Doe thought give us false information?
angelica
Posts: 6,038
Does thought give us false information?
Here is a quote that points to the false nature of thought that we in the western world have come to rely upon so heavily. The quote is by highly esteemed quantum physicist, David Bohm. This may explain the underlying problem in the human condition, and it echoes what those who have achieved enlightment say as well:
"So one begins to wonder what is going to happen to the human race. Technology keeps on advancing with greater and greater power, either for good or for destruction. ...
What is the source of all this trouble? I'm saying that the source is basically in thought. Many people would think that such a statement is crazy, because thought is the one thing we have with which to solve our problems. That's part of our tradition.
...the general tacit assumption in thought is that it's just telling you the way things are and that it's not doing anything - that 'you' are inside there, deciding what to do with the info. But you don't decide what to do with the info. Thought runs you. Thought, however, gives false info that you are running it, that you are the one who controls thought. Whereas actually thought is the one which controls each one of us.
Thought is creating divisions out of itself and then saying that they are there naturally. This is another major feature of thought: Thought doesn't know it is doing something and then it struggles against what it is doing. It doesn't want to know that it is doing it. And thought struggles against the results, trying to avoid those unpleasant results while keeping on with that way of thinking. That is what I call "sustained incoherence".
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Bohm
Here is a quote that points to the false nature of thought that we in the western world have come to rely upon so heavily. The quote is by highly esteemed quantum physicist, David Bohm. This may explain the underlying problem in the human condition, and it echoes what those who have achieved enlightment say as well:
"So one begins to wonder what is going to happen to the human race. Technology keeps on advancing with greater and greater power, either for good or for destruction. ...
What is the source of all this trouble? I'm saying that the source is basically in thought. Many people would think that such a statement is crazy, because thought is the one thing we have with which to solve our problems. That's part of our tradition.
...the general tacit assumption in thought is that it's just telling you the way things are and that it's not doing anything - that 'you' are inside there, deciding what to do with the info. But you don't decide what to do with the info. Thought runs you. Thought, however, gives false info that you are running it, that you are the one who controls thought. Whereas actually thought is the one which controls each one of us.
Thought is creating divisions out of itself and then saying that they are there naturally. This is another major feature of thought: Thought doesn't know it is doing something and then it struggles against what it is doing. It doesn't want to know that it is doing it. And thought struggles against the results, trying to avoid those unpleasant results while keeping on with that way of thinking. That is what I call "sustained incoherence".
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Bohm
"The opposite of a fact is falsehood, but the opposite of one profound truth may very well be another profound truth." ~ Niels Bohr
http://www.myspace.com/illuminatta
Rhinocerous Surprise '08!!!
http://www.myspace.com/illuminatta
Rhinocerous Surprise '08!!!
Post edited by Unknown User on
0
Comments
This for sure exists.
Like someone saying: I don't know enough to know more (or better) than what is presented but I do know that I think it's incorrect, and am certain that I think this. Why? meh... I just know...
I see this a lot...
and reveling in it's loyalty. It's made by forming coalitions
over specific principles, goals, and policies.
http://i36.tinypic.com/66j31x.jpg
(\__/)
( o.O)
(")_(")
I've been looking a lot more into David Bohm lately. What he proposes is that actual truth and awareness is realized through intuition or whole awareness in each moment. This is an alogical process of direct perception and knowing. The idea is that thought is always based on what has happened to us in the past. Our thoughts are the product of conclusions we've created based on past experiences. We then bring preconceived ideas to each moment and by filtering each moment with thought, or conditioning based on the past, we lose touch with reality in the moment. InSight, intuition and full awareness in each moment provides clarity.
"Thought is constantly creating problems ... and then trying to solve them. But as it tries to solve them it makes it worse because it doesn’t notice that it's creating them, and the more it thinks, the more problems it creates." ~ David Bohm
http://www.myspace.com/illuminatta
Rhinocerous Surprise '08!!!
Thought is merely reacting to a situation based upon previous outcomes.
Here's an example (often brought up in math classes):
We drive along a country road and look at the sheep, grazing on the hillside. We count 100 sheep, noting that one of them is black, while the others are white (or whatever that sheep color is).
Our thought brings us to the conclusion of 1 out of 100 sheep are black.
But, thinking about it leads us to the conclusion that of the 100 sheep we have counted along this specific stretch of road, 1 of those specific 100 sheep appears to be black... on the side that is apparent to us.
So, yes thought does sometimes lead to false information.
Hail, Hail!!!
First of all I don't think anyone can "achieve enlightenment" in the sense that they have gotten to place life that is difficult to achieve but once you get there, you just "know." Enlightenment is a process that can be achieved throughout life, even daily, but is not sustainable.
Secondly, I don't agree with his comment that "thought runs you"... that we cannot control thought... at least ALL the time. I believe there is an "inner spark," "conscience" if you will, inside each of us that allows us to manually send our thoughts down a specific path. When we are disconnected from this I totally agree that we do not control our thoughts... but I think this can mostly be described as "daydreaming." Otherwise our conscience can direct thoughts but not necessarily have full control at all times.
Yes, in my understanding, David Bohm believes that thought is always fragmented and based on the past, but that there is consciousness that is all one, and that this consciousness is beyond and encompasses thought. And yes, we all contain this consciousness. What he's saying about thought, though, is that we think we are thinking it, but it is thinking us. The way around this is to identify with insight beyond thought and that is beyond our individual sense of self, otherwise known as the ego.
The ego is who most of us think we are...our thoughts and our individual feelings. And yet psychology tells us that we are so much more beyond that. However most people don't even tap that. And especially in the western world, we cling to the ego, and our fragmented self and thoughts that are separate from the whole.
http://www.myspace.com/illuminatta
Rhinocerous Surprise '08!!!
Bohm: "...it's the insight that does it, you see, the insight is not you, right? The insight being supreme intelligence is able to rearrange the very structural matter of the brain which underlies thought so as to remove that message which is causing the confusion, leaving the necessary information and leaving the brain open to perceive reality in a different way. But at present, it's blocked, the conditioning blocks us, because it creates a pressure to maintain what is familiar and old, and makes people frightened to consider anything new. So, reality is limited by the message which has already been deeply impressed upon the brain cells from early childhood. Now the insight actually removes the message which is causing this block.
Weber: And makes us then commensurable with it?
Bohm: It opens thought up to be fresh and new again so that it can operate rationally. One could say that to remain within this block is completely irrational. It's the result of pressure. You adopt the idea that this block is truth because it relieves the pressure of uncertainty.
Weber: I see, but when you see the term "rationally" or "reasonably" shall we be very clear? You don't mean what the Enlightenment meant, or Descarte, you mean something far beyond that.
Bohm: Reason may have two sources. One is the memory, which is mechanical, rather like a computer.
Weber: Combining the right things.
Bohm: Yes, we may have reason from there and that is subject to all the irrational pressures which are also in the memory: emotional pressures, fears, all those experiences and so on, and so that kind of reasoning is very limited. It can very quickly get caught in self-deception.
Weber: And to you that signifies a barrier. That is not what you're speaking of.
Bohm: That's right. But then there may be reason which flows from insight and a reason which is operating as an instrument of intelligence. That's an entirely different kind of reason.
Weber: It implies what? Order, but not mechanical order?
Bohm: Not mechanical order, and not limited by pressure, you see. Let's take a physicist. If he's been subjected to all these courses in quantum mechanics and pressures to think in this way: he'll be approved of if he does, disapproved of if he doesn't, he gets a job if he does, not if he doesn't, and so on and so on, the minute the idea occurs of thinking in another way, there will be an intense pressure which will blot it out. So, therefore, that isn't reason anymore, it's unreason.
Weber: But he'll think it's reason. He'll rationalize it.
Bohm: He'll think it's reason, yes, he'll say it's reason because he's blotted out all this pressure. It all happens very fast and automatically.
Weber: And he's confirmed by the consensus of the physical community?
Bohm: Well, everybody's doing the same thing, you see. They all reinforce each other and they all say it's right, but it's all the same.
Weber: Can we go back for a moment? This possible state that you speak of where intelligence or insight operates because it's unblocked because I've taken away the obstacles....
Bohm: It's insight that's taken away the obstacles, not me, right?
Weber: All right. What it would be in touch with, you imply is beyond the nonmanifest, is the source of the nonmanifest. Are you implying that that's the domain of, shall we call it "the sacred"?
Bohm: Well, it has been called the sacred. As we know "holy" is based on the word "whole", it could be called whole, or wholeness. See, the word "sacred" has unfortunately come to mean something different from its original root, that is to say a sacrifice that you make. Now it's closely connected with the idea of organized religions making sacrifices and things like that, and it has a great many connotations which are unfortunate.
Weber: But you feel the word whole, holy is....?
Bohm: Is a bit better, yes. ...
http://www.myspace.com/illuminatta
Rhinocerous Surprise '08!!!
Englightenment cannot be achieved by walking the right path, it is the path. It is not the end, it is the beginning, a change in behavior and an ongoing education throughout life. Maybe Jesus and Ghandi were truly enlightened but not many others throughout history.
Thought is thinking us, as in we are the result of our thoughts?
If we can circumvent this process... is it desirable to do so?
Enlightenment is not common when thought continues to think individuals at a rampant pace. And when people on a mass scale think what they find from thought is reality.
In my understanding enlightenment is sustainable. To connect to the inner Sight of inSight, and to be informed by this awareness....
"The only real valuable thing is intuition". ~ Einstein
“The intuitive mind is a sacred gift and the rational mind is a faithful servant. We have created a society that honors the servant and has forgotten the gift.” ~ Einstein
what we think of as us - the ego...or the "I" - it supposedly stems from our thoughts. The real us exists behind those thoughts. We are one with unbroken wholeness.
Circumvent fragmentation for wholeness? Circumvent being the drop of water for being the ocean? I guess it depends on one's perspective.
http://www.myspace.com/illuminatta
Rhinocerous Surprise '08!!!
take a good look
this could be the day
hold my hand
lie beside me
i just need to say