the overly literal mood … s-of-2011/

I just found this quote, and it is almost as if I said it myself.
I call it the overly literal mood, just for a name. I say overly literal, because information isn’t literal. It’s symbolic and linguistic. People forget that, and they come up with things like “truth” and “objectivity”, which are so bunked and ‘evident’ that they become absolute truths, in a non-absolute world and a non-absolute form of information. What we have is human truth, not pure truth. You can’t run any old software on a computer. It has to be a specific language and format. The same is true for the mind and information. Our format is what appears to be the true world.

I welcome any comments.

Humans are the animals that require narratives to survive.

Form vs content I agree its all about the forms. Plato said that shit back in the day and a lot of people agree.

But what about this Dan…don’t forms kind of have to be the kind of structured thing that doesn’t really fit the world? Is it possible that the parts of the world we can’t understand are the so because they don’t line up right with the form in which we see things?

What is there is only the body. So where is mind? If there is a mind, is it separate from or distinct from the activity of the brain? So it is very difficult to deal with the question of mind. We are only familiar with the definitions.

What is thinking? Why do we think? These questions arise from the assumption that the thoughts are self-generated and spontaneous, but actually the brain is only a reactor, not a creator. It is very difficult to accept this, because we have for centuries been made to believe, or brainwashed – it is very difficult to accept that there are no thoughts at all.

The brain is actually a computer, but we are not ready to accept it. For centuries we have been made to believe that there is an entity, that there is an I, that there is a self, that there is a psyche, that there is a mind, and so on. That’s created by the thinking of man. We have been fed on this kind of bunk for centuries, and the diet, were it to be changed, we would all die of starvation.


This is the only reality, the world as it is today. The ultimate reality that man has invented has absolutely no relationship whatsoever with the reality of this world. As long as you are seeking, searching, and wanting to understand that reality (which you call “ultimate reality,” or call it by whatever name you like), it will not be possible for you to come to terms with the reality of the world exactly the way it is. So, anything you do to escape from the reality of this world will make it difficult for you to live in harmony with the things around you.

I agree with this, if this is your point. There are no thoughts at all. There is a naturally unconscious appearance of chemicals and energies, which produces the appearance of a thought. Not a thought, but the appearance of a thought.

Thought is not a creator of thought; it is a responding to the stimuli. What is there is only the stimulus and response. Even the fact that there is a response to the stimulus is something which cannot be experienced by us except through the help of thought, which creates a division between the stimulus and response. Actually, the stimulus and response is a unitary moment. You can’t even say that there is a sensation; even the so-called sensations we think we’re experiencing all the time cannot be experienced by us except through the knowledge we have from the sensations.

We infer from all of this that there is a self, that there is a mind that is mediating between the stimulus and the response.

What is there is only the knowledge we have of the self, the knowledge that we have gathered, or had passed down to us, from generation to generation. Through the help of this knowledge we create what we call self, and then experience the self as separate from the functioning of this body. So is there such a thing as the self? Is there such a thing as I? For me the only I is the first person singular pronoun. I use “I” to make the conversation simpler, and call you “you,” and I “I,” but simply what we call I is only a first person singular pronoun.

Other than that, is there any such thing as I? Is there any such thing as the self? Is there any such entity, different from the functioning of this living organism? You see, somewhere along the line of evolution – I can’t even make a definitive statement and say there is such a thing as evolution, but we assume and presume that there is such a thing as evolution – somewhere along the line the human species experienced this self-consciousness which doesn’t exist in the other species we have on this planet.

Nice. I apologize for seeming lazy, but which book from the link was this from? I couldn’t tell at a glance.

The book seems to be called “Monoculture”. It’s number 2 on the 11 list.

Man creates the apparent reality , not reality itself. He cannot create what "is.’ He can only accept it and operate within it and with it.


Whenever a thought takes its birth there, you have created an entity or a point, and in reference to that point you are experiencing things. So, when the thought is not there, is it possible for you to experience anything or relate anything to a non-existing thing here? Every time a thought is born, you are born. Thought in its very nature is short-lived, and once it is gone, that’s the end of it.

The world you experience around you is also from that point of view. There must be a point and it is this point that creates the space. If this point is not there, there is no space. So, anything you experience from this point is an illusion. Not that the world is an illusion. All the philosophers in India indulge in such frivolous, absolute nonsense. The world is not an illusion, but anything you experience in relationship to this point, which itself is illusory, is bound to be an illusion. You cannot measure anything unless you have a point. So, if the center is absent, there is no circumference at all.