If you have a better word than my word "Over-mind" please tell me. — Ken Edwards
We are at this moment using our 2 vastly limited semantic minds with occasional flashes of intuition from the overmind and trying to do the impossible. — Ken Edwards
-I am not sure what you mean by the word "directing". That is a verb and it requires a subject and a complement to make sense, "He directed me to his mother's house". So, could not the over-mind direct parts of itself to other parts of itself? I think much more probable, the over-mind directing the conscious min and visa-versa. — Ken Edwards
The conscious mind cannot direct thoughts towards me because the conscious mind IS me. (I think) — Ken Edwards
Remember that I assume that Thinking is not an abstraction anymore than belching is an abstraction. Thinking is the actual movement of a living piece of matter inside of the skull. — Ken Edwards
-I think thinking is the creation of thoughts that may or not lead to more thoughts ie questions and answers, and are things in themselves. The act of thinking can be precipitated by many kinds of stuff. A pretty sunset, an angry face, a question, a kick in the ass an erotic picture etc. — Ken Edwards
<So we ought to allow that thinking is an activity which can occur without any content, no thoughts, an activity without anything moving.
-I don't think that is a true statement. — Ken Edwards
I think thinking is the creation of thoughts... — Ken Edwards
Thinking is movement, (actually the movement of electrons in an electric circuit which can be detected). — Ken Edwards
They came together. — Ken Edwards
Let me change that to: "a result of a past act of thinking" — Ken Edwards
If so how has that thinking been provoked? Might it not have been provoked by something exterior like a tree or a traffic cop. Or provoked by an earlier thought coming from either of the two minds or from the newly discovered default mind?
How does "directed" come into it? — Ken Edwards
I agree but Attention from where? from your conscious mind or from the subconscious ie, over-mind? I would say the latter. — Ken Edwards
But, a caveat. 2 or more events must occur before you can direct your conscious attention to it. If you are touched that would activate your sense of touch without the participation of the conscious mind. If it were something that was very hot that would instantly turn on a series of alarm bells and you would take violent action without the participation of the conscious mind. — Ken Edwards
Who or what is "I". Your conscious mind obviously. It would be normal for me to use a slightly different vocabulary. That's why when something touches me I would say: "It would attrect my attention" which would be a general statement refering to all aspects of my response. Rather than: "Direct attention to it" — Ken Edwards
But, I think any thought can be interrupted or cancelled and a new thought provoked or intruded or substituded. — Ken Edwards
Get involved in philosophical discussions about knowledge, truth, language, consciousness, science, politics, religion, logic and mathematics, art, history, and lots more. No ads, no clutter, and very little agreement — just fascinating conversations.