In praise of ideas

[Apech]

There is far too much on this forum about the ‘non-conceptual’ , as if that were a thing anyway.  I am here to sing the praises of concepts and ideas.

 

In heaven there are stars and in our minds there are ideas.  Shining with their own particular light.  Every word we speak - every sentence is a string of interlocking stars.  If the light is coherent we may find truth in them.  If the light is discordant we might find lies.

 

Ideas are eternal, they are the substance of our thoughts and understanding. They feed our dreams, our aspirations and inform our endeavors.  Without ideas we have no life worthy of the name.  Like angels they bring messages from beyond the mundane.  
 

Let us be blessed with ideas,  may we have dreams and let the coherent light of truth be our pathway.

 

 

[NaturaNaturans]

Thank you, I very much agree with you. Even fictional stories are in one sense more «real,» then sterile facts or word salats of philosophy (I am NOT attacking any tradition here, they mean a lot to so, so many people and have done a lot of good), but stories are the essence of life. It is how we see the world. If you asked me what I did today, you wouldnt want to hear a retelling of how i woke up 08.00, brushed my teath and jada jada jada, but the parts that stood out and was meaningfull. 

 

Think how immortal stories like the Odysseus, the fall and cain and able are. They tell us a lot of what it means to be human, and have inspired countless people. Books like Harry Potter series was literally my childhood. 
 

 Let me share some stories that touch me:

In Greek mythology, Sisyphus or Sisyphos(/ˈsɪsɪfəs/; Ancient Greek: Σίσυφος Sísyphos) was the founder and king of Ephyra (now known as Corinth). He was a devious tyrant who killed visitors to show off his power. This violation of the sacred hospitality tradition greatly angered the gods. They punished him for trickery of others, including his cheating death twice. The gods forced him to roll an immense boulder up a hill only for it to roll back down every time it neared the top, repeating this action for eternity. Through the classical influence on modern culture, tasks that are both laborious and futile are therefore described as Sisyphean (/sɪsɪˈfiːən/).^[2]

Spoiler

 

Quote

The Disciple

 

 

When Narcissus died, the pool of his pleasure changed from a cup of sweet waters into a cup of salt tears, and the Oreads came weeping through the woodland that they might sing to the pool and give it comfort.

 

And when they saw that the pool had changed from a cup of sweet water into a cup of salt tears, they loosened the green tresses of their hair and said, 

 

“We do not wonder that you should mourn in this manner for Narcissus, so beautiful was he.”

 

“But was Narcissus beautiful ?” said the pool.

 

“Who should know better than you ?” asked the Oreads. "Us did he ever pass by, but you sought he for, and would lie on your banks and look down at you, and in the mirror of your waters he would mirror his own beauty.”

 

And the pool answered, 

 

“But I loved Narcissus because, as he lay on my banks and looked down at me, in the mirror of his eyes I saw ever my own beauty mirrored.”

 

– Oscar Wilde

 

Quote

“My topic today is loneliness,” Christensen said, beginning his presentation. He described loneliness as more than just the feeling of being alone and wishing you had someone there. It is the experience of being alien and unable to understand others. For many, the solution to loneliness is the soul mate, someone with whom one can relate to perfectly and vice versa, as if one person.

Plato addressed the idea of two people coming from one. In Plato’s Symposium, Aristophanes tells the story of how Zeus – fearing that the powerful and physically perfect humans would rise against him – split human beings in half, creating the distinct male and female counterparts. According to Aristophanes, that is why people talk about looking for their “second half” and equate falling in love with “feeling whole.”

Within the play, Plato objects to Aristophanes’ account of the origin of the genders and the idea that one person can be half of a whole. “According to Plato, you can’t truly love something, whether half or whole, unless it is truly good. You can never be satisfied with something that is less than perfection,” explained Christensen.

 

 

Quote

 

About easter, witch in pre-christian times was dedicated to the end of winter/spring and the god Baldur is derived from norse Baldr, meaning bold. He is said to be the most beloved and beautiful of all the gods. When Odin started having dreams (prophecies in a sense) about his son death, his wife Freya (fertility, beauty, lady, seidr/magic/shamanism/fate/volva/seer) went around the world and asked all beings, threes, rocks, rivers, metals, you name it, to promise not to harm Balder. They all agreed. 
As Baldr now had become immortal, the gods made a game out of throwing things at him. Loki (trickster and a jotun, but never the less a god) disguised himself, as tricksters do, and asked Freya: did everything promise not to harm him? To witch she responded yes, everything but the mistletoe, but why worry about something so small and insignificant? 

Loki, still in disguise, approached the blind god Hothr and gave him an arrow with the tip of a mistletoe, and invited him to join the game. The blind god fired his bow, and Baldr died. All beings where in great distress, because they knew that the death of baldr, marked the (beginning) of the end, ragnarrok. Fimbulvinter (the great winter, lasting for three seasons) set in. The sun disappears, laws and morals falls away. The struggle of survival. Men starve, brothers fight brothers. The forces of utgard march against the Asgard, and mankind joins the battle as well. The midgard serpent and Thor fights each other, leaving both dead. Fenrir swallows Odin and his men, the einherjar (those who died in battle and went to valhalla). All giants, gods and men die in this battle. The world is submerged in water. 
Baldr, now in the underworld ruled by Lokis daughter Hel, promised to realise him on the condition that the whole world. 

Lif and Lifthrasir, destined to survive Ragnarrok, ventured out in time and went on to populate the earth. They worshipped Balder as their main god.

Now, there are various accounts, a lot of unknown elements and also errors in my retteling of it, but i think its pretty cool. The brave god of beauty, associated with spring, dies on the hands of a blind men, tricked by a Loki and killed by an overlooked/insignificant plant. When the god of easter dies, the long winter sets in, and all hell breaks loose. The world cries, hell sets loose and both the forces of evil and good is killed. Two humans remain, life, and their main deity is the god of beauty and spring himself, Baldur…

 

 

Edited June 5 by NaturaNaturans

[NaturaNaturans]

 Not sure how relevant (or correct or relevant) this text is, but i wrote the following on another forum:

 

I wrote a little text inspired by two books ive read, "antikken på trikken" and "meditations" by Aurelius. It concerns various approaches to knowledge and life. I am, as usual, out of my depth, so feedback, corrections and criticism is always welcomed. Anyway:

In small, tight-knit groups, there is no need for laws. Norms, rituals, reciprocity, taboos, and more are sufficient to keep order. With the emergence of the first cities, novel problems arose—problems that tradition had no obvious answer to, such as ownership. In many cases, we see the emergence of stark hierarchies where the citizens are nothing more than the property of their rulers. They alone hold the power and are the judge, jury, and executioner. They claim their authority from the heavens. Think Hammurabi and Moses. To them, the laws were literally and figuratively written in stone. They were above questioning, eternal, and got their authority from above.

But with the Greeks, things seemed to change. Naturally, they too had laws, rulers, and gods. Thunder was the result of Zeus's anger, just as with Thor. The rainbow, Iris, was the messenger of the gods. For the Norse, the rainbow (Bifrost) was the bridge to Asgard. But then a fellow by the name of Anaximenes (528 BC) appeared with ideas that today sound banal but were revolutionary, world-changing, and ingenious.

We see the emergence of democracy (rule by the people) and philosophy (friend of wisdom). They questioned the established order and instead asked themselves how an ideal society should be organized, using reason. According to Anaximenes, the rainbow was not a connector to the heavenly realms but simply the result of sunlight failing to penetrate thick clouds. Wrong as it might be, it is irrelevant. What matters here is his approach: science. With him, we went from explaining natural phenomena with gods to reason. This is the shift from mythos to logos.

"The sea is the source of water and the source of wind; for neither would blasts of wind arise in the clouds and blow out from within them, except for the great sea, nor would the streams of rivers nor the rain-water in the sky exist but for the sea; but the great sea is the begetter of clouds and winds and rivers." - Empedocles

From the quote, we can see a naturalistic approach to the world. A belief in logos and harmony between the elements. An explanation of the forces of nature without resorting to Poseidon or water nymphs. A lot of good can be said about the scientific method, but it has its limits. Let me quote myself (paraphrasing Viggo Johansen's foreword to Meditations by Marcus Aurelius):

In the foreword, he raises the following question: how can a book written by the most powerful person on the planet, 1800 years ago, be relevant for us today? He writes: "… every evening he (Aurelius) sits down to write, in order to remember who he is - a human. Not an emperor, but a human."

For this reason, Stoicism can appeal to the emperor himself, the slave Epictetus, and us. Our shells and roles are vastly different, but we are united in being human and feel the same love, anger, desire to live authentically, attempt to live morally, and face mortality. Since the will is free, we are free as well. We can be forced to act a certain way, but no one but ourselves controls our will, reactions, and thoughts. What does it mean to be human? Science cannot help us here. Science assumes that man and nature are purely material, but Viggo points out that this is just an assumption, and nothing more. A plausible assumption, but an assumption nonetheless. Wise men and traditions have, however, always talked about spirit and soul.

Things can never touch the soul, but stand inert outside it, so that disquiet can arise only from fancies within.
Marcus Aurelius, Meditations

This book remains among the absolute greatest I've read

 

 

__________
edit: i guess the point is that stories speak to us at a deeper level then ideas alone. Kind of how maths can seem unintutive compared to art at times.

Edited June 5 by NaturaNaturans

[doc benway]

I will be a voice of both dissent and agreement. 

 

20 hours ago, Apech said:

There is far too much on this forum about the ‘non-conceptual’ ,

 

There is so little discussion of the non-conceptual anywhere else on the web, for me at least, the amount that is present here is just fine, thank you. Frankly the non-conceptual doesn't require or even support much discussion. I find myself participating relatively little simply because the whole point of the non-conceptual is to avoid all of the imputation and misguided ideation often thrown at "it."

 

20 hours ago, Apech said:

as if that were a thing anyway.

 

It is most certainly not a "thing," but nothing could exist, including ideas and concepts, without "it."

 

20 hours ago, Apech said:

 I am here to sing the praises of concepts and ideas.

 

In heaven there are stars and in our minds there are ideas.  Shining with their own particular light.  Every word we speak - every sentence is a string of interlocking stars.  If the light is coherent we may find truth in them.  If the light is discordant we might find lies.

 

I am reading your song of the conceptual to the tune of "This Must Be the Place" by Talking Heads.

Beautiful lyrics and melody and, despite my close connection with and appreciation for the realm of the non-conceptual, I appreciate and agree with your praise of the conceptual. In many ways it defines our "humanity," that which distinguishes us from other forms of life. 

 

20 hours ago, Apech said:

 

Ideas are eternal,

 

I disagree here, ideas come and go and have no substance until implemented. 

They are as unenduring and insubstantial as fashion and movie critiques. 

 

20 hours ago, Apech said:

they are the substance of our thoughts and understanding. They feed our dreams, our aspirations and inform our endeavors.  Without ideas we have no life worthy of the name.  

 

I'll disagree here as well. That is simply the perspective of the one creating the ideas.

That one(s) can only appreciate the realm of concept.

One needs no ideas to fully appreciate a sip of wine, a Dali, or an orgasm. 

Certainly one can explore the conceptual aspect of fine wine, art, and human relationship but, for me at least, the conceptual aspect is no substitute for the sheer, unfabricated experience.

Do organisms without conceptual, verbal ideation have no life worthy of the name?

In my opinion, fwiw, all life is worthy of living whether capable of speech and ideation or not.

 

20 hours ago, Apech said:

Like angels they bring messages from beyond the mundane.  
 

Let us be blessed with ideas,  may we have dreams and let the coherent light of truth be our pathway.

 

 

Amen

 

Full disclosure, I have been fully indulging in in the world of the conceptual of late. 

Partly it is unavoidable, living in a fast paced society with a fast paced and demanding job, and having dependents. 

After an extended period of being very focused and committed to non-conceptual practice I've let go of much of that scheduled and restrictive regimen. The practice is still there but far less structured and forced. Practice and living have coalesced, certainly not continuous by a long shot but relatively effortless. While the non-conceptual practice aspect reduces stress and reactivity associated with the conceptual aspects of life; there is more engagement with and appreciation for the full gamut - thought, desire, aversion, pleasure, ideas, and concepts alike. All of it precious. 

[Apech]

1 hour ago, steve said:

I will be a voice of both dissent and agreement. 

 

 

There is so little discussion of the non-conceptual anywhere else on the web, for me at least, the amount that is present here is just fine, thank you. Frankly the non-conceptual doesn't require or even support much discussion. I find myself participating relatively little simply because the whole point of the non-conceptual is to avoid all of the imputation and misguided ideation often thrown at "it."

 

But there is plenty on here - in fact it is the first resort of those that cannot explain themselves.  Since without ideas how can you explain.

 

1 hour ago, steve said:

 

It is most certainly not a "thing," but nothing could exist, including ideas and concepts, without "it."

 

Agreed,

 

1 hour ago, steve said:

 

I am reading your song of the conceptual to the tune of "This Must Be the Place" by Talking Heads.

Beautiful lyrics and melody and, despite my close connection with and appreciation for the realm of the non-conceptual, I appreciate and agree with your praise of the conceptual. In many ways it defines our "humanity," that which distinguishes us from other forms of life. 

 

 

I disagree here, ideas come and go and have no substance until implemented. 

They are as unenduring and insubstantial as fashion and movie critiques. 

 

Really?  What about for example 'a triangle has three sides' - when does that 'go' and before that when did it come?

I think you may be mixing up thoughts, feelings and perceptions with ideas.

 

1 hour ago, steve said:

 

I'll disagree here as well. That is simply the perspective of the one creating the ideas.

That one(s) can only appreciate the realm of concept.

One needs no ideas to fully appreciate a sip of wine, a Dali, or an orgasm. 

Certainly one can explore the conceptual aspect of fine wine, art, and human relationship but, for me at least, the conceptual aspect is no substitute for the sheer, unfabricated experience.

Do organisms without conceptual, verbal ideation have no life worthy of the name?

In my opinion, fwiw, all life is worthy of living whether capable of speech and ideation or not.

 

 

What kind of life are you leading - sipping wine, looking at Dali ... and well, nevermind.  I would say all of these are fully appreciated through ideas.  If the Dali painting doesn't spark of thoughts and ideas then you are not really appreciating it.

 

1 hour ago, steve said:

 

Amen

 

Full disclosure, I have been fully indulging in in the world of the conceptual of late. 

Partly it is unavoidable, living in a fast paced society with a fast paced and demanding job, and having dependents. 

After an extended period of being very focused and committed to non-conceptual practice I've let go of much of that scheduled and restrictive regimen. The practice is still there but far less structured and forced. Practice and living have coalesced, certainly not continuous by a long shot but relatively effortless. While the non-conceptual practice aspect reduces stress and reactivity associated with the conceptual aspects of life; there is more engagement with and appreciation for the full gamut - thought, desire, aversion, pleasure, ideas, and concepts alike. All of it precious. 

 

That Nuncle, is the secret.

 

But I would like, if permitted to continue to praise ideas, without them life would be jejune.

 

 

[silent thunder]

1 hour ago, Apech said:

If the Dali painting doesn't spark of thoughts and ideas then you are not really appreciating it.

[Nungali]

Ideas ;

 

They flash forth like fire in inspiration.

They settle like water in consideration.

Their details are aired within mentation.

But they need an earthy solid manifestation.

 

Otherwise its just a pipe dream

or some silly new age scheme.
if only we had ideas that seem

in retrospect,  what they should have been .

 

 

.

Edited June 7 by Nungali

[liminal_luke]

Talk of the nonconceptual mostly goes over my head.  I have not had the requisite experiences or read the requisite texts to get into the debate.  I don´t mind it though.  To me it´s like someone speaking a foreign language that I might pick up some day, or not. 

 

Ideas are a mixed bag when it comes to appreciating art or music or literature.  They can both enhance our appreciation and get in the way.  It´s good to listen to Bach with the knowledge base of a classical musician; also good to put all that sophistication away and listen with the guileless auditory innocence of a child. 

[silent thunder]

Words and thoughts can seem dazzling and important... and lure my awareness into a chain of 'this thought leads to that notion' in a game of sorts... of mentation in what's next?...  that can span days, weeks and decades, a lifetime... if left to run on its own inertia unchecked by raw awareness in presence, in living beingness. 

 

Yet inevitably, words, thoughts and 'thinking' utterly reveal a lack of gravity for this one's awareness and any kind of abiding reality however, compared with beingness and presence.   Awareness requires no thought, though it may abide thought.

 

At this point, i appreciate thoughts on occasion.  Endure them for the most part as a necessary aspect of navigating human life in its current conditions and most thrive when they are utterly absent in the raw potency of pure being.

 

 

 

[doc benway]

5 hours ago, Apech said:

 

But there is plenty on here - in fact it is the first resort of those that cannot explain themselves. 

 

Speaking as one who has been awed and literally and figuratively shaken to the core by the non-conceptual, this place gives me a very rare opportunity to share with others who can relate. The irony is that one reason I know my self is alive and well is through the camaraderie and validation I enjoy here. 😜😂

 

Quote

Since without ideas how can you explain.

 

You can’t explain what I am referring to with ideas either.

 

Quote

 

 

Agreed,

 

 

Really?  What about for example 'a triangle has three sides' - when does that 'go' and before that when did it come?

I think you may be mixing up thoughts, feelings and perceptions with ideas.

 

Yes, I do mix those up. For me the boundaries are often flexible or ambiguous. Ideas come and go with us. With individuals, with civilizations and cultures, with species. Your illustration is a good one. Ideas and illustrations are powerful, stories are powerful. They are much like deities and archetypes. And they are empty unless they give birth to manifestation. Even the manifestation is empty but that’s a dirty word so…. 

 

Quote

 

 

What kind of life are you leading - sipping wine, looking at Dali ... and well, nevermind.  I would say all of these are fully appreciated through ideas.  If the Dali painting doesn't spark of thoughts and ideas then you are not really appreciating it.

 

I’m leading a bit of an indulgent life, my dear. Lounging in the tub at the moment. Ideas can certainly heighten or spoil experience. are you thinking of me now? There is an appreciation for the skill, theory, and interpretation in art and nature, but there is the taste of a mango and then there are the chemical analysis and descriptions.

 

Quote

 

 

That Nuncle, is the secret.

 

But I would like, if permitted to continue to praise ideas, without them life would be jejune.

 

 

 

And I will join you.

But jejune without them… ?

I beg to differ.

Nothing is deeper and richer for me than silence.

 

3 hours ago, liminal_luke said:

Talk of the nonconceptual mostly goes over my head.  I have not had the requisite experiences or read the requisite texts to get into the debate.  I don´t mind it though.  To me it´s like someone speaking a foreign language that I might pick up some day, or not. 

 

Talk often goes over my head too. 

 

I once signed up for a master class in guitar with a famous, now deceased composer/player, Roland Dyens. I prepared a complex and atonal piece but didn’t know his nemesis was the composer. When I finished playing he looked at me in disgust, paused for what seemed like an hour, during which time my inner critic was screaming - I KNEW THIS WOULD HAPPEN, WHY DID I DO THIS, THIS IS MY FUCKING NIGHTMARE COME TO LIFE. And he said, “Too many notes! did you prepare anything else?”

 

Quote

Ideas are a mixed bag when it comes to appreciating art or music or literature.  They can both enhance our appreciation and get in the way.  It´s good to listen to Bach with the knowledge base of a classical musician; also good to put all that sophistication away and listen with the guileless auditory innocence of a child. 

 

When I play and listen to music there is the experience and then there are the ideas and concepts and theories. This is especially pronounced when trying to compose. There is the shiver in my belly, and there are labels and analysis of that. Both are marvelous! For me, that relationship is the territory of practice.

[liminal_luke]

36 minutes ago, steve said:

 

When I play and listen to music there is the experience and then there are the ideas and concepts and theories. This is especially pronounced when trying to compose. There is the shiver in my belly, and there are labels and analysis of that. Both are marvelous! For me, one serves the other in a sense and that is the territory of practice.

 

I think you´ve put your finger on the yin and the yang, seemingly worlds apart and yet dancing together in the process of composition. -In the play of these opposing modes of being, we can sometimes sense the genderless ground of being that lies beneath, beyond polarity, beyond argument and strife, beyond our words and ideas about how things are or should be.  To me this is the purpose of both art and spiritual practice.  Coming home. 

Edited June 6 by liminal_luke

[forestofclarity]

13 hours ago, liminal_luke said:

I have not had the requisite experiences or read the requisite texts to get into the debate.

 

We have non-conceptual experiences all the time, they are the qualia or basic building blocks of experience. From at least one Buddhist perspective, the pure taste of ice cream is non-conceptual, the coldness, the light solidity and soft texture of the cone, etc. (form). The feeling of liking it may then arise (feeling), the beginning of concepts, and everything that follows is conceptual. Then the mind pulls all these sensations together (perception). Then there's all sorts of thoughts, feelings, activities and so on, the buzzing reverie of ideas, feelings, and actions (impulses). The ice cream cone, you, the background is all pulled into a coherent picture: I am enjoying this ice cream cone (consciousness) and want to have another bite. 

 

But what if instead of getting caught up in the buzzing reverie, we let that initial taste arise and then fade? What if we let our attention dissolve the same way the taste dissolves? What if we don't draw all the lines around the cone, ourselves, and the background, and run down all the habitual paths? 

[Apech]

54 minutes ago, forestofemptiness said:

 

We have non-conceptual experiences all the time, they are the qualia or basic building blocks of experience. From at least one Buddhist perspective, the pure taste of ice cream is non-conceptual, the coldness, the light solidity and soft texture of the cone, etc. (form). The feeling of liking it may then arise (feeling), the beginning of concepts, and everything that follows is conceptual. Then the mind pulls all these sensations together (perception). Then there's all sorts of thoughts, feelings, activities and so on, the buzzing reverie of ideas, feelings, and actions (impulses). The ice cream cone, you, the background is all pulled into a coherent picture: I am enjoying this ice cream cone (consciousness) and want to have another bite. 

 

But what if instead of getting caught up in the buzzing reverie, we let that initial taste arise and then fade? What if we let our attention dissolve the same way the taste dissolves? What if we don't draw all the lines around the cone, ourselves, and the background, and run down all the habitual paths? 

 

In ancient China someone had the idea of mixing milk solids and ice with sugar, Marco Polo saw this and brought the idea back to Europe where someone thought of the idea of placing the substance in a cone made of wafer biscuit.

 

Then it was served to @steve as a non-conceptual dessert  which caused him to burst into song.

 

 

[Taomeow]

2 hours ago, Apech said:

 

In ancient China someone had the idea of mixing milk solids and ice with sugar, Marco Polo saw this and brought the idea back to Europe where someone thought of the idea of placing the substance in a cone made of wafer biscuit.

 

 

That's the problem with ideas.  Modern historians have this idea that Marco Polo not only didn't introduce ice cream to Europe but never went to China to begin with, and the "everybody knows" narrative was fully invented by the Victorians.  Just their idea of a cool story to tell.  Ice cream cool.

 

There's got to be some kind of hierarchy of ideas, a way to tell the ones that are good from the ones that are neutral from the ones that are irrelevant and then the ones that are harmful, all the way to absolutely deadly.  We've had our fair share of all kinds, but I don't think there's a good mechanism in existence to tell them apart.  I believe we need it...     

 

My all-time favorite example of the hierarchy of ideas comes from a book by the creator of the mathematical theory of fuzzy logic, Lotfi Zadeh.  If you ask a 5-year-old how much is two plus two, she might oblige and say "four," but chances are she will respond with, "I want some ice cream."  It doesn't necessarily mean she has no idea what two plus two is and just wants to change the subject.  It may simply means that "four" is irrelevant in her life of thoughts and feelings right here, right now, and ice cream is relevant.  She's not being illogical either.  She's following a superseding logic.       

 

 

Edited June 6 by Taomeow

[S:C]

On 6.6.2024 at 3:16 PM, forestofemptiness said:

But what if instead of getting caught up in the buzzing reverie, we let that initial taste arise and then fade? What if we let our attention dissolve the same way the taste dissolves? What if we don't draw all the lines around the cone, ourselves, and the background, and run down all the habitual paths? 

Helpful, thanks!

Edited June 7 by S:C

[Sherman Krebbs]

Whether empty, illusory or something else entirely, abstract thought is an important part of life.  As a parallel, the phenomenon of sight might be regarded as empty or illusory, but that does not mean one drives down the freeway with eyes closed.  Abstract though is a tool that helps us make sense of this world (its helping me to write this post now).  Don’t disregard it, use it to your advantage! I am not an advanced meditator by any means, but the practice of just sitting and observing my thoughts and allowing the thoughts disappear into nothingness, like bubbles floating in the breeze, has given me great insight into how I should understand them, praiseworthy or not.

 

[snowymountains]

On 05/06/2024 at 1:24 AM, Apech said:

There is far too much on this forum about the ‘non-conceptual’ , as if that were a thing anyway.  I am here to sing the praises of concepts and ideas.

 

In heaven there are stars and in our minds there are ideas.  Shining with their own particular light.  Every word we speak - every sentence is a string of interlocking stars.  If the light is coherent we may find truth in them.  If the light is discordant we might find lies.

 

Ideas are eternal, they are the substance of our thoughts and understanding. They feed our dreams, our aspirations and inform our endeavors.  Without ideas we have no life worthy of the name.  Like angels they bring messages from beyond the mundane.  
 

Let us be blessed with ideas,  may we have dreams and let the coherent light of truth be our pathway.

 

 

 

Yes X4 , but also true is that we're not only about cognition.

Non-conceptual is more of a reference to felt experience. So something not derived e.g. theologically.

Maybe the brain needs to slow down or empty temporarily for an experience to emerge but ultimately I don't remember seeing any lobotomy instructions in the Pali Canon 😁

 

Cognition, ideas, forms are all super important. It's a matter of proportion, it's eg good to be able to cultivate the skill to keep a distance from our thoughts when we want to but this doesn't mean dissociating from our thoughts.

Edited June 6 by snowymountains

[snowymountains]

2 hours ago, Taomeow said:

 

There's got to be some kind of hierarchy of ideas, a way to tell the ones that are good from the ones that are neutral from the ones that are irrelevant and then the ones that are harmful, all the way to absolutely deadly.  We've had our fair share of all kinds, but I don't think there's a good mechanism in existence to tell them apart.  I believe we need it...    

 

To some extent there is, concerning the harmful ones at least. Aaron Beck did a lot of work on that, and it's what CT is about ( which later became CBT )

 

2 hours ago, Taomeow said:

My all-time favorite example of the hierarchy of ideas comes from a book by the creator of the mathematical theory of fuzzy logic, Lotfi Zadeh.  If you ask a 5-year-old how much is two plus two, she might oblige and say "four," but chances are she will respond with, "I want some ice cream."  It doesn't necessarily mean she has no idea what two plus two is and just wants to change the subject.  It may simply means that "four" is irrelevant in her life of thoughts and feelings right here, right now, and ice cream is relevant.  She's not being illogical either.  She's following a superseding logic.       

 

 

 

That's something entirely different, there's no harmful thought there

Edited June 6 by snowymountains

[Apech]

4 hours ago, Taomeow said:

 

That's the problem with ideas.  Modern historians have this idea that Marco Polo not only didn't introduce ice cream to Europe but never went to China to begin with, and the "everybody knows" narrative was fully invented by the Victorians.  Just their idea of a cool story to tell.  Ice cream cool.

 

There's got to be some kind of hierarchy of ideas, a way to tell the ones that are good from the ones that are neutral from the ones that are irrelevant and then the ones that are harmful, all the way to absolutely deadly.  We've had our fair share of all kinds, but I don't think there's a good mechanism in existence to tell them apart.  I believe we need it...     

 

I think ideas are hierarchical after all concepts are big ideas which 'hold together' families of ideas.  Although the hierarchy must be multidimensional with the 'top' idea changing with context.  I see it as a vast net or perhaps a honeycomb of interrelated ideas.  On either side of this are deniers - on one side the materialists like the Marxists who see ideas like bubbles floating to the surface of sewage forming a froth.  On the other side are the 'non-conceptual' people who just like to drop the whole idea business as a bit too difficult and 'problematic'. 

 

4 hours ago, Taomeow said:

My all-time favorite example of the hierarchy of ideas comes from a book by the creator of the mathematical theory of fuzzy logic, Lotfi Zadeh.  If you ask a 5-year-old how much is two plus two, she might oblige and say "four," but chances are she will respond with, "I want some ice cream."  It doesn't necessarily mean she has no idea what two plus two is and just wants to change the subject.  It may simply means that "four" is irrelevant in her life of thoughts and feelings right here, right now, and ice cream is relevant.  She's not being illogical either.  She's following a superseding logic.       

 

 

 

I spend some time each day with my partner's aged mother and her aunties.  They are all at least 80+ and mad as hatters.  They do a lot and are very spritely - but very prone to sudden emotional outbursts and when they do things together they just shout continuously.  It's just so odd that they manage to get things done - which they do because they are tough as old boots.  Forces of nature run by fuzzy logic.

 

 

[Apech]

2 hours ago, Brad M said:

Whether empty, illusory or something else entirely, abstract thought is an important part of life.  As a parallel, the phenomenon of sight might be regarded as empty or illusory, but that does not mean one drives down the freeway with eyes closed.  Abstract though is a tool that helps us make sense of this world (its helping me to write this post now).  Don’t disregard it, use it to your advantage! I am not an advanced meditator by any means, but the practice of just sitting and observing my thoughts and allowing the thoughts disappear into nothingness, like bubbles floating in the breeze, has given me great insight into how I should understand them, praiseworthy or not.

 

 

 

I would like to suggest that ideas are not abstract at all but are real within their own sphere/realm.  I could explain but it gets spooky

[Apech]

1 hour ago, snowymountains said:

 

Yes X4 , but also true is that we're not only about cognition.

Non-conceptual is more of a reference to felt experience. So something not derived e.g. theologically.

Maybe the brain needs to slow down or empty temporarily for an experience to emerge but ultimately I don't remember seeing any lobotomy instructions in the Pali Canon 😁

 

Cognition, ideas, forms are all super important. It's a matter of proportion, it's eg good to be able to cultivate the skill to keep a distance from our thoughts when we want to but this doesn't mean dissociating from our thoughts.

 

I thought we agreed for a moment but then I realised we don't.  But at least we share a respect for ideas.

 

 

[Taomeow]

1 hour ago, Apech said:

 

I think ideas are hierarchical after all concepts are big ideas which 'hold together' families of ideas.  Although the hierarchy must be multidimensional with the 'top' idea changing with context.  I see it as a vast net or perhaps a honeycomb of interrelated ideas.  On either side of this are deniers - on one side the materialists like the Marxists who see ideas like bubbles floating to the surface of sewage forming a froth.  On the other side are the 'non-conceptual' people who just like to drop the whole idea business as a bit too difficult and 'problematic'. 

 

 

I've known two kinds of Marxists.  The Soviet ones were huge on ideas, it's just that those ideas had to express their ideology, and the bubbles on the surface of sewage were, to them, all other ideas.  Here, e.g., is an example of a very common way they decorated buildings here and there with permanent displays of ideological slogans.  This one reads, "Lenin's Ideas Keep Living and Winning!"  ("Ideas" is the first word of this statement in the original.)    

 

 

The other kind of Marxists, the Western ones, are exactly the same.  They do differ stylistically, on the surface of things, and many of them call themselves something entirely else, while many others don't even know that that's what they are (because unlike poor me they didn't have to study in-depth Marxism and derivatives for years on end, nor live its practical applications as a state policy.)  But the same enforcement of the mandatory worship of their ideas and complete relentless cancellation of not-theirs is a trademark by which you can recognize them even among billionaires.  In fact, I doubt many (if any) of them have read Das Kapital, a book of tremendous size and excruciating boredom...  but Marx was not really a Marxist in the sense the two categories I mentioned are.  Such is the fate of ideas.  

Edited June 6 by Taomeow

[Nungali]

7 hours ago, Taomeow said:

 

That's the problem with ideas.  Modern historians have this idea that Marco Polo not only didn't introduce ice cream to Europe but never went to China to begin with, and the "everybody knows" narrative was fully invented by the Victorians.  Just their idea of a cool story to tell.  Ice cream cool.

 

There's got to be some kind of hierarchy of ideas, a way to tell the ones that are good from the ones that are neutral from the ones that are irrelevant and then the ones that are harmful, all the way to absolutely deadly.  We've had our fair share of all kinds, but I don't think there's a good mechanism in existence to tell them apart.  I believe we need it...     

 

My all-time favorite example of the hierarchy of ideas comes from a book by the creator of the mathematical theory of fuzzy logic, Lotfi Zadeh.  If you ask a 5-year-old how much is two plus two, she might oblige and say "four," but chances are she will respond with, "I want some ice cream."  It doesn't necessarily mean she has no idea what two plus two is and just wants to change the subject.  It may simply means that "four" is irrelevant in her life of thoughts and feelings right here, right now, and ice cream is relevant.  She's not being illogical either.  She's following a superseding logic.       

 

 

 

Thanks for that .

 

I was just challenged on a history forum to  show historical reference to the land of Olmo Lung Ring ... now I know how to respond :

 

" Of course I know the reference , but its irrelevant at the moment   .........   "

 

Edited June 7 by Nungali

[Nungali]

2 hours ago, Apech said:

 

 

I would like to suggest that ideas are not abstract at all but are real within their own sphere/realm.  I could explain but it gets spooky

 

Go on then ..... we can handle spooky here .

[Taomeow]

42 minutes ago, Nungali said:

 

Thanks for that .

 

I was just challenged on a history forum to  show historical reference to the land of Olmo Lung Ring ... now I know how to respond :

 

" Of course I know the reference , but its irrelevant at the moment   .........   "

 

 

It's not as easy to pull off if you're not a 5-year-old.  Adults are saddled with left brain derived expectations and obligations -- which more often than not are also someone else's idea of how we are supposed to behave in this or that situation.  But give it a try. 

 

When my son was 5, if I told him "no" in response to this or that request, he would think hard and try to negotiate, but instead of offering good behavior or whatever more ingenuous children use as bargaining chips, he would light up as though he just had a brilliant idea, and offer to oink for me.  The idea was that he can imitate a little pig so well that I won't be able to deny him anything.  Half the time it worked, even though oinking was always irrelevant.  

Edited June 7 by Taomeow