Krishnamurti & the Art of Awakening
K, psychology and the physical brain | moderated by phil K

science, the I and ego,

Closed_forum

Displaying posts 31 - 60 of 124 in total
Sat, 13 Jun 2009 #31
Thumb_deleted_user_med daniel moru Ireland 5 posts in this forum ACCOUNT DELETED

hello jonathan, I read your post and about the" I " and the speaker, well I dont have problems with that, and I dont know why really...words! a part of the intellectual process, symbols, and sometimes I find difficult to express exactly what I want to...we cannot know K frame of mind , so why bother ? I say that respectfully..maybe it is more interesting to read , or listening and find out if we have some interest in what is said..or just leave it!!
I ,beeing the writter of this post , had some experiences which I cant put into words, the language has its own limitation, for me anyway .. and sometimes saying anything else but "I" can be a very good idea, ...if the "I" is not the big boss for once, it may be that some different process inside and outside the mind is in action, process different from I, even if it is happening to you personnaly
well just enough for the moment ..
regards.

lost in tragedy...

Back to Top
Sat, 13 Jun 2009 #32
Thumb_deleted_user_med daniel moru Ireland 5 posts in this forum ACCOUNT DELETED

hello jonathan, I read your post and about the" I " and the speaker, well I dont have problems with that, and I dont know why really...words! a part of the intellectual process, symbols, and sometimes I find difficult to express exactly what I want to...we cannot know K frame of mind , so why bother ? I say that respectfully..maybe it is more interesting to read , or listening and find out if we have some interest in what is said..or just leave it!!
I ,beeing the writter of this post , had some experiences which I cant put into words, the language has its own limitation, for me anyway .. and sometimes saying anything else but "I" can be a very good idea, ...if the "I" is not the big boss for once, it may be that some different process inside and outside the mind is in action, process different from I, even if it is happening to you personnaly
well just enough for the moment ..
regards.

lost in tragedy...

Back to Top
Sat, 13 Jun 2009 #33
Thumb_-sparkle- kirsten zwijnenburg Netherlands 10 posts in this forum Offline

max greene wrote:
And if thinking is material, the psychological "I" has some basis in materiality.

yes max indeed to me it seems to be most natural that even the psyche is in fact material, stardust, evolution, magnetism, gravity and all that.. what else could it be.. and when this is the startingpoint for an exploration into the "I" and its manifestations we are very much into the negating-mode which k mentioned to be so important.

Back to Top
Sat, 13 Jun 2009 #34
Thumb_brain1_f phil K United States 351 posts in this forum Offline

I am going to first say that I do think you are missing the mark, Jonathan. The "I" as an illusionary center is totally destructive because it creates the divisionary process you just said. It creates a need to believe in thought as in a religion, a culture or a family that is different and separative of others who do not believe the same thing. This is K 101. K as an individual without an illusion of "I" was one of the few people when living who understood that. Luckily, he had the luxury and it was a luxury to sit around and talk about it for 60 years. Studying religions, psychology and joining various groups wanting me to follow belief systems just never did it for me. Freeing oneself from the process of belief does bring someone to a different life of belonging but not to the group. It brings one to the group of us humans. Any other approach creates a biological organism with the abilities to destroy not only others but itself.

Now, bonjour, daniel. I lived in France and used to speak bad French but couldn't read or write a word. If I give you my address, can you send me a bottle of Margeaux!...lol.....I find your story of your dad very topical for me as I am taking care of my two old parents who are in first stages of dementia/alzheimers and I am watching as the various brain functions are lost. One thing about this disease that relates to the brain is that singing seems to remain intact in the patients and the aggressive emotions seem to remain intact. Singing is totally right brain function and the lack of ability to control aggression in some people indicate the left brain is needed for that control.

I will now quote Max who has pretty well along with daniel explained part of the thing I want to talk about

max greene wrote:
I have questions as to the origin of the Ego and the mechanics associated with the I/Ego: Since the "I" is just a thought, a construct, it cannot create the Ego. The Ego has to be created by the organism itself, as only a living being is capable of creation. I understand that the emotions are tied to the Ego (did the organism create the Ego as a vehicle for the emotions, or are the emotions the Ego itself?). It takes an entity to feel an emotion, and that entity has to be the psychological "I,"--the organism doesn't feel emotion: it either sees or doesn't see, hears or doesn't hear, hurts or doesn't hurt. So the emotions refer back to the psychological "I," and are linked to it. They are a package. Now here's the question: If the psychological "I" is just a phony and not needed, just an illusion we have created, what shall we do about the emotions linked only to this illusionary "I"? It would appear that there is no need for emotions, either.

When I read this statement by Max, I was stunned. Two days ago, I had started something that took me quite a bit of time to prepare and I was only in to it two paragraphs so saved it because I had so much more to say. Now here it is succintly stated in such a short explanation.

I think the ego when people refer to it is really the emotion that they are talking about. Also, it is and I will quote Daniel " we say that ego is my experiences, stored somewhere in the brain, a bit more ok !!" So in general, if you put the two of these together, you have what man calls the "ego" i.e. with a little rewording the ego is the total of the memories that one has that he has attached to the feeling that he has that he thinks is himself." Now, if I may make a little definition for our further discussion and I think the discussion is getting really good now, "the memories that one has of himself that he attaches emotion to, I call the "self image" or we could say the self images and use the plural but when it is attached to emotion, it tends to become an illusionary whole i.e. attack my memories I have that I identify myself with and I will attack back. So the difference where we live in the singular illusion of a center "I"...a simple left brain conceptual mistake, the self images are pictures and much more dangerous problem as a picture is worth a thousand words.

Now a little brain information. The visualization process is not totally understood yet by neurology as to left or right brain and which does one or the other but I would say that there is conflict here between the two brains. I would speculate here from my observation if you dont mind. I think the emotion of the self is probably a product of the right brain as it seems the emotions are accessed more by the right brain since the left brain is so full of taking care of reading, writing, arithmatic and speech. There are studies in left brain research that lead me to this specualtion. Also, the right brain is quite familiar with objects and can even read words and identify words that have to do with objects (it doesnt get concepts and abstractions). Also, the right brain being not very known by the left brain, can get away with lots of stuff unbeknownst to the left brain. The word sinister also means left for example and the two brains have cross references in the body that is the way the left brain is talking about the left side of the body which is run by the right brain.

I want to leave it here because this is getting long and see what the responses and questions are. Added the next paragraph later and posted again below.

I am putting the right brain information in because, I think the self images may be the hard thing about this project. If it is truly the right brain holding the self images as me as object, then this is the reason the "ego" is so hard to see or end. The left brain has very little access to what the right brain is doing. It is pretty much its illusion of control that probably has come from the importance that language has become in culture. The left brain is just explaining away and rationalizing what the right brain is doing as the right brain merrily goes about its way of emotionally putting forth its agenda of self promotion in order to satisfy its emotional states.

This post was last updated by phil K Sun, 14 Jun 2009.

Back to Top
Sat, 13 Jun 2009 #35
Thumb_original_avatar max greene United States 235 posts in this forum Offline

Jonathan,

Yes, the "I" is indeed a construct, as you say. But are you missing the point that as a construct the "I," by its very nature, can't do anything or create anything? The "I" just sits there, growing fat and bloated and blocking the view.

max

Back to Top
Sun, 14 Jun 2009 #36
Thumb_original_avatar max greene United States 235 posts in this forum Offline

jonathan,

Please forgive this "re-write." For some reason I've been having trouble with being locked out of this site, missing posts, etc. I don't know whether it is with my computer or with Kinfonet. I thought my original posting had been zapped. So close your eyes to the following.

"The "I" has self-integrative properties, it want to belong to something, a group, an idea, something bigger, a loved one, and all the rest of it."

As you say, the "I" is a construct. As a construct, it is is obviously unable to do anything or create anything on its own. All the "I" can do is sit there becoming fat and bloated and blocking the view.

max

This post was last updated by max greene Sun, 14 Jun 2009.

Back to Top
Sun, 14 Jun 2009 #37
Thumb_brain1_f phil K United States 351 posts in this forum Offline

I think I rushed my last response in the end a little and since Max has two inserted comments since then I won't edit but add here.

I am putting the right brain information in because, I think the self images may be the hard thing about this project. If it is truly the right brain holding the self images as me as object, then this is the reason the "ego" is so hard to see or end. The left brain has very little access to what the right brain is doing. It is pretty much its illusion of control that probably has come from the importance that language has become in culture. The left brain is just explaining away and rationalizing what the right brain is doing as the right brain merrily goes about its way of emotionally putting forth its agenda of self promotion in order to satisfy its emotional states. The following was added in the morning. The latter done the night before.

seems I am thinking clearer in the morning than towards the evening these days. I am trying to address the stress of living with my parents and their mental state because it takes a toll on me by evening which I havent experienced before. I am adding this on to my last post since no one has posted.

I think what I am trying to get at is how this whole development of consciousness that exists now with the movement in thought seems to have been progress but with the structure of the brain as it is, there has not been the proper cooperation between the two brains over chronological time as the left brain and the language processes have seemed to take control of the body. If we go at least a little with Julian Jaynes and his Bicamaral mind theories, we can see that the right brain control is much more primitive. One split brain patient had to have his right hand stop his left hand from striking his wife with a knife. On the other hand, the scientist examining one split brain patient had to tell the patient that it was ok for the left hand to do a spatial task of stacking blocks because his right hand run the left brain did not have the abilities to do the task and had put the left hand under the right leg to keep it from interfering. Also, there is one of the best examples when one of the split brain patients was shown a chicken's claw to his left brain and a snowman to his right brain and then both brains were shown eight pictures and asked to point to related pictures. The right brain pointed at a snow shovel and the left brain pointed at the head of a chicken. The scientist said please describe why you are pointing at the items and the left brain which responds verbally since the right brain cant talk said.."I saw a chicken's claw so I am pointing at the head of a chicken," and after a bit of hesitation said "and the shovel is to clean up the chickens coop!" (he did not even call it a snow shovel which was the specific looking shovel) One unreal thing is called right side syndrome and it is when someone has damage to their right brain they almost completely forget there is even a left side of their body e.g. the patient shaves only the corresponding side of his face and forgets the side that has been paralyzed. This does not happen in the other case of damage to the left brain. There is so much of this stuff in the left/right brain research that it has lead me to think that there is even in the normal person a great deal that the left brain doesnt understand that is going on. So what we call the right brain is subconscious or unconscious when truly the right brain is conscious to itself but not to the verbal side of the brain. I think then that the "I" we have been talking about keeps its illusion going as a mental construct but it is supported by the emotion that the right brain puts on the self image or ego. So what I have said so far would mean that it is much easier for the "I" to end its concept of its own existence when it becomes aware of the illusion because the side that contains the specific verbal "I" may never had trusted the right brain in the first place. [This is a correction of an error pointed out to me later....."Max...you are absolutely right that the "I" cant take action and I mispoke in my statement.....I should have said that it is much easier for the left brain to end the existence of the concept of the "I." This could happen in the same system that has created the concept. You can end a concept when the concept is seen as fallacious."]

This post was last updated by phil K Mon, 15 Jun 2009.

Back to Top
Sun, 14 Jun 2009 #38
Thumb_brain1_f phil K United States 351 posts in this forum Offline

Since no one has posted yet today, I think I would like to sum up a bit of what we have done here so far to the poor "I" as we beat him to death with fact. This might help bring some newcomers up to date also.

First, we broke up K teachings a little bit although I am not so sure how much by talking about the "I" as a separate concept. We said that the language based "I" is a construct and concept of the left brain. It has no value except in identification of the individual. One scientist..Francis Crick...has even stated that there is no center of consciousness because there is no brain structure that could control the functions of all the brain. We then decided it was instead an illusion as K has said. When we are talking about thought mostly we are talking about the thought and memory of language of the left brain although there is memory of several systems in the body including the right brain memories. But left brain thought has to be in a state of interpreting what the right brain sends to it in pictures or what it reads as the emotions in the body even though it may have nothing to do with the emotions in the body. So we cannot blame thought for all the problems as in the observeable thought which cannot be at fault for everything. We can probably blame it for our lack of performance at time since the scientists have found from MRI studies of the brain that conscious thought is after the fact by half a second some times. And then that thought creates more thought and more desire by the left brain to control right brain actions as lets say in sports, drawing or music which are mainly right brain functions.

So now back to K a little bit. K warns us that thought is fragmented which is known by science about left brain linear thinking as it is not a picture like the right brain thinks. He warns us that the word is not the thing which becomes obvious. And he says thought has to be quiet in order to truly see the "tree"...again a statement that is now understood because the right brain is a much better perceiver of the world. So does all this information end the "I." Not necessarily because left brain thought itself is clever and can intellectualize the entire process but since the left brain is conceptual at least now with clear understanding thought itself can at least understand its overall mistake. In fact, it is highly possible that the illusion may be ended with all this understanding. Afterall, once you are taught that something is a mirage, you still see the water but you realize that it is not water and can even start to see the heat coming off the ground a little when you are looking at it.

So now have we seen the thinker is a thought? Possibly this has happened if thought itself is quiet long enough to see the moment of its inception as it starts in a state of communication or identification of an object. At that moment one might see that thinking is not initiated by an "I" and then one could see that there is no thinker that started that but that thought just flows in a linear fashion of association.

However, has the entire illusion been broken. I am afraid not. What about the pictures we have of ourselves as the self image that is protected by emotion. Do we release that so easily. Yes thought goes away in a poof if the left brain thinking is quiet but that doesnt end this mischievous right brain representation of the "me"...the "self".."ego" etc. This ties it back in to K's words and takes us continuing on our journey. I thank you all for your contributions so far and lets keep it up.

Back to Top
Sun, 14 Jun 2009 #39
Thumb_original_avatar max greene United States 235 posts in this forum Offline

Phil,

"I think then that the "I" we have been talking about keeps its illusion going as a mental construct but it is supported by the emotion that the right brain puts on the self image or ego. So what I have said so far would mean that it is much easier for the "I" to end its concept of its own existence when it becomes aware of the illusion because the side that contains the specific verbal "I" may never had trusted the right brain in the first place."

The "I" isn't capable of ending a concept or becoming aware of an illusion or of taking any kind of action. The "I" is a passive construct. Only the physical organism can act, and the physical organism is the one pulling the strings in the brain. What is the mechanism of coordination between the two sides, left and right?

Dr. Bohm has said, ". . . conditioning constitutes a subtle kind of brain damage." Is it possible that brain-damaged people are the ones who rise to the top in a field? They stand out, in one way or another, by way of their conditioning. Bobby Fisher, for example, was a neurotic (perhaps mad) individual who rose to become nearly unbeatable at chess. Van Gogh was insane. What about K himself, who suffered most of his life with the "process"?

max

This post was last updated by max greene Sun, 14 Jun 2009.

Back to Top
Sun, 14 Jun 2009 #40
Thumb_original_avatar max greene United States 235 posts in this forum Offline

Daniel,

I finally get around to saying welcome. Been having trouble with my postings.

"If we come back to the computer comparison, the "I" analysing would be just a tool, a mean like the bird knows how to build a nest and find food . . . "

The "I" is mostly just a hindrance to fast action. Say you are walking and you stumble. You--the physical you--doesn't bother with a thought process through the "I." That would be much too slow. You would get hurt, so your physical reflexes instantly take over. No "I" needed.

max

Back to Top
Sun, 14 Jun 2009 #41
Thumb_brain1_f phil K United States 351 posts in this forum Offline

Max...you are absolutely right that the "I" cant take action and I mispoke in my statement. You are the first person who has caught me on any mispoken statment on even K ning, and I appreciate that as that is what we have to do. I should have said that it is much easier for the left brain to end the existence of the concept of the "I." This could happen in the same system that has created the concept. You can end a concept when the concept is seen as fallacious.

The mechanism of communication and coordination of the two hemispheres is called the corpus collosum which is a bunch of nerve fibers between the two brains. Across those fibers messages are sent from brain to brain. The studies done of people who have had their corpus collosum cut to try to solve severe epilepsy (surgeries done in the 40"s studies done in the 50"s and 60's) were some of the most incredible studies done.It was only done for a short period of time and performed on very few people. In a normal human, the two brains operate separately as to the way they process information but there are enough signals across the corpus collosum that the two brains can create an illusion of one consciousness.The left brain is dominant in 95% of people today. Needless to say we try to put the whole thing together along with the automatic responses, reflexes and memories that may be accessed by other systems too.

Conditioning is another topic in itself which I am not ready to attack until we get all this other explained as is who might be conditioned and who these two beings are. There is a lot of incredible things that happen in autism and other things where people accentuate certain parts of their brain over others. K said that he was talking only about the mentally sane and not the extremes. I doubt that K's kundalini process or whatever it was affected his mental state. It could have driven him to extreme interest in nature as he may not have wanted to involve himself in left brain activities. He was not much of a student either. Those who like nature and are more right brain oriented have a great deal of conflict and stress when they try the left brain activities.

You are welcome to throw in some conditioning questions if you need an understanding before going on. I process things orderly becasue of the stupid math background but I totally realize others do not do that especially people who are more interested in right brain things. In fact, order irritates the hell out of them..lol.

Back to Top
Sun, 14 Jun 2009 #42
Thumb_-sparkle- kirsten zwijnenburg Netherlands 10 posts in this forum Offline

max greene wrote:
The "I" is mostly just a hindrance to fast action. Say you are walking and you stumble. You--the physical you--doesn't bother with a thought process through the "I." That would be much too slow. You would get hurt, so your physical reflexes instantly take over. No "I" needed.

"I" comes in half a second later saying "oh my i hope nobody saw me stumble !"

Back to Top
Sun, 14 Jun 2009 #43
Thumb_-sparkle- kirsten zwijnenburg Netherlands 10 posts in this forum Offline

thankyou phil, yes indeed sometimes reading your posts does brings a headache :)
but i am interested.. i want to find out.. and i realize my attempts to interpret your words is exactly preventing me from a direct understanding ?

may i throw this in: we have two eyes, a left and a right eye, both seeing on their own but the "binocular rivalry" makes us perceive the world as we know it. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Binocular_rivalry
..this is somehow similar with the left and the right brain ?

Back to Top
Sun, 14 Jun 2009 #44
Thumb_original_avatar max greene United States 235 posts in this forum Offline

Kirsten,

Yes, "My, I hope nobody saw me stumble." But the "I" didn't say that. "I's" can't think or talk. The physical organisim thinks and talks. The "I" itself is only a thought--a thought that everything we say and do seems to be pinned to. Is this thought intermediary necessary? Is this set-up Thinker necessary?

max

Back to Top
Sun, 14 Jun 2009 #45
Thumb_original_avatar max greene United States 235 posts in this forum Offline

Phil,

"here are enough signals across the corpus collosum that the two brains can create an illusion of one consciousness."

Do you mean the physical organism has two consciousnesses? (hope I got enough 's's' in that)

"Conditioning is another topic in itself which I am not ready to attack until we get all this other explained as is who might be conditioned and who these two beings are."

It would appear to me that only the physical organism can be conditioned, as it is the only entity alive and subject to being influenced. Something not alive, such as a thought, can be modified and built upon, but is this what is meant by "conditioning"?

max

Back to Top
Mon, 15 Jun 2009 #46
Thumb_avatar averil harrison New Zealand 41 posts in this forum Offline

The I appears to me to be an indentifying process and i am not sure if we have to divide the I from the ego? Do we see that identification although necessary for human survival is not the problem for the human mind ? 'I indentify that some berries are safe for eating and that my infant has not learnt that yet'. The brain is learning and that maybe its natural state, not I have learnt and repeat it.
Thought is always creating a problem and wants to solve it; but its thought that has created it and unless another way of approaching it is inquired into we are compounding problems.
Perhaps we should ask does the I exist at all without identification? I am not speaking of the material constructs of the human brain that is required for survival; the millions of years of a brains evolution that has had an ongoing dialogue with the natural world and that has produced an Einstein.But a brain that has learnt that repeating what Einstein saw in his heuristiclearning has a benefit not for humanity but for 'me'.
I question whether it is relevant as to what part of our brain is doing what as we maybe knowing ourselves through language albeit it scientific and missing the fact of a direct seeing.
Averil

Back to Top
Mon, 15 Jun 2009 #47
Thumb_brain1_f phil K United States 351 posts in this forum Offline

Kirsten...sorry to give you a headache..very similar to my math students listening to me or the 14 year old kid who was on a trip with me who said..."if you are having trouble falling asleep, just ask Phil to talk about Krishnamurti!"

The eyes have two fields of vision just to complicate things. One half of each eye goes to the brain on the opposite side. Who knows why we were designed like this.

yes, Max, I think the physical organism has two consciousnesses that are acting and by that I mean that the whole verbal mind which is still fragmented in the way it operates..reading, writing and speech ahve several different brain areas of representation and the right brain has others but science has discovered that. But if you put the systems together in each hemisphere, they can act as wholes and I think that gives two consciousnesses battling for control. this is not only my theory but that of some other researchers. By my theory, I mean my observation of myself.

Conditoning depends on conditioners of feelings and I think the main conditioner of feeling is the fight or flight system which we call fear and stress uses the same system. that is a biological system but when the brains get control of the system using memory, all hell brakes loose. And when I talk about conditioning, I am talking about exactly what happens with Pavlovs dogs They respond in a manner different than their normal biological response would be to the stimulus. Dogs dont respond by salivating to bells. they respond by salivating when they see food. Man does not respond to getting fired from his job with fear and stress because getting fired didnt even exist when the biological response of fear was invented in man. It is a good question to ask.."Is man really afraid of anything at all genetically?"

Averil. The I as the word must be seen as separate from the ego which is an emotional representation and defending of the self, the self image and the me. The I is an illusion as center and that is what I have been pounding at. If that dissipates, there will be a new beginning for man to look at the process of thought and how it works. Your baby learns a simple thing about berries and snakes and that has nothing to do with the I or ego or self image. We as human animals have no fears built in and must learn from our environment what we must be careful about. Cars were not around at the inception of mankind and a child must be protected from them until he can comprehend the idea of the size of a car relative to himself. This is simple learning and memory.

It has become very clear to me as one who has studied this for 35 years that science needs to help us understand this problem and the brain is divided in half and that is a fact. And there is something that is going on between these two brains that causes conflict and that is a fact. And there is this inward conflict that moves in to outward conflict albeit left right brain or belief sytems and that is a fact. Direct "seeing" means observing or perception without the past or memory. It is easy to do this by silencing the left brain system but a lot harder to do to silence the right brain which is the source of emotion, images and ego. Change and release from conditioning takes an incredible awareness that goes beyond anything the left brain can touch. I wouldnt have started this forum if I hadnt worked on this for years and kept K in mind every moment of it. Just bare with it and watch this unfold. People are working hard here to go in to it. Thanks for you participation and questions and doubts. All has to be addressed in the spirit of investigation.

Back to Top
Mon, 15 Jun 2009 #48
Thumb_brain1_f phil K United States 351 posts in this forum Offline

It seems to me we stalled a little bit on the image process and I was wondering if anyone would like to continue to find out how the image process might come to an end and therefore, the ego would end? Or does everyone think the ego is inevitable or innate, and we just have to deal with it? And if we deal with it, is it just a matter of creating a better self like the psychologist who think we need a good self esteem? I would be interest in eveyones idea of ego or their own ego or what you observe in others etc. What do you think about self esteem or anything like this? Let's see if we can give this a boost.

Back to Top
Mon, 15 Jun 2009 #49
Thumb_deleted_user_med Dappling Light India 2 posts in this forum ACCOUNT DELETED

Sorry for barging in...
I have read the brief history of time and come across "Wear Anthropic Principle'
in quantum physics. Is this right place to seek elaboration on that, because to me it sounded similar to "Observer is the observed". We base our discussions on the premise that universe is outside the mind. Anthropic principles challenge this. Wondering I could seek some information from experts on the subject,

There is a certain beauty associated with conditioning.

Back to Top
Mon, 15 Jun 2009 #50
Thumb_deleted_user_med Dappling Light India 2 posts in this forum ACCOUNT DELETED

I am sorry I think I posed the question in the wrong place - this is more about right and left brains..

There is a certain beauty associated with conditioning.

Back to Top
Mon, 15 Jun 2009 #51
Thumb_brain1_f phil K United States 351 posts in this forum Offline

boy are you in the wrong place...lol...i can barely get my brain to work let alone understand quantum physics and learn that "anthropic prinicipals" tell me I should be living outside the brain....thanks for dropping in though...hope all my posters dont run off to the quantum physics site now and leave me all alone!

Back to Top
Mon, 15 Jun 2009 #52
Thumb_original_avatar max greene United States 235 posts in this forum Offline

Avril,

Phil has pointed out in his posts that the psychological "I" is a thought that appears in the left side of the brain, while the Ego, which apparently is mostly the emotions, appears in the the right side. Scientists with their probes have been unable to find a physical site for the "I," but probes on the right side of the brain have discovered specialized sites for emotions. (stop me quick if I'm wrong here, Phil.)

Since emotions have no reason for existence except in relation to an "I," and since the physical organism itself has no need for emotions (the organism just senses, assimilates, rejects--in some respects like a living machine) it follows that the emotions relate to the psychological "I." The "I" and the Ego can be considered as one--a package.

The big question--a burning question--is, "Why did the physical organism create the psychological "I"? One of the basic laws of physics, a law apparently applicable throughout the universe, has to do with inertia: a body in motion or at rest has a tendency to remain at motion or at rest. So everything in the universe resists change. When this basic law is applied to the physical organism--to us-- we find that it is natural--our nature--that we want to live forever. We don't want to change our state of living by dying. So the organism resists change by thinking of itself as not being subject to dying, and it sets up the thought of a separate "I" in the left side of its brain. So now there is a psychological "I," that must be protected from dying. Threats against the "I" must be warded off. It probably didn't take too long in mankind's history before threats to the "I" gave rise to the emotion of fear in the right side of the brain. Fear is the basic emotion from which all the other emotions rise. But that's another story.

Like I say, it's a burning question. No doubt there are some who will think this supposed answer should be burned.

max

Back to Top
Mon, 15 Jun 2009 #53
Thumb_original_avatar max greene United States 235 posts in this forum Offline

Phil,

"And there is something that is going on between these two brains that causes conflict and that is a fact"

Could you expand on this a little? It's hard to imagine an organism fighting with itself.

max

Back to Top
Tue, 16 Jun 2009 #54
Thumb_brain1_f phil K United States 351 posts in this forum Offline

Ok...step by step slowly we go..

I like your post but need to clear up just a little about the emotions.

The emotions are accessed by the left or right brain but are not located necessarily in either brain. There is speculation that the left brain promotes postive emotions and the right side promotes negative emotions. But there is still lots of controversy over the hypothesis. It is just my speculation that since we have so much trouble understanding the ego and the emotions controlled by it that it must be a right brain function which is the side of the brain we dont really understand and doesnt have speech to tell us what is going on. I totally agree though that the emotions that our brains are accessing are fairly vestigal and therefore conditioned. To me the biggest conditioning chemical is cortisol which is excreted in the fear movement. Cortisol is a devasting chemical that, when excreted, begins to break down the immune system signaling the animal internally it must do something about the external world that is causing the chemical to be excreted. Since we rarely have to get away from tigers or real danger anymore, we have very little use for the chemical and certainly shouldn't be excreting it in our daily lives which we do all the time. Those must be conditioned states.

Now to your question as to why I think the brains are fighting. If you look at the two brains and their completely different functions and if you look at what happened when the left brain developed this incredible ability to use language and have the ability to reflect upon itself as it thoughts are observable somehow and if you look at the left brains abilities to become so far better as far as dealing with a world that began to accept language as the most important thing, then you might put your self in the situation of the right brain. It has lost control of the body; can't go out in nature and hunt and fish; cant listen to music all day long; and worst of all can't play golf all day long because his wife wont let him. So my specualtion is that there is such a difference in function and because man just doesnt get this whole process because he puts so much value in the "I," he just cant work this out. If, however, we can understand the processes of the mind which are connected to the wrong emotions, we can end up with a self cooperative human who will then be able to work in the right directions outwardly. You just have to convince your wife.

Back to Top
Tue, 16 Jun 2009 #55
Thumb_brain1_f phil K United States 351 posts in this forum Offline

Max...to let the cat out of the bag a bit. I think our entire real problem is the fear the right brain has of its loss of self and self image. I am not worried at all about the left brain. And here goes...it may have something to do with sex.

Back to Top
Tue, 16 Jun 2009 #56
Thumb_original_avatar max greene United States 235 posts in this forum Offline

"I think our entire real problem is the fear the right brain has of its loss of self and self image. I am not worried at all about the left brain. And here goes...it may have something to do with sex."

Fear is created when the organism reacts to the "I" being threatened. Fear is an emotion tied to the "I"; it exists only because there is an "I"--as we have said, the organism itself senses and reacts, but in its nature it is not emotional and judgmental. The "I" is a construct, a thought only. Why should we have to feel fear because one of our thoughts is threatened?

max

Back to Top
Tue, 16 Jun 2009 #57
Thumb_avatar averil harrison New Zealand 41 posts in this forum Offline

Are we saying that the emotions are actually the senses that have been personalied by thought?(the limbic system functions by placing an affect,or emotion, on information streaming in through our senses. Jill Bolte Taylor Ph.D My Stroke of Insight)

I am questioning whether the 'Ego' 'I' 'Right' or 'Left' brain problem is the question that needs to be addressed?
The human brain to act successfully for survival purposes requires a whole brain approach.
The undulated and convoluted Cortex is what seperates us from
other mammals with its two hemispheres communicating information through the corpus callosum giving the brain a seamless perception of the world as long as there is no damage.

Is there damage to the human brain when thought dominates the mind by personalising through identification? 'My' experience of the senses? I experience sex and thought carries that experience through thought to the next experience and isn't this the belief that psychological time exists?
From what I have read into the study of consciousness, people like Daniel Dennett, Gerald Eldeman,Susan Greenfield and the best description for me was I am a strange Loop;they all tackle the question of whether I exist seperate
from thought and develope very convincing theories showing that it does.But they do not tackle the problem of psychological time (why would they they wouldn't have a philosophical or scientic question if they did).

Thought in its right place is'nt the problem even if i use the 'I' to
indentify the thought that this brain has created, but if the brain and
therefore the content is mine the conflict begins.
Averil

Back to Top
Wed, 17 Jun 2009 #58
Thumb_brain1_f phil K United States 351 posts in this forum Offline

I am not concerned with anything that goes through our system that might be genetic but please tell me what that is. We have surprise emotions yes, but just about everything is filtered through memory. I keep searching for things in my conscioiusness that I cant define as coming from conditioned responses and about the only thing is my queziness about heights and I, also, get faint when I see blood. I will have to see what Jill was saying. I have watched her stroke talk that Ted.com published. I think most things that go to the limbic system will pass through the memories first though. The amygdala is our aggressive, anger system and we are not automatically ever angry or aggressive without interpretiting what or who the object is that we get angry at. Please, look at yourselves and come up with something that angers you without your knowing what it is or put on here any example of a problem and lets look at it. I am specifically interested in anything that does not go through the identification process because when that happens you are going through memory and then probably subjected to conditioning.

Ok...the brain is not carrying on a seamless perception of the world at all in my observation and that is why I am presenting all this and I think all the neurologists you mentioned have just not come to the point of understanding consciousness as well as K did. The truth is that you do not exist at all. Existence is an illusion of thought and only important to thought. When someone tells you that they exist outside of thought or memory please introduce them to an alzheimers patient who has lost varying amounts of brain function. Remember Alzheimers patience can often still sing. I know that is not an undamaged brain but it is significant to know what it would mean to live outside of thought. So what these neurologists would mean that the right brain still exists but the right brain has memory too.

Psychological time is just the illusion that left brain thought creates as yesterday, today, and tomorrow. Time dissipates as an illusion of reality once this concept is broken down. When you experience sex, you experience it only because sex is thought. Without thought the parasympathetic system wouldnt work and there would be no orgasm. The fact of psychological time existing in sex is just the statement that you had it yesterday and will have it tomorrow (no one seems to mention..I am having it now!) that creates to the self image the importance of sex and so one moves in the direction of organizing his life to have it. Any movement towards goals or directions to go is a movement in psychological time that happens over physical time. It has been the ability to create psychological time with the invention of language and subsequently the clock that has created most of the physical progress man has experienced. If I couldnt image a future, I wouldnt plan for it in other words, but I dont have to think I the future is real nor that the past has happened because the entire thing is happening in the present. In this movement over the years and the switch to language and ultimate control by the left brain, I am saying that emotions have run amuck. And I think that what has to happen is for man to realize this internal conflict that he has in his own mind which now he just covers up by one brain putting dampers on the other. That is not seamless cooperation but a struggle. This to me is the cause of all our problems and we have to see what the conditionings are that we become dependent upon and end them before the two of us ( left and right) can work together. I have to state the one most amazing example of a man who didnt seem to have a cooperative brain when he stopped with his right hand the left arm and kept him from stabbing his wife. That man would, if he had not had his corpus collosum cut, not have done that but resolved that conflict internally but it is still a conflict.

Thank you two for your comments. They are all important. Until tomorrow
..night.

Back to Top
Wed, 17 Jun 2009 #59
Thumb_original_avatar max greene United States 235 posts in this forum Offline

Avril,

"I am questioning whether the 'Ego' 'I' 'Right' or 'Left' brain problem is the question that needs to be addressed?"

This is the point. The question before us, I would say, is this: what is this psychological "I" that each of us has created--why have we created it and what purpose does it serve.

max

Back to Top
Wed, 17 Jun 2009 #60
Thumb_brain1_f phil K United States 351 posts in this forum Offline

And to add to Max's statement, I have presented something different than K by breaking it up in to a left brain "I" and a right brain "self image." My approach that it is exists like this is from personal observation, observations I have of others I have been talking to for years about K, and from the limited research I have done on the brain. The basis for my discussion as I present it is that I have seen that the left brain "I" is fairly simple to discover and end the illusion and in fact, Francis Crick wrote a book denying its existence as center. However, the self image which man also considers to be the ego is very hard to understand. It is my theory that this is because it is accessed mostly by "our silent partner," the right brain.." It is, I think, the reason that K has had so much problems in getting people to understand change even though he dutifully attacked both the "I" and the "image" process. You see its kind of a catch 22. Everyone reading K or listening to K is totally using the left brain only; so, naturally the left brain thinks it can solve all the problems. So our search here is how to see what the right brain is doing.

Also, in my observation of these forums, I have seen continually the lumping together of the "I, self, self image and ego" as one thing which I think is leading to a great disservice to this search for truth, what is and fact.

Thanks Max for your question to Averil. I think this was a good time in our discussion to restate the purpose.

Back to Top
Displaying posts 31 - 60 of 124 in total
To quote a portion of this post in your reply, first select the text and then click this "Quote" link.

(N.B. Be sure to insert an empty line between the quoted text and your reply.)