it should be". Concepts come and go and are never good enough, so a deep unfulfilled feeling is lurking in the background. The feeling of unwholeness becomes more and more apparent.

Unfortunately for a clever, smart and intelligent person like you this process can take a very long time, and can lead to great frustration. The bigger capacity of your thinking process prolongs the process and prolongs actually the suffering inherent in it. Healing is always around the corner, but never comes.

Fortunately this way naturally hits the wall. The more determined you are, the bigger the impact. At the end it is so exhausting it points the "other way" almost by itself, IMO. The mental strain of trying to comprehend all in thought and in building this ultimate "thought cathedral of mental order" is at some point overwhelming. It induces more and more strain. This strain leads to a point where you can no longer keep it up.

So, even if you don't believe me now nothing is lost. IMO this realisation is inevitable, but few people go the short way. I didn't. ;)

Take good care,
Oliver

[sleeper]

Well, if you are right, then I am bound to find out.

cheers.

[Korpo]

Yes. The hard way.

Good luck,
Oliver

[sleeper]

how hard will it be?

[Korpo]

Depends on how stubborn you are, or how clever. Judging from reading you - could be pretty hard. :D Think total mental exhaustion. Like no longer being able to reconcile everything.

But then again, I was under pressure because of several other things. So it might not happen for you. It was wonderful in its own right. I tend to see it as moment of grace. It came in a moment of great distress.

In the end you could follow your current path through several lifetimes. My mental makeup is surely different from yours, so maybe you never "hit the wall". Maybe you can do both - since you meditate - explore thinking and emptiness interchangeably. Just because you love to think big does not mean you chose to live in your head as strongly as I did. I had ironfist control over myself, which turned in the end to be impossible to keep up.

If your way does bring you (lasting) joy and no suffering, you must be doing something right. So I guess that would be a better guide than anything I could say. Suffering of any kind is also always a strong indication.

I only keep on wondering about the message of your three items from earlier - it seems to me like a stern warning about the linear-thinking brain. Or at least about to acutely stay aware of its limitations or underlying mechanisms while using it.

Oliver

[Korpo]

how hard will it be?


You are currently seeking with your intellect. This point generally takes about 20 years of seeking to find. And then the search is turned inwards, which is the only direction that can offer any answers.

I found this in "Ask Robert" today. Guess, that sums it up, too. ;)

Oliver