Area : I_UFO
Date : Nov 12 '95, 02:58
From : Paul West, 2:254/284.4
To   : All
Subj : Thought


Hi.

This message is also a crosspost, and leaves yet more open ends from
which further things spring.  There is so much to say about infinite
reality that any finite effort seems pathetic.  However...

I've been `thinking' about thought, for want of a more correct
phraseology, in the sense that this is what I've been pondering, as
well as in the sense that I want to better define what thought is.
Confused yet?  Do you know what I'm driving at, or are you still
thinking about it?  ;)

In my recent extravaganza of thinking-cum-knowing, the 4-part message
called "Reality", I suggested something which at the time seemed
correct. What I said was:

"As knowing increases, thought decreases.  As thought increases,
knowing decreases."

However, the general idea is that you need to think in order to learn,
and thus in order to know.  Would not, then, thinking make you a less
knowledgeable person?  This is illogical.  It's suggesting that
thinking makes you know less.

The reason it is an illogical paradox, is because of its nature.  It
shares a kinship with science and maths - it is finite.  The concept
of knowing and not-knowing (thinking), comprises opposites.  Truly the
singular reality does not comprise opposites, so we need a completely
different idea of what `thought' is.  This should also help work out
what made God create everything in the first place.

Firstly, because God is infinite, it follows that whatever process was
necessary to create the universe must still be going on.  As such,
that process cannot be an attribute, such as smell or taste, it cannot
be a mode, such as objects or energy forms or big bangs, it must be
intrinsic to the substance.  So, at least we know that the reasoning
behind God's creation is inbedded somewhere in the properties of the
infinite `consciousness'.

Secondly, we need to take another look at the singular idea of
everything being `right', and there not existing such a thing as
wrong/bad/ego.  Let me attempt to construct another analogy to
symbolise the idea of singular reality.  Firstly, take a look at this
nice picture.

                       _________
                    __/         \
                  _/             \__   <- Conscious mind
                 /                  \_
 _/\_/\_/\_/\_/\ / /\_/\_/\_/\_/\_/\_  \ /\_/\_/\_/\_/\_/\_
                \                      \
               _/                      /  <- Subconscious mind
            __/           MIND         \_
           /                             \
          .                               .  <- Unconscious mind


This is the `iceberg' concept.  The wiggly line in the middle is the
waves, and the iceberg is the mind.  In theory, the area above the
waves is the conscious mind.  The area below the waves is the
subconscious, and further the unconscious, mind.  However, the problem
with this model is that it is dualistic and relies on an opposite -
above or below the sealevel. However, this analogy is not much better
than my dualistic statement about the knowing and thinking.  There are
opposites at play.  For example, as the rain (thought) comes down onto
the iceberg, knowing is supposed to increase - IOW the iceberg gets a
bit bigger cus the rain freezes. Similarly as the knowing/iceberg
melts, thought is created (evaporated).

This iceberg model is the standard one accepted by all psychiatrists,
AFAIK.  It is also thought that there is a `crack' up the middle of
the iceberg through which `George' the subconscious mind sends
information to the conscious.  That might be partly right, but the
iceberg is still dualistic.  This doesn't prove that reality is
dualistic, but it does prove that our labelling systems are.

So, as a new way of conceptualising `thought', we return to the
singular reality concept.  Remember, you cannot call these `singular
reality' concepts a "theory", because in singular reality theoreticals
do not exist and all concepts are correct and true and real.  Also, it
is most hard to put this concept into words because ideally reality
just `is', and any single symbolic representation of that would be in
denial of that nature. Anyway, I think we're allowed to have some
symbols for the time being, to learn from, for whatever `learning' is
all about.

As we know, knowing, creation, and love, are outwards things, coming
from God's expansive creativity.  As it is similar to how the ego
doesn't exist, because ego comes up from the bottom, is it not also
true of `thought' to be something which comes in from the bottom?  It
surely must be, because thought is the opposite of knowing, and
because knowing comes from the inside outwards (top down), thought
must be a thing going from bottom up, inwards.  Then, basically,
thought joins ego and evil in the realms of theoretical non-existence.

What then are we doing when we `think', and how do we `learn', if all
that ever happens is that reality only goes outwards?  First of all,
it seems that you need knowledge in order to think.  If all we ever
think is based on knowledge, then we could never really learn
anything, surely.  The question is, though, DO we learn, or are we
just remembering/realising that we already know everything?  In such a
case, is not `learning' also a theoretical thing, and thus an
illusion?

It seems to me that when you get to know something, you basically
ignore it, because in that process of knowing it becomes part of you,
and thus holds nothing new.  We don't exactly explore the house every
time we go to bed.  Then, you consider `awareness' and `perception' to
be acts of not knowing.  So, it seems true enough that thought occurs
only in relation to things which we do not know.  This is a bit wierd,
cus it's like thought being to do with everything which doesn't exist
yet.  Might then it be prominent to actually create a distinction
between thinking and knowing? It would surely be more accurate to say
that our mind's comprise a mode of knowing, AND a mode of thinking.
After all, you don't exactly `think' memories, because memories are
known.

Thinking is also up there in the realms of imagination, because
imagination creates the unknown, conceptulises, imagines.  Would it
not then follow that imagination basically equals thought?  They seem
to be identical.  How then is is possible to be doing something in the
realms of not knowing, ie thinking and imagining, at the same time as
knowing?  Because they cannot be opposites, and we certainly know that
we do both, it follows that thought and imagination MUST be based upon
knowledge.  This also follows in saying that any given individual
`knows' that they have the ability to think.  It is not possible to
`think' that you think, therefore you must know that you think.  Thus,
thinking must come from knowing.

So then, what is it about knowing which allows imagination and
thought, and what is it about the all-knowing God which caused him to
create us, to invent the phenomenon of `thought' with which to think
us?  It's not just a case of God thinking us into being, or imagining
us, or dreaming us.  It's more a case of what made God actually think,
imagine, or dream, in the first place?  What is it about knowing which
manifests these `creations'?

To put it simply:  creation.  `Perpetual change' is what happens in
the infinite God.  Therefore, God must change perpetually.  This
change basically means that God must `create' perpetually.  As soon as
one `universe' comes to a state of finishing its `cycle', as
everything works in cycles, so it would follow that there would still
be creation with which to keep `thought' established.  Does this then
mean that thought never ceases?  Almost.  Well put it this way,
thought is quite a complicated thing based on years of evolution of a
mind, and even when you you become at-one and feel that you have
instant access to every part of reality, it seems you are still able
to retain some kind of form which.  Even after the Buddhic plane there
is the plane on which `deceased relatives' and spiritual family
members are seen to dwell.  Above that, is where form ceases, IF form
ceases.

I'd presume that there is always the potential for perpetual change,
thus perpetual creation, because of the infinite property of reality.
So, you need to ask is there EVER really a position in God where
`thought' can cease?  Surely NOT, because if it could ever cease it
would never start again.  In essense, then, knowing creates, and from
that creation we have the phenomenon of thought, imagination, dreams,
etc...  So then, it is more accurate to say that thought is NOT the
opposite of knowing.  In fact, it is almost blatantly logical that
"not-knowing" is the opposite of knowing, and "not-thinking" is the
opposite of thinking.  In reality none of those exist in absolute 100%
terms or nothing would happen, but basically though is just a label
for creation.

It might then be seen that the mind is indeed more `holographic' than
we might at first think.  It seems that the known mind projects
creation, and it is this projection which creates knowing.  IOW, It
exists therefore it is.  So then, why does creation create an
illusion?  What is the illusion? The illusion is NOT that reality
isn't objective, because as a whole it certainly is.  The illusion is
that we do not recognise all of creation as being ours.  We do not
recognise that what we have created is still us. When I say us, I mean
God.  Everyone is God, everything is God.  God is the creative thing.

How then did God fall into the illusion?  If God was all-knowing, then
he should have recognised each creation as being himself.  It seems
impossible that he fell into the illusion, but he did.  Originally God
was pure knowing, which meant he was also void of form.  He existed
with essentially nothing to look at.  This was the most basic
situation of there being thought-creation.  So as a natural
consequence of what God is (consciousness which creates perpetually),
it created.  As we already know, creation produces what we call
thought, imagination, and dreams.  Is it not thought which keeps us
detatched from reality?  Yes.

In other words, it was the inevitability of perpetual creation which
ensured that God created what we call `thought'.  Thought, then, is
essentially a `projection' shining through what is already there.  As
such, it is true to say that what is already there forms a `filter',
and that filter determines exactly what is created in the projection.
So everything which comprises us will determine what reality is, as
well as in combination with what `creation' produces.  Creation
produces forms much more long-lastedly in the physical plane, which is
also the place where we are prone to the illusion.  People usually
consider that reality is more mouldable on the astral plane than it is
on the physical.  In fact, the exact opposite is the truth - reality
is LESS moulded on the astral plane, which is why it is fluid and
changing.  Are you not tricked into thinking that the physical plane
is more `solid'?  Why then do you not consider this solidity to
represent a more potent creation?  It is our dwelling in the illusion
that stops it being better moulded, not its stagnation.

The illusion comes about because of the creation which is in addition
to what comprises our `known' minds.  Although our minds comprise
known stuff, the creation is in addition to that.  Essentially, it is
a dream, still, to use the analogy from my previous post on reality.
It must surely be true that each human creates all other humans.  It
is this creation which projects `through' our minds and creates more
of us.  It is not simply a function of creation which makes excessive
creation come through each person.  It is the rest of everyone else's
creation combining with yours. This is where the illusion comes from -
failure to see that all of what you are creating comes from what you
know.

In effect, creation makes thought, and thought makes creation, and
both together creates individual archetypes which know only what
comprises them, and when not knowing what comprises them they see an
`objective' reality which is a consensus shared with everyone else's
creative powers.  While this continues, there is the need for
`learning' to regain what was lost to the illusion.  In effect,
learning is all about coming to terms with the parts of creation which
you didn't create, and understand them so that you ARE creating them.
In essense, regaining creative control.  As you do that, naturally you
get to have more creative qualities - psychic.  This regaining of
control is basically the same as learning to accept reality as it is
and thus becoming void of influence by `karma'; the parts of creation
which you didn't create through your own knowing, thus are void of
controlling.

So, the process of regaining control comprises two elements.  You can
set about making everyone else realise what reality is, so that they
stop interfering with your reality, or you can directly learn about
everyone else's reality so that you stop being affected by it.  Either
way, someone somewhere has to learn about other people's creation and
about their own. You cannot really achieve the goal without doing
both, for as one increases so does the other.  So to summarise what
thought is - it is basically a way of describing creation, as well as
describing the parts of creation which aren't of your own knowing -
because other individuals contribute.  There are other individuals,
because they were created in just the same way BY creation/thought,
inevitably.  All of these things were created, in a creation which
created `thought', the thought which which God thought/created and
eventually fell into division of self in the `descent into matter',
preluding the `rise into spirituality'.

Another interesting thing, however, is the inevitability.  Just as it
is inevitable that God would create and thus think, so it is also
inevitable that other things happen.  It is inevitable that we retain
our creative abilities yet become very much blind to them.  This
would, I suggest, create a situation where we perpetuate an illusion.
We create it to start with, and then we are engulfed by it because it
comprises this `creation' which we don't `know' to be part of us, and
this enveloping of not knowing creates the illusion of self, and on
seeing that some of creation does not seem to belong to your own
creation (to what you see as the subjective truth), you are
subconsicouslly allowing that reality to be sustained -basically you
continue to allow it to be, unconditionally.  The idea is get out of
the illusion and back in control.

It is inevitable also that creation will create illusion, self,
archetypes, form, collective consciousness to which certain `types' of
creation frequencies attract - ie the collective of matter, animal,
plant, man, etc. Also, you have the strange thing of `seeing' and
perceiving.  You perceive with your MIND, not your eyes.  Everything
which an individual sees is created by them, or at least `through'
them.  This they see as reality. This is why it is important to get
your fellow humans to evolve also, because this indirectly accelerates
your own regaining of control.  It is also true that, therefore, what
one person knows is a far shot from what that person thinks.  In other
words, what any individual sees as `reality' comprises their own
creation AND the creation of everyone else expressing themselves
through them.

Indeed, this happens on a collective level, as pointed out in the
"reality" message.  Because the human-brain thought-form is basically
the same for the whole species, thus the frequencies and creations
which are created by that form will be `conducted' by all brains of
that similarity.  So in effect, this is also why humans `see' quite
different images of reality from other species, yet basically the same
image for each human.  One man's mind creates reality, and that
reality is shared by all other men.  I suggest, therefore, that
conditions such as `fantasy', delusion, schizophrenia, and other such
reality problems, are the result of problem in the brain.  If a person
had a brain far enough different from the rest of the species, then
basically they will be alone and on their own.  This would make them
withdrawn and they would not associate with others of their kind.
This same sort of thing happens to autistic people, who are in a world
of their own and who do not live in recognition of being part of the
human group.

In each case, it is the deformity of the brain which causes them to be
shut out from the human nature - the human collective.  For such a
person, it must surely feel like they are shut away from everone, on
their own, and basically they would also experience a somewhat
`twisted' view of reality. The human reality would be distorted and
muffled, and other realities would come to the fore, creating split
personalities and people acting like animals.  In other cases, it
turns out that these people seem to live in a fantasy world, as if
they were picking up on the fantasy/created elements of the human
collective rather than the known elements.  This perhaps shows also
their alienation from the collective, and thus their detatchment from
the collective reality.

It is also interesting how the collective mind will play a part in
what makes people the way they are.  In fact, I suggest that a better
form of therapy will come from not working out what an individual HAS
got in their knowing creation of reality, but in working out what they
HAVEN'T got.  In essense then, it seems that mental differences which
do not rely on brain deformities, such as psychosamatics, is a result
of various different people's personalities presenting reality in a
differnent way.  It might indeed be found that `food' is the cause of
brain problems, which in turn leads to schizophrenia.  I suggest that
trying to teach such a person about normal human reality may not
actually help them, it may make them worse, because a person has still
the brain problems and so will experience an even more distorted
reality.  That is, of course, if these things are due to brain
problems.

Anyway, time to go.  That's basically what I think about `thought' for
the moment, and basically what it is which I think created thought in
the first place.

Regards,
Paul.

Fidonet 2:251/30.15   SearchNet 114:3/0.4   PsychoNet 1080:108/0.4
Internet MrWest@15.Shining.Conqueror.Co.Uk  Mercury 240:190/16.15
---
 * Origin:  (2:254/284.4)