What is thought? It’s inception, its ongoing process, and its orientation toward some goal, as far as it is intuited?

It’s inception is related in a large extent , to the very earliest pre-human experience of sub species. The reason that the negative view of the social contract, (Hobbes), can be viewed as superior to Rousseau’s is related to a precise extent to this pre-human origins of experience.

And how does thought develop in this scheme?

The protective feature in sub-species behavior, progressing into the very earliest human forms :Neanderthal, Homosapian forms of development becomes evident very early on as herding together is used as protection against intruders.

But even before intrusive actions become a way to preserve the livelihood of groups and tribes, the staking out of territory, the homesteading of groups become evident per individual members of the group.
Signs and early symbols of setting off territory can be observed in animals , such as dogs urinating at certain places such as the bases of trees.

Territoriality, as a mode of defensive behavior, is at the bottom of developing tools and signs which serve to recognize where boundaries - form later on from their literal beginnings to their figurative aspects, via increasingly complex, interwinding symbolism.

Consciousness, or awareness of signs is a form of behavior, through which, these signs develop, and without such, a communal recognition of them becomes impossible.

Thought, is the stage of consciousness, where learning takes off from a level of becoming conscious from an automatic system to a level of symbolic signification, where, semi automatic, and completely voluntary manifestations of thought can occur.

Thought can contain both kinds of determinants, vis , one where totally automatic and archaic systems can predicate earlier, more defensive ‘triggers’, and two, where, more ubdetermined and more figurative systems are able to override the earlier ones.

Cultural shifts and changes occur, at a point arrived, where richer symbolism, containing less formal designations overcome the more archaic, and so called ideal elements.

That the two systems have been unable to form a successful union , forming compatible elements , has a long history in the literature, and proving one over the other, or their workable synthesis has almost reached the level of disconnect with their origin in the sensible world. If connections are broken between pure thought and it’s subsisting terrain, then the dog begins to chase its own tail, and thought will be unable to find its own rationale.

But usually, this chase begins with a ‘higher ground’, with basic elevated assumptions which predicated Darwin’s discoveries of a continuum between species, and this is the reason for raising thought and consciousness on a higher regard. Descartes, as seemingly far removed from the critical moment when such a separation became manifest, is fairly recent in cosmic time.

The implications for thought, in reference to boundaries, is increasingly manifest toward further lessening between the gaps of terretirial demarcation, and more toward an intrinsic, overlapping inclusion of separated elements.

Is there a time where this progression, which, some call entropy will reach it’s critical point? Or, is it an unstoppable process, comparable to a physical manifestation of a black hole phenomenon, where, the ultimate collapse will lead to an infinite regress?

In case of black holes, it has been noted that there is no such event, because the so called Schwartzchild horizon is evidence for it. Had not ‘thought’ not developed this assymetry between the pre-existent cosmic events, and the original territoriality causes of thought, this link would never had been discovered.

Finally, are these cosmic evidences primordially causative toward by larger boundaries toward vastly smaller ones, on scales mentioned above, does this signify, or, imply as much, far more complex developmental nexus for the development of thought?

Thoughts are actualized from an emotion. No emotion, no thought…zombified. And from where do emotions come? Anybody? Anybody? Bueller? Bueller? Anybody? :laughing:

[Edit: Sorry for my tone if you were looking for a dry scientific answer. There isn’t one, only more speculation using fancy language and scientific theories never to be proven. Sorry for making light of science.]

Believe it or not, after some referencing this topic, the objective point of view, is, that it is neither: that is, that neither conceptual structures nor emotional content predicates the action we call thinking.

The retro process of delineating one from the other is impossible without various spatial-temporal variants being left out, which most certainly will. In fact such a distinction is akin to the long disputed albeit artificial question: what comes before, the chicken or the egg. With that disposition, the argument based strictly on the conceptual component of thought, holds up as well, since emotions need not, or can not be excluded.

Emotion is the baseline upon which thoughts are formed, so I disagree…vehemently! Emotions inspire thought, invigorate thought, etc. and without that baseline you would be your computer.

The brain and soul work together, but your mind, your consciousness rests in your soul which is ‘powered’ by emotions as far as I understand soul matters.

Ok, so according to the format in the introduction, if, there is a link between cosmic and particularly pre human elements, the cos if ones are of emotive, rather then intellectual. Therefore, if, God exists, he is governed in judgement primarily and essentially by emotions.

Now before say, hey wait a minute, did not Jesus’ love of children and his comments thereof, reflect this type of link?

I cannot say all emotions, but the divine emotions, yes. Over on another forum, I’ve started mapping the astral realms. There are many unknowns still.

But how can one tell the difference between the two kinds of emotions? What part of emotions is sacred-divine, and what part profane?

Are emotions of love and sex different like that, as well? That they don’t contradict, or even conflict, but somehow link up in a higher plateau, a higher realm. Perhaps at times love as sex , do push one soul to higher ground, as in the case of Tantric Yoga. But what is the difference between Tantra and Mantra, for instance, or even traditional contemplation/meditation? In that space, I suspect, without differences, is where enlightenment subsists.

According to Khrisnamurti, it is within the capacity for love, that thought subsists, and conversely. Thought is the reason for the evolution for the capacity for love, as love is the force for that capacity.

How could unthoughtful persons love?

How could non-loving persons think.


So far…map of astral hierarchy…

Divine (from 7-9 planes above Earth Proper): Peace(lowest area of Divine)=wholeness
Unknowns: 3+
Etheric (view of Earth Proper from soul’s perspective): 2
Earth Proper: 1
Not so divine(-3rd plane below Earth Proper): Hopelessness=emptiness
Not sure if there are more planes below

There must be. There must be innumerable ones leading to an absolute, don’t you think?

But if there may not be ones below that we may not come to understand, would it be surprising? Maybe not.

But if there may not be ones below that we may not come to understand, would it be surprising? Maybe not.

No, not innumerable. But the climb does seem higher than the fall, at this point. Can you imagine an emotion lower than hopelessness, lower than abject despair?

the emotion of being burnt in pain, electrocuted, drowned and suffocated to a crisp.

What you’re describing, Trixiebelle, is physical pain/suffering. Perhaps the emotional pain/suffering of fear would better equate with physical pain/suffering. Maybe?

The juxt of the forum has to do with this relationship between the automatic and the choice laden responses. The physical and the emotional forms of pain, correspond-where physical pain is almost always an automatic response to injury, whereas emotional pain has many variable responses to causes, derived from both physical & emotional sources-mixed with different levels of thought.(conscious&subliminal).

In that sense, emotional pain is more fearful, and in that sense, more painful.

Emotions are so important, they emphasize life from the beginning to its end, give it degrees of difference, mark memories, are of purpose in and of themselves.

Emotions are physical sense sensations.