A fitting end to the internal struggle. The banging of head against the wall of the fate and expectation ends;The experiment stops and the life starts.
I need sleep.
Thursday, December 16, 2010
Friday, April 2, 2010
Understanding Movement of thought
There are many who have forcefully occupied my mental rack. And there are few to whom I would willingly give one. Mr J Krishnamurti will be the first of them. I bow to thou sir.
Mind creates an image on perceiving a given sensation. This image per se is not only visual but it may contain other sensory feeling such as sound. The image created can be static or dynamic. It is not 'is' but ‘to be’. This gap between 'is' and 'to be' is desire or wanting. Essentially it means that sensation and its associated perceptions are ‘taken in’ by the mind (made of memory) to ‘create’ an image. If in the example if you consider ‘taken in’ as event 1 and ‘create’ as event 2, then the activity or the flow from event 1 to event 2 is called the Movement of thought (MOT).But it is very gross. There are finer steps. Let us try to understand it.
Consider the following steps:
Step 1: One seeing an object (object of desire / hate).
The immediate recognition of the object as an object of desire or hate is mind’s pre-processing. The memory is composed of data and experiences; experiences being a coherent stream of time movements with data and its characteristics.This data can be you and me ; the basic unit of work,the atom of the mind
Step 2: Senses acting on the object.
The very act of seeing is an MOT( This is voluntary)
Sensory Organs are like data input systems. They merely take in the data depending upon its own making.So any sight is a 'seen data' by the eyes.This can't be heard or touched.They can only be referred to in the 'seen data'.Merely a reference.This reference is too subtle for us to understand.But it is there.The mere invoking the ‘seen’ data calls the faculty of hear or touch.
These are involuntary MOT's and we are used to it.Essentially everything was voluntary initially. And then we got used to it.They became involuntary.
Can mind be similar to a computer? I mean I understand computer algorithms are after all an outcome of human thought processing. Destination always has the source in it
Step 3: The thought then takes the input data and makes an image out of it.This is a voluntary MOT.
This image is output of mind's activity of dealing with the input on the basis of existing thought patterns.Biases and prejudices are minds 'way' to deal with a given kind of data at any given point of time.
Lets take an example
1. Let the data input be 'A'.
2. Mind matches with all the 'A's already present in memory. 'A' has multiple characteristics. They are mind's interpretations (Behavior and Characteristics)of the input with reference to many such 'A' and their behavior stored in the memory.
3. Mind scans all the related routines in the memory depending upon multiple characteristics of A.
An entirely new data may flummox the mind in and out.(Some thing never seen or heard about. Something never 'sensed' about)
It means that out of 'n' number of interpretations to the finally identified unique 'A', the mind decides (A voluntary MOT) to opt one of them.
4. This routine creates new data. This has become an involuntary MOT.
The data form is a mix of 'sensory' types. A sensation not in picture may too be involved. That is part of the routine.It is voluntary if you see it. Its just that we never tend to exercise the will to change it. Also it is uniquely defined for each individual as the memory is different for each one of us.
I would state without questioning that if my memory were to be completely replaced by someone else' memory then the first reaction to the first event in my new mind life would have been the same as what the replaced guy would have reacted to the same event.And then we would have split in our own ways
This newly created memory (thought) has its own features; like any other data which is stored in memory.The crucial difference is that this new data is 'created by the mind based on input data fetched by the sensory organs'. The new memory ('to be') doesn't have any 'existence' similar to that of the data fetched ('is').There is a gap. This is the subtle difference between 'is' and 'to be'. Mind doesn't really take the source in the interpretation and processing of any data. The mind's interpretation of the new data as existential and not being derived is the subtle drift in human life. This interpretation is what we call desire.
Mind creates an image on perceiving a given sensation. This image per se is not only visual but it may contain other sensory feeling such as sound. The image created can be static or dynamic. It is not 'is' but ‘to be’. This gap between 'is' and 'to be' is desire or wanting. Essentially it means that sensation and its associated perceptions are ‘taken in’ by the mind (made of memory) to ‘create’ an image. If in the example if you consider ‘taken in’ as event 1 and ‘create’ as event 2, then the activity or the flow from event 1 to event 2 is called the Movement of thought (MOT).But it is very gross. There are finer steps. Let us try to understand it.
Consider the following steps:
Step 1: One seeing an object (object of desire / hate).
The immediate recognition of the object as an object of desire or hate is mind’s pre-processing. The memory is composed of data and experiences; experiences being a coherent stream of time movements with data and its characteristics.This data can be you and me ; the basic unit of work,the atom of the mind
Step 2: Senses acting on the object.
The very act of seeing is an MOT( This is voluntary)
Sensory Organs are like data input systems. They merely take in the data depending upon its own making.So any sight is a 'seen data' by the eyes.This can't be heard or touched.They can only be referred to in the 'seen data'.Merely a reference.This reference is too subtle for us to understand.But it is there.The mere invoking the ‘seen’ data calls the faculty of hear or touch.
These are involuntary MOT's and we are used to it.Essentially everything was voluntary initially. And then we got used to it.They became involuntary.
Can mind be similar to a computer? I mean I understand computer algorithms are after all an outcome of human thought processing. Destination always has the source in it
Step 3: The thought then takes the input data and makes an image out of it.This is a voluntary MOT.
This image is output of mind's activity of dealing with the input on the basis of existing thought patterns.Biases and prejudices are minds 'way' to deal with a given kind of data at any given point of time.
Lets take an example
1. Let the data input be 'A'.
2. Mind matches with all the 'A's already present in memory. 'A' has multiple characteristics. They are mind's interpretations (Behavior and Characteristics)of the input with reference to many such 'A' and their behavior stored in the memory.
3. Mind scans all the related routines in the memory depending upon multiple characteristics of A.
An entirely new data may flummox the mind in and out.(Some thing never seen or heard about. Something never 'sensed' about)
It means that out of 'n' number of interpretations to the finally identified unique 'A', the mind decides (A voluntary MOT) to opt one of them.
4. This routine creates new data. This has become an involuntary MOT.
The data form is a mix of 'sensory' types. A sensation not in picture may too be involved. That is part of the routine.It is voluntary if you see it. Its just that we never tend to exercise the will to change it. Also it is uniquely defined for each individual as the memory is different for each one of us.
I would state without questioning that if my memory were to be completely replaced by someone else' memory then the first reaction to the first event in my new mind life would have been the same as what the replaced guy would have reacted to the same event.And then we would have split in our own ways
This newly created memory (thought) has its own features; like any other data which is stored in memory.The crucial difference is that this new data is 'created by the mind based on input data fetched by the sensory organs'. The new memory ('to be') doesn't have any 'existence' similar to that of the data fetched ('is').There is a gap. This is the subtle difference between 'is' and 'to be'. Mind doesn't really take the source in the interpretation and processing of any data. The mind's interpretation of the new data as existential and not being derived is the subtle drift in human life. This interpretation is what we call desire.
Saturday, March 13, 2010
Yes, Mr Paul !
As one of my favorite tv shows,Yes Minister series stands at the top.Honestly, the master list itself is pretty small. There are few things,occasions,movies,songs,moments which remain anew and full of life every time you touch them. They have that unquestionable and repetitive sense of vitality which can be attributed to an ardent fan watching his role model perform the best of the trade and simply revel in it. Like the effect of a song sung by a mother to her child to make him sleep.Its original every time its sung and is equally effective.
I get into a similar state of trance when I watch the performance of Paul Eddington, Nigel Hawthorne and Derek Fowlds in the famous series. The way Paul expresses the helplessness of a minister through Jim Hacker is amazing. Especially his ability to portray a person who is expressionless in utter innocence when the dark humor is played on him.I guess in real life such a quality is possessed by only those who either cannot understand humor at all or those who understand it completely and yet ignore it in and out.I guess this planet is bereft of both,"actually".
Yesterday,I saw his last interview which he gave in Face to Face .
Paul had a rare form of skin cancer which directly affected his face and hence his late acting career .I am sure he was more grieved of losing his life rather than his career. It was so poignant to watch Paul say that if a journo were to ask what his epitaph would bear , then it would be "I am someone who did very little harm.." At the same time, his voice was naturally artistic, full of inner energy to live and raring to vocalize any actor's role.That characteristic of a person to remain aloof yet mildly alert, to ignore yet be aware of things can be seen in each and every act of his and is spellbinding.
I believe what Paul said came out of a human's request and a deep urge to live.He succumbed to the disease very shortly after wards.It was a desperation for an answer ; may be for justice. May be that is what death is all about. You simply cant fight it.He had some very "genuine questions unanswered",or may be unexplained.
In one of the Yes prime minister series, Jim Hacker (late Paul Eddington), preparing for the funeral of his predecessor quotes "...so wonderful thing (is this) death ..so uncontroversial.." May his soul rest in peace.
I get into a similar state of trance when I watch the performance of Paul Eddington, Nigel Hawthorne and Derek Fowlds in the famous series. The way Paul expresses the helplessness of a minister through Jim Hacker is amazing. Especially his ability to portray a person who is expressionless in utter innocence when the dark humor is played on him.I guess in real life such a quality is possessed by only those who either cannot understand humor at all or those who understand it completely and yet ignore it in and out.I guess this planet is bereft of both,"actually".
Yesterday,I saw his last interview which he gave in Face to Face .
Paul had a rare form of skin cancer which directly affected his face and hence his late acting career .I am sure he was more grieved of losing his life rather than his career. It was so poignant to watch Paul say that if a journo were to ask what his epitaph would bear , then it would be "I am someone who did very little harm.." At the same time, his voice was naturally artistic, full of inner energy to live and raring to vocalize any actor's role.That characteristic of a person to remain aloof yet mildly alert, to ignore yet be aware of things can be seen in each and every act of his and is spellbinding.
I believe what Paul said came out of a human's request and a deep urge to live.He succumbed to the disease very shortly after wards.It was a desperation for an answer ; may be for justice. May be that is what death is all about. You simply cant fight it.He had some very "genuine questions unanswered",or may be unexplained.
In one of the Yes prime minister series, Jim Hacker (late Paul Eddington), preparing for the funeral of his predecessor quotes "...so wonderful thing (is this) death ..so uncontroversial.." May his soul rest in peace.
Just started blogging..
I do not know whether its meant for myself or for others. But this desire to write or rather type in my thoughts and then let others read it was "in" there for long.
So just youtubed and found out as to how to start a new blog. And here I am.
I had this tremendous feeling of actually sharing my thoughts on various subjects with people.To actually let people know what I think about things and then get other's enthusiastic and constructive responses and inputs.Or is just that its weekend today??
The other thing is of relevance.Of course no one defines it precisely.In fact I have my own definition which may not be relevant to others at all. But all blogs seem to, on due course of time , point to few specific grey areas, unfinalized arguments, inconclusive point of views etc.And then it lets people go berserk.
One thing is clear though. I am not here to conclude. So essentially, judgment is out of question. But you never know.To put in black and white , I am here to put my thoughts as it is in black and white.
Still as a concept, blogs are actually a couple of minutes and hours late and a couple of revision refined and redrafted than an actual conversation.I would call it a "delayed" conversation. Or rather, a nicely delayed conversation.Or do I have more time than that?? Or is it not a form of conversation at all??
Whatever it may be, I see it as a platform to express one's opinions , viewpoints and concerns with ample opportunity to correct oneself.
So just youtubed and found out as to how to start a new blog. And here I am.
I had this tremendous feeling of actually sharing my thoughts on various subjects with people.To actually let people know what I think about things and then get other's enthusiastic and constructive responses and inputs.Or is just that its weekend today??
The other thing is of relevance.Of course no one defines it precisely.In fact I have my own definition which may not be relevant to others at all. But all blogs seem to, on due course of time , point to few specific grey areas, unfinalized arguments, inconclusive point of views etc.And then it lets people go berserk.
One thing is clear though. I am not here to conclude. So essentially, judgment is out of question. But you never know.To put in black and white , I am here to put my thoughts as it is in black and white.
Still as a concept, blogs are actually a couple of minutes and hours late and a couple of revision refined and redrafted than an actual conversation.I would call it a "delayed" conversation. Or rather, a nicely delayed conversation.Or do I have more time than that?? Or is it not a form of conversation at all??
Whatever it may be, I see it as a platform to express one's opinions , viewpoints and concerns with ample opportunity to correct oneself.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)