@JPLosman0711,
JPLosman0711;
Since you are talking about
mind, I thought you might enjoy the following post I made in another thread.
North;
You said, “mind is the focus of life energy , eminating from the brain”.
Your presentation of the definition of mind was done extremely well. The choice of words and the overall tone of the presentation depicts you as an authority and that nobody would dare question your conclusion.
However, you don't know that the mind exists. If you did, you would have been written up in medical journals, philosophical journals, and psychological journals because in over 2500 years you would have been the only person to prove the existence of mind! (That racket in your head (seemingly) is not measurable, definable, proof.)
You don't know that the mind emanates from the brain and yet you have the audacity to present us with an authoritative definition of something you know nothing about. This is a great example of 'bluff and bluster', and that is all it is. It's kind of like a monkey puffing up his chest, flailing his arms about, and screaming loudly to defend his territory.
Mind is an ethereal concept with no basis in fact. It is assumed that since we think, that thinking has to come from somewhere and so mind is a representation of a container that stores 'thoughts'.
'Proof of existence' is determined by 2 criteria, measurability and definability. Mind has plenty of definability and absolutely no measurability. Both have to exist before 'proof of existence' can be established. Why is it that humanity demands that we use measurability and definability as the criteria for 'proof of existence' only to give a pass to the concept of mind when it comes to measurability? Curious, huh!
Try this on for size. Just look at it as a possibility. You can go back and hide in your 'mind' anytime you want to.
'Mind' is an ethereal concept which represents Be-ing as a thing, period, end of story.
Some time ago, in what we call the 'past', somebody was (probably) reflecting on Be-ing, and when they came face-to-face with the fact that they couldn't use measurability and definability to prove the existence of Be-ing they 'gathered up' a 'combination of characteristics' to prove the existence of their definition and then they proclaimed the existence of the concept 'mind'.
This 'thing' we have about the mind is kinda like when Galileo told the world that the earth circles the sun and when Columbus informed the world that the earth wasn't flat. (BTW – the earth being flat and the concept of the mind have something in common, they both stop you from venturing out - Be-ing).
The only way you can have a mind is because you exist before the 'having'. Be-ing is apriori to all of your concepts, including 'mind'. Baba Ram Dass said “Be, do, have”. “Be, do, have” is who you are, it's not a goal.
If you are thinking along with me, the next question you might have would be, “But, hey, you say you can't prove the existence of the 'mind', well, you haven't proven the existence of Be-ing either”. If you did ask that question I would smile (because you're thinking) and I would respond with “Good question”.
'Mind' can't be proven because it is an ethereal concept used to represent Be-ing. It has definability (hence all the presuppositions) but it doesn't have 'measurability' (length, width, depth, locality, mass), which is why nobody has proven it's existence.
Be-ing can't be proven by using the criteria of the world, measurability and definability. The 'mess' we're in is the result of trying to 'prove' Be-ing with measurability and definability. You are not a 'thing' of this world. You are Be-ing in and 'along side of' the world.
Be-ing is kinda like knowing how to tie your shoe. You can exquisitely explain how to tie your shoe, but that explanation does not provide any 'proof of knowing' how to tie your shoe. You could go one step further and 'show' somebody that you know how to tie your shoe by tying it, but, again, it wouldn't provide any 'proof of knowing'.
Yes, you could extrapolate that I know from my 'tying the shoe' or my 'explanation', but 'knowing' and extrapolating (explaining) are not the same.
Be-ing doesn't 'show up' in the realm of 'proof', it only 'shows up' in the realm of 'knowing'.
Gathering evidence and extrapolating (proof) comes from 'covering up' what you know.
You 'know' who you are. You don't need to gather evidence and extrapolate.
You could be so deeply entangled in the labyrinth of confusion and doubt and you could temporarily 'convince' your 'self' that you don't know, but 'knowing' always 'shows up' when you least expect it, doesn't it?
No matter how deeply you are entangled you still have an 'inkling' that you know, don't you? It's just that the measurability and definability of the world that doesn't give you any room to 'Be'.
“You're fooling yourself if you don't believe it
You're killing your self if you don't believe it.
Get up, get back on your feet
You're the one that can't beat and you know it
Come on, let's see what you've got
Take your best shot and don't blow it”
From “You're Fooling Yourself (The Angry Young Man)”, on the album “The Grand Illusion” by Styx in 1977.
