Concept associations

[Birch]

I was thinking about this specific topic and wanted to see what the TTB's think.

Alright, say I put my mind on a word, anything really, what are the chances that that word will bring with it a bunch of other words? Will those words be things I recognise as attached to the first one? Why would they be attached? Does this just shed light on conditioned associations or do they have anything to do with 'natural reality' (assuming there is such a thing:-))?

 

What about concepts? Sort of like words but a bit more multi-dimensional. For example, if I conjure up part of a concept of an animal in my mind, assuming it's partially accurate, will the rest of the parts of the concept come with it with equal accuracy? Or would i just be filling in the blanks with errors based on partial knowlege?

 

What do you reckon?

[Marblehead]

 

What do you reckon?

 

Happens to me all the time with both words and concepts. I always wrote it off as just the way our brain works in storing information. I am sure there are people who can take this to great depths though.

[Protector]

Let's see, the so called physics of first and second chakras work like this: first there's one thing and it's just there, then because that first thing is there, a second thing shows up and it always has something to do with the first one.

 

These things keep appearing up to the 7th thing and they go in more of a curve if you think about, and it would have been a good thing to think about in the "matter or conscioussness" thread in Vedanta discussion but I don't know on what part of that thread to start caring, before the whole thing went into verbal hell.

 

The first concept that you start thinking about eventually reaches different dimensions of understanding up until you reach the 7th dimension where you finally understand that you don't understand anything at all.

 

Beginning stages of the concept are the first who chakra thingies. You think of a thing as the first stage, then for second stage you repeat the thing until you realize that the thing is there or the thing you think about actually works and the thing reached stage three.

 

The thing stays in the stage three and it stays there in the back of your mind as a nice little thing that you learned to live with and now are comfortable with and it becomes a stage four.

 

Since you are on the stage four, you are not scared that the little bugger will bite your face off, you start to stare at it a little bit longer and you learn new things out of it and you collect these nice things in a box labeled "stage five".

 

After you finish counting atoms from the contents of the box, you change the box for a box number six and don't put anything into it since you can already guess what will happen with the contents of the stupid thing for ever and ever.

 

Then finally you realize that you know nothing, you were staring at this box trying to figure out literally everything about it, you forgot to look outside the box, bud dum tis.

 

The box/stage/dimension/pizza seven doesn't exist just like the other pizzas since staring at the thinking what will happen next is pointless from experience and you already know that you are also a box so then you go buy a lamp made out of radioactive gators and set it on fire just to watch it eat Deep Purple Burn.

 

Don't know where I was going with this, I was just watching one too many Zero Punctuation videos.

[Fū Yue]

From what i've observed during my meditations, all of the accumulated knowledge of the average human becomes more and more homogenous the farther you trace the thought. Throw the appropriate symbol in the huge, murky sea of the mind like a fisherman and the appropriate (according to your mind's unique sub-processing interface) fish takes the bait. Unfortunately the sub mind does not differentiate between fact, fiction, random tangent, beautiful tree you saw that one time or the horrible hot dog you ate at the fair. Kind of like a vast library with all the pages of the books bulging out from between the covers but they're exploding randomly, eating each other, and swapping innards with other people's books when you're not looking. Nonetheless, they are arranged according to the language you used to describe the form. So you think of 'chopsticks' and an image of two wooden sticks comes to mind, probe further and they become a long staff, then a walking stick, and it's all downhill from there. Without the structure of language, I don't think this would be the case.

 

So if you conjured part of the concept of an animal, the rest of the parts of the concept may arise, or something slightly related might arise and become entwined, building up to some chimeric monstrosity in the end. I suppose it depends on if you are keeping your library clean and orderly or not.

[Birch]

From what i've observed during my meditations, all of the accumulated knowledge of the average human becomes more and more homogenous the farther you trace the thought. Throw the appropriate symbol in the huge, murky sea of the mind like a fisherman and the appropriate (according to your mind's unique sub-processing interface) fish takes the bait. Unfortunately the sub mind does not differentiate between fact, fiction, random tangent, beautiful tree you saw that one time or the horrible hot dog you ate at the fair. Kind of like a vast library with all the pages of the books bulging out from between the covers but they're exploding randomly, eating each other, and swapping innards with other people's books when you're not looking. Nonetheless, they are arranged according to the language you used to describe the form. So you think of 'chopsticks' and an image of two wooden sticks comes to mind, probe further and they become a long staff, then a walking stick, and it's all downhill from there. Without the structure of language, I don't think this would be the case.

 

So if you conjured part of the concept of an animal, the rest of the parts of the concept may arise, or something slightly related might arise and become entwined, building up to some chimeric monstrosity in the end. I suppose it depends on if you are keeping your library clean and orderly or not.

Hmm, suppose that's one way of looking at it. Very interesting. Did I say i sometimes also consumed trash? In this case it would be media. I had a lockdown on movies or music of any kind for about a year. The upshot is I got re-sensitized. Doesn't feel great in our present conundrum. So i guess my question is about the library of the real :-)

[ChiDragon]

 

 

What about concepts? Sort of like words but a bit more multi-dimensional. For example, if I conjure up part of a concept of an animal in my mind, assuming it's partially accurate, will the rest of the parts of the concept come with it with equal accuracy? Or would i just be filling in the blanks with errors based on partial knowlege?

What do you reckon?

 

Yes...!!!

[Birch]

Yes...!!!

 

Unexpected Mr C_Dragon

 

"Yes" What?

 

---you know you want to but it's a bit complicated. Come back when you're done translating the SOTGF --------

[Marblehead]

Without the structure of language, I don't think this would be the case.

 

This might be close to one of those "absolute truths" but I doubt there will ever be any way to prove or disprove it.

 

Without language where would we be?

[3bob]

This might be close to one of those "absolute truths" but I doubt there will ever be any way to prove or disprove it.

 

Without language where would we be?

 

naked (so to speak) via telepathic revealation and communication without beating around the bush.

[zanshin]

I don't think you need language to form concepts, it's just one path. My dog knows very little language, but she has ideas attached to implications of the flick of the cat's tail around the corner or birds chirping in the back yard, babies make associations with touching and smiling before they learn language too. Perhaps nonverbal concepts are more firmly based in natural reality, then again I am pretty sure my vaccuum cleaner is not actually a scary monster.

[Marblehead]

naked (so to speak) via telepathic revealation and communication without beating around the bush.

 

Ah!, but we (humans in general) haven't developed these abilities very well yet, have we? So that still leaves only verbal language.

[Marblehead]

... then again I am pretty sure my vaccuum cleaner is not actually a scary monster.

 

Excellent point. Therefore I would suggest that 'direct experience' can be just as misleading as can misunderstandings gained from verbal language.

[3bob]

Ah!, but we (humans in general) haven't developed these abilities very well yet, have we? So that still leaves only verbal language.

 

That is one way to look at it, on the other hand such is an inate, natural ability that has been covered over with this and that... thus clear away this and that and there it is; btw if such telepathic communication is pure and transmitting the truth then if or when it transforms into verbal language (or written like the T.T.C.) the truth is still being echoed to the ten-thousand.

[Marblehead]

That is one way to look at it, on the other hand such is an inate, natural ability that has been covered over with this and that... thus clear away this and that and there it is; btw if such telepathic communication is pure and transmitting the truth then if or when it transforms into verbal language (or written like the T.T.C.) the truth is still being echoed to the ten-thousand.

 

You got to logical for me there. Hehehe.

 

I basically agree with what you said but I think that, in the life of most of us, there is too much noise for these inate abilities to develop and be of much use in our life.

 

As far as the truth is concerned, that's a different subject. But I would agree that the truth just is, the problem is in being aware of it. Some people don't like to hear the truth - they would rather hold to their illusions and delusions.

[Birch]

Why would people 'rather' hold on to illusions etc Mr MH?

It's often expressed as a preference. As if people were entirely free to pick between their illusion and the truth.

I don't know if they are or not.

[Jetsun]

Why would people 'rather' hold on to illusions etc Mr MH?

It's often expressed as a preference. As if people were entirely free to pick between their illusion and the truth.

I don't know if they are or not.

 

I think people would rather hold onto illusions because they have identified their sense of self with them, they are them, so to let them go is perceived as the same thing as death.

[Marblehead]

Why would people 'rather' hold on to illusions etc Mr MH?

 

Because they don't want the world they have created to crumble. That would be too scarey.

 

Their illusions and delusions give them comfort and security even though the security may be solely imaginary.