A Story

The following is a story I’ve written on 22.8.14. - “In one take”, - as far as I can remember; - all in Hebrew, apparently. Apologies to all who do not speak the language. - Normally this blog is in English, - but my first language is Hebrew, and living in Israel this is what I speak every day here, - no other choice generally.

I do not intend to translate it, and I do not see a point in it. There may be such one or two posts in the future, - but in general of course thing will be as they are. The story is titled “Attention Deficit Disorder” and would not be, I guess, - anything you might expect coming across its name. Some of the readers here do understand Hebrew, even if a few, - and the blog is free of charge, as you know.

- Others, - see you next time - hopefully.

הפרעת קשב

בארץ רחוקה, לפני שנים רבות, חי לו מלך. ולו ממלכה, - אותה ארץ, ומלכה. ולהם בן – נסיך, - אשר הגיע לפרקו וטרם נישא.

וביום מן הימים, הגיעה – נתדפקה על דלת הארמון, - בריה צנועה. נסיכה – לדבריה, - מאחת הממלכות השכנות, - אשר נתגלגלה לאשר נתגלגלה ובקשה מחסה ללילה – ובבקר – תמשיך את דרכה, אם בשובה לביתה ולארמונה ואם למחוז חפצה בדרכה זו – יהיה אשר יהיה.

והנסיך, - נראה – אשר לא מוטרד היה ככלל מהעדר רעיה דווקא ואפילו לנוכח מעמדו כיורש העצר, - דומה היה, או יתכן ניכר – כי עלתה בדעתו האפשרות, - ולו קלות, - בעניינה של האורחת המזדמנת וגלה עניין, - אף אם קל – בדמות החדשה אשר הופיעה בארמון, שם הדמויות – ככלל – מוכרות כולן - וידועות, - והחדשות אינן רבות, והדברים ידועים ושגורים.

והמלכה, - אשת המלך, אם הנסיך, - בקשה – יתכן משום כך, - לעמד על אם אמנם נסיכה היא אשר נזדמנה כאמור לארמון, - או אם – יתכן – תרמית כאן, - ונוכלת היא הטוענת לשאינה ולשלא תהיה ואף שאינו מוכר לה – ניתן לומר – לאמיתו של דבר.
הילכך, - הורתה להציעה את יצועה של האורחת באין-ספור מצעים, זה על גבי זה, - עד כי נדרשה לסלם על מנת לטפס ולנוח שם. ובאין רואה, נגשה המלכה, - והניחה – תחת לאלה – גרגר אפונה.

וירד הלילה ועלו דרי הארמון על יצועם, איש ואשה, - ואותה נסיכה – אם נסיכת-אמת ואם לאו ומתחזה – בהם. וישנו. רובם, - כמסתבר.
ובקר, - ונשאלה זו באם ישנה כהלכה – בידי מארחיה, - כטבעם של מארחים החפצים לדעת אם יצאו ידי חובתם ככאלה, - והנסיך ואמו המלכה בהם, בין השואלים. ותשובתה, - לאחר דברים הבאים להפיס לב יושבי הארמון בדבר איכות מצעיה וטיבם, - כי אעפ"כ נתהפכה ושבה ונתהפכה מלוא כל הלילה כולו מטעם לא-ידוע ולהרדם לא עלה בידה. ובקשה המלכה לומר – נוכח כך, - "נסיכה אמיתית" – כשהניחה דעתה כאמור, אלא שלא כך היה ולא כך נסתיימו הדברים.

בכעין טירה, המרוחקת כמטווחי קשת ואולי אף מעט למעלה מכך מן הארמון, חיה קבוצה של בריות חסרות דעת אף אם פקחיות, שוטות אך מלומדות, מבטן קודר ומצער ונעוץ עיתים בקרקע, אשר באותם ימים נסתגרה במשכנה ולא רב נזקה לעולם המאיר עדיין דאז. שכלתנים היו שוכני אותו מקום – מבנה כאמור, - ומוזרה תורתם, - וכל עולמם מחשבות יבשות כקורי עכביש ומסובכות כמוהם – חכמה אחרת לא נודעה להם, - "פסיכיאטרים" יקרא להם וכך נודעו.

ובארמון אחד היה בן שיחם, - שר המדינה. איש אחר לא השיח עמם, ואף לא מבקשים היו – ככלל – בני שיח בעניין רב מחוץ למשכנם האפל והמסוגר עדיין באותם ימים ומסתפקים היו זה בזה בלבד ולא יוצאים היו ובאים רבות בדרכים ובמקומות בהם בני אדם. ונשמע – כמסתבר – באזניהם המקרה אשר בא את בית המלוכה, וענין היה לאלה בכגון דא. והודיעו בדאגה רבה לשר המדינה – כי רופאים היו בעיני עצמם, - כי סובלת הנסיכה משהם בלבד יודעים ומכירים טיבו, - "הפרעת קשב". – "הפרעת קשב" – הודיעו לשר המדינה, - ורציני צליל קולם וחמור כמעה. ואף אם לא ברור לנו כיצד נמצא הספק בידי שר המדינה החרוץ והישר להזדרז במידה הדרושה, - הרי שטרם הביאה המלכה דבריה – שכן באה על סיפוקה ונחה דעתה – ועמדה להביע אמונה באמת-היותה של הנסיכה אשר היא, - הקדימה שר המדינה – אדם רציני ושקדן אף אם לא חכם במידה החורגת מן הממוצע, - והודיע – כמאמר אותן בריות שוכנות-טירתן-האפלה – כי נגועה האורחת הנכבדה – "הפרעת-קשב" – כאמור. ושאלה המלכה, - מטבע הדברים, - שכן אותו צרוף מילים לא נשמע באזניה קדם לכן, - הפרעת קשב מהי? – ושקל שר המדינה דבריה, - ושב ושקל, - ושוב שב ושקל, - וחשב ושב וחשב, - והשיבה דבר – כי אין הוא יודע. אם כך, - הקשתה המלכה – מה פשר דבריך? ומובן, - כי באין פשר אין משמעות. וספר שר המדינה עקב כך אודות שוכני הטירה הנושנה האפלים והמתייגעים, - אשר ידועים היו, לא נסתר קיומם, - אלא שלא אבה המלך, - ככלל, - במידה של חכמה – כדרכם של מלכים, - להטריח עצמו בענייניהם ולהטות אוזן להגיגיהם הפקחיים וחסרי הדעת. ולא נדרשה המלכה לומר דבר, - ושב שר המדינה אל אלה ושאלם לפשר שיאמרו.

והשיבוהו דבר, והשיב את המלכה.

דברים מתמיהים, - ולא ידעו אלה אודות נסיכות-של-אמת ורעיונות מעין אלה, אלא שהבהירו דרכם ודבריהם. ריטלין טרם נודע באותם ימים ולא היה בידם. תרופה אחרת ידעו – חמורי סבר – וקודרי מבע, - למום שמצאו בנסיכה ממנו סובלת היא בעיניהם ועל פי מומחיותם. תשכן הנסיכה חדש ימים – ואם ידרש עד לרפויה המלא אף למעלה מכך, - בדיר החזירים המלכותי. עד אם אינה מוטרדת עוד מצחנה כלשהיא שבמקום, - או מנחרות שוכני-המקום בימים כתיקונם – שאז נדע כי נרפאה והוכחה לכך שימצא תיפקודה כזה של אחד האדם. אדם בריא אשר גרגר אפונה יחיד לא יוכל – רחמנא ליצלן, - להטריד מנוחתו ולהפריע שנתו.

נזדעזעה המלכה, - אך טרם עמדה על אווילות מרעיו של שר המדינה, כילדים המדמים עצמם בשלים אשר חשיבתם בוסר כולה, - שכן מלומדים היו, - וככל מארחת המכבדת עצמה – חפצה בטובת אורחתה. וחרצה – כי יבואו אלה בפני זו, - ויביאו דברם בפניה.
ובאו לארמון, - מקום שלא מורגל היה בהם, - ולחדרה של נסיכתנו גיבורת סיפור זה. והבהירו, - כיודעים ומביני-דבר, - או בקשו להבהיר, - את שהיה בידם לומר, - מתוך שיחורו המובהק של טובתה – כמובן מאליו אשר למותר לציין. אלא שזו נסיכה הייתה. ובמבט עמדה על טיבם של הלמדנים המחוכמים אשר נזדמנו – דרך הפתעה גמורה – לחדרה שם, ובקשו להבהיר – כאמור, - טובתה הידועה אך להם. ואספה חפציה, המעטים, כמובן מאליו במצב האמור, - ושמה פעמיה משם ולחוץ. ואל בני שיחה – או אל שבקשו להמצא כאלה, - לא נתנה דעתה – ולא השיבתם מלה וחצי מלה, - ואף במבט לא זכתה את אותם בני אדם ידענים ומשכילים, חרף נסיונותיהם הבהירים לבוא עמה בדברים, - כדרכם של בני אדם. נוהג תמוה מדי, - בעיניהם של אלה לכל הפחות, - אשר אף אותו ישכילו לפרש על-פי מומחיותם באופן העשוי לעורר דאגתו הכנה של כל אדם בר דעת, - קרי לא הפרעת-קשב בלבד כאן, כי אם אף "פראנויה" או "סכיזופרניה" – מצב שצריכה הדעת להנתן בעניינו – כמובן, - ויש לברך על כי נזדמנו לאותו מפגש ונתגלה הדבר. – והנסיכה – כאמור, - מתוך התעלמות גמורה מן המבקשים לבוא עמה בדברים – פנתה אל דלת החדר, - ומשם אל המסדרון, ואחר אל מסדרון אחר, ואף מבלי ליטול ברכת שלום ממארחיה הנאמנים, - אל שער הארמון, ואל הגן, ואל השער החיצון, - ואחר – אין איש יודע לאן.

והנסיך, - קדר. ואבל. – ואין דרכו כמקדם ונעלמו דרכיו ונפלו פניו ואין עניינו בדבר.
ורע המצב מיום ליום. וקדרו המלך והמלכה, - ותרופה אַין.

עד כי אין עוד לשאת כזאת. היה הנסיך כלא היה ויגון דמותו וצער נפשו. ומרפא – כאמור – אַין. שנה, וחדש, ועוד חדש, וחדש נוסף – וכל הנחלים באים אל הים ודברים כשהיו ושינוי אינו נודע.
עד כי צווה המלך, - כי יועלה באש משכנן של אותן בריות משונות ומתות-מבע, כי ישרף ביתן על יושביו, - וכי יוחרב המקום אף אחרי כן וימחק מן העולם עד כי לא נודע כי עמדו שם אבנים זו על גבי זו. וכך נעשה. וטירה שם אין ואבן אין ואף הקדרות חלפה ושב הצומח לאיטו. כאן עץ ושם צמח ועשב בר כבכל מקום.

והאם שבה הצעירה אל הארמון לאחר מכן – ביום מן הימים? לא נדע. כאן תם סיפורינו. האם שבו פניו של הנסיך? האם נמצאה אחרית הדברים כבכל האגדות? אם חיו באשר ועשר מניין שנים זה או אחר? אין מענה. והחפץ לדעת דבר יבוא באותה ממלכה, ויבקש דברי ימיה, - ויודיע אף אותנו דבר. מוסר ההשכל – די בו. ואחרית הדברים, - לא הובאה בפנינו.

(אף כי עדיין הולכים הנחלים אל הים) סוף (אף כי עדיין הולכים הנחלים אל הים)

| - x - H i < > * - * - * - * < > i H - x - |

-

Following the last post

I came across this video not so recently. - Several years ago, I don’t know when.

Recently I had, - naturally, - a thought about integrating it into a post, here on the blog.

- That is using it on the blog. - During the writing of the last post I did not think about it, - the idea of using it in that post or adding it there did not occur to me - but anyway it seems it would not fit in there.

Now that the post is written and scheduled, (not yet posted) I remembered it. - As you can understand the “recent” thought I mentioned is not so recent. - Obviously I like the video, - but it has its point if you have some idea of what the theory I was writing about in the last post is really worth. - Though this was not obviously the clear intention of the piece in the first place. Of its creator. - Anyway - now that you have read the previous post of June 30, - this video here will be better able to speak for itself.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-M-vnmejwXo

Natural Choice Examined

Among common men observing things as most do today the view accepting and affirming the spheres of reality outside the physical plain where we reside here on Earth is normally presented as irrational.


The truth would be rather contrary. - A person only familiar with solid objects whose thought has been accustomed only to them would find difficulty in relating to liquids he has never seen, - when hearing about them due to his own limited ability of a rather harsh mind he might find or suspect the idea irrational. - A person only familiar with solids and liquids - living in a theoretical world (though of course impossible) where only these two exist, - would find it hard to understand - initially at least, - what gas is. - Unless a person of perhaps unusual abilities - assuming he himself lives in a worlds where all his fallow men too share the same reality and the same conditions, - he would most likely reject as idea of such a state if this is the custom taught in the described society in which he lives.

If a person to whom liquid is totally foreign - as in the first example, - hears about it at first, - it might be very difficult to convince him - describing it to him, - that it is something different from sand. Particularly if it is an intellectual person confident in his inferior abilities of inflexible thinking.

Further, - if one is familiar only with lifeless matter, never having seen any plant or any form of a living organism, - particularly not any living flesh bearing a mind and motion, - his mental processes and particularly those of thought would naturally not be accustomed in a reasonable way to dealing with it.

His mind would not be one of accordance with such a reality as external surroundings. - His mental abilities would practically not be naturally able to match such perception and deal with it in a full and sufficient manner. - Needing to relate to the occult being only familiar with ordinary life as usually faced in ordinary society today is somewhat similar to the above examples.


This is not the direct subject of the post, but it seems in place to preface it. - Other examples might be brought in other posts. Here I will relate to the renowned theory as the title implies.

Charles Darwin, - 1884

It is particularly amazing, as it seems, after all I will say here, - that this theory has been able to persevere and sustain itself until today. The faults I intend to relate to are apparently so obvious and severe, - that it seems difficult to understand how could this idea not only have been accepted as reasonable - but also have been so widely viewed as more-or-less the sole explanation for the existing reality. People simply see it as a fact. Both common men and scientists. This is obviously no secret and has not been.


First, - the main idea of this theory is of a fruit of a need. Or of a fruit of a natural chance, - I mean here “chance” in the sense of an opportunity. - Obviously it is not active today within humanity. So for at least several hundreds of years.

The need or the chance is the engine. - It could, - supposedly, - improve the features of animals through its proposed mechanism, - giving them higher abilities either in the mental or physical fields. - That is to say - the level or amount of improvement would be in accord with the conditions in the environment and the possible achievements useful for the organism at the relevant time.

I will not try to define exactly what would be reasonable improvement for various organisms such as bacteria, sea weed, plants, fish of different sizes, and animals ranging from whichever low forms to monkeys and apes. One reason may sufficiently be that the theory is unreasonable anyway, - and as a general rule is unequivocally not any significant engine behind evolution, - which means that in most cases - as it seems, - this amount to be estimated simply does not exist. Apart from that anyone can use his common sense.

I do not intend to try and make an exact definition for humans either, similarly.

The obvious will be enough. - Given that the process was supposed to have acted a considerable time ago, as for humanity, we can very easily get some reasonable estimation which might be shocking. - Let us try and consider what mental abilities might have been able to develop through this process: - Consider the conditions under which humanity might have been and what or which benefits arising from mutations could have been possible. - How high could this have lifted the human mind? - Today we are familiar with the abilities of the human mind, no doubt, at least to some extent. - Sky scrapers are one result manifesting its abilities. The Internet is another. The genius of artists and men of spirit such as Mozart, Goethe, Dogen, Gauss and of course a considerable number of others is one other exquisite example. - The potential lying  in the human mind is already known to be enormous. The examples here are enough. We need not go beyond that.
What situation in a primitive surroundings as man has been in during the foremost line of his development could have been promoting in a way which would lead to such achievements?

None.

This is utterly impossible. However far we would like to choose to extend or pull the limits of random chance, with any probability which could by any view be considered reasonable, - it would be impossible. The fact is so extreme that it does seem explicitly and considerably silly it could have been overlooked - as it has been, - beforehand.

I could continue with further explanations, but I am quite certain anyone interested with reasonable common sense could observe the reality for himself and see the more complete picture. - What real conditions might have produced might have been at most a mind capable of building a few huts or using primitive language. - Perhaps constructing the simplest levels of society, even democracy as an idea would have been too complicated. - The spring - the apparent spring, - off primitive society where and when these processes (of natural choice) would have been still active, - to what we know lives in potential in the human mind, - would have been practically amazingly off limit.

- This bounce could never have taken place.

The reason the theory has been taken as it has, it seems, is that - roughly thinking at least, - the only alternative considered to exist was the Biblical story of creation. In western society of course. - And through eliminating the other alternative, stupid humans came to imagine there is no other way and Darwin’s theory is inevitable. - This is not a central issue here, but it does seem to a great deal this is what happened.

A second point: - The theory begins with a mutation. Else than some point I will relate to in the end. - This is a mistake in copying a file. The occurrence is very rare. I don’t know how rare. Then there is the question of whether the mutation has been useful or harmful. (or just useless anyway) Obviously, - in the great majority of cases, - it will be of no use. Then the process does not begin. - Only on occasions when a mutation, by pure chance, - has been such that is of aid in some way to the organism, - is it included in the process of natural choice. - But this is still far from being enough.

Consider an organ such as an eye. - It would take a terribly great number of mutations to bring about its appearance. - It could of course never have been constructed by a few mutations. - But this is not all: - the question here would be after how many such mutations would the organ beginning to form, - the organ in its initial appearance and development, - begin to bring any sort of use to the organism it is part of. - Only at the point it is beginning to be of any real use and benefit, - is the process beginning to work. Is the wheel of Darwin’s supposed idea beginning to slowly turn. - Now the question would be the chance of a consequent line of a considerable number of mutations all occurring consequently one after the other before the process has been able to come into action. What would be the chance, - the probability, - of such a series of mutations taking place under such conditions? - Zero, - approximately. - In addition to the rarity of mutations in general, and to the rarity of those of them which would initially be of any relevance to the process, - there would be the impossible probability of the necessary line or chain of consequent mutations in need for the development and appearance of organs absent in the organism beforehand. This is a stupid and impossible theory. Mind you. And mind all.


If you find the general presentation intuitively insufficient, you might relate to practical calculation. - If the probability for the occurrence of a mutation is x, the probability for the occurrence of two would be x². - The probability of the occurrence of 6 mutations would be x⁶ and for the occurrence of 50 of them x⁵⁰. - It doesn’t take much to thrust the chances high into nowhere. - It explodes exponentially.

If you need the mutations to appear in a certain order this would diminish the probability further, if we need n mutations to appear in full order - this would mean the probability would not be xⁿ as before but would be further divided by the factorial - [(xⁿ)/(n!)]. - This would be for example for 5 consecutive mutations x⁵/120 instead of just x⁵. - This additional point isn’t really necessary or very important but it still seems to be worth mentioning.


This post is mainly about these two points, - the attainment of humans being far above anything which might have been achieved through the proposed theory, and the need - in many cases, - for a continuous series of a considerable number of independent occurrences of a distinct deformation which would be to appear before the operation of the natural process is beginning to take its place, - a need which would make the relevant probability fade into nothing like a senseless mosquito trying to battle a basketball on its way to score down the loop or a football flying gracefully into the top right corner of the rectangular goal set in the game’s field.

There is a third point though, not less important as it seems.

Some time ago I came across an article in a magazine called Epoch Times related to the subject. - My mother is getting it for free. - It is about three scientists - James Tour, John Walton and David Berlinski who disagree with the theory of natural choice on grounds irrelevant to my two points above. They are mainly concerned with questions in the field of chemistry of how could the DNA develop beforehand. This is where the “some point” I said I will relate to in the end comes in. - I am not a chemist. It doesn’t seem to me it is possible to take a serious stand as for the subject without knowledge in the field. One can only generally obtain an impression off what others are saying. You can guess who seems serious but you can’t discuss the issues themselves off common normal acquaintance with general issues widely known.

However, - as I thought, prior to reading this article, such knowledge does not seem necessary: - The DNA is a complex structure. - This fact is not secret and not controversial. - It is obvious that the process of the natural choice does not take place in the construction of the DNA itself. This means this complex, very complex, structure was supposed to have come to existence basically (or completely) through mere random chance. The DNA was not yet known when Darwin lived. - So the theory started off not relating to the matter. I don’t know the historical facts but I guess it was already accepted before the additional piece of information referred to here came about.

I don’t think one should consult biologists. I think one should consult mathematicians. This seems quite obviously to be a third severe fault with the idea all contemporary intellectuals in general would imagine to be an obvious sign of advance and progress. Fuck those idiots, frail minded and childishly confident.

I even wonder why have the scientists I mentioned above thought the particular chemical process itself so important in that light.

So far.

This is all for this post.

- I would be happy for comments. (- almost completely absent on this blog)

But I can’t see any way in which what I say could possibly be either rejected or declined.

- Common sense wins the lot.

                                                                                    (Written initially on a “Word”, and modified and completed on the blog later. (- 28.2.16) + Note: - (- 1.5.2021) Being a native Hebrew Speaker I was familiar with the term “natural selection” in Hebrew rather than English, - having translated it (back) to English as “natural choice”. Only today I found out the correct term in English is “natural selection”. So wherever it says [above] “natural choice” you should read “natural selection”. I might sometime correct this in the post itself but for now I guess it is understood anyway. So far.)

Three phases of thinking

It has occurred to me today (23.9.15) that there are three phases in human thought: This does not correspond to the thinking of the head, the thinking of the heart and the thinking of the body, - but is another way of seeing things.
As for these - the thinking of the head, the thinking of the heart and the thinking of the body, - I suppose I might generally assume the readers of this blog would know what it’s about, (- or perhaps I would just like to think so, and at present - the audience - as much as there is any, - may be somewhat different than it was at first) but anyway it is not necessary for understanding my point here. I just mentioned it since if one hears about “three phases in human thought” one might easily imagine it is what I just clarified about it is not.

Now to continue with the matter I am about: -

- The first phase is that of mere deduction.

2 + 2 = 4

If a ⇒ b and b ⇒ c than a ⇒ c

That is to say logical conclusion, - nothing beyond.

One may no doubt be very intelligent, but still remain fundamentally within this phase. - It does not touch reality, - it has to do with ideas in the most abstract way.

- If I know John is 70 years old, and I know Jim died 103 years ago, I can conclude they never met here on Earth through their relevant incarnations as Jim and John.

If I know you are reading this blog, and if I know you are American, I can tell there is (at least) one American reading the blog.

- If I know all black men have green eyes, and if I also know John Lennon is a black man, - I can conclude John Lennon has green eyes.

- And so on.

Any child is capable of it, - and it could of course be extended and expanded creating a complex structure consisting of nothing but deductions, as the ones presented above here.

- The second phase would include perspective as well.

- The first supplies you with a map like perhaps a train or a bus map. It tells you which stops are on which line but does not give you any real description of the area, or at least not one compatible with a reasonable description in many ways. - In the second phase one would be relatively aware of how relatively important issues are. - You don’t only know that X means Y and that Z means P, - but you are also simultaneously capable of estimating how important or unimportant issues are in relation to each other.

- Practically - in real life, - we - normal men and women, (I do not of course mean children here) do not live in these first or second phases.

In simple everyday life or situations we are not naturally limited in this way, and have no reason to fall into a trap of carrying such a restricted route of thinking.

- The trouble is with intellectual education. - When people are taught and told in what is supposed to be an instruction for a professional or specialized manner of doing a particular or general work they are to be capable in the field of, - while thereby practically guiding them to use their thought in a manner resembling the representation of reality by a black and white 12" TV, or somewhat degraded even further to the rough area of the fine art of form filling - as practiced in supreme excellence in the developing society we are living in. I am of course not relating to children’s education in these words.

The guidance would generally be supposed to serve a purpose of establishing a possibly lofty, elevated, - or advanced means of special understanding, or subsequent utilization in accordance with it, - but it may be that sometimes it would create an attitude that is very empty relying on guidance which does no more than to tell you to act in a certain way in situation X and in a certain different way or manner under conditions Y or Z.

It doesn’t really matter if a computer technician or a washing machine technician has full knowledge of what he’s working on as long as he does his work well. - But in other fields this is not the case.

- It is fine if your TV technician does not have full knowledge of how the instrument works as long as he knows which parts he has to replace, - but in certain fields adopting a similar attitude might be, - as it seems, - no less than stupid.

- Particularly in dealing with humans, and most reasonably as it seems in dealing with society as well.

In places where an actual ability is necessary, an inner one which has to be developed, - mere instructions and acquired knowledge are eventually viewed as what will or could do.

- The practical reality is that the sillier a person is the higher will he view himself due to the image he holds of the esteemed qualification he receives.

- And times, - as in the legal system, - which I have come to some acquaintance with quite unfortunately, - out of an intention to speed up procedures - as a general rule, - a standard emerges, as the heir of a habit, of a manner of thinking limited in reality somewhat to the initial first and second patterns of thought as being referred to here in this post you are reading now.
And here too, the greyness and lifeless-disconnected-thought, complying with the dogmatic and formalistic atmosphere and routined lane of procedure prevailing in the surrounding circles, are as a matter of fact practically imagined to be wisdom by those individuals dwelling within them and daily involved.

(Practically the situation is that due to an expertise undeniably necessary for familiarity with somewhat subtle formalities the general framework of thought is viewed as if bearing some sort of essential value beyond mere intellectualism. This phenomenon is not shared by all, and some of course are more aware of the reality.)

Practically the situation is more of the opposite. - It carries more of a degeneration of thought than of any real, essential or vital virtue or ability of independent value. - You might say it pads your heart with dust. Liveliness is diminished.

- Lawyers are of course skilled with adopting this attitude, - but what it actually seems to mean is using only a limited part of your mental ability as a human; - and it would also mean many whose abilities would not fundamentally exceed - in certain ways, - the lifeless manner of the first and second phases, - this incomplete manner or style of viewing and determining, - would find their way into the system. - Since it initially requires according qualifications - for the better and worse, - as its main standards.

The third phase would include life or essence as well. - As I said I don’t necessarily mean some outstanding manner of mental functions or an extraordinary state of mind unfamiliar to most.

It would generally be our usual phase of action in daily life. - Unlike the situation in the other two it goes beyond absolute abstractions and also exceeds the situation in which we can also be aware of a reasonable relationship of perspective, - (- telling us how relatively big or small, or valuable or perhaps weightless, - each thing is or would be) but still nothing more. - The first would be somewhat like some list of details or textual data arranged in a table or a diagram. - The second perhaps like an initial sketch or an outlining drawing in basic lines of a rather geometrical orientation still, - unlike a real picture where objects do not generally fit geometrical forms in their clean simplicity. - Or perhaps the first might be viewed as a black and white picture or drawing while the second would be monochromatic, - including further nuances but still - at the same time, - limited as it is in other dimensions. - The question would be whether adding colour would be a good way to allegorize our third phase. - It would be natural to think of it at first but reality has taste and smell too, - a colourful picture is still a dead picture, - even if taste and smell could synthetically be added to it. There is something beyond, merely speaking of colour would miss the point here, would be of the second phase in itself, as it seems. You may find it funny, but relating to computers might be helpful here:

- A file which includes only text or numerical data may be light in size. One which includes a sketch or a plan or a diagram in an according file type would be or could be somewhat heavier. A picture takes more space. A real picture unlimited to the fundamental characterizations of a working plan or to black and white or monochromatic or some limited set of poster colors would demand of course much more space as a resident occupier of your computer’s hard disc or memory. Working with such files or data would similarly be differently demanding for the computer. It would apparently be a different kind of task and would require a different track of dealing with it as it is so. - It would require a different amount or a different measure of resources and time.

- So this would, or might, give us some idea as for the place of the three phases of thought I am talking about here. - Wisdom could only fundamentally have to do with the third. Intelligence has to do with the first. - “Zen” might wish to bring us to deeper and closer acquaintance with reality, - but this does not mean the third phase here only relates to that. - In everyday life, in the simplest situations having to do with fundamental everyday things and direct meeting with other, - we most normally think (- when necessary) in full, - in the third phase. We do not intellectualize or sophisticate departing from the situation itself. - And, - unintentionally - we relate spontaneously to the living factors of the immediate situation we are in as it is.

True wisdom, would mean applying the same practice elsewhere too. - It does not mean anyone can do that. - It does not mean it doesn’t take any qualifications. But humanity has a tendency of walking the other way. The intellect is the shallowest layer of human thought. I recall Nishijima Roshi’s spontaneous comment to something I said once: - “Intellectual thinking is nothing”. - And he is absolutely right, the way he meant it.

- This fact is scarcely understood today, perhaps, one might say.

The third phase would include what we may intuitively perceive but deny or neglect due to degenerated norms in society. - We have notions as for things where we could not so easily analyze and present organized findings rationally and neatly. - One clear and easy example would be about our inevitable ability to pick up the difference between a human and an animal, - spontaneously. - But contemporary so called “science” would tell us this or that as for the matter so that when we intellectualize on the basis of that we lose what we easily see and note. - A better example may be of the difference between living and lifeless matter. - It is fundamentally seen immediately (in most cases) without any need for conscious thought processes, but intellectualization draws you away from it. - The immediate or intuitive fundamental notions are taken today to be silly, primitive in the eyes of intellectuals, - while the third phase is neglected by those only able to appreciate complexity rather than true depth.

It is about capturing the living reality of the moment, and about not limiting one’s self to only those faculties of one’s mind one is able to retroactively analyze and fully understand. - This may be the fundamental mistake leading to the distorted place we are in today. We can not reverse engineer every step of our mental processes in real time. This is to a great extent where stupidity lies. We can not do it not in real time either, - we can sample but we can not reprocess all in this way. - Ignoring the subtle functioning of the more refined abilities of the human mind because it could not be analyzed or comprehended by the rather rougher abilities of the intellect of particular incapable esteemed individuals who are unable to appreciate what is valuable and what is not so, - is practically idiotic. Our abilities to act in the third phase in real time and to try and understand our understanding in a retroactive analysis are not the same. - Most people would not at all posses the ability to extend their view as-if in another dimension to not only view what they view in a real time situation but also to appreciate their thought itself as well as if externally, - in the third phase as related to here. - The practical fact is that in such a situation the thought would be reduced to the lower paths - and therefore the whole worth of the analysis could not help but be in accordance.

- When in normal daily action we do not limit ourselves to the mere features of the situation which are those that could be expressed easily to another person through verbal speech and written words, or any other reasonable aids such as pictures and diagrams. - We just act in response to what we face, we do not try to analyze beforehand. Such analysis would mean practically thereby dropping part of the relevant knowledge and perceived notions, - (which are intellectually - heedlessly - so dropped in a retroactive remote consideration, when missing the point here, - more than often, - as it seems) unaware of what we really process in real time.

- In such an ordinary situation we naturally include the more refined features of what we encounter, not necessarily fully conscious of it. - The more living and inner factors corresponding to some similarly matching ones within our own human being. So far for this issue.

It is not so essential that the third phase is what we apply in daily life as I referred here, for the main issue I intended this post to be about, - that is, - it makes it easier to explain. I initially just wanted to use the fact for making clear what I meant by the three phases, - what I meant by the third one, - and then it carried me elsewhere too. As I found the other matter important in itself. - This post was supposed to be just about presenting my idea I referred to in the first line. - Other issues rather came by, and are fundamentally welcome too. - Anyway I’m just saying the fact I repeatedly related to that the third phase is what we apply normally in daily life is not such an inherent feature of what it is. It is not a superficial remark either, on the other hand, too, of course. - The third phase would grasp the living elements and those characteristics which make a thing into a real concrete particular situation or object, - not just an abstract one one might have made up or any general idea similar to many unclear or vague or simplified others. From here it is possible to deepen, but anyway otherwise too, regardless of that, - this would be the right attitude touching reality unlike the previous two where some preliminary sketch or design was actually what is being dealt with.

So far for what I had to say here, generally. - I suppose the general idea of what the three patterns are is in the least clear in itself. The three phases seem to fit three of Nishijima’s four phases or world views: - Materialism, - idealism, and realism. - It is not so clear how this would also comply with my relating to these earlier in this blog, - but this might come up too with time. - Fitting Nishijima’s pattern might mean there should be a fourth phase, - but this could hardly have real importance here - as it seems. - It would be some perfect or ineffable state of oneness with what you encounter, - or a state of a mindless mind as that of the Reality itself, - I see no point in relating to it here. - Might be of supreme importance elsewhere.

As I have not had the chance to experience this state, I will not relate to it.

(Though it apparently could not fundamentally be experienced, - since you can only experience anything when having a mind, consciousness, - and if the state is fundamentally of being rid of that, - no “divided consciousness” or unnecessary double action leading to what we call our mind, - experience could not take place)

I would mention one other thing. - In Korea, I heard, - on arriving in a “Zen” monastery, - they place a glass of water before one, half filled, roughly, - and ask him whether the glass if half full or half empty.

A person’s tendency, - most persons, - would be to intellectualize. - Suppose they ask you nothing, suppose the glass is just there, - you’d most time relate to it correctly. - If it doesn’t concern you, you’d ignore it, if you’re thirsty, you might drink the water, or ask to do so, in a normal situation. - As you relate to any other object in your surrounding. - But the moment they ask you the question, - if you don’t get what it is about, they screw your mind. - Most people don’t get that. - This is “Zen” wisdom, - as far as I get it. - It would relate more to the thinking of the head the thinking of the heart, and the thinking of the body I said at the beginning this post was not about, - than to the three phases as described here, but anyway. - One’s inability to utilize his mind in a realistic manner when relating to a situation while not-being-part-of-it, - is what is being examined in the Korean trick. But you can be confident that a true “Zen” master, - a Buddha, - could not be deceived through any silly artificial attitude arising from an immature mind. He can see you, this is not a computerized test where you can fill in correct answers while being ignorant. Anyway, I hope the idea is clear.

OK. Here it ends. Fwiw.

(I started Writings this post on a “Word” at a time I did not have an Internet connection on the date as it appears at the beginning. - I did not change that. I later continued on February this year several times still in this way. Later I continued and it happened that much was somewhat changed and revised, particularly when working on it in the blog itself. Things are somewhat different this way.)

Just something about our mind

Nishijima used to say mind and matter are two facets of Reality. - I doubt people are (or were) aware that he meant the Reality and not just reality the way most usually use the word. - While perhaps on the other hand he did not find it necessary to separate these here since anyway the reality is the Reality. Nishijima was not always interested in making himself clear where things might be controversial or where clarification might lead to other confusion or ambiguity.

Anyway, this is not what it’s about. - When Nishijima said mind and matter are two facets of one reality, people would usually assume this means (the) Reality stands somewhere between mind and matter - as a sort of a middle way perhaps, or anyway that these two reflect two sides of the reality. This is not so, and this is what it’s (this post is) about. People are “prone”, as Nishijima’s favorite expression, - to mistake his intention here, which I wanted to relate to.

As Daikan says in his famous poem, - the clear mirror needs no stand. Similarly, the reality has no other side. There is no such thing as the other side of Reality, or something that is prior to it. - The situation is different. Mind and matter are both on the same side of Reality. Rather mind stands somewhere between the Reality and matter. That is mind is closer to the Reality, matter is not as close, as it seems to me. Therefore, you might say, we experience mind as mind and matter as matter. - This is the difference. So they are two facets of the Reality, (or of reality) as two different phenomena - as being different in their appearance, - but as I assume Nishijima Roshi was not aware of the mistake his words would seemingly lead to, - and therefore made no attempt to correct it.

As I said - this is what I wanted to refer to in this post.

- Just this. - Everything arises from Reality.

In accordance with what we might call its distance from it things might change in their nature or their appearance.

Science has practically nothing to say about the mind, that is materialistic so called “science” as we are familiar with it today.
- I mean no physical discovery could in any way give any sort of idea why is it that what we experience as awareness has to exist anyway. - Or how come that is has come into existence. I related to this in my “Time” post.
It (- science) might come up with some explanations as for its manner of functioning, - but the fact remains the same.

- And the attitude is somewhat ridiculous, - but this is beside the point.


We are Reality.
But as it seems else than Buddhas no one can see the fact. So we see ourselves as we do. And it seems, as close to Reality as we can get, is what we call our “mind”. - We don’t really know in what way we experience this, most of us at least. - What we grasp through our senses we call matter. But neither is as deep or as direct as the true reality, or as direct familiarity with it. - What is this reality? I don’t know. Not yet at least. - And those who “do” can not say, in most cases at least.

I mean with the exception of the cases where one has been able to actualize his humanity relying on words, as sometime does happen in the recorded stories of the Buddhas and patriarchs, - in China mainly of course.


- So far.

Fwiw.                                                                                                                     (Written on a “Word” (28.1.16) and copied off to the blog later.
                                                                                                                                     Not written directly on the blog.)