Boxes

Boxes

When I read up about various mental conditions I can usually see how some part of me is a bit like this or that box [labels, notions about conditions etc], but if I focus upon any such thing when it pops up in my mind, the box fills my whole mind in some sense. Its a bit like a game of placing different boxes over your head with different faces/expressions on them, and the mind gets in character accordingly.
However when I don’t >focus< my attention upon a box, effectively mentally pulling out in perspective [from where I was when in the box], then it is no longer upon my head and i am not in that expression.
Unfortunately, in our partially causal universe, my brain or life keeps putting boxes over my head.

Oh for a world without boxes eh! …although that would be an expressionless one, and isn’t it better to have boxes - where the more important thing is not stating that people are this or that box, but rather that there are boxes out there but that we are not them.

In other words, boxes are Your word for self image. The concept of Your self seems to be baggage pulled by that image, and the whole gravy train pulled by an advertantly or, inadvertantly chosen role.

Indeed, and that every label or idea we attribute is a box [we become when wearing it]. I am/not e.g. Dispraxic or borderline aspergers, i have some of the aspects therein, but if i think of myself as any of those aspects, they become boxes just like the condition itself. So weather its a label as a condition e.g. aspergers, or one of that conditions aspects [a further labelling][e.g. unsociable], i am always external to that ‘box’. were a bit like an actor and the boxes are part, but are not who the actor is.

Amorphos

In other words, you see what you are taught to believe?

Detachment?

Not necessarily your brain or life, Amorphos, but the influence of others.

Yes, we do need our boxes, no matter what shape or form or utility they serve. Even a suitcase can be considered a box, right? Can you imagine getting on a plane with a bunch of paper bags holding everything? lol I just had that silly thought.

But the moral of this is that despite the reality of boxes, we can at least learn to think out of the box, right? At least sometimes we can. :evilfun:

This is a cute thread, Amorphos, but no less interesting.

Hi, sry for late reply i’ve been away house sitting a couple of cats. …they are psychic imho :slight_smile: .

Yes, but more that underpinning it is a set of labels, one thinks i am this or that rather than, sometimes a condition a bit like described [in one word!?] is affecting me. Its a big difference as we are not then type-casting the ‘mentally ill’, but instead there is just people, affected by varying aspects in the world, some of which are negative. This difference in philosophy provides the thinker with a means to free themselves from any seemingly all-consuming affect. If the minds >focus< can be separated in the sense of seeing things as boxes or some such metaphoric entity, then it is externalised, ergo freed from its mental prison.
= detachment.
.

Quite right! :slight_smile:

Lols, yes paper bags wouldn’t do for our categorisation and compartmental minds eh! Although in some sense we are crumbling the integrity of the boxes in our refutation, so ‘paper bags’ is an adequate metaphor pertaining to the condition replacing that of the original all-consuming box.

_

Sounds like Molière’s The Imaginary Invalid .

or, in musical terms. 'The Love for three oranges, by Prokofieff.

However…appearance vs reality plays a very crucial part…
and that goes directly to the question of how objective can one get? psychiatey is afraid of subjectivity, ergo, lets take itmfrom this side, the side of what exactly is the norm? Everybody islooking toward consensus.

Not objective et al ~ is the meaning here. Terms become tools rather than ad-hom labels, so its a different utility of them, ultimately knowing that no label is a true description of a person.

No matter how many boxes [objects or objective views/perspectives/compartments] there are, we the physically subjective instrument/collection, can always pull our perception view out [zoom out] and in so doing view all or any boxes as projected entities.

Just try to keep in mind that the “boxes” are always merely generalities. And generalities are ALWAYS at least slightly incorrect and at times entirely incorrect.

boxes are both, generalities and specifics. the optical process of defining what he means by them are very specific. you can zoom, in and out. I have been very much net rested in the optical interpretation of relationships, and as they seem to shift, from the actual interest all gross understanding of it. Me no You, ultimately, they both coincide on some level, and this level is the coincidence of both. As we have argued over the logic of both A=A and A=-A, this logic bears on this topic, of perception per singular and multiple sources. that they are related is again a function of degree, a post modeling epoche where, the various gradations or levels understanding can not conceive a situation beyond individual perception.
how far perception can be surpassed into the social,
Is a question of how far, the boundaries can be extended. Boxes, at the very minima, are as if Younmaybhave read the post modernist playwright Samuel Becket has expressed it well in his play ‘How It Is’. It is a movement, perceived as going into other cubicles , being pushed by those underneath who want to also move on. the only interpretation at this level of other minds , can only be gaged, through specific optical means. As the ascent into higher ground is attempted, less reliance on actual perception takes place, as more and more successive identifications are incorporated, better said internalized,whereby internalized content is a sort of ground, an assumption which no longer needs to be tested, but assumed for what it is.

the optics of it is almost the pre conscious test for validity.

Amorphos

I have one which you can babysit. I can send him to you all prepaid.
I wonder why people think that cats are psychic? Maybe it’s in the eyes, Maybe because of the built-in fight or flight response which has been honed for their survival - they appear to know all, see all. :mrgreen:

.
In other words, looked at as I am the disease or the condition ~~ instead of seeing a whole person, we only see that aspect of the person.

And boxes are firmer too…as you said…paper bag crumbling. It would probably be a good idea to allow ourselves to crumble a bit…shaken up and get rid of "the stuff’ that’s in that paper bag or to completey flatten the box and get another one, stronger firmer and better suited - for the mind/body/spirit journey.
We need metaphors and images though that are more free-flowing and which more speak to who we are. I think they would be different for all of us.
I hope that my words didn’t derail your thread here. :mrgreen:
Thanks again, Amorphos.

Arcturus Descending

Oh, you could send me your pus… I dare not even jest :laughing: . Seriously though, i would love a cat but i live in a flat/apartment, the love they give is so genuine and given freely.

Because they specifically responded to my inner thoughts with subtle sounds/changes, because we live in a world which at some level is known and all life shares that. The same way as at some level people know each others thoughts ~ not linguistically, and i think my relationship was more on an inner level than outer as expressed. There is an inner dialogue based on perhaps that conscious life works the same way, animals have an inner logic [walruses have outperformed some humans in logic tests] the same as we do.

Do you really think that your mind doesn’t interact with your loved ones at an inner level? Is the whole universe not a whole at base and our thoughts are spinning coins [qm] trying to decide if to be heads or tails, as are all things. Don’t get me wrong, i am not believing in psychics here, but that there is a universal layer of non-linguistic information, not to mention the language and interaction of emotions.

Indeed. …because we are looking at wholes when there are none. The universe has two basic things, observation and ‘objects’, you can place as many objects or as big or small as one wishes around the observer, but it will always be the observer.

Absolutely!

Of course not! its nice to have conversations whilst debating anyhow ~ meat in the sandwich that would be bland without it. :slight_smile:

_

Amorphos

I don’t see that as psychic though, amorphos.Perhaps your inner thoughts bring on some kind of outer behavior which your cats will pick up on. Yoda does it but I don’t think it’s psychic - maybe just knowing the owner a bit. Who knows? Maybe our inner thoughts lend a change in our hormone levels and cats pick up that change in scent. That may sound weird but I don’t think cats are psychic. I think because they’ve been known TO BE for so long, we think this way without examining it.

What level do you mean?

.
Is knowing someone’s thoughts the same as knowing how people we are close to might think under certain circumstances?
People, friends, couples, often have the same kinds of discussions, even using the same words and phrases and the brain is capable of remembering these things even if/when we are not aware of it. So maybe something just “kicks in” with the brain and we think we know. Well, perhaps in a sense we can say we do but it isn’t as “psychic” as we might think it is ~~ maybe memory just becomes activitated and unconsciously we know but not on the psychic level.

As far as my logic, it’s possible that any walrus might out-perform mine. :mrgreen: Maybe I’m kidding there - maybe not.
Would you call an animal’s inner logic instinct?
Can you explain what you mean about the ~~ "there is an inner…

I don’t recall if I in fact I said that or if it’s just a question you’re posing. But do you mean like mental telepathy or something to that effect? At this point I don’t “see” mental telepathy if that’s what you meant. I think that the jury is still out about that but we tend to want to believe things for reasons.
Of course, our minds interact with our loved ones… if you’re speaking of emotional interactions and pleasant memories, et cetera - that kind of interaction. Unless you’re speaking at the quantum level - if I used the expression in the right way.
I do kind of intuit a universal mind but i can’t explain it. I’m not a scientist nor that much of a philosoper. But I do see an interconnectedness - maybe some kind of vibrations, resonance, electromagnetism - which cause us to be this way - but maybe not. I don’t know but I tend to see “something”.

Yes, I can agree with this. I have this habit usually of first scanning a post and then reading the post in greater detail as i go along since I don’t always have a lot of time. So, judging from what i wrote above, yes. i tend to agree with you.
Heads or tails - let’s not forget the ridges. Why the head or tails metaphor?

Well, if you are saying that there is more than meets the eye when looking, I agree with you - if that’s what you’re saying.
I think we have to see things as whole but also as their parts.

What are you referring to here? Can you explain this a bit more, amorphos. What I get from that is that you’re saying it comes down to one’s subjective perspective but i may be wrong.
Or are you simply saying that the observer is more important than what is being observed?
#-o What are you saying?

:mrgreen:

Arcturus Descending

Ew hate your new avatar :mrgreen: .

Sure but i have a rough idea about all that and calculate for it + the cats didn’t know me before. You see there will be measurable results relative to our understanding of the physical macroscopic world, but reality is more than that as are we ~ and cats. At base is all those spinning quantum coins, or more precisely an information layer, and everything in existence is communicating at that ‘inner’ level. Such informations rise up from the furthest reaches of the mind, from a place where all things connect.

That’s more to do with their outer expressions, behaviours and psychology, but it can tell us about people we have just met ~ gut feelings and the like. It all depends on how well we can ‘listen’, and that depends upon how close to the base layer our perceptions can reach. An animals inner logic as like a child’s is purely subconscious. This is not mental telepathy as that assumes a connection between minds at the upper level, where here it is a connection between ‘coins’ at the base level, and by that a psychic wont know macroscopic elements of mind.

Right, so you are ‘scanning’ for impressions, but your upper mental function i.e. Of the brain, cannot really know anything by doing that. You are instead intuiting or attempting to use the base mental perception to get an overall impression of a post.

I was stating that you can have as many mental objects or psychological phenomena etc, but they are in the class of ‘objects’ and the subjective perception is in the class ‘observer’ ~ where the observer or an observation is always external to the object. Hence it is not possible for us to be any definition or object/boxes.

_

Old song, “Little Boxes”, see Pete Seeger’s version. “Little boxes. . . and they’re all made out of ticky-tacky…”