The Breakdown of The Bicameral Mind

[Guest guest]

Nisargadatta , " toombaru2006 " <lastrain

wrote:

>

> Nisargadatta , " Werner Woehr " <wwoehr@> wrote:

> >

> > Nisargadatta , souldreamone@ wrote:

> > >

> > >

> > > In a message dated 20/05/2008 9:40:14 AM Pacific Daylight

Time,

> > > wwoehr@ writes:

> > >

> > > >

> > > > Yes.

> > > >

> > > >

> > > > Conceptual mind paints over the Naturalness and the result

is

> > the

> > > celluloid cartoon land

> > >

> > > > that some have called " the dream " .

> > > >

> > > >

> > > > And all the time.......the naturalness flows....unimpeded.

> > > >

> > > >

> > >

> > >

> > > Hm, Toomb,

> > >

> > > Isn't the ability to create concepts part of human " nature " ?

> > >

> > > Maybe you meant watching the sky, the clouds, nature, breathing

> > fresh

> > > air etc, isn't that rich when being caught in consepts ?

> > >

> > > When planning a voyage, building a house or repairing a car

etc,

> > you

> > > need adequate concepts. They have their place - don't stuff

them

> > in

> > > the devil's ass ...

> > >

> > > Werner

> > >

> > >

> > >

> > > ****In the course of evolution, the creature must inevitably

reach

> > a point

> > > at which it develops the ability to question, and ultimately

> > physically and

> > > mentally challenge its role as a part of nature. If it's true

that

> > nature is

> > > entirely integrated in it's functioning, then to remove oneself

> > from that role

> > > in an attempt to dominate and control one's experience, removes

us

> > from the

> > > natural support that nature lends all of it's parts within that

> > integrated

> > > functioning, and so there is conflict and suffering experienced

> > where there is

> > > none from the perspective of an animal that has no such ability

to

> > challenge

> > > its role and project it's fate.

> > >

> > > However, this stage is necessary if the vector of evolution is

> > toward the

> > > transcendence of animal consciousness, and so nothing has gone

> > wrong. It's much

> > > more like 'growing pains'.

> > >

> > >

> >

> >

> > Nicely written, Phil,

> >

> > But at the end of your post I wondered how do you know that

evolution

> > does transcend animal consciousness.

> >

> > First of all consciousness is not a thing which can be

transcended.

> > Not to speak of " animal consciousness " . Do you think there is a

> > master plan in creation and evolution ?

> >

> > Let me tell you again that consciousness IS its conent - no

content

> > no consciousness.

> >

> > It is not consciousness which distinguish man from animal, it is

its

> > contents. And also your contents are totally different from mine.

> > Thats why consciousness is absolutely subjective.

> >

> > Is there an evolution from stones and rocks towards bacteria,

then to

> > worms, mice, cats and dogs, monkeys and finally man sitting in a

car

> > of in front of a computer ?

> >

> > Why at all do you feel the need to differentiate, to comnpare, to

> > categorize life in order to see that there is evolution.

> >

> > Can't you see what utter nonsense that idea of evolution is ?

> >

> > There is no evolution, neither from lower to higher nor

> > any " evolution of consciousness " .

> >

> > Are you a New-Ageian ?

> >

> > Werner

> >

>

>

> Evolution only says that physical organisms change over time

through natural selection

> and random genetic mutations and that they gradually evolve to

adapt to the ever

> changing environment.

>

> The only people who deny the vast amount of supportive evidence for

evolution are the

> religious fundamentalists.

>

> Any logical argument against evolution simply cannot be supported.

>

>

 

 

Yes, Toomb,

 

That's how I see it too.

 

But I cannot accept an evolution from " lower " to more and

more " higher " life forms.

 

Werner

 

 

>

> t.

>

[Guest guest]

Nisargadatta , souldreamone wrote:

>

>

> In a message dated 20/05/2008 9:59:34 PM Pacific Daylight Time,

> wwoehr writes:

>

> > ****In the course of evolution, the creature must inevitably

reach

> a point

> > at which it develops the ability to question, and ultimately

> physically and

> > mentally challenge its role as a part of nature. If it's true

that

> nature is

> > entirely integrated in it's functioning, then to remove oneself

> from that role

> > in an attempt to dominate and control one's experience, removes

us

> from the

> > natural support that nature lends all of it's parts within that

> integrated

> > functioning, and so there is conflict and suffering experienced

> where there is

> > none from the perspective of an animal that has no such ability

to

> challenge

> > its role and project it's fate.

> >

> > However, this stage is necessary if the vector of evolution is

> toward the

> > transcendence of animal consciousness, and so nothing has gone

> wrong. It's much

> > more like 'growing pains'.

> >

> >

>

>

> Nicely written, Phil,

>

> But at the end of your post I wondered how do you know that

evolution

> does transcend animal consciousness.

>

> First of all consciousness is not a thing which can be

transcended.

> Not to speak of " animal consciousness " . Do you think there is a

> master plan in creation and evolution ?

>

> Let me tell you again that consciousness IS its conent - no

content

> no consciousness.

>

> It is not consciousness which distinguish man from animal, it is

its

> contents. And also your contents are totally different from mine.

> Thats why consciousness is absolutely subjective.

>

> Is there an evolution from stones and rocks towards bacteria, then

to

> worms, mice, cats and dogs, monkeys and finally man sitting in a

car

> of in front of a computer ?

>

> Why at all do you feel the need to differentiate, to comnpare, to

> categorize life in order to see that there is evolution.

>

> Can't you see what utter nonsense that idea of evolution is ?

>

> There is no evolution, neither from lower to higher nor

> any " evolution of consciousness " .

>

> Are you a New-Ageian ?

>

> Werner

>

>

>

> ****I didn't know evolution was a new age concept. I thought

scientists came

> up with that one. I actually used the context of evolution because

of all

> the rational scientific minds here.

> The fact that consciousness is not a thing and that it is it's

content, is

> irrelevant to whether or not it can be transcended. In fact,

transcending

> objects is a rather tricky deal. Whether or not there is a master

plan is also

> irrelevant as to whether evolution or transcendence happens. (No,

there is no

> plan or planner)

>

> I never suggested that consciousness distinguishes man from the

> animals..........Okay, nevermind. Clearly your intention is only to

dismiss and not to

> discuss.

>

 

 

Fine, Phil,

 

You also don't believe in any master plan. I am relieved, so I just

must have misunderstood you - thanks heaven's.

 

That I have misunderstood you in no way was my intention, not to

speak of " clearly " my intention.

 

Now:

 

You wrote, " The fact that consciousness is not a thing and that it is

it's content, is irrelevant to whether or not it can be transcended " .

 

It is not irrelevant, Phil, because the way consciousness is created

by the brain, it in now way allowas to transcend it. Consciousness is

what it is.

 

Imagine you hear a bang, can that bang get transcended ? Surely not.

 

The idea of transcendence already is in itself nonsense - who will be

the transcender ? Will it be " you " ?

 

Phil, that amazing transcender - heh heh ....

 

Werner

 

 

 

 

 

 

>

>

> **************Wondering what's for Dinner Tonight? Get new twists

on family

> favorites at AOL Food.

> (http://food.aol.com/dinner-tonight?NCID=aolfod00030000000001)

>

[Guest guest]

Nisargadatta , " Werner Woehr " <wwoehr wrote:

>

> Nisargadatta , " toombaru2006 " <lastrain@>

> wrote:

> >

> > Nisargadatta , " Werner Woehr " <wwoehr@> wrote:

> > >

> > > Nisargadatta , souldreamone@ wrote:

> > > >

> > > >

> > > > In a message dated 20/05/2008 9:40:14 AM Pacific Daylight

> Time,

> > > > wwoehr@ writes:

> > > >

> > > > >

> > > > > Yes.

> > > > >

> > > > >

> > > > > Conceptual mind paints over the Naturalness and the result

> is

> > > the

> > > > celluloid cartoon land

> > > >

> > > > > that some have called " the dream " .

> > > > >

> > > > >

> > > > > And all the time.......the naturalness flows....unimpeded.

> > > > >

> > > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > > > Hm, Toomb,

> > > >

> > > > Isn't the ability to create concepts part of human " nature " ?

> > > >

> > > > Maybe you meant watching the sky, the clouds, nature, breathing

> > > fresh

> > > > air etc, isn't that rich when being caught in consepts ?

> > > >

> > > > When planning a voyage, building a house or repairing a car

> etc,

> > > you

> > > > need adequate concepts. They have their place - don't stuff

> them

> > > in

> > > > the devil's ass ...

> > > >

> > > > Werner

> > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > > > ****In the course of evolution, the creature must inevitably

> reach

> > > a point

> > > > at which it develops the ability to question, and ultimately

> > > physically and

> > > > mentally challenge its role as a part of nature. If it's true

> that

> > > nature is

> > > > entirely integrated in it's functioning, then to remove oneself

> > > from that role

> > > > in an attempt to dominate and control one's experience, removes

> us

> > > from the

> > > > natural support that nature lends all of it's parts within that

> > > integrated

> > > > functioning, and so there is conflict and suffering experienced

> > > where there is

> > > > none from the perspective of an animal that has no such ability

> to

> > > challenge

> > > > its role and project it's fate.

> > > >

> > > > However, this stage is necessary if the vector of evolution is

> > > toward the

> > > > transcendence of animal consciousness, and so nothing has gone

> > > wrong. It's much

> > > > more like 'growing pains'.

> > > >

> > > >

> > >

> > >

> > > Nicely written, Phil,

> > >

> > > But at the end of your post I wondered how do you know that

> evolution

> > > does transcend animal consciousness.

> > >

> > > First of all consciousness is not a thing which can be

> transcended.

> > > Not to speak of " animal consciousness " . Do you think there is a

> > > master plan in creation and evolution ?

> > >

> > > Let me tell you again that consciousness IS its conent - no

> content

> > > no consciousness.

> > >

> > > It is not consciousness which distinguish man from animal, it is

> its

> > > contents. And also your contents are totally different from mine.

> > > Thats why consciousness is absolutely subjective.

> > >

> > > Is there an evolution from stones and rocks towards bacteria,

> then to

> > > worms, mice, cats and dogs, monkeys and finally man sitting in a

> car

> > > of in front of a computer ?

> > >

> > > Why at all do you feel the need to differentiate, to comnpare, to

> > > categorize life in order to see that there is evolution.

> > >

> > > Can't you see what utter nonsense that idea of evolution is ?

> > >

> > > There is no evolution, neither from lower to higher nor

> > > any " evolution of consciousness " .

> > >

> > > Are you a New-Ageian ?

> > >

> > > Werner

> > >

> >

> >

> > Evolution only says that physical organisms change over time

> through natural selection

> > and random genetic mutations and that they gradually evolve to

> adapt to the ever

> > changing environment.

> >

> > The only people who deny the vast amount of supportive evidence for

> evolution are the

> > religious fundamentalists.

> >

> > Any logical argument against evolution simply cannot be supported.

> >

> >

>

>

> Yes, Toomb,

>

> That's how I see it too.

>

> But I cannot accept an evolution from " lower " to more and

> more " higher " life forms.

>

> Werner

>

>

> >

 

 

 

Yes.

 

The terms " lower " and " higher " are egocentric in origin.

 

No form of life is higher than any other.

 

 

 

 

t.

[Guest guest]

In a message dated 21/05/2008 7:31:41 AM Pacific Daylight Time, wwoehr writes:

> ****I didn't know evolution was a new age concept. I thought scientists came > up with that one. I actually used the context of evolution because of all > the rational scientific minds here.> The fact that consciousness is not a thing and that it is it's content, is > irrelevant to whether or not it can be transcended. In fact, transcending > objects is a rather tricky deal. Whether or not there is a master plan is also > irrelevant as to whether evolution or transcendence happens. (No, there is no > plan or planner)> > I never suggested that consciousness distinguishes man from the > animals..........Okay, nevermind. Clearly your intention is only to dismiss and not to > discuss.>Fine, Phil,You also don't believe in any master plan. I am relieved, so I just must have misunderstood you - thanks heaven's.That I have misunderstood you in no way was my intention, not to speak of "clearly" my intention.Now:You wrote, "The fact that consciousness is not a thing and that it is it's content, is irrelevant to whether or not it can be transcended".It is not irrelevant, Phil, because the way consciousness is created by the brain, it in now way allowas to transcend it. Consciousness is what it is.Imagine you hear a bang, can that bang get transcended ? Surely not.The idea of transcendence already is in itself nonsense - who will be the transcender ? Will it be "you" ?Phil, that amazing transcender - heh heh ....Werner

 

***You believe that what you are is a peice of meat that somehow thinks, and if this were the case then you would be correct; there would be nothing to transcend, because there would be no source of this thinking meat.Get trade secrets for amazing burgers. Watch "Cooking with Tyler Florence" on AOL Food.

[Guest guest]

In a message dated 21/05/2008 7:55:13 AM Pacific Daylight Time, lastrain writes:

> > > > ****In the course of evolution, the creature must inevitably > reach > > > a point > > > > at which it develops the ability to question, and ultimately > > > physically and > > > > mentally challenge its role as a part of nature. If it's true > that > > > nature is > > > > entirely integrated in it's functioning, then to remove oneself > > > from that role > > > > in an attempt to dominate and control one's experience, removes > us > > > from the > > > > natural support that nature lends all of it's parts within that > > > integrated > > > > functioning, and so there is conflict and suffering experienced > > > where there is > > > > none from the perspective of an animal that has no such ability > to > > > challenge > > > > its role and project it's fate. > > > > > > > > However, this stage is necessary if the vector of evolution is > > > toward the > > > > transcendence of animal consciousness, and so nothing has gone > > > wrong. It's much > > > > more like 'growing pains'.> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Nicely written, Phil,> > > > > > But at the end of your post I wondered how do you know that > evolution > > > does transcend animal consciousness.> > > > > > First of all consciousness is not a thing which can be > transcended. > > > Not to speak of "animal consciousness". Do you think there is a > > > master plan in creation and evolution ?> > > > > > Let me tell you again that consciousness IS its conent - no > content > > > no consciousness.> > > > > > It is not consciousness which distinguish man from animal, it is > its > > > contents. And also your contents are totally different from mine. > > > Thats why consciousness is absolutely subjective.> > > > > > Is there an evolution from stones and rocks towards bacteria, > then to > > > worms, mice, cats and dogs, monkeys and finally man sitting in a > car > > > of in front of a computer ?> > > > > > Why at all do you feel the need to differentiate, to comnpare, to > > > categorize life in order to see that there is evolution.> > > > > > Can't you see what utter nonsense that idea of evolution is ?> > > > > > There is no evolution, neither from lower to higher nor > > > any "evolution of consciousness".> > > > > > Are you a New-Ageian ?> > > > > > Werner> > >> > > > > > Evolution only says that physical organisms change over time > through natural selection > > and random genetic mutations and that they gradually evolve to > adapt to the ever > > changing environment.> > > > The only people who deny the vast amount of supportive evidence for > evolution are the > > religious fundamentalists.> > > > Any logical argument against evolution simply cannot be supported.> >> >> > > Yes, Toomb,> > That's how I see it too.> > But I cannot accept an evolution from "lower" to more and > more "higher" life forms.> > Werner> > > > Yes.The terms "lower" and "higher" are egocentric in origin.No form of life is higher than any other.

 

 

****Ironically, it's Werner who introduced the terms. Get trade secrets for amazing burgers. Watch "Cooking with Tyler Florence" on AOL Food.

[Guest guest]

> Consciousness is memory.

>

> Werner

>

>

 

 

 

 

That says it all.

 

If one goes deeply into that thought..........it may not return.

 

 

t.

 

 

 

 

t.

[Guest guest]

Nisargadatta , " anabebe57 " <kailashana

wrote:

>

> Only man can create concepts into which he categorizes his

experience;

> at once shaping and is shaped by them...

>

> Discreet sound-bytes of information are garnered through a

*selective

> listening* process and assimilated into a texture of being.

>

> The interesting thing is that in order to be consciously aware of

> *stone* consciousness must have been *stone*... or at least been

> engraved in it...

>

> ~Anna

>

>

> p.s. Enjoyed your stream of thought Phil..

>

>

 

 

Anna,

 

" or at least been engraved in it " ?

 

At least ?

 

To be aware of stone, all qualities of stone already have to

exist as memory else you couln't be aware of it.

 

Consciousness is memory.

 

Werner

 

 

>

>

>

>

> Nisargadatta , souldreamone@ wrote:

> >

> >

> > In a message dated 20/05/2008 9:59:34 PM Pacific Daylight Time,

> > wwoehr@ writes:

> >

> > > ****In the course of evolution, the creature must inevitably

reach

> > a point

> > > at which it develops the ability to question, and ultimately

> > physically and

> > > mentally challenge its role as a part of nature. If it's true

that

> > nature is

> > > entirely integrated in it's functioning, then to remove

oneself

> > from that role

> > > in an attempt to dominate and control one's experience,

removes us

> > from the

> > > natural support that nature lends all of it's parts within

that

> > integrated

> > > functioning, and so there is conflict and suffering

experienced

> > where there is

> > > none from the perspective of an animal that has no such

ability to

> > challenge

> > > its role and project it's fate.

> > >

> > > However, this stage is necessary if the vector of evolution is

> > toward the

> > > transcendence of animal consciousness, and so nothing has gone

> > wrong. It's much

> > > more like 'growing pains'.

> > >

> > >

> >

> >

> > Nicely written, Phil,

> >

> > But at the end of your post I wondered how do you know that

evolution

> > does transcend animal consciousness.

> >

> > First of all consciousness is not a thing which can be

transcended.

> > Not to speak of " animal consciousness " . Do you think there is a

> > master plan in creation and evolution ?

> >

> > Let me tell you again that consciousness IS its conent - no

content

> > no consciousness.

> >

> > It is not consciousness which distinguish man from animal, it is

its

> > contents. And also your contents are totally different from

mine.

> > Thats why consciousness is absolutely subjective.

> >

> > Is there an evolution from stones and rocks towards bacteria,

then to

> > worms, mice, cats and dogs, monkeys and finally man sitting in a

car

> > of in front of a computer ?

> >

> > Why at all do you feel the need to differentiate, to comnpare,

to

> > categorize life in order to see that there is evolution.

> >

> > Can't you see what utter nonsense that idea of evolution is ?

> >

> > There is no evolution, neither from lower to higher nor

> > any " evolution of consciousness " .

> >

> > Are you a New-Ageian ?

> >

> > Werner

> >

> >

> >

> > ****I didn't know evolution was a new age concept. I thought

> scientists came

> > up with that one. I actually used the context of evolution because

> of all

> > the rational scientific minds here.

> > The fact that consciousness is not a thing and that it is it's

> content, is

> > irrelevant to whether or not it can be transcended. In fact,

> transcending

> > objects is a rather tricky deal. Whether or not there is a master

> plan is also

> > irrelevant as to whether evolution or transcendence happens. (No,

> there is no

> > plan or planner)

> >

> > I never suggested that consciousness distinguishes man from the

> > animals..........Okay, nevermind. Clearly your intention is only

to

> dismiss and not to

> > discuss.

> >

> >

> >

> > **************Wondering what's for Dinner Tonight? Get new twists

on

> family

> > favorites at AOL Food.

> > (http://food.aol.com/dinner-tonight?NCID=aolfod00030000000001)

> >

>

[Guest guest]

In a message dated 21/05/2008 9:02:37 AM Pacific Daylight Time, lastrain writes:

> Consciousness is memory.> > Werner> >That says it all.If one goes deeply into that thought..........it may not return.t.

 

****Or one may fall asleep from sheer boredom and continue dreaming in the same way. Werner has patented the phrase "Consciousness is it's content", and I have no particular problem with that on a practical level, though it's not useful as far as I can see, unless you're trying to convince yourself that consciousness isn't a device with flashing led's in it.

 

But I have an issue with saying consciousness is memory. What is it that stores the first memory and how does it do this in the absence of consciousness? If one suffers brain damage in such a way that all memory is lost, does he fall down and go unconscious because he can't remember anything? How could he ever recover since he would have to remember something before he could be conscious again? Does the baby pop out of the womb unconscious because what he perceives when he opens his eyes has no memory associated with it? In some ways, the mature, educated adult with endless memories is less conscious than a new born babe with none. One look in the eyes will reveal that much.

Get trade secrets for amazing burgers. Watch "Cooking with Tyler Florence" on AOL Food.

[Guest guest]

Nisargadatta , souldreamone wrote:

>

>

> In a message dated 21/05/2008 7:55:13 AM Pacific Daylight Time,

> lastrain writes:

>

> > > > > ****In the course of evolution, the creature must inevitably

> > reach

> > > > a point

> > > > > at which it develops the ability to question, and ultimately

> > > > physically and

> > > > > mentally challenge its role as a part of nature. If it's true

> > that

> > > > nature is

> > > > > entirely integrated in it's functioning, then to remove oneself

> > > > from that role

> > > > > in an attempt to dominate and control one's experience, removes

> > us

> > > > from the

> > > > > natural support that nature lends all of it's parts within that

> > > > integrated

> > > > > functioning, and so there is conflict and suffering experienced

> > > > where there is

> > > > > none from the perspective of an animal that has no such ability

> > to

> > > > challenge

> > > > > its role and project it's fate.

> > > > >

> > > > > However, this stage is necessary if the vector of evolution is

> > > > toward the

> > > > > transcendence of animal consciousness, and so nothing has gone

> > > > wrong. It's much

> > > > > more like 'growing pains'.

> > > > >

> > > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > > > Nicely written, Phil,

> > > >

> > > > But at the end of your post I wondered how do you know that

> > evolution

> > > > does transcend animal consciousness.

> > > >

> > > > First of all consciousness is not a thing which can be

> > transcended.

> > > > Not to speak of " animal consciousness " . Do you think there is a

> > > > master plan in creation and evolution ?

> > > >

> > > > Let me tell you again that consciousness IS its conent - no

> > content

> > > > no consciousness.

> > > >

> > > > It is not consciousness which distinguish man from animal, it is

> > its

> > > > contents. And also your contents are totally different from mine.

> > > > Thats why consciousness is absolutely subjective.

> > > >

> > > > Is there an evolution from stones and rocks towards bacteria,

> > then to

> > > > worms, mice, cats and dogs, monkeys and finally man sitting in a

> > car

> > > > of in front of a computer ?

> > > >

> > > > Why at all do you feel the need to differentiate, to comnpare, to

> > > > categorize life in order to see that there is evolution.

> > > >

> > > > Can't you see what utter nonsense that idea of evolution is ?

> > > >

> > > > There is no evolution, neither from lower to higher nor

> > > > any " evolution of consciousness " .

> > > >

> > > > Are you a New-Ageian ?

> > > >

> > > > Werner

> > > >

> > >

> > >

> > > Evolution only says that physical organisms change over time

> > through natural selection

> > > and random genetic mutations and that they gradually evolve to

> > adapt to the ever

> > > changing environment.

> > >

> > > The only people who deny the vast amount of supportive evidence for

> > evolution are the

> > > religious fundamentalists.

> > >

> > > Any logical argument against evolution simply cannot be supported.

> > >

> > >

> >

> >

> > Yes, Toomb,

> >

> > That's how I see it too.

> >

> > But I cannot accept an evolution from " lower " to more and

> > more " higher " life forms.

> >

> > Werner

> >

> >

> > >

>

>

>

> Yes.

>

> The terms " lower " and " higher " are egocentric in origin.

>

> No form of life is higher than any other.

>

>

>

>

> ****Ironically, it's Werner who introduced the terms.

>

>

 

 

......and your point is?

 

 

 

 

t.

[Guest guest]

Nisargadatta , souldreamone wrote:

>

>

> In a message dated 21/05/2008 9:02:37 AM Pacific Daylight Time,

> lastrain writes:

>

>

> > Consciousness is memory.

> >

> > Werner

> >

> >

>

>

>

>

> That says it all.

>

> If one goes deeply into that thought..........it may not return.

>

>

> t.

>

>

>

> ****Or one may fall asleep from sheer boredom and continue dreaming in the

> same way. Werner has patented the phrase " Consciousness is it's content " , and

I

> have no particular problem with that on a practical level, though it's not

> useful as far as I can see, unless you're trying to convince yourself that

> consciousness isn't a device with flashing led's in it.

>

> But I have an issue with saying consciousness is memory. What is it that

> stores the first memory and how does it do this in the absence of

consciousness?

> If one suffers brain damage in such a way that all memory is lost, does he

> fall down and go unconscious because he can't remember anything? How could he

> ever recover since he would have to remember something before he could be

> conscious again? Does the baby pop out of the womb unconscious because what

he

> perceives when he opens his eyes has no memory associated with it? In some

> ways, the mature, educated adult with endless memories is less conscious than

a

> new born babe with none. One look in the eyes will reveal that much.

>

>

>

>

 

 

How about:

 

 

Self-consciousness is memory?

 

 

 

t.

[Guest guest]

" Can't you see what utter nonsense that idea of evolution "

 

.. . . see what, what is there to see. 'Ideas, something else to

trash'

 

*

 

I died from minerality and became vegetable;

and from vegetativeness I died and became animal.

I died from animality and became man.

Then why fear disappearance through death?

Next time I shall die

bringing forth wings and feathers like angels;

After that, soaring higher than angels,

what?, you cannot imagine,

I shall be That.

 

Jalalludin Rumi.

 

Tom.x.

 

 

 

 

 

Nisargadatta , " toombaru2006 " <lastrain

wrote:

>

> Nisargadatta , souldreamone@ wrote:

> >

> >

> > In a message dated 21/05/2008 7:55:13 AM Pacific Daylight Time,

> > lastrain@ writes:

> >

> > > > > > ****In the course of evolution, the creature must

inevitably

> > > reach

> > > > > a point

> > > > > > at which it develops the ability to question, and

ultimately

> > > > > physically and

> > > > > > mentally challenge its role as a part of nature. If it's

true

> > > that

> > > > > nature is

> > > > > > entirely integrated in it's functioning, then to remove

oneself

> > > > > from that role

> > > > > > in an attempt to dominate and control one's experience,

removes

> > > us

> > > > > from the

> > > > > > natural support that nature lends all of it's parts

within that

> > > > > integrated

> > > > > > functioning, and so there is conflict and suffering

experienced

> > > > > where there is

> > > > > > none from the perspective of an animal that has no such

ability

> > > to

> > > > > challenge

> > > > > > its role and project it's fate.

> > > > > >

> > > > > > However, this stage is necessary if the vector of

evolution is

> > > > > toward the

> > > > > > transcendence of animal consciousness, and so nothing

has gone

> > > > > wrong. It's much

> > > > > > more like 'growing pains'.

> > > > > >

> > > > > >

> > > > >

> > > > >

> > > > > Nicely written, Phil,

> > > > >

> > > > > But at the end of your post I wondered how do you know

that

> > > evolution

> > > > > does transcend animal consciousness.

> > > > >

> > > > > First of all consciousness is not a thing which can be

> > > transcended.

> > > > > Not to speak of " animal consciousness " . Do you think there

is a

> > > > > master plan in creation and evolution ?

> > > > >

> > > > > Let me tell you again that consciousness IS its conent -

no

> > > content

> > > > > no consciousness.

> > > > >

> > > > > It is not consciousness which distinguish man from animal,

it is

> > > its

> > > > > contents. And also your contents are totally different

from mine.

> > > > > Thats why consciousness is absolutely subjective.

> > > > >

> > > > > Is there an evolution from stones and rocks towards

bacteria,

> > > then to

> > > > > worms, mice, cats and dogs, monkeys and finally man

sitting in a

> > > car

> > > > > of in front of a computer ?

> > > > >

> > > > > Why at all do you feel the need to differentiate, to

comnpare, to

> > > > > categorize life in order to see that there is evolution.

> > > > >

> > > > > Can't you see what utter nonsense that idea of evolution

is ?

> > > > >

> > > > > There is no evolution, neither from lower to higher nor

> > > > > any " evolution of consciousness " .

> > > > >

> > > > > Are you a New-Ageian ?

> > > > >

> > > > > Werner

> > > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > > > Evolution only says that physical organisms change over time

> > > through natural selection

> > > > and random genetic mutations and that they gradually evolve

to

> > > adapt to the ever

> > > > changing environment.

> > > >

> > > > The only people who deny the vast amount of supportive

evidence for

> > > evolution are the

> > > > religious fundamentalists.

> > > >

> > > > Any logical argument against evolution simply cannot be

supported.

> > > >

> > > >

> > >

> > >

> > > Yes, Toomb,

> > >

> > > That's how I see it too.

> > >

> > > But I cannot accept an evolution from " lower " to more and

> > > more " higher " life forms.

> > >

> > > Werner

> > >

> > >

> > > >

> >

> >

> >

> > Yes.

> >

> > The terms " lower " and " higher " are egocentric in origin.

> >

> > No form of life is higher than any other.

> >

> >

> >

> >

> > ****Ironically, it's Werner who introduced the terms.

> >

> >

>

>

> .....and your point is?

>

>

>

>

> t.

>

[Guest guest]

Nisargadatta , " toombaru2006 " <lastrain

wrote:

>

> Nisargadatta , souldreamone@ wrote:

> >

> >

> > In a message dated 21/05/2008 9:02:37 AM Pacific Daylight Time,

> > lastrain@ writes:

> >

> >

> > > Consciousness is memory.

> > >

> > > Werner

> > >

> > >

> >

> >

> >

> >

> > That says it all.

> >

> > If one goes deeply into that thought..........it may not return.

> >

> >

> > t.

> >

> >

> >

> > ****Or one may fall asleep from sheer boredom and continue

dreaming in the

> > same way. Werner has patented the phrase " Consciousness is it's

content " , and I

> > have no particular problem with that on a practical level,

though it's not

> > useful as far as I can see, unless you're trying to convince

yourself that

> > consciousness isn't a device with flashing led's in it.

> >

> > But I have an issue with saying consciousness is memory. What is

it that

> > stores the first memory and how does it do this in the absence of

consciousness?

> > If one suffers brain damage in such a way that all memory is

lost, does he

> > fall down and go unconscious because he can't remember anything?

How could he

> > ever recover since he would have to remember something before he

could be

> > conscious again? Does the baby pop out of the womb unconscious

because what he

> > perceives when he opens his eyes has no memory associated with

it? In some

> > ways, the mature, educated adult with endless memories is less

conscious than a

> > new born babe with none. One look in the eyes will reveal that

much.

> >

> >

> >

> >

>

>

> How about:

>

>

> Self-consciousness is memory?

>

>

>

> t.

>

 

 

Surely it is memory, Toomb

 

If the content is a tree or a bird singing or oneself - it is memory

made conscious.

 

Self-consciousness is just one category of many others.

 

Question:

Because there is no owner of consciousness then who is self-

conscious ?

 

Who is that ? Is it the self ? Not possible because the self itself

is a content of consciousness and no content can be conscious of

itself.

 

Werner

[Guest guest]

Nisargadatta , souldreamone wrote:

>

>

> In a message dated 21/05/2008 9:02:37 AM Pacific Daylight Time,

> lastrain writes:

>

>

> > Consciousness is memory.

> >

> > Werner

> >

> >

>

>

>

>

> That says it all.

>

> If one goes deeply into that thought..........it may not return.

>

>

> t.

>

>

>

> ****Or one may fall asleep from sheer boredom and continue dreaming

in the

> same way. Werner has patented the phrase " Consciousness is it's

content " , and I

> have no particular problem with that on a practical level, though

it's not

> useful as far as I can see, unless you're trying to convince

yourself that

> consciousness isn't a device with flashing led's in it.

 

 

Hey, hey, hey, old boy

 

I already was suspecting a bit that you don't understand a word of

what I am writing here.

 

So I see the need repeat:

 

I used the metaphor of a led as a simile so that it maybe could be

helpful to better understand why consciousness is memory. When the

led is inactive and dark then it is called memory and when it is lit

and active is is experienced as consciousness.

 

Again: When the memory neurons are firing then that firing we call

consciousness and when they are not firing they are still memory but

inactive and not conscious.

 

Capito, caro amico ?

 

Werner

 

 

>

> But I have an issue with saying consciousness is memory. What is it

that

> stores the first memory and how does it do this in the absence of

consciousness?

> If one suffers brain damage in such a way that all memory is lost,

does he

> fall down and go unconscious because he can't remember anything?

How could he

> ever recover since he would have to remember something before he

could be

> conscious again? Does the baby pop out of the womb unconscious

because what he

> perceives when he opens his eyes has no memory associated with it?

In some

> ways, the mature, educated adult with endless memories is less

conscious than a

> new born babe with none. One look in the eyes will reveal that

much.

>

>

>

>

> **************Get trade secrets for amazing burgers. Watch " Cooking

with

> Tyler Florence " on AOL Food.

> (http://food.aol.com/tyler-florence?video=4 & ?

NCID=aolfod00030000000002)

>

[Guest guest]

Nisargadatta , souldreamone wrote:

>

>

> In a message dated 21/05/2008 7:31:41 AM Pacific Daylight Time,

> wwoehr writes:

>

> > ****I didn't know evolution was a new age concept. I thought

> scientists came

> > up with that one. I actually used the context of evolution

because

> of all

> > the rational scientific minds here.

> > The fact that consciousness is not a thing and that it is it's

> content, is

> > irrelevant to whether or not it can be transcended. In fact,

> transcending

> > objects is a rather tricky deal. Whether or not there is a

master

> plan is also

> > irrelevant as to whether evolution or transcendence happens.

(No,

> there is no

> > plan or planner)

> >

> > I never suggested that consciousness distinguishes man from the

> > animals..........Okay, nevermind. Clearly your intention is only

to

> dismiss and not to

> > discuss.

> >

>

>

> Fine, Phil,

>

> You also don't believe in any master plan. I am relieved, so I

just

> must have misunderstood you - thanks heaven's.

>

> That I have misunderstood you in no way was my intention, not to

> speak of " clearly " my intention.

>

> Now:

>

> You wrote, " The fact that consciousness is not a thing and that it

is

> it's content, is irrelevant to whether or not it can be

transcended " .

>

> It is not irrelevant, Phil, because the way consciousness is

created

> by the brain, it in now way allowas to transcend it. Consciousness

is

> what it is.

>

> Imagine you hear a bang, can that bang get transcended ? Surely

not.

>

> The idea of transcendence already is in itself nonsense - who will

be

> the transcender ? Will it be " you " ?

>

> Phil, that amazing transcender - heh heh ....

>

> Werner

>

>

>

> ***You believe that what you are is a peice of meat that somehow

thinks, and

> if this were the case then you would be correct; there would be

nothing to

> transcend, because there would be no source of this thinking meat.

>

 

 

If for you, Phil, this incredible and unfathomable complex living

organism is just a piece of meat then you are right.

 

Next time you have some pain and you are pondering to visit a doctor

then don't do it - your body is just a piece of meat.

 

Werner

[Guest guest]

In a message dated 21/05/2008 1:44:30 PM Pacific Daylight Time, lastrain writes:

> > That says it all.> > If one goes deeply into that thought..........it may not return.> > > t.> > > > ****Or one may fall asleep from sheer boredom and continue dreaming in the > same way. Werner has patented the phrase "Consciousness is it's content", and I > have no particular problem with that on a practical level, though it's not > useful as far as I can see, unless you're trying to convince yourself that > consciousness isn't a device with flashing led's in it. > > But I have an issue with saying consciousness is memory. What is it that > stores the first memory and how does it do this in the absence of consciousness? > If one suffers brain damage in such a way that all memory is lost, does he > fall down and go unconscious because he can't remember anything? How could he > ever recover since he would have to remember something before he could be > conscious again? Does the baby pop out of the womb unconscious because what he > perceives when he opens his eyes has no memory associated with it? In some > ways, the mature, educated adult with endless memories is less conscious than a > new born babe with none. One look in the eyes will reveal that much.> > > >How about:Self-consciousness is memory?

 

***Yes, the identifying labels of ego are entirely in memory (if that's what you meant). self is contained in memory, which is why it's best to spend as little time as possible there.Get trade secrets for amazing burgers. Watch "Cooking with Tyler Florence" on AOL Food.

[Guest guest]

>

> Surely it is memory, Toomb

>

> If the content is a tree or a bird singing or oneself - it is memory

> made conscious.

>

> Self-consciousness is just one category of many others.

>

> Question:

> Because there is no owner of consciousness then who is self-

> conscious ?

 

 

No one.

 

In an ant hill of a bee hive " decisions " are made but there is no decider.

 

The self emerges within the swirling mnemonic debris...it is a phantom within a

phantom

kingdom.

 

If ants and bees were to take it one small step further.......and were able to

conceptualize

their perceptions......some sort of personal identity would emerge and claim

ownership of

the community.

 

That is all that is happening.

 

A self emerges and evolves over time simply because it helps the physical

organism

survive and reproduce.

 

Simple as that.

 

 

t.

 

 

 

 

 

 

>

> Who is that ? Is it the self ? Not possible because the self itself

> is a content of consciousness and no content can be conscious of

> itself.

>

> Werner

>

[Guest guest]

In a message dated 21/05/2008 2:48:09 PM Pacific Daylight Time, wwoehr writes:

> ****Or one may fall asleep from sheer boredom and continue dreaming in the > same way. Werner has patented the phrase "Consciousness is it's content", and I > have no particular problem with that on a practical level, though it's not > useful as far as I can see, unless you're trying to convince yourself that > consciousness isn't a device with flashing led's in it.Hey, hey, hey, old boyI already was suspecting a bit that you don't understand a word of what I am writing here.So I see the need repeat:I used the metaphor of a led as a simile so that it maybe could be helpful to better understand why consciousness is memory. When the led is inactive and dark then it is called memory and when it is lit and active is is experienced as consciousness.Again: When the memory neurons are firing then that firing we call consciousness and when they are not firing they are still memory but active, not conscious.Capito, caro amico ?Werner

 

***Yeah, I got it the first time, thanks. I understand you fine.Get trade secrets for amazing burgers. Watch "Cooking with Tyler Florence" on AOL Food.

[Guest guest]

Nisargadatta , " Werner Woehr " <wwoehr wrote:

>

> Nisargadatta , " anabebe57 " <kailashana@>

> wrote:

> >

> > Only man can create concepts into which he categorizes his

> experience;

> > at once shaping and is shaped by them...

> >

> > Discreet sound-bytes of information are garnered through a

> *selective

> > listening* process and assimilated into a texture of being.

> >

> > The interesting thing is that in order to be consciously aware of

> > *stone* consciousness must have been *stone*... or at least been

> > engraved in it...

> >

> > ~Anna

> >

> >

> > p.s. Enjoyed your stream of thought Phil..

> >

> >

>

>

> Anna,

>

> " or at least been engraved in it " ?

>

> At least ?

>

> To be aware of stone, all qualities of stone already have to

> exist as memory else you couln't be aware of it.

>

> Consciousness is memory.

>

> Werner

 

 

Werner, Darling... My point was that I Am (consciousness) at some

point is/was a stone... hence the ability to remember it as such and

see it for what it is... the conscious awareness now having named *stone*.

 

Ver stey?

 

~Anna

>

>

> >

> >

> >

> >

> > Nisargadatta , souldreamone@ wrote:

> > >

> > >

> > > In a message dated 20/05/2008 9:59:34 PM Pacific Daylight Time,

> > > wwoehr@ writes:

> > >

> > > > ****In the course of evolution, the creature must inevitably

> reach

> > > a point

> > > > at which it develops the ability to question, and ultimately

> > > physically and

> > > > mentally challenge its role as a part of nature. If it's true

> that

> > > nature is

> > > > entirely integrated in it's functioning, then to remove

> oneself

> > > from that role

> > > > in an attempt to dominate and control one's experience,

> removes us

> > > from the

> > > > natural support that nature lends all of it's parts within

> that

> > > integrated

> > > > functioning, and so there is conflict and suffering

> experienced

> > > where there is

> > > > none from the perspective of an animal that has no such

> ability to

> > > challenge

> > > > its role and project it's fate.

> > > >

> > > > However, this stage is necessary if the vector of evolution is

> > > toward the

> > > > transcendence of animal consciousness, and so nothing has gone

> > > wrong. It's much

> > > > more like 'growing pains'.

> > > >

> > > >

> > >

> > >

> > > Nicely written, Phil,

> > >

> > > But at the end of your post I wondered how do you know that

> evolution

> > > does transcend animal consciousness.

> > >

> > > First of all consciousness is not a thing which can be

> transcended.

> > > Not to speak of " animal consciousness " . Do you think there is a

> > > master plan in creation and evolution ?

> > >

> > > Let me tell you again that consciousness IS its conent - no

> content

> > > no consciousness.

> > >

> > > It is not consciousness which distinguish man from animal, it is

> its

> > > contents. And also your contents are totally different from

> mine.

> > > Thats why consciousness is absolutely subjective.

> > >

> > > Is there an evolution from stones and rocks towards bacteria,

> then to

> > > worms, mice, cats and dogs, monkeys and finally man sitting in a

> car

> > > of in front of a computer ?

> > >

> > > Why at all do you feel the need to differentiate, to comnpare,

> to

> > > categorize life in order to see that there is evolution.

> > >

> > > Can't you see what utter nonsense that idea of evolution is ?

> > >

> > > There is no evolution, neither from lower to higher nor

> > > any " evolution of consciousness " .

> > >

> > > Are you a New-Ageian ?

> > >

> > > Werner

> > >

> > >

> > >

> > > ****I didn't know evolution was a new age concept. I thought

> > scientists came

> > > up with that one. I actually used the context of evolution because

> > of all

> > > the rational scientific minds here.

> > > The fact that consciousness is not a thing and that it is it's

> > content, is

> > > irrelevant to whether or not it can be transcended. In fact,

> > transcending

> > > objects is a rather tricky deal. Whether or not there is a master

> > plan is also

> > > irrelevant as to whether evolution or transcendence happens. (No,

> > there is no

> > > plan or planner)

> > >

> > > I never suggested that consciousness distinguishes man from the

> > > animals..........Okay, nevermind. Clearly your intention is only

> to

> > dismiss and not to

> > > discuss.

> > >

> > >

> > >

> > > **************Wondering what's for Dinner Tonight? Get new twists

> on

> > family

> > > favorites at AOL Food.

> > > (http://food.aol.com/dinner-tonight?NCID=aolfod00030000000001)

> > >

> >

>

[Guest guest]

Nisargadatta , souldreamone wrote:

>

>

> In a message dated 21/05/2008 12:55:06 PM Pacific Daylight Time,

> lastrain writes:

>

> > > > Evolution only says that physical organisms change over time

> > > through natural selection

> > > > and random genetic mutations and that they gradually evolve to

> > > adapt to the ever

> > > > changing environment.

> > > >

> > > > The only people who deny the vast amount of supportive evidence for

> > > evolution are the

> > > > religious fundamentalists.

> > > >

> > > > Any logical argument against evolution simply cannot be supported.

> > > >

> > > >

> > >

> > >

> > > Yes, Toomb,

> > >

> > > That's how I see it too.

> > >

> > > But I cannot accept an evolution from " lower " to more and

> > > more " higher " life forms.

> > >

> > > Werner

> > >

> > >

> > > >

> >

> >

> >

> > Yes.

> >

> > The terms " lower " and " higher " are egocentric in origin.

> >

> > No form of life is higher than any other.

> >

> >

> >

> >

> > ****Ironically, it's Werner who introduced the terms.

> >

> >

>

>

> .....and your point is?

>

>

>

> ****That the whole discussion is contrived by discagreeing with something

> that was never said, which looks odd, but it's not worth continuing. However,

> while we're on the subject, what looks egoic to me is the 'politically

correct'

> stance that higher and lower in terms of evolutionary functioning is

> unacceptable and egoic. One creature sends it's fellow creatures to the moon,

and

> another creature buries nuts in your back yard, and yet it would be egoic to

> see one creature as more highly evolved than the other?

>

>

 

 

 

 

The creature who buries nuts in the back yard has no interest in going to the

moon.

 

 

You tell me which is more highly evolved.

 

 

 

t.

[Guest guest]

Nisargadatta , souldreamone wrote:

>

>

> In a message dated 21/05/2008 1:44:30 PM Pacific Daylight Time,

> lastrain writes:

>

> >

> > That says it all.

> >

> > If one goes deeply into that thought..........it may not return.

> >

> >

> > t.

> >

> >

> >

> > ****Or one may fall asleep from sheer boredom and continue dreaming in the

>

> > same way. Werner has patented the phrase " Consciousness is it's content " ,

> and I

> > have no particular problem with that on a practical level, though it's

> not

> > useful as far as I can see, unless you're trying to convince yourself that

>

> > consciousness isn't a device with flashing led's in it.

> >

> > But I have an issue with saying consciousness is memory. What is it that

> > stores the first memory and how does it do this in the absence of

> consciousness?

> > If one suffers brain damage in such a way that all memory is lost, does he

> > fall down and go unconscious because he can't remember anything? How

> could he

> > ever recover since he would have to remember something before he could

> be

> > conscious again? Does the baby pop out of the womb unconscious because

> what he

> > perceives when he opens his eyes has no memory associated with it? In

> some

> > ways, the mature, educated adult with endless memories is less conscious

> than a

> > new born babe with none. One look in the eyes will reveal that much.

> >

> >

> >

> >

>

>

> How about:

>

>

> Self-consciousness is memory?

>

>

>

> ***Yes, the identifying labels of ego are entirely in memory (if that's what

> you meant). self is contained in memory, which is why it's best to spend as

> little time as possible there.

>

>

 

 

Try to get out of it.

 

 

t.

[Guest guest]

In a message dated 21/05/2008 10:35:56 PM Pacific Daylight Time, lastrain writes:

> > Yes.> > > > The terms "lower" and "higher" are egocentric in origin.> > > > No form of life is higher than any other.> > > > > > > > > > ****Ironically, it's Werner who introduced the terms. > > > > > > > .....and your point is?> > > > ****That the whole discussion is contrived by discagreeing with something > that was never said, which looks odd, but it's not worth continuing. However, > while we're on the subject, what looks egoic to me is the 'politically correct' > stance that higher and lower in terms of evolutionary functioning is > unacceptable and egoic. One creature sends it's fellow creatures to the moon, and > another creature buries nuts in your back yard, and yet it would be egoic to > see one creature as more highly evolved than the other?> > The creature who buries nuts in the back yard has no interest in going to the moon.You tell me which is more highly evolved.

 

****I already did. If you let go of your judgment around those words, you might find that they aren't a problem after all.Get trade secrets for amazing burgers. Watch "Cooking with Tyler Florence" on AOL Food.

[Guest guest]

In a message dated 21/05/2008 10:39:15 PM Pacific Daylight Time, lastrain writes:

> > ****Or one may fall asleep from sheer boredom and continue dreaming in the > > > same way. Werner has patented the phrase "Consciousness is it's content", > and I > > have no particular problem with that on a practical level, though it's > not > > useful as far as I can see, unless you're trying to convince yourself that > > > consciousness isn't a device with flashing led's in it. > > > > But I have an issue with saying consciousness is memory. What is it that > > stores the first memory and how does it do this in the absence of > consciousness? > > If one suffers brain damage in such a way that all memory is lost, does he > > fall down and go unconscious because he can't remember anything? How > could he > > ever recover since he would have to remember something before he could > be > > conscious again? Does the baby pop out of the womb unconscious because > what he > > perceives when he opens his eyes has no memory associated with it? In > some > > ways, the mature, educated adult with endless memories is less conscious > than a > > new born babe with none. One look in the eyes will reveal that much.> > > > > > > >> > > How about:> > > Self-consciousness is memory?> > > > ***Yes, the identifying labels of ego are entirely in memory (if that's what > you meant). self is contained in memory, which is why it's best to spend as > little time as possible there.> > Try to get out of it.

 

***No, don't try to get out. Quicksand.Get trade secrets for amazing burgers. Watch "Cooking with Tyler Florence" on AOL Food.

[Guest guest]

Nisargadatta , souldreamone wrote:

>

>

> In a message dated 21/05/2008 10:39:15 PM Pacific Daylight Time,

> lastrain writes:

>

> > > ****Or one may fall asleep from sheer boredom and continue dreaming in

> the

> >

> > > same way. Werner has patented the phrase " Consciousness is it's

> content " ,

> > and I

> > > have no particular problem with that on a practical level, though it's

>

> > not

> > > useful as far as I can see, unless you're trying to convince yourself

> that

> >

> > > consciousness isn't a device with flashing led's in it.

> > >

> > > But I have an issue with saying consciousness is memory. What is it

> that

> > > stores the first memory and how does it do this in the absence of

> > consciousness?

> > > If one suffers brain damage in such a way that all memory is lost, does

> he

> > > fall down and go unconscious because he can't remember anything? How

> > could he

> > > ever recover since he would have to remember something before he

> could

> > be

> > > conscious again? Does the baby pop out of the womb unconscious because

> > what he

> > > perceives when he opens his eyes has no memory associated with it? In

> > some

> > > ways, the mature, educated adult with endless memories is less

> conscious

> > than a

> > > new born babe with none. One look in the eyes will reveal that much.

> > >

> > >

> > >

> > >

> >

> >

> > How about:

> >

> >

> > Self-consciousness is memory?

> >

> >

> >

> > ***Yes, the identifying labels of ego are entirely in memory (if that's

> what

> > you meant). self is contained in memory, which is why it's best to spend

> as

> > little time as possible there.

> >

> >

>

>

> Try to get out of it.

>

>

>

> ***No, don't try to get out. Quicksand.

>

>

 

 

 

 

 

LOL

 

 

It is quicksand composed only of words.

 

 

 

 

t.