Guest guest Report post Posted December 12, 2005 SEE _______________ in this mirror. Nisargadatta , " whitehorserides " <green1911@v...> wrote: > > Nisargadatta , " bigwaaba " <bigwaaba> wrote: > > > > LOL LOL LOL > > where should nothingness go? > > > > not enough, still not enough > > > > you are mental, go away > > empty your mind and change your name__________________that's enough > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " whitehorserides " > > <green1911@v...> wrote: > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " bigwaaba " <bigwaaba> > > wrote: > > > > > > > > no,no,no > > > > > > > > that's not the way! > > > > wait... > > > > > > > > > big goof not big waaba > > > > > > you can't make up your mind cause you don't have one____ > remember, > > > > > > you can't even remember b/c you stopped that too, > > > > > > > > > you're nothing, be quiet, listen to you gurur > > > this is your answer. > > > > > > go away waaba , don't come back don't be a hypocrite. > > > you're nothing , be quiet. > > > look at the lines > > > change your name to _________________ > > > > > > _____________________________ > > > _________ > > > _________________________________. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " whitehorserides " > > > > <green1911@v...> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " dennis_travis33 " > > > > > <dennis_travis33> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " anders_lindman " > > > > > > <anders_lindman> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " bigwaaba " > > > <bigwaaba> > > > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Find what links together emotions and thoughts. > > > > > > > > is it an emotion? > > > > > > > > is it a thought? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > ok waaba , answer your question? > > > > > > > > > > _ > > > > > ______________________ > > > > > _. > > > > > > > > > > or is it nothing.___________________________ > > > > > > > > > > what did your guru tell you? > > > > > > > > > > go________________________________. > > > > > > > > > > aal said his share and marc chirped now you. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > It is our sense of being aware in the now (for example > > called > > > > the > > > > > > > Witness by Ken Wilber) that is the connection point > between > > > > > thoughts > > > > > > > and emotions. For example when we use our physical senses > > > such > > > > as > > > > > > > sight, then when we look at something there is an " image " > > > > created > > > > > in > > > > > > > the " mind " (the information from the left and right eye > are > > > > turned > > > > > > > upside down and presented as one image in the mind). That > > > direct > > > > > > > perception is not a thought, is not the intellect. When > you > > > > look > > > > > at > > > > > > > the computer monitor in front of you, you are aware of > the > > > > direct > > > > > > > image of the computer monitor as registered by your eyes. > > > That > > > > > which > > > > > > > is aware of that image is not a thought, it is > > the " Witness " . > > > > > When > > > > > > you > > > > > > > think about what you will do the next hour, that is the > > > > intellect. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > al. > > > > > > > > > > > > and when this " witness " become " aware " of > > > being " witness " .....?... > > > > > > > > > > > > then the computer monitor still is being used by the > > intellect > > > > > > writing nice theories? > > > > > > > > > > > > Marc > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted December 12, 2005 Nisargadatta , " dennis_travis33 " <dennis_travis33> wrote: > > Nisargadatta , " whitehorserides " > <green1911@v...> wrote: > > > > Nisargadatta , " bigwaaba " <bigwaaba> > wrote: > > > > > > LOL LOL LOL > > > where should nothingness go? > > > > > > not enough, still not enough > > > > > > > > you are mental, go away > > > > empty your mind and change your name__________________that's enough > > > > > > > > ....maybe " God " could create another " world " for you.....just for > you ....for the child " who " don't respect any play-rules......and > don't like any real " others " , except the unreal " ones " he is dreaming > about.... > > let's pray to " God " ..... > > don't pray marc, you are liable to go into duality. stay in your dream, marc, you were doing well, go away dream more. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted December 12, 2005 Hello Werner, Keeping it to our own observations, then, which is quite fine with me, I can speak of *extensive* experience with non-verbal thought. A poem, for example, may begin as a little spiraling whirl of energy, a fluid thing that then undergoes a transformation to appear as words on a page. It is a process I have experienced many, many times. Or with drawing I will sometimes allow an " energy " , some kind of vivid sense, to show up, and then will draw in such a manner that the " energy " ripples down my arm as it were and appears as a drawing. Often in such cases I will have no idea *in mind* of what I am drawing. So the notion of *verbal thought* as primary certainly makes no sense in my world. My subjective experience of life is rooted in a fluid sea of energy forms and transforms. When you say: > " In the beginning was the word " . And then came emotions which are > just physical sensations. you seem to be referring to verbal thought. How does non-verbal thought fit into your view of things? Bill > > Hi Bill, > > Please see, you only can refer to unconscious or subconscious thought > because you have read about it or someone told you. > > I am only relating to my own daily observations. Therefore you better > should see me as 'simple minded'. And so 'thought' for me originates > in 'thinking' and not in processes I am unconscious of. I do not deny > those processes and if the subconsious can get consious (not by > verbalization) then it is fine. > > " In the beginning was the word " . And then came emotions which are > just physical sensations. > > Werner > > > Nisargadatta , " billrishel " <illieusion@h...> > wrote: > > > > Hi Werner... > > > > You wrote: > > > All emotions are physical sensation caused by thought. > > > > I'm not ready to accept that statement, actually. > > But we don't have definitions before us of the > > terms, so is difficult to make a focused comment > > on the subject. > > > > By thought do you mean only conscious thought, or > > do you have a notion of unconscious thought as well? > > > > > can unidentified thought cause any emotions ? Or has > > > there be a preceding identification to trigger > > > emotions. ? > > > > Apparently by " unidentified thought " you mean > > unconscious thought. There are experiments that > > clearly show that people experience emotions, > > and even act on them, without any consciousness > > that they are having the emotions. > > > > That being the case, the answer to your second > > question above seems to be, " No. " > > > > Getting back to your presupposition: > > > All emotions are physical sensation caused by thought. > > > > Why do you consider that emotions require thought? > > It seems entirely plausible to me that emotions > > can be initiated by perception alone. If you look > > to your left and abruptly see a tiger leaping toward > > you I expect there would be emotions kicking in, > > and I don't think there would be a lot of thinking > > going on. I think that emotions are more primitive > > than thought, which is to say evolutionarily " prior " > > to thought. [Antonio Damasio's book *The Feeling of > > What Happens* supports that view, if I recall correctly.] > > > > For example, it seems that one can identify many > > examples in the animal kingdom of emotions whereas > > thought in the animal kingdom is generally a dubious > > conjecture except perhaps in the higher primates. > > So a scwaking mother bird whose nest of eggs is being > > threatened by a predator is surely experiencing > > emotion, but there is little basis for presuming > > thought as being operant in such a case. > > > > Bill > > > > > > > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " Werner Woehr " <wwoehr@p...> > > wrote: > > > > > > Hi Bill, > > > > > > I haven't quite got what you wrote but let me say this: > > > > > > All emotions are physical sensation caused by thought. Which > means, > > > first thought, then this physical sensation called 'emotion' > which > > is > > > a bodily reaction and was induced by thought. And that needs > time - > > > emotions are slow. > > > > > > The interesting thing now is, can unidentified thought cause any > > > emotions ? Or has there be a preceding identification zo trigger > > > emotions. ? > > > > > > Werner > > > > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " billrishel " > <illieusion@h...> > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > When we separate emotions from the intellect in all aspects > > relating > > > > to time, then inner conflict ceases and energy is released so > > that > > > the > > > > negative emotions are melted into peace in the present moment. > We > > > can > > > > then still use the intellect for practical purposes regarding > > time, > > > > such as planning e t c, but our own sense of self is no longer > > > dragged > > > > along into an imagined future that previously only gave us > waiting > > > > and/or stress. > > > > >>>>> > > > > > > > > From what you are saying the " sense of self " corresponds > > > > to emotions. > > > > > > > > It is interesting because I picked that out from the first > > > > sentence above and then read you saying as much in the last > > > > sentence. > > > > > > > > A way that strikes me to say it (a little different than > > > > yours) is to allow a melting into the flow of feeling. > > > > Doing so might be a whitewater rapid or a lazy river. > > > > But staying with it eventually a lazy river. > > > > > > > > I guess the point is that feeling is always now, and so > > > > real in a way that thought can never can be. > > > > > > > > Thought is useful as something that arises in a flash > > > > (as a lightning bolt) and then fades, but as steersman > > > > thought is the worst of the worst. > > > > > > > > > > > > Bill > > > > > > > > Note: Krishnamurti speaks of ending psychological time. > > > > > > > > > > Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted December 12, 2005 Hi Bill, What you wrote does not make any sense for me and therefore also not non-verbal thought. Werner Nisargadatta , " billrishel " <illieusion@h...> wrote: > > Hello Werner, > > Keeping it to our own observations, then, which > is quite fine with me, I can speak of *extensive* > experience with non-verbal thought. A poem, for > example, may begin as a little spiraling whirl > of energy, a fluid thing that then undergoes a > transformation to appear as words on a page. It > is a process I have experienced many, many times. > > Or with drawing I will sometimes allow an " energy " , > some kind of vivid sense, to show up, and then > will draw in such a manner that the " energy " > ripples down my arm as it were and appears as a > drawing. Often in such cases I will have no idea > *in mind* of what I am drawing. > > So the notion of *verbal thought* as primary > certainly makes no sense in my world. > > My subjective experience of life is rooted in > a fluid sea of energy forms and transforms. > > When you say: > > " In the beginning was the word " . And then came emotions which are > > just physical sensations. > you seem to be referring to verbal thought. > > How does non-verbal thought fit into your view of things? > > Bill > > > > > > > Hi Bill, > > > > Please see, you only can refer to unconscious or subconscious thought > > because you have read about it or someone told you. > > > > I am only relating to my own daily observations. Therefore you better > > should see me as 'simple minded'. And so 'thought' for me originates > > in 'thinking' and not in processes I am unconscious of. I do not deny > > those processes and if the subconsious can get consious (not by > > verbalization) then it is fine. > > > > " In the beginning was the word " . And then came emotions which are > > just physical sensations. > > > > Werner > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " billrishel " <illieusion@h...> > > wrote: > > > > > > Hi Werner... > > > > > > You wrote: > > > > All emotions are physical sensation caused by thought. > > > > > > I'm not ready to accept that statement, actually. > > > But we don't have definitions before us of the > > > terms, so is difficult to make a focused comment > > > on the subject. > > > > > > By thought do you mean only conscious thought, or > > > do you have a notion of unconscious thought as well? > > > > > > > can unidentified thought cause any emotions ? Or has > > > > there be a preceding identification to trigger > > > > emotions. ? > > > > > > Apparently by " unidentified thought " you mean > > > unconscious thought. There are experiments that > > > clearly show that people experience emotions, > > > and even act on them, without any consciousness > > > that they are having the emotions. > > > > > > That being the case, the answer to your second > > > question above seems to be, " No. " > > > > > > Getting back to your presupposition: > > > > All emotions are physical sensation caused by thought. > > > > > > Why do you consider that emotions require thought? > > > It seems entirely plausible to me that emotions > > > can be initiated by perception alone. If you look > > > to your left and abruptly see a tiger leaping toward > > > you I expect there would be emotions kicking in, > > > and I don't think there would be a lot of thinking > > > going on. I think that emotions are more primitive > > > than thought, which is to say evolutionarily " prior " > > > to thought. [Antonio Damasio's book *The Feeling of > > > What Happens* supports that view, if I recall correctly.] > > > > > > For example, it seems that one can identify many > > > examples in the animal kingdom of emotions whereas > > > thought in the animal kingdom is generally a dubious > > > conjecture except perhaps in the higher primates. > > > So a scwaking mother bird whose nest of eggs is being > > > threatened by a predator is surely experiencing > > > emotion, but there is little basis for presuming > > > thought as being operant in such a case. > > > > > > Bill > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " Werner Woehr " <wwoehr@p...> > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > Hi Bill, > > > > > > > > I haven't quite got what you wrote but let me say this: > > > > > > > > All emotions are physical sensation caused by thought. Which > > means, > > > > first thought, then this physical sensation called 'emotion' > > which > > > is > > > > a bodily reaction and was induced by thought. And that needs > > time - > > > > emotions are slow. > > > > > > > > The interesting thing now is, can unidentified thought cause any > > > > emotions ? Or has there be a preceding identification zo trigger > > > > emotions. ? > > > > > > > > Werner > > > > > > > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " billrishel " > > <illieusion@h...> > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > When we separate emotions from the intellect in all aspects > > > relating > > > > > to time, then inner conflict ceases and energy is released so > > > that > > > > the > > > > > negative emotions are melted into peace in the present moment. > > We > > > > can > > > > > then still use the intellect for practical purposes regarding > > > time, > > > > > such as planning e t c, but our own sense of self is no longer > > > > dragged > > > > > along into an imagined future that previously only gave us > > waiting > > > > > and/or stress. > > > > > >>>>> > > > > > > > > > > From what you are saying the " sense of self " corresponds > > > > > to emotions. > > > > > > > > > > It is interesting because I picked that out from the first > > > > > sentence above and then read you saying as much in the last > > > > > sentence. > > > > > > > > > > A way that strikes me to say it (a little different than > > > > > yours) is to allow a melting into the flow of feeling. > > > > > Doing so might be a whitewater rapid or a lazy river. > > > > > But staying with it eventually a lazy river. > > > > > > > > > > I guess the point is that feeling is always now, and so > > > > > real in a way that thought can never can be. > > > > > > > > > > Thought is useful as something that arises in a flash > > > > > (as a lightning bolt) and then fades, but as steersman > > > > > thought is the worst of the worst. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Bill > > > > > > > > > > Note: Krishnamurti speaks of ending psychological time. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted December 13, 2005 Why do you consider that emotions require thought? It seems entirely plausible to me that emotions can be initiated by perception alone. If you look to your left and abruptly see a tiger leaping toward you I expect there would be emotions kicking in, and I don't think there would be a lot of thinking going on. I think that emotions are more primitive than thought, which is to say evolutionarily " prior " to thought. Okay, lets ponder this a bit. Is it believed that perception occurs without thought? You see an object moving. Does the object have the ability to cause emotion simply by it's proximity or motion? Does the visual image of the tiger falling on the retina cause emotion to occur? The object must be identified as a tiger. Further, it must be recognized that a tiger is a danger. (A baby won't be able to process this and may want to play with it's soft, cudly fur) You then need to process a means of escape. (Would running into the river be safer than the clearing?) You then send commands to your muscles to move your body. (A relatively slow process.) The adrenaline release and blood vessel constriction in extremities takes care of itself as an autonomic reflex response to the fear that has already resulted from this processing. All of this is a mental analysis, and almost entirely unconscious, and it occurs in a split second. Without this analysis, no fear would be experienced and no action taken. Thought precedes emotion. Animals have brains, primitive as they may be. If they didn't, they wouldn't be able to recognize that the predator is a danger. Unless there is a built in instictual reaction, this is learned by experience. A new born baby bird will not run from a cat. (lunch time) What we call instincts are reactions programmed into the brain from birth for our survival and have little to do with emotions. The mother bird doesn't gasp at the realization of her pregnancy and frantically rush around gathering twigs for a nest and consult trusted neighbors on the safest building techniques. All of it is already programmed into the creature as an instinct and there is no emotion driving it at all. The fact that we can't follow the lightning fast, unconscious mental processing with our own mental processor doesn't mean it's not occurring. Phil In a message dated 12/12/2005 2:12:01 AM Pacific Standard Time, Nisargadatta writes: " billrishel " <illieusion Re: Ending psychological time Hi Werner... You wrote: > All emotions are physical sensation caused by thought. I'm not ready to accept that statement, actually. But we don't have definitions before us of the terms, so is difficult to make a focused comment on the subject. By thought do you mean only conscious thought, or do you have a notion of unconscious thought as well? > can unidentified thought cause any emotions ? Or has > there be a preceding identification to trigger > emotions. ? Apparently by " unidentified thought " you mean unconscious thought. There are experiments that clearly show that people experience emotions, and even act on them, without any consciousness that they are having the emotions. That being the case, the answer to your second question above seems to be, " No. " Getting back to your presupposition: > All emotions are physical sensation caused by thought. Why do you consider that emotions require thought? It seems entirely plausible to me that emotions can be initiated by perception alone. If you look to your left and abruptly see a tiger leaping toward you I expect there would be emotions kicking in, and I don't think there would be a lot of thinking going on. I think that emotions are more primitive than thought, which is to say evolutionarily " prior " to thought. [Antonio Damasio's book *The Feeling of What Happens* supports that view, if I recall correctly.] For example, it seems that one can identify many examples in the animal kingdom of emotions whereas thought in the animal kingdom is generally a dubious conjecture except perhaps in the higher primates. So a scwaking mother bird whose nest of eggs is being threatened by a predator is surely experiencing emotion, but there is little basis for presuming thought as being operant in such a case. Bill Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted December 13, 2005 In the experiment they were able to show that those with the comb in their mouth experienced an increase in positive emotional affect. In other words the experiment showed that smiling makes one feel more positive. I suggest it is absurd to maintain that thought was involved in the increase in positive affect. P: Or perhaps posturing a smile has a mental association to positive emotions. This would be a thought process. To me, it's absurd to assume that stretching certain facial muscles produces a positive feeling. By what process would this occur? Can we not find many examples of animals to which we can attibute emotions but for which we find no basis for assuming there is thought? I.e. there can be emotions without thought involved in the animal kingdom. And if there can be emotions without thought in the animal kingdom, there can be emotions without thought in the human. P: We can attribute (project) all the emotions we want, and then we can postulate what thoughts may or may not have occurred when inside a brain that we know nothing about. How do you know any of this by observing the animal. I suggested that we aren't even able to observe our own thought process and that's why we're even having this discussion. If emotion arises through physical manipulation, don't you suppose we would all be taking up the appropriate position and pretty much stay there? The only reason the discussion is of any significance is that it's helpful to realize that we produce all our struggle with our thoughts, and as long as we believe emotion arises spontaneously from something that just happens to us, it never occurs to let those thoughts go. Phil In a message dated 12/14/2005 12:13:13 AM Pacific Standard Time, Nisargadatta writes: " billrishel " <illieusion Re: Ending psychological time Bill: > Why do you consider that emotions require thought? > It seems entirely plausible to me that emotions > can be initiated by perception alone. If you look > to your left and abruptly see a tiger leaping toward > you I expect there would be emotions kicking in, > and I don't think there would be a lot of thinking > going on. I think that emotions are more primitive > than thought, which is to say evolutionarily " prior " > to thought. > Phil: > Okay, lets ponder this a bit. Is it believed that perception occurs without > thought? Bill: The assertion is not that emotion is *never* influenced by thought. The assertion is that emotion is not necessarily mediated by thought. I haven't seen any basis for the claim that thought is a necesary prerequisite for emotion. Is this all based on a New Age notion that we create our reality by our thoughts? It seems that those who are fond of the thought as prior to everything view simply assert it apriori. I read recently of an experiment where they had people hold a comb in their mouth. In doing so they were forced to adopt a smiling face. In the experiment they were able to show that those with the comb in their mouth experienced an increase in positive emotional affect. In other words the experiment showed that smiling makes one feel more positive. I suggest it is absurd to maintain that thought was involved in the increase in positive affect. Can we not find many examples of animals to which we can attibute emotions but for which we find no basis for assuming there is thought? I.e. there can be emotions without thought involved in the animal kingdom. And if there can be emotions without thought in the animal kingdom, there can be emotions without thought in the human. Bill Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted December 14, 2005 Bill: > Why do you consider that emotions require thought? > It seems entirely plausible to me that emotions > can be initiated by perception alone. If you look > to your left and abruptly see a tiger leaping toward > you I expect there would be emotions kicking in, > and I don't think there would be a lot of thinking > going on. I think that emotions are more primitive > than thought, which is to say evolutionarily " prior " > to thought. > Phil: > Okay, lets ponder this a bit. Is it believed that perception occurs without > thought? Bill: The assertion is not that emotion is *never* influenced by thought. The assertion is that emotion is not necessarily mediated by thought. I haven't seen any basis for the claim that thought is a necesary prerequisite for emotion. Is this all based on a New Age notion that we create our reality by our thoughts? It seems that those who are fond of the thought as prior to everything view simply assert it apriori. I read recently of an experiment where they had people hold a comb in their mouth. In doing so they were forced to adopt a smiling face. In the experiment they were able to show that those with the comb in their mouth experienced an increase in positive emotional affect. In other words the experiment showed that smiling makes one feel more positive. I suggest it is absurd to maintain that thought was involved in the increase in positive affect. Can we not find many examples of animals to which we can attibute emotions but for which we find no basis for assuming there is thought? I.e. there can be emotions without thought involved in the animal kingdom. And if there can be emotions without thought in the animal kingdom, there can be emotions without thought in the human. Bill Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted December 14, 2005 Bill, Before going on seeing my home in New Age ponder this: What did initite the smile ? Werner Nisargadatta , " billrishel " <illieusion@h...> wrote: > > Bill: > > Why do you consider that emotions require thought? > > It seems entirely plausible to me that emotions > > can be initiated by perception alone. If you look > > to your left and abruptly see a tiger leaping toward > > you I expect there would be emotions kicking in, > > and I don't think there would be a lot of thinking > > going on. I think that emotions are more primitive > > than thought, which is to say evolutionarily " prior " > > to thought. > > > Phil: > > Okay, lets ponder this a bit. Is it believed that perception occurs > without > > thought? > > Bill: > The assertion is not that emotion is *never* > influenced by thought. The assertion is that > emotion is not necessarily mediated by thought. > > I haven't seen any basis for the claim that > thought is a necesary prerequisite for emotion. > Is this all based on a New Age notion that we > create our reality by our thoughts? It seems > that those who are fond of the thought as prior > to everything view simply assert it apriori. > > I read recently of an experiment where they had > people hold a comb in their mouth. In doing so > they were forced to adopt a smiling face. In > the experiment they were able to show that > those with the comb in their mouth experienced > an increase in positive emotional affect. In > other words the experiment showed that smiling > makes one feel more positive. I suggest it is > absurd to maintain that thought was involved in > the increase in positive affect. > > Can we not find many examples of animals to > which we can attibute emotions but for which we > find no basis for assuming there is thought? > I.e. there can be emotions without thought > involved in the animal kingdom. And if there > can be emotions without thought in the animal > kingdom, there can be emotions without thought > in the human. > > > Bill > Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted December 14, 2005 Nisargadatta , " Werner Woehr " <wwoehr@p...> wrote: > > Bill, > > Before going on seeing my home in New Age ponder this: > > What did initite the smile ? > > Werner How come you Niz's can't agree or understand, his words? perhaps he tel you all there was to know/ That would imply your lost, or still searching same thing. yesterday someone experiences some discomfort and two or three different medicines come out, what's up with that? seriously werner, isn't it abut time you take stock on what is it you did learn, or you just a wayward student in the time and space of the onesness bubble of all is good just be now. these basic questions should have been addressed to Niz and you should have answers to pull from? _daaaaaaaaaaaaah! therefore i can open your minds and cause you to think. perhaps no one asked any significant questions. Wahat i saw from yesterday is basic " i am not this body, i am spirit stuff " . what's next? > > > > Nisargadatta , " billrishel " <illieusion@h...> > wrote: > > > > Bill: > > > Why do you consider that emotions require thought? > > > It seems entirely plausible to me that emotions > > > can be initiated by perception alone. If you look > > > to your left and abruptly see a tiger leaping toward > > > you I expect there would be emotions kicking in, > > > and I don't think there would be a lot of thinking > > > going on. I think that emotions are more primitive > > > than thought, which is to say evolutionarily " prior " > > > to thought. > > > > > Phil: > > > Okay, lets ponder this a bit. Is it believed that perception > occurs > > without > > > thought? > > > > Bill: > > The assertion is not that emotion is *never* > > influenced by thought. The assertion is that > > emotion is not necessarily mediated by thought. > > > > I haven't seen any basis for the claim that > > thought is a necesary prerequisite for emotion. > > Is this all based on a New Age notion that we > > create our reality by our thoughts? It seems > > that those who are fond of the thought as prior > > to everything view simply assert it apriori. > > > > I read recently of an experiment where they had > > people hold a comb in their mouth. In doing so > > they were forced to adopt a smiling face. In > > the experiment they were able to show that > > those with the comb in their mouth experienced > > an increase in positive emotional affect. In > > other words the experiment showed that smiling > > makes one feel more positive. I suggest it is > > absurd to maintain that thought was involved in > > the increase in positive affect. > > > > Can we not find many examples of animals to > > which we can attibute emotions but for which we > > find no basis for assuming there is thought? > > I.e. there can be emotions without thought > > involved in the animal kingdom. And if there > > can be emotions without thought in the animal > > kingdom, there can be emotions without thought > > in the human. > > > > > > Bill > > > Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted December 14, 2005 Why come you Xtians trolls have to babble endlessly ? Werner Nisargadatta , " whitehorserides " <green1911@v...> wrote: > > Nisargadatta , " Werner Woehr " <wwoehr@p...> > wrote: > > > > Bill, > > > > Before going on seeing my home in New Age ponder this: > > > > What did initite the smile ? > > > > Werner > > > How come you Niz's can't agree or understand, his words? > > perhaps he tel you all there was to know/ > > That would imply your lost, or still searching same thing. > > yesterday someone experiences some discomfort and two or three > different medicines come out, what's up with that? > > seriously werner, isn't it abut time you take stock on what is it you > did learn, or you just a wayward student in the time and space of the > onesness bubble of all is good just be now. > > these basic questions should have been addressed to Niz and you > should have answers to pull from? > > _daaaaaaaaaaaaah! > > therefore i can open your minds and cause you to think. > > perhaps no one asked any significant questions. Wahat i saw from > yesterday is basic " i am not this body, i am spirit stuff " . > > what's next? > > > > > > > > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " billrishel " <illieusion@h...> > > wrote: > > > > > > Bill: > > > > Why do you consider that emotions require thought? > > > > It seems entirely plausible to me that emotions > > > > can be initiated by perception alone. If you look > > > > to your left and abruptly see a tiger leaping toward > > > > you I expect there would be emotions kicking in, > > > > and I don't think there would be a lot of thinking > > > > going on. I think that emotions are more primitive > > > > than thought, which is to say evolutionarily " prior " > > > > to thought. > > > > > > > Phil: > > > > Okay, lets ponder this a bit. Is it believed that perception > > occurs > > > without > > > > thought? > > > > > > Bill: > > > The assertion is not that emotion is *never* > > > influenced by thought. The assertion is that > > > emotion is not necessarily mediated by thought. > > > > > > I haven't seen any basis for the claim that > > > thought is a necesary prerequisite for emotion. > > > Is this all based on a New Age notion that we > > > create our reality by our thoughts? It seems > > > that those who are fond of the thought as prior > > > to everything view simply assert it apriori. > > > > > > I read recently of an experiment where they had > > > people hold a comb in their mouth. In doing so > > > they were forced to adopt a smiling face. In > > > the experiment they were able to show that > > > those with the comb in their mouth experienced > > > an increase in positive emotional affect. In > > > other words the experiment showed that smiling > > > makes one feel more positive. I suggest it is > > > absurd to maintain that thought was involved in > > > the increase in positive affect. > > > > > > Can we not find many examples of animals to > > > which we can attibute emotions but for which we > > > find no basis for assuming there is thought? > > > I.e. there can be emotions without thought > > > involved in the animal kingdom. And if there > > > can be emotions without thought in the animal > > > kingdom, there can be emotions without thought > > > in the human. > > > > > > > > > Bill > > > > > > Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted December 14, 2005 Nisargadatta , " Werner Woehr " <wwoehr@p...> wrote: > it seem that this Xtians exchange bubbles.... " prior " to bubbles....and so on........ the question about any " evolutionary " idea in all this....is, indead, not very useful one need to get over this mountain of " thoughts and emotions " .....to " see " peace > Why come you Xtians trolls have to babble endlessly ? > > Werner > > > Nisargadatta , " whitehorserides " > <green1911@v...> wrote: > > > > Nisargadatta , " Werner Woehr " <wwoehr@p...> > > wrote: > > > > > > Bill, > > > > > > Before going on seeing my home in New Age ponder this: > > > > > > What did initite the smile ? > > > > > > Werner > > > > > > How come you Niz's can't agree or understand, his words? > > > > perhaps he tel you all there was to know/ > > > > That would imply your lost, or still searching same thing. > > > > yesterday someone experiences some discomfort and two or three > > different medicines come out, what's up with that? > > > > seriously werner, isn't it abut time you take stock on what is it > you > > did learn, or you just a wayward student in the time and space of > the > > onesness bubble of all is good just be now. > > > > these basic questions should have been addressed to Niz and you > > should have answers to pull from? > > > > _daaaaaaaaaaaaah! > > > > therefore i can open your minds and cause you to think. > > > > perhaps no one asked any significant questions. Wahat i saw from > > yesterday is basic " i am not this body, i am spirit stuff " . > > > > what's next? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " billrishel " > <illieusion@h...> > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > Bill: > > > > > Why do you consider that emotions require thought? > > > > > It seems entirely plausible to me that emotions > > > > > can be initiated by perception alone. If you look > > > > > to your left and abruptly see a tiger leaping toward > > > > > you I expect there would be emotions kicking in, > > > > > and I don't think there would be a lot of thinking > > > > > going on. I think that emotions are more primitive > > > > > than thought, which is to say evolutionarily " prior " > > > > > to thought. > > > > > > > > > Phil: > > > > > Okay, lets ponder this a bit. Is it believed that perception > > > occurs > > > > without > > > > > thought? > > > > > > > > Bill: > > > > The assertion is not that emotion is *never* > > > > influenced by thought. The assertion is that > > > > emotion is not necessarily mediated by thought. > > > > > > > > I haven't seen any basis for the claim that > > > > thought is a necesary prerequisite for emotion. > > > > Is this all based on a New Age notion that we > > > > create our reality by our thoughts? It seems > > > > that those who are fond of the thought as prior > > > > to everything view simply assert it apriori. > > > > > > > > I read recently of an experiment where they had > > > > people hold a comb in their mouth. In doing so > > > > they were forced to adopt a smiling face. In > > > > the experiment they were able to show that > > > > those with the comb in their mouth experienced > > > > an increase in positive emotional affect. In > > > > other words the experiment showed that smiling > > > > makes one feel more positive. I suggest it is > > > > absurd to maintain that thought was involved in > > > > the increase in positive affect. > > > > > > > > Can we not find many examples of animals to > > > > which we can attibute emotions but for which we > > > > find no basis for assuming there is thought? > > > > I.e. there can be emotions without thought > > > > involved in the animal kingdom. And if there > > > > can be emotions without thought in the animal > > > > kingdom, there can be emotions without thought > > > > in the human. > > > > > > > > > > > > Bill > > > > > > > > > > Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted December 14, 2005 Nisargadatta , " Werner Woehr " <wwoehr@p...> wrote: > > Why come you Xtians trolls have to babble endlessly ? > > Werner pay attention!!!!!! i'm not that, xtian. Stumped again eh werner, so you answer question with ?. just see how not deep is you philosophy? you need me, if it isn't just to explain niz's oneness properly, seperating figures of speech and literalism. you guys are like wild horses set free, without any controls. Niz is gone and you guys dangle in wrongs. > > > Nisargadatta , " whitehorserides " > <green1911@v...> wrote: > > > > Nisargadatta , " Werner Woehr " <wwoehr@p...> > > wrote: > > > > > > Bill, > > > > > > Before going on seeing my home in New Age ponder this: > > > > > > What did initite the smile ? > > > > > > Werner > > > > > > How come you Niz's can't agree or understand, his words? > > > > perhaps he tel you all there was to know/ > > > > That would imply your lost, or still searching same thing. > > > > yesterday someone experiences some discomfort and two or three > > different medicines come out, what's up with that? > > > > seriously werner, isn't it abut time you take stock on what is it > you > > did learn, or you just a wayward student in the time and space of > the > > onesness bubble of all is good just be now. > > > > these basic questions should have been addressed to Niz and you > > should have answers to pull from? > > > > _daaaaaaaaaaaaah! > > > > therefore i can open your minds and cause you to think. > > > > perhaps no one asked any significant questions. Wahat i saw from > > yesterday is basic " i am not this body, i am spirit stuff " . > > > > what's next? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " billrishel " > <illieusion@h...> > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > Bill: > > > > > Why do you consider that emotions require thought? > > > > > It seems entirely plausible to me that emotions > > > > > can be initiated by perception alone. If you look > > > > > to your left and abruptly see a tiger leaping toward > > > > > you I expect there would be emotions kicking in, > > > > > and I don't think there would be a lot of thinking > > > > > going on. I think that emotions are more primitive > > > > > than thought, which is to say evolutionarily " prior " > > > > > to thought. > > > > > > > > > Phil: > > > > > Okay, lets ponder this a bit. Is it believed that perception > > > occurs > > > > without > > > > > thought? > > > > > > > > Bill: > > > > The assertion is not that emotion is *never* > > > > influenced by thought. The assertion is that > > > > emotion is not necessarily mediated by thought. > > > > > > > > I haven't seen any basis for the claim that > > > > thought is a necesary prerequisite for emotion. > > > > Is this all based on a New Age notion that we > > > > create our reality by our thoughts? It seems > > > > that those who are fond of the thought as prior > > > > to everything view simply assert it apriori. > > > > > > > > I read recently of an experiment where they had > > > > people hold a comb in their mouth. In doing so > > > > they were forced to adopt a smiling face. In > > > > the experiment they were able to show that > > > > those with the comb in their mouth experienced > > > > an increase in positive emotional affect. In > > > > other words the experiment showed that smiling > > > > makes one feel more positive. I suggest it is > > > > absurd to maintain that thought was involved in > > > > the increase in positive affect. > > > > > > > > Can we not find many examples of animals to > > > > which we can attibute emotions but for which we > > > > find no basis for assuming there is thought? > > > > I.e. there can be emotions without thought > > > > involved in the animal kingdom. And if there > > > > can be emotions without thought in the animal > > > > kingdom, there can be emotions without thought > > > > in the human. > > > > > > > > > > > > Bill > > > > > > > > > > Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted December 14, 2005 Hi Phil, Try it. Producing a smile on your face indeed gives a positive feeling. But the point is what initiated that smile ? It was a thought ! Wasn't it ? Babies are training via grimacing facial expressions needed for communication and manipulation. One can call this non-verbal trainig, but I don't think it is unconscious. The baby is aware of what it is doing but cannot put it in words. So, I would go with Bill and say there are non-verbal thoughts. But they still do induce emotions. Werner Nisargadatta , ADHHUB@A... wrote: > > > In > the experiment they were able to show that > those with the comb in their mouth experienced > an increase in positive emotional affect. In > other words the experiment showed that smiling > makes one feel more positive. I suggest it is > absurd to maintain that thought was involved in > the increase in positive affect. > > > P: Or perhaps posturing a smile has a mental association to positive > emotions. This would be a thought process. To me, it's absurd to assume that > stretching certain facial muscles produces a positive feeling. By what process would > this occur? > > > > > Can we not find many examples of animals to > which we can attibute emotions but for which we > find no basis for assuming there is thought? > I.e. there can be emotions without thought > involved in the animal kingdom. And if there > can be emotions without thought in the animal > kingdom, there can be emotions without thought > in the human. > > > > > P: We can attribute (project) all the emotions we want, and then we can > postulate what thoughts may or may not have occurred when inside a brain that we > know nothing about. How do you know any of this by observing the animal. I > suggested that we aren't even able to observe our own thought process and > that's why we're even having this discussion. > > If emotion arises through physical manipulation, don't you suppose we would > all be taking up the appropriate position and pretty much stay there? > > The only reason the discussion is of any significance is that it's helpful > to realize that we produce all our struggle with our thoughts, and as long as > we believe emotion arises spontaneously from something that just happens to > us, it never occurs to let those thoughts go. > > Phil > > > > In a message dated 12/14/2005 12:13:13 AM Pacific Standard Time, > Nisargadatta writes: > > " billrishel " <illieusion@h...> > Re: Ending psychological time > > Bill: > > Why do you consider that emotions require thought? > > It seems entirely plausible to me that emotions > > can be initiated by perception alone. If you look > > to your left and abruptly see a tiger leaping toward > > you I expect there would be emotions kicking in, > > and I don't think there would be a lot of thinking > > going on. I think that emotions are more primitive > > than thought, which is to say evolutionarily " prior " > > to thought. > > > Phil: > > Okay, lets ponder this a bit. Is it believed that perception occurs > without > > thought? > > Bill: > The assertion is not that emotion is *never* > influenced by thought. The assertion is that > emotion is not necessarily mediated by thought. > > I haven't seen any basis for the claim that > thought is a necesary prerequisite for emotion. > Is this all based on a New Age notion that we > create our reality by our thoughts? It seems > that those who are fond of the thought as prior > to everything view simply assert it apriori. > > I read recently of an experiment where they had > people hold a comb in their mouth. In doing so > they were forced to adopt a smiling face. In > the experiment they were able to show that > those with the comb in their mouth experienced > an increase in positive emotional affect. In > other words the experiment showed that smiling > makes one feel more positive. I suggest it is > absurd to maintain that thought was involved in > the increase in positive affect. > > Can we not find many examples of animals to > which we can attibute emotions but for which we > find no basis for assuming there is thought? > I.e. there can be emotions without thought > involved in the animal kingdom. And if there > can be emotions without thought in the animal > kingdom, there can be emotions without thought > in the human. > > > Bill Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted December 14, 2005 > Bill, > > Before going on seeing my home in New Age ponder this: > > What did initite the smile ? >>>>> Says it quite clearly in my post: they put a comb in the person's mouth. Bill Nisargadatta , " Werner Woehr " <wwoehr@p...> wrote: > > Bill, > > Before going on seeing my home in New Age ponder this: > > What did initite the smile ? > > Werner > > > > Nisargadatta , " billrishel " <illieusion@h...> > wrote: > > > > Bill: > > > Why do you consider that emotions require thought? > > > It seems entirely plausible to me that emotions > > > can be initiated by perception alone. If you look > > > to your left and abruptly see a tiger leaping toward > > > you I expect there would be emotions kicking in, > > > and I don't think there would be a lot of thinking > > > going on. I think that emotions are more primitive > > > than thought, which is to say evolutionarily " prior " > > > to thought. > > > > > Phil: > > > Okay, lets ponder this a bit. Is it believed that perception > occurs > > without > > > thought? > > > > Bill: > > The assertion is not that emotion is *never* > > influenced by thought. The assertion is that > > emotion is not necessarily mediated by thought. > > > > I haven't seen any basis for the claim that > > thought is a necesary prerequisite for emotion. > > Is this all based on a New Age notion that we > > create our reality by our thoughts? It seems > > that those who are fond of the thought as prior > > to everything view simply assert it apriori. > > > > I read recently of an experiment where they had > > people hold a comb in their mouth. In doing so > > they were forced to adopt a smiling face. In > > the experiment they were able to show that > > those with the comb in their mouth experienced > > an increase in positive emotional affect. In > > other words the experiment showed that smiling > > makes one feel more positive. I suggest it is > > absurd to maintain that thought was involved in > > the increase in positive affect. > > > > Can we not find many examples of animals to > > which we can attibute emotions but for which we > > find no basis for assuming there is thought? > > I.e. there can be emotions without thought > > involved in the animal kingdom. And if there > > can be emotions without thought in the animal > > kingdom, there can be emotions without thought > > in the human. > > > > > > Bill > > > Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted December 14, 2005 No Bill, Be patient - the comb already is in your mouth, what starts the smile ? Isn't it thought ? Werner Nisargadatta , " billrishel " <illieusion@h...> wrote: > > > Bill, > > > > Before going on seeing my home in New Age ponder this: > > > > What did initite the smile ? > >>>>> > Says it quite clearly in my post: > they put a comb in the person's mouth. > > Bill > > > Nisargadatta , " Werner Woehr " <wwoehr@p...> wrote: > > > > Bill, > > > > Before going on seeing my home in New Age ponder this: > > > > What did initite the smile ? > > > > Werner > > > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " billrishel " <illieusion@h...> > > wrote: > > > > > > Bill: > > > > Why do you consider that emotions require thought? > > > > It seems entirely plausible to me that emotions > > > > can be initiated by perception alone. If you look > > > > to your left and abruptly see a tiger leaping toward > > > > you I expect there would be emotions kicking in, > > > > and I don't think there would be a lot of thinking > > > > going on. I think that emotions are more primitive > > > > than thought, which is to say evolutionarily " prior " > > > > to thought. > > > > > > > Phil: > > > > Okay, lets ponder this a bit. Is it believed that perception > > occurs > > > without > > > > thought? > > > > > > Bill: > > > The assertion is not that emotion is *never* > > > influenced by thought. The assertion is that > > > emotion is not necessarily mediated by thought. > > > > > > I haven't seen any basis for the claim that > > > thought is a necesary prerequisite for emotion. > > > Is this all based on a New Age notion that we > > > create our reality by our thoughts? It seems > > > that those who are fond of the thought as prior > > > to everything view simply assert it apriori. > > > > > > I read recently of an experiment where they had > > > people hold a comb in their mouth. In doing so > > > they were forced to adopt a smiling face. In > > > the experiment they were able to show that > > > those with the comb in their mouth experienced > > > an increase in positive emotional affect. In > > > other words the experiment showed that smiling > > > makes one feel more positive. I suggest it is > > > absurd to maintain that thought was involved in > > > the increase in positive affect. > > > > > > Can we not find many examples of animals to > > > which we can attibute emotions but for which we > > > find no basis for assuming there is thought? > > > I.e. there can be emotions without thought > > > involved in the animal kingdom. And if there > > > can be emotions without thought in the animal > > > kingdom, there can be emotions without thought > > > in the human. > > > > > > > > > Bill > > > > > > Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted December 14, 2005 Nisargadatta , " Werner Woehr " <wwoehr@p...> wrote: > > No Bill, > > Be patient - the comb already is in your mouth, what starts the > smile ? > > Isn't it thought ? > > Werner > what starts the smile ? It is something in the brain. Does that define it as thought for you? Bill Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted December 14, 2005 Bill, There is something in your mouth. You have three guesses: 1) Your tongue. 2) Your teeth. 3) A comb. Werner Nisargadatta , " billrishel " <illieusion@h...> wrote: > > Nisargadatta , " Werner Woehr " <wwoehr@p...> wrote: > > > > No Bill, > > > > Be patient - the comb already is in your mouth, what starts the > > smile ? > > > > Isn't it thought ? > > > > Werner > > > > what starts the smile ? > It is something in the brain. > Does that define it as thought for you? > > Bill > Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted December 14, 2005 Very tongue-in-cheek of you Werner. Doesn't make any real sense to me though. What is your definition of thought? Bill Nisargadatta , " Werner Woehr " <wwoehr@p...> wrote: > > Bill, > > There is something in your mouth. You have three guesses: > > 1) Your tongue. > 2) Your teeth. > 3) A comb. > > Werner > > > Nisargadatta , " billrishel " <illieusion@h...> > wrote: > > > > Nisargadatta , " Werner Woehr " <wwoehr@p...> > wrote: > > > > > > No Bill, > > > > > > Be patient - the comb already is in your mouth, what starts the > > > smile ? > > > > > > Isn't it thought ? > > > > > > Werner > > > > > > > what starts the smile ? > > It is something in the brain. > > Does that define it as thought for you? > > > > Bill > > > Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted December 14, 2005 Yes, I don't think that you and I are disagreeing. It seems to be Bill who believes that thought is not required. Phil In a message dated 12/14/2005 3:02:19 AM Pacific Standard Time, Nisargadatta writes: " Werner Woehr " <wwoehr Re: Ending psychological time Hi Phil, Try it. Producing a smile on your face indeed gives a positive feeling. But the point is what initiated that smile ? It was a thought ! Wasn't it ? Babies are training via grimacing facial expressions needed for communication and manipulation. One can call this non-verbal trainig, but I don't think it is unconscious. The baby is aware of what it is doing but cannot put it in words. So, I would go with Bill and say there are non-verbal thoughts. But they still do induce emotions. Werner Nisargadatta , ADHHUB@A... wrote: > > > In > the experiment they were able to show that > those with the comb in their mouth experienced > an increase in positive emotional affect. In > other words the experiment showed that smiling > makes one feel more positive. I suggest it is > absurd to maintain that thought was involved in > the increase in positive affect. > > > P: Or perhaps posturing a smile has a mental association to positive > emotions. This would be a thought process. To me, it's absurd to assume that > stretching certain facial muscles produces a positive feeling. By what process would > this occur? > > > > > Can we not find many examples of animals to > which we can attibute emotions but for which we > find no basis for assuming there is thought? > I.e. there can be emotions without thought > involved in the animal kingdom. And if there > can be emotions without thought in the animal > kingdom, there can be emotions without thought > in the human. > > > > > P: We can attribute (project) all the emotions we want, and then we can > postulate what thoughts may or may not have occurred when inside a brain that we > know nothing about. How do you know any of this by observing the animal. I > suggested that we aren't even able to observe our own thought process and > that's why we're even having this discussion. > > If emotion arises through physical manipulation, don't you suppose we would > all be taking up the appropriate position and pretty much stay there? > > The only reason the discussion is of any significance is that it's helpful > to realize that we produce all our struggle with our thoughts, and as long as > we believe emotion arises spontaneously from something that just happens to > us, it never occurs to let those thoughts go. > > Phil > > > > In a message dated 12/14/2005 12:13:13 AM Pacific Standard Time, > Nisargadatta writes: > > " billrishel " <illieusion@h...> > Re: Ending psychological time > > Bill: > > Why do you consider that emotions require thought? > > It seems entirely plausible to me that emotions > > can be initiated by perception alone. If you look > > to your left and abruptly see a tiger leaping toward > > you I expect there would be emotions kicking in, > > and I don't think there would be a lot of thinking > > going on. I think that emotions are more primitive > > than thought, which is to say evolutionarily " prior " > > to thought. > > > Phil: > > Okay, lets ponder this a bit. Is it believed that perception occurs > without > > thought? > > Bill: > The assertion is not that emotion is *never* > influenced by thought. The assertion is that > emotion is not necessarily mediated by thought. > > I haven't seen any basis for the claim that > thought is a necesary prerequisite for emotion. > Is this all based on a New Age notion that we > create our reality by our thoughts? It seems > that those who are fond of the thought as prior > to everything view simply assert it apriori. > > I read recently of an experiment where they had > people hold a comb in their mouth. In doing so > they were forced to adopt a smiling face. In > the experiment they were able to show that > those with the comb in their mouth experienced > an increase in positive emotional affect. In > other words the experiment showed that smiling > makes one feel more positive. I suggest it is > absurd to maintain that thought was involved in > the increase in positive affect. > > Can we not find many examples of animals to > which we can attibute emotions but for which we > find no basis for assuming there is thought? > I.e. there can be emotions without thought > involved in the animal kingdom. And if there > can be emotions without thought in the animal > kingdom, there can be emotions without thought > in the human. > > > Bill Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted December 15, 2005 Nisargadatta , ADHHUB@A... wrote: > > > Yes, I don't think that you and I are disagreeing. It seems to be Bill who > believes that thought is not required. > > Phil It depends on how you define thought. Depending on your definition I could agree. What is the definition of thought you are using? Bill PS: I ask the question to both Phil and Werner. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted December 15, 2005 Bill, To ask for a definition of thought is a bit to much. I am not very interested to begin studying neuroscience, psychology and philosopy to answer that question. But here are some links: http://www.allwords.com/word-thought.html http://www.thefreedictionary.com/thought http://selfknowledge.com/98405.htm Next time you visit your dentist or have an surgey and you feel unease just watch how that feeling was initiated. It was through thought. Werner Nisargadatta , " billrishel " <illieusion@h...> wrote: > > Nisargadatta , ADHHUB@A... wrote: > > > > > > Yes, I don't think that you and I are disagreeing. It seems to be > Bill who > > believes that thought is not required. > > > > Phil > > It depends on how you define thought. > Depending on your definition I could agree. > > What is the definition of thought you are > using? > > > Bill > > PS: I ask the question to both Phil and Werner. > Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted December 15, 2005 Nisargadatta , " Werner Woehr " <wwoehr@p...> wrote: > > Bill, > > To ask for a definition of thought is a bit to much. I am not very > interested to begin studying neuroscience, psychology and philosopy > to answer that question. But here are some links: > > http://www.allwords.com/word-thought.html > http://www.thefreedictionary.com/thought > http://selfknowledge.com/98405.htm > > Next time you visit your dentist or have an surgey and you feel > unease just watch how that feeling was initiated. It was through > thought. > > Werner Werner, if you went to war you would not need a hard hat. lol thought is not the source of thought. does anything ever sink in? read my post 50 times on the sUpreme troll. then your scientific mind of stone may soften up. but i love you, despite yourself. this is a 'werning', beware of trolls. lol especially the SuPREME kind, kind, kind, kind, kind, kind, kind. > > > Nisargadatta , " billrishel " <illieusion@h...> > wrote: > > > > Nisargadatta , ADHHUB@A... wrote: > > > > > > > > > Yes, I don't think that you and I are disagreeing. It seems to be > > Bill who > > > believes that thought is not required. > > > > > > Phil > > > > It depends on how you define thought. > > Depending on your definition I could agree. > > > > What is the definition of thought you are > > using? > > > > > > Bill > > > > PS: I ask the question to both Phil and Werner. > > > Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted December 15, 2005 Nisargadatta , " Werner Woehr " <wwoehr@p...> wrote: > > Bill, > > To ask for a definition of thought is a bit to much. I am not very > interested to begin studying neuroscience, psychology and philosopy > to answer that question. But here are some links: > > http://www.allwords.com/word-thought.html > http://www.thefreedictionary.com/thought > http://selfknowledge.com/98405.htm > > Next time you visit your dentist or have an surgey and you feel > unease just watch how that feeling was initiated. It was through > thought. > > Werner > When you suddenly see a beautiful flower, then this direct sensations comes before thought. After a fraction of a second, thought kicks in and you remember the name of the flower and memories related to that experience may begin to pop up. So I would suggest, that it is not always thought that comes first. When we become frightened by a sudden sound, then thought only appear after the initial shock. al. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted December 15, 2005 Nisargadatta , " anders_lindman " <anders_lindman> wrote: > > Nisargadatta , " Werner Woehr " <wwoehr@p...> wrote: > > > > Bill, > > > > To ask for a definition of thought is a bit to much. I am not very > > interested to begin studying neuroscience, psychology and philosopy > > to answer that question. But here are some links: > > > > http://www.allwords.com/word-thought.html > > http://www.thefreedictionary.com/thought > > http://selfknowledge.com/98405.htm > > > > Next time you visit your dentist or have an surgey and you feel > > unease just watch how that feeling was initiated. It was through > > thought. > > > > Werner > > > > When you suddenly see a beautiful flower, then this direct sensations > comes before thought. After a fraction of a second, thought kicks in > and you remember the name of the flower and memories related to that > experience may begin to pop up. So I would suggest, that it is not > always thought that comes first. When we become frightened by a sudden > sound, then thought only appear after the initial shock. > > al. > ok that's a good start, did werner agree?________BANG_________! You scared the shit out of me. what's shit? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted December 15, 2005 Anders, Our discussion was if there can be emotions no been induced by thought. Emotion = physical sensation. Can you fear or be afraid of something without thinking of it, or naming it ? Werner Nisargadatta , " anders_lindman " <anders_lindman> wrote: > > Nisargadatta , " Werner Woehr " <wwoehr@p...> wrote: > > > > Bill, > > > > To ask for a definition of thought is a bit to much. I am not very > > interested to begin studying neuroscience, psychology and philosopy > > to answer that question. But here are some links: > > > > http://www.allwords.com/word-thought.html > > http://www.thefreedictionary.com/thought > > http://selfknowledge.com/98405.htm > > > > Next time you visit your dentist or have an surgey and you feel > > unease just watch how that feeling was initiated. It was through > > thought. > > > > Werner > > > > When you suddenly see a beautiful flower, then this direct sensations > comes before thought. After a fraction of a second, thought kicks in > and you remember the name of the flower and memories related to that > experience may begin to pop up. So I would suggest, that it is not > always thought that comes first. When we become frightened by a sudden > sound, then thought only appear after the initial shock. > > al. > Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
