A Philosophy of Mind

[SpheresOfBalance]

Barbara I absolutely love your zeal. It's obvious you are excited and I am excited for you.

But to be honest it seems that for our transactions with you to be reciprocal we would have to maintain a 'child to parent' mode which would be complementary with your seemingly 'parent to child' mode. I for one feel offended because you constantly tell us what all the philosophers of old meant, as if we're incapable of deciding for ourselves. I for one feel that it would be nice if you would use verbiage that alludes to your perception of their meaning. At least I believe that an effective philosopher exudes humility. I feel that this alone would allow for a perceived complementary 'adult to adult' transactional state. I bring this to your attention, purely as constructive criticism, while constructive criticism is what one can change, and I invite it, please.

Again, i absolutely love your zeal! I believe you have recently been the most prolific contributor to this forum.

Thank You!

[Barbara Brooks]

About the point in your argument I think you live a world that conforms to the same pattern that resembles you; and if I tell you that, unless you depart from your trivia, when you hear this, you will be so confident you will think my words the talk of a fool.

But what a human being is and what is proper for such a nature to do or be different from any other, this inquires exertion to find out. Do you understand, or not?

You state a general negative experience with mother and child declaring mother and child experience a general reality, and that whatever seems you are willing to maintain that position in regard to other matters too.

Your probably the type for example who hears that someone is amazingly rich, because of owning tens of thousand acres of land or more and the more they owned the more you sing the praises of lineage and say someone is of noble birth, because that person can show seven wealthy ancestors.


Your ideas I laugh at them because you cannot free your silly mind of vanity.
If you are willing to stand your ground for a while and not run away like cowards do, your brilliant rhetoric will wither away, so that you seem no better than a child.

[SpheresOfBalance]

About the point in your argument I think you live a world that conforms to the same pattern that resembles you; and if I tell you that, unless you depart from your trivia, when you hear this, you will be so confident you will think my words the talk of a fool.

But what a human being is and what is proper for such a nature to do or be different from any other, this inquires exertion to find out. Do you understand, or not?

You state a general negative experience with mother and child declaring mother and child experience a general reality, and that whatever seems you are willing to maintain that position in regard to other matters too.

Your probably the type for example who hears that someone is amazingly rich, because of owning tens of thousand acres of land or more and the more they owned the more you sing the praises of lineage and say someone is of noble birth, because that person can show seven wealthy ancestors.


Your ideas I laugh at them because you cannot free your silly mind of vanity.
If you are willing to stand your ground for a while and not run away like cowards do, your brilliant rhetoric will wither away, so that you seem no better than a child.

You start off pretty honestly with "I think you live..." Good job, you actually allude to your perspective being a product of your perception. From that point on you continually go down hill, telling me what I am, as if you could possibly know, until at the end, you've talked yourself into an neurotic elitist frenzy of condescension!

Are you using this forum as your journal because you're currently out of paper? I've noticed that you keep posting new material daily regardless of anyone's interest. Or do you really believe that you and only you have a clue such that you feel compelled to teach those little people? Correct me if I'm wrong, but you seem to be a self proclaimed elitist!

My initial point was/is that you should try talking to people and not at them! Are you here because you want social interaction or dominance?

P.S. I was referring to Transactional Analysis, which is an integrative approach to psychology and psychotherapy, because it includes elements of psychoanalytic, humanist and cognitive approaches.

[Barbara Brooks]

“But to be honest it seems that for our transactions with you to be reciprocal we would have to maintain “
Who are you speaking for?" said SpheresOfBalance.

At least I boldly say "I think".

You seem, willing to maintain a position in regard to others just because you made them, and as long as you remain in force.

Your opinion is true to you but false to the untold others thought in general then mankind is the measure of all things, is it not inevitable that the “truth” which you wrote is true to no one but you thought it was true.

True or false according to each individual opinion involves this, which you concede about your opinion to be truth of the opinion of those who you disagree with opinion is false, even that the opinions of all are true.

[SpheresOfBalance]

Barbara I absolutely love your zeal. It's obvious you are excited and I am excited for you.

But to be honest it seems that for our transactions with you to be reciprocal we would have to maintain a 'child to parent' mode which would be complementary with your seemingly 'parent to child' mode. I for one feel offended because you constantly tell us what all the philosophers of old meant, as if we're incapable of deciding for ourselves. I for one feel that it would be nice if you would use verbiage that alludes to your perception of their meaning. At least I believe that an effective philosopher exudes humility. I feel that this alone would allow for a perceived complementary 'adult to adult' transactional state. I bring this to your attention, purely as constructive criticism, while constructive criticism is what one can change, and I invite it, please.

Again, i absolutely love your zeal! I believe you have recently been the most prolific contributor to this forum.

Thank You!

Look at my original post above. I've highlighted all the areas where I used words to give you the benefit of the doubt and thus state that it is my perception. Also keep in mind that at no time did I assert that I was better than you. Just that my observations seem to indicate that you'd get a lot more positive interaction if you included verbiage that demonstrated your humility. Of course I could be incorrect.

So here's your initial response to me, below. pay particular attention to the highlighted text and tell me if you sense a difference between those I've highlighted in mine above.

About the point in your argument I think you live a world that conforms to the same pattern that resembles you; and if I tell you that, unless you depart from your trivia, when you hear this, you will be so confident you will think my words the talk of a fool.

But what a human being is and what is proper for such a nature to do or be different from any other, this inquires exertion to find out. Do you understand, or not?

You state a general negative experience with mother and child declaring mother and child experience a general reality, and that whatever seems you are willing to maintain that position in regard to other matters too.

Your probably the type for example who hears that someone is amazingly rich, because of owning tens of thousand acres of land or more and the more they owned the more you sing the praises of lineage and say someone is of noble birth, because that person can show seven wealthy ancestors.


Your ideas I laugh at them because you cannot free your silly mind of vanity.
If you are willing to stand your ground for a while and not run away like cowards do, your brilliant rhetoric will wither away, so that you seem no better than a child.

Well? I expect you to be honest, please?

“But to be honest it seems that for our transactions with you to be reciprocal we would have to maintain “
Who are you speaking for?" said SpheresOfBalance.

Myself, as well a perceived take by some.

At least I boldly say "I think".
There you go again, judging people harshly as if you're better. So it's kind of funny the this is the only place where you allude to the potential for your error due to perception.

You seem, willing to maintain a position in regard to others just because you made them, and as long as you remain in force.

I don't want to force anything, I initially, simply wanted to make you aware of at least how one can potentially see your demeanor. I believe your words and tone in your initial post to me, bear out my points.

Your opinion is true to you but false to the untold others thought in general then mankind is the measure of all things, is it not inevitable that the “truth” which you wrote is true to no one but you thought it was true.
And it doesn't mean it's not. Look, I was really trying to be informative, from my perspective, to the person that dominates this thread, in an attempt to possibly lighten things up a bit so that more people might feel inclined to participate. Not that I'm necessarily correct!

True or false according to each individual opinion involves this, which you concede about your opinion to be truth of the opinion of those who you disagree with opinion is false, even that the opinions of all are true.

Wrong! It was presented as constructive criticism, and as such gave you the benefit of the doubt, indicating that it was just my opinion, sheeesh!

It would seem that you need to do a search on constructive criticism.

[Barbara Brooks]

I believe if one is wiser than another, and such wisdom is a measure, but if you are without knowledge, and not in the least obliged to become a measure, proves that not every opinion of every person is true, at any rate in matters of that kind; but it is more difficult to prove that opinions are not true in regard to the momentary states of feeling of each person, from which our perceptions and the opinions concerning them arise. But it may be impossible to prove that true, and those who say that they are can may perhaps be right that perception and knowledge are identical.

“So that it is motionless, the name of which is the All,
”Parmenides, line 98 (ed. Mullach)1 and all the other doctrines maintained by Melissus and Parmenides and the rest, in opposition to all these they maintain that everything is one and is stationary within itself, having no place in which to move. What shall we do with all these people, my friend? For, advancing little by little, we have unwittingly fallen between the two parties.

[SpheresOfBalance]

I believe if one is wiser than another, and such wisdom is a measure, but if you are without knowledge, and not in the least obliged to become a measure, proves that not every opinion of every person is true, at any rate in matters of that kind; but it is more difficult to prove that opinions are not true in regard to the momentary states of feeling of each person, from which our perceptions and the opinions concerning them arise. But it may be impossible to prove that true, and those who say that they are can may perhaps be right that perception and knowledge are identical.

“So that it is motionless, the name of which is the All,
”Parmenides, line 98 (ed. Mullach)1 and all the other doctrines maintained by Melissus and Parmenides and the rest, in opposition to all these they maintain that everything is one and is stationary within itself, having no place in which to move. What shall we do with all these people, my friend? For, advancing little by little, we have unwittingly fallen between the two parties.

OK, well my final words to you are: as it seems that you're stroking your child, keep it up if you find that you require it, It would seem that you're good at it. You may actually need it.
(It makes me wonder if you've experienced some extreme psychological trauma.)

One who expounds complexity merely for the sake of complexity often looses themselves within the complexity. I'm sure you won't consider it a loss, but I for one won't follow you down that path. However I will support your need to do so, I hope that it helps you in some way! My aim is to not to exclude anyone for the sake of anyone as we are all one. And despite our shortcomings I care for us all. If only I had the ability to cure us!

PEACE, my friend!

May your life be filled with health, happiness and wisdom!

[Barbara Brooks]

Nor would I want you to follow me.

Philosophy is my dearest friend there can be no greater blessing than this for me. My mind loves to wander is not retained within the limits of reality.

You need to extend your knowledge further who ever you are, look around more carefully, and see whether you can still discover in yourself some things other then perception that you perceive.

Nothing turns into something since it is thought of is being. When you perceive something by sight or hearing, or any other senses a conception of some other thing appears in mind like it or unlike it. .

Knowledge that has the power of which would draw the soul from becoming to being and has that something which all arts and sciences and intelligences use in common, and which every one first has to learn among the elements of education.

It appears to be a study of the kind which we are seeking here and which leads naturally to reflection, but never to have been rightly used to draw the mind towards being.

[Barbara Brooks]

My chief fear is that the question with which I started, about the nature of knowledge, may fail to be investigated, because of the disorderly crowd of arguments which will burst in upon us if we let them in; especially as the argument we are now proposing is of vast extent, and would not receive its deserts if we treated it as a side issue, and if we treat it as it deserves, it will take so long as to do away with the discussion about knowledge.

[Barbara Brooks]

The starting-point sweep out the cobwebs from mind to understand philosophy, I started with a diary I called, ‘the weeping wall’ these diaries were very helpful in my learning philosophy.

Philosophy is everlasting truth. I don’t claim to present them ideally because there is nothing new under the sun. Philosophy comes from ancients who discussed not casually for everyone to understand knowledge. Philosophers have the pleasure in learning; for no one will love that which gives them pain, or after much hard work makes little progress.

They are magnificent observer of all time and all existence is the philosopher is surely just and gentle, and have good memory quick, noble, gracious, the friend of truth, justice, courageous, and temperate not for the likes of anybody but those traveling the same philosophical path.

[Barbara Brooks]

It is my humble attempt to revive a constructive deductive rational view of nature from the standpoint of dialectic science, and to give a new viewpoint of observing the definite unchanging rules of nature. In the strictest sense chapter one are the mere rudiments of the universe as an ordered and harmonious system, divides the path and velocity of motion into three sections, cometary, lunary and planetary.

Kepler who uncovered these laws of universal gravitation had complete faith that reason must be there in the heavenly bodies and through his faith arrived at these laws. It took him twenty-seven years to discover the law of motion using the heaven as his relativity. These laws are among the most beautiful purest and least tangled to be found.

A comprehensive Introduction of Nature opens with space and time noting that through time space gets actuality. Therefore, time has real existence through space and space is truly differentiated by time. The chapter goes on to define motion as nothing but space in relation to time and space in relation to a specific time elapsed. Space and time are filled with matter since there is motion something moves and that something that moves is matter. This is how to conceive matter; when there is motion something moves, this something is subject to limitations and conditions. That is what matter is but mere quantity of physical substance or substance collectively made out of physical objects.

[Bill Wiltrack]

.








..........................................................................







.

[Barbara Brooks]

Bill, use your words.

[Barbara Brooks]

Feeling is sheer consciousness, just as one feels the coming change of whether or from a wound. The feeling of the lion at the sight of the giraffe awakens desire; this desires not a choice, the sight of a mouse in the case of the hawk.

Hegel believed every one has a restricted sphere, that everyone seeks out its own intimate complex environment whereas, philosophy is the very opposite of feeling it has purpose which brings about self-consciousness. Feelings can never assure us of anything if knowledge does not come on the scene.

Feeling’s a state of tension starts with force. It is that feeling that urge in the face of outside. Then feeling is only a theoretical process it is only here we are free; the urge of the animal is merely self- the unpleasant feeling of need, this is not a contingent relationship but a necessary one and a privilege to feel.

Feeling is instinct, an urge, an inner stimulus, and part of purpose, also, the necessities for survival for living. A practical process like the migration of animals, of fishes, or sleep, one falls asleep without setting about doing so. We sleep out of instinct, the same is true of waking also we gather food out of instinct is directed to purpose. Therefore, from the senses is derived knowledge and before we see, hear, or perceive any thing we must have knowledge or we could not refer what is seen or heard.


Knowledge is recollection and perceiving anything there is no difficulty recalling something like it or unlike. It follows that those who are said to know only remember, knowledge is recollection only.

The philosophical mind always loves knowledge that shows the eternal nature not varying from generation to generation. Philosophy is the spectator of all time and all existence, has magnificence. I believe there can be nothing so remote that we cannot reason that is to say to became accustomed to the nourishment of truth and not falsehood.

[Barbara Brooks]

Mind is a system independent, feels, perceives, reasons, wills, and thinks. A remarkable thing the mind is unconscious reflective mechanical sphere of feeling.

In order to behold knowledge it is best when sounds, sights, and all feelings are quit. The senses only hinder the acquisition of knowledge.

The pathway of knowledge is nothing more than the realm of reason and in such truth is set forth not as abstract, but as consciousness or more so virtuous consciousness.

In the world of knowledge, the idea of reason only makes its appearance at a time when the mind of the people have worked its way out of apathy to virtuous consciousness and stands in contrast to indifference.

Then the mind educated by time, is a virtuous nature turns the mind from passing from a day which is little better than night to the true day of being.

Disposed in the mind is reason with a view to render things clear and intelligible. Reason can take a negative outlook toward outside world and turn it round to a positive outlook.