Mindstructures » Concepts

The Form and Content of Thought

Annemieke — Sat, 26 Jun 2010 22:04:07 +0000

After I finished my previous post, one line kept buzzing in my head.

‘Mathematics is about thought, not the content of thought, but the form in which we can hold the content of thought.’

And at the same time I was searching for a picture to visualise how that could be. Sort of structures that come into existence from an underlying ‘something’.

See if I can get the essence out of that sentence:

Mathematics = Form

Thoughts = Content

It got me thinking about what exactly the content is. And it also made me wonder if, instead of mathmatics, I also could use ‘language’, or ‘words’.

So something like:

Language is about thought, not the content of thought, but the form in which we can hold the content of thought (which might be the whole psyche, not just thoughts).

And in short:

Language = Form

Psyche = Content

Not the same as the orgininal line, but somehow this seems true as well. Or again getting back to the Core model on this blog:

Language (or conceps, consciousness, symbols, etc) = Structure

Psyche (or thoughts, feelings, subconscious, sensations, etc) = Potential

The psyche as an ongoing process of unfolding. And language that brings the psyche into existence.

Together with the other couple of energy and matter.

Thought is about Becoming, not Being

Annemieke — Sat, 26 Jun 2010 12:10:45 +0000

A few weeks ago I got a book from the library that really fascinated me.

And especially one chapter was so interesting that I wanted to write several blogposts about it.

But while doing that, I found out that this book was an older version. And there was a more recent version that had an extra chapter in it, that was not present in the version I was reading.

The title from that chapter sounded really interesting to me. It was called ‘The Order Between and Beyond’, and that really sounded like a subject related to this blog.

Related to the relationship between mind and matter, but especially about the opposition between potential and structure.

And suddenly the version from the library was not good enough anymore, and I just had to have the newer version. So I ordered it and while waiting for it to be delivered, I read some pages already online.

And there I found the name of a man that also (like David Peat, the co-writer of the book) had been working with David Bohm. His name was Basil Hiley and, of course, I immediately searched for some information about him.

I found a series of 13 videos where he was interviewed on his vision of quantum theory. My attention was most caught with video 11, which is the video I uploaded below.

Click here to view the embedded video.

Here (at about 1:50) Hiley is talking about a man called Grassmann:

He was saying that mathematics is not about material process of unfolding of space in time. He said mathematics is about thought.

Mathematics is about thought, not the content of thought, but the form in which we can hold the content of thought.

Now for a physicist that was mindblowing. Because I always believed that what we were doing was mathematics of the movement. Of material processes.

From those original ideas of Grassmann, mathematics is about thought. What is thought? Thought is about becoming, not being.

And therefore, really, we should be talking about becoming and not being. What we always do with Newtonian physics is talk about being. So being is secondary.

At this point I can’t exactly say what it should mean, but somehow I felt this difference between ‘being’ and ‘becoming’ is essential.

And somehow has to do with the difference between, what Jean Carteret calls, ‘limitation’ and ‘infinity’, and what I translated with ‘structure’ and ‘potential’.

So Grassmann said that mathematics is ‘the form in which we can hold the content of thought’. I have to think a little further if that is about the same as the difference between the map and the territory…

Individuation Process 3

Annemieke — Wed, 23 Dec 2009 08:58:59 +0000

The zodiac can be devided into three areas. If it is used to describe the human development from birth to death, the signs can be used to mark the age of an individual human being.

Of course it is a very abstract way and it can differ from person to person. But in general there are three phases (primordial, individual, universal) and two major transitions.

Each phase has four signs to it, and the first and fourth sign of each area are the transitions from one phase into another. And are, what I call here, spirit and soul.

The transitions are from pre-individual (primordial) into individual. And then from individual into trans-individual (universal).

Now this individual part takes an important time in a human life. The transition starts at about the age of 14, puberty. And the next transition is about the age of 42, midlife.

The first is to become an independent individual and the second is the find out the connection with the world again.

Transition from Primordial to Individual

The signs that play a role here are cancer and leo. Cancer (primordial soul) can be seen as the symbol of belonging to a family or tribe.

The sign leo (individual spirit) is the symbol of discovering the own individual essence and become independent.

Primordial Soul
Emotional bonding. Experiences during infancy. Family. Ancestors. Home. Caring. Needs. Belonging.

Individual Spirit
Ego development. Selfexpression. Selfcentred. Arrogant. Artistic. Creative. Integrity. Honorable. Selfassured. Confident. Centre of attention.

Transition from Individual to Universal

The signs that play a role here are scorpio and sagittarius. Scorpio (individual soul) can be seen as what looks like the battle between good and evil, but is in essence the integration of the shadow.

The sign sagittarius (universal spirit) is the symbol of the discovering of the whole again, but now as a conscious individual.

Individual Soul
Transformation. Intense. Passionate. Brooding. Magnetic. Manipulation. Power. Psyche. Passion. Selfmastery.

Universal Spirit
Expansion. Inspiration. Philosophy. Religion. Awareness. Enthusiastic. Generous. Abstract and theoretical ideas. Idealism. Travel.

Individuation process

So the actual individuation process takes place between the age of 14 and 42 very generally spoken, although it can just as easy last longer.

Or maybe someone never really got seperated from his primordial background which makes the whole process even more difficult.

Individuation Process 2

Annemieke — Thu, 17 Dec 2009 11:37:58 +0000

My previous post was unfinished because I pushed the publish button to soon. And therefore I was not even finished laying down the basic concepts as I wanted to use them in the post.

Those basic concepts are essential because there is no other way for me to get the words and concepts clear to use the zodiac as a language in translating certain theories.

In this case I was trying to translate the individuation process as it was introduced by Carl Jung.

There are several concepts (ego, self, persona, shadow, anima, animus, collective unconscious, consciousness) that Jung uses to describe this process of individuation. And I think that they all have a reflection in the cycle of the zodiac.

But in these blogposts I want to focus on the individual signs of the zodiac (leo, virgo, libra, scorpio) and as I said in my previous post, I have to use certain words slightly different from their normal use.

So leo (5) and virgo (6) are what I call here ‘personal individual’. And libra (7) and scorpio (8) are ‘collective individual’. But all four they are part of the personal and collective ‘inside’.

There are two more signs that are part of the ‘inside’. Those two sign play an enormous role in the transition from one essential phase into another.

One is the transition to become an independent individual and the other is the transition to use that individuality to serve the whole. The first transition, to become an independent individual, is the transition from cancer to leo.

This is the essence of puberty.

The next transition is from an independent and autonomous individual to an individual that is capable to see the bigger whole. That is the transition from scorpio to sagittarius.

This is the essence of midlife.

So both the sign cancer as the sign sagittarius play a crucial role here. And both can be a reflection of certain concepts that are used by Jung.

But as I said, in this blogpost I want to focus mainly on the individual signs and see which concepts of Jung are reflected by those signs.

Jung’s concepts are the following:

Ego

The ego is a complex of ideas which constitutes the centre of the own field of consciousness and appears to possess a high degree of continuity and identity.

Persona

The persona is the mask or appearance one presents to the world. It is not a pose or some other intentional misrepresentation of the self to others. Rather, it is the self as self-construed, and may change according to situation and context.

Conscious mind

In order to be conscious of your self, you must be able to distinguish your self from others. Relationship can only take place where this distinction exists.

Shadow

The shadow is a part of the unconscious mind consisting of repressed weaknesses, shortcomings, and instincts.

It is instinctive and irrational, and prone to project: turning a personal inferiority into a perceived moral deficiency in someone else.

The projection-making factor then has a free hand and can realize its object or bring about some other situation characteristic of its power.

These projections insulate and cripple individuals by forming an ever thicker fog of illusion between the ego and the real world.

As a reservoir for human darkness, or perhaps because of this, the shadow is the seat of creativity.

To be continued…

Individuation Process 1

Annemieke — Tue, 15 Dec 2009 13:39:49 +0000

Another really interesting concept of Jung is actually kind of opposite to the concept of collective unconscious from the previous post.

It is his concept of individuation.

Individuation is the process of transforming the psyche by bringing the personal and collective unconscious into consciousness.

As already became clear in my previous post, I see it that halve of the twelve signs are related to this conscious (airsigns) and unconscious (watersigns) concepts.

All the concepts that are used by Jung have a correlation with different parts of the zodiac, but in this blogpost and the next I want to focuss mainly on the centre of the individuation process.

That centre is part of the inside. The personal inside as well as the collective inside. Or as I call it in the context of this blog, individual.

The zodiac can be devided into a personal and collective part. And besides that each has an outside and an inside.

So there is a personal outside (aries, taurus, gemini) and a personal inside (cancer, leo, virgo).

The same with collective, there is a collective inside (libra, scorpio, sagittarius) and a collective outside (capricorn, aquarius, pisces).

To be continued…

Individual Language

Annemieke — Tue, 08 Dec 2009 11:31:59 +0000

As I am blogging for some time now, it is getting more and more clear what is the core of what I want to write about.

This weekend I stayed a bit away from the computer and thought what I really, down to the essense, wanted to be the purpose of this blog.

And I came to the conclusion that is very well reflected actually in the byline. It says ‘about mind versus matter, individual development and the language of the zodiac’.

In this post I want to analyse those words to see if I can better describe what I mean by that short statement. Because there is actually a whole world of meaning behind that short sentence. A meaning that was so abstract at first to myself that I could not find the right words to describe it.

But lately the concepts are getting more and more shaped and after many drafts that did not reflect yet enough what I wanted to say, this post is maybe getting a bit more on track. Because the words I use in the byline are word for word very essential in what I want to write about.

Mind versus Matter

There is so much to say about those two. And much has been said already about that by others. Actually there are some really interested things said about that.

Of those that talked about mind and matter in a way that I could understand and that resonated with me, there a three people that I want to quote many times. They are David Bohm, Jean Carteret and Leonard Bernstein.

I collected some quotes from David Bohm on the page David Bohm: Mind and Matter that I want to explore further in another blogpost and I already did in the post Information Exchange.

Jean Carteret is a French philosopher that did not leave any writings. But many of his thoughts are collected by the Dutch writer George Bode. Among those writings I found a piece, which can be found on the page Jean Carteret: Language and Psyche, that has become very important to me and is the core of all my thinking. And I think it is very connected to what others have said about Mind, Matter and Consciousness.

And the third page is Leonard Bernstein: Metaphorical Language. I think he has some very interesting things to say about music.

(Update: There is another person that was even more important for my thinking, Carl Jung, which I talk about in my next posts)

Individual Development

Individual development is something I have been meaning to write about for a long time. I have made many attempts by now, but most of them stayed just drafted. I have a clear picture in my head of how I see that development. Which I even would be able to draw. But putting it into a decent blogpost is something that I could not get done yet.

There is one post that I wrote that touched upon that. It is a blogpost I already did a while back and it is my vision on the story from a book by Paul Gallico, that is also used for an album of the symphonic rockband Camel. It is The story of the Snow Goose.

There are some really very interesting theories around that very same subject of development. And I have been thinking if I had to use the phrase ‘human development’, ‘personal development’ or ‘individual development’.

There are several reasons that I chose for ‘individual’ development in the context of this blog, but the main reason is that I had to differentiate between ‘personal’ and ‘individual’ in the analysis of different theories. One of those theories is astrology and I will go into that below in the Language of the Zodiac.

The other theory is that of Ken Wilber: Integral Theory. He uses the word ‘individual’ that is different from the astrological use as I see it. There is a graphic on the page Basics that shows the difference between those two.

Another theory that is important for development, is Maslow: Hierarchy of Needs. It is a very essential way of looking at what I would call in this context ‘personal’ development.

And finally there is also the theory of Spiral Dynamics. That is more what I would call ‘human’ development. Human development in history, but also as seen these days in different parts of the world.

Language of the Zodiac

The language of the Zodiac is the language I want to use for all the concepts on this blog. At its core there are two things I fall back at with every discription. The first are the four basic element that are called fire, earth, air and water in astrology. I will not use those words here because they are to limited in how I want to use those four concepts here.

I want to alter those names several times (starting with mind – matter – energy – psyche) but those four concepts always stay the same. They are the very essense of the zodiac, as each of the twelve signs is in its core one of those four.

But besides that, I want to divide the zodiac in three parts (primorial – individual – universal) that I use as a tool to visualise development. Development in needs (Maslow), development in history (Spiral Dynamics), development in consciousness (Integral Altitude) but most of all the development of an individual human being.

Information Exchange

Annemieke — Sat, 28 Nov 2009 14:09:35 +0000

A few days ago, someone on Twitter wrote about a Youtube video of an interview with David Bohm, after he had send some quotes from Bohm that caught my attention.

I followed the link to the Youtube video and was immediately fascinated by this man. I am not exactly sure why, but it seemed that what he had to say was something that he had thought about a lot although it was not easy to put into words.

He gave me the feeling that he knew a lot, but was not sure yet what the interviewer wanted to hear from him. He also gave the impression of having rather radical ideas without the intention of being to radical.

So I was really fascinated by what he had to say and listened to all 5 videos. After that I wanted to know more about him and searched a bit on the web. I wanted to write a blogpost on some things he had to say but did not know exactly how to do that.

Should I try to find out who he was, what he did, what he discovered, what his ideas where, which books he wrote, where he came from and all other things that might be important? But then I thought, although all that was important as a sort of context, I mainly wanted to just write down some things he said that really resonated with me.

So then I uploaded the 5 videos and listened to them again, now making some notes. Not from everything he said but just a few lines from each video that where the most interesting to me. And at the end I will write in a few words my interpretation of what he said.

David Bohm interview part 1

Click here to view the embedded video.

focus on wholeness and process

analysis and parts and more static consistence

each process is a whole or else it cannot be what it is

aspects that act on how the system is treated

context dependent

non locality

David Bohm interview part 2

Click here to view the embedded video.

incoherence can easily be not noticed

it is hard to question a worldview

every worldview is limited

we need to go to a broader view

a dialogue of these worldviews

confusion about the part and the whole

listening to another worldview without opposition

observer is intrinsic part of the whole

a kind of communication that does not begin by denying wholeness

together going to discover how we are going to think together

it is possible in ordinary language and it depends on attitude

it is always possible to use language in new ways

basic obstacle is the attitude of the people involved

attitude problem for wholeness

David Bohm interview part 3

Click here to view the embedded video.

sign of the wholeness that everything is an analogy to everything

subtle difference with the vision of Bohr

Bohr: not possible to make a concept of the whole

you could not make it intelligible

the mathematics could only give experiments

not possible to discuss what was happening

Bohm: the quantum field is different from the electromagnetic field

it only depends on the form and not on the intensity

the field drops of but the effect does not

it depends on information

information = to put form in

you only need a sensitive receiver

the energy comes from the receiver, not from the radiowave

the wave is not pushing the ship around

the radio wave is giving shape and form to its motion

back to Aristotle: a formative cause

form is fundamental

explains non local and superconductivity

is closer to life and mind

responds to form and not to substance

information contributes fundamentally to the qualities of substance

Bohr would say there is no way to discuss that at all

it is nothing but phenomenon which is a whole

that we could only discuss the mathematics

giving the probability that certain results will be obtained

now this gives an intelligible explanation

it requires you to accept new principles

David Bohm interview part 4

Click here to view the embedded video.

show the connection between this and the experience in other fields

experimental predictions is only one of the functions of the theory

it enables you to understand what is going on

this interpretation will make it more accessible to more people

and perhaps show the connection with different fields

not classical, if you say it carries this form of information, it changes it

new concept: activity of information

it contributes fundamentally to the concept of substance

it looks more like the classical then that of Bohr, but is also much different

the wave function is part of the reality

analogy to society, they are interrelated by information exchange

that is crucial, without that the society would collapse

essential to have coherence and harmony

exposed by exchange and dialogue

potential we need to go in that direction

but the general trend has not gone any far

because of nations and religions behave as if they are independent

they have to give all that up but will find that hard

we have so many individuals with different views

talk and entertain each other and look at it calmly

that each one can look at all the views

and when he holds all the views, then he holds the whole

although he doesn’t have to agree with them

the common view that guides society

each individual needs the freedom to get to know all the information

information gets also in by osmosis and build in as a sort of instinct

David Bohm interview part 5

Click here to view the embedded video.

we are already a whole but we are incoherent

people who hate each other are very related

but an incoherent one

it is a destructive one and has to become something else

people are now committed to the economic growth

the focus on material good has to change

consciousness is more important than money

if we feel we are all part of this world

or that we think we are all separate

Bohr saw that in the 50s

people where not ready then

said there were so many enemies

had to take care of themselves first

a change of consciousness is needed

and a worldview is part of that

like a stream from many springs

one of the most important factors is dialogue

dialogue among scientist, with others also religious

scientists find it harder than other people

science has shown scientists what they don’t want to see

they feel uncomfortable about change

they say there is no reason to change

we are doing so well now, why should we change

in one view it looks like we are doing very well

but if we look at the broader view it looks very dangerous

My main impression

Writing down some things he said, already made it more clear. He said things that are shared by other peoples views, like focus on wholeness and process instead of analysis and parts.

But I was especially interested in the part of his vision where he said something like ‘the quantum field is different from the electromagnetic field, it only depends on the form and not on the intensity’ and ‘information contributes fundamentally to the qualities of substance’.

So my main impression of what Bohm is talking about in this interview, is that there are two forces. One reacts to intensity and one reacts to form. Or maybe one is intensity and the other is form. Or intensity reacts to form.

Another thing I found very interesting was his focus on dialogue and the use of language and how attitude of those who participate in dialogue is so important. How essential it is to realise that there are different woldviews that all might be true in itself, but are also just a part of the whole. About how important it is to integrate all views ‘that each one can look at all the views and when he holds all the views, then he holds the whole’.

Somehow I have the feeling that what he says is essential and very much relates to the difference between mind, body, spirit and soul. And also very much relates to the development of individuality and the dialogue between individuals, with the empasis on a pure individual worldview formed from personal experience.

So in another blogpost I want to explore that further, how it relates to processes in human development, integral theory and the language of the zodiac.

Defining Spirit and Soul

Annemieke — Thu, 24 Sep 2009 22:29:13 +0000

Soul is one of those words with many different meanings. Everyone has his own interpretation of that word. Another one of those words is spirit, which is often used where someone else might use soul.

And others might not use those words at all, because there is no actual ‘thing’ that can be measured.

The way I want to use those words in the context of this blog, is in the language of the zodiac. And I will use the zodiac mainly to describe the human development.

Individual
First the zodiac has 3 very different areas. They have the centre of the individual and besides that there is the pre and trans phase. So the phase before becoming an individual and the phase that takes into account more than the individual self. The phase before becoming an individual is called ‘primordial. And the trans phase is called ‘universal’.

Potential
When describing ‘soul’ and ‘spirit’ they first have to be seperated. The soul and spirit both have partly the same charcteristics and both have different characteristics. What they share is the fact they are both invisible, both can not be measured. They are only potential, have no structure (yet).

Opposite
But they are also very different. They are like yin and yang. One is active where the other is passive. One is positive and the other is negative.

Complement
So although they are opposite to each other, they also have another oppostite. For the ‘potential yin’ part there is also a ‘structured yin’ part. It is the sign that is opposite in the zodiac, the sign that complements.

Transformation
But besides the opposite of negative/positive, yin/yang, passive/active on one side, and the complement of each sign in the sign that is opposite in the zodiac, there is another way of opposition.

It is like the transformation from energy into matter or the other way around. I use here body, spirit, mind and soul, but it is based upon matter, energy, language and psyche.

There is more about that in on the page Language and Psyche.

Basic Concepts

Annemieke — Wed, 23 Sep 2009 09:23:19 +0000

With my latest model of combining Integral theory and the Zodiac, the model is turned.

Now it is the same as in Integral theory (LL is indeed lower left) and now the Zodiac is upside down.

I use the words ‘inside’ and ‘outside’ instead of ‘subjective’ and ‘objective’. And instead of ‘impersonal’ I now use the Integral term ‘collective’.

For the Integral term ‘individual’ I had to use ‘personal’ to differentiate it from the ‘individual’ that is used together with ‘primodial’ and ‘universal’ in the Zodiac.

Zodiac concepts: Primordial – Individual – Universal / Spirit – Body – Mind – Soul

Integral concepts: Collective – Personal – Inside – Outside / I – We – It – Its

Personal Outside: IT

1. Primordial Spirit: ACTION (aries)

2. Primordial Body: MANIFESTATION (taurus)

3. Primordial Mind: INTERACTION (gemini)

Personal Inside: I

4. Primordial Soul: EMOTION (cancer)

5. Individual Spirit: EXPRESSION (leo)

6. Individual Body: FUNCION (virgo)

Collective Inside: WE

7. Individual Mind: REFLECTION (libra)

8. Individual Soul: INTEGRATION (scorpio)

9. Universal Spirit: VISION (sagittarius)

Collective Outside: ITS

10. Universal Body: CONSTRUCTION (capricorn)

11. Universal Mind: INVENTION (aquarius)

12. Universal Soul: COMPASSION (pisces)

Ignorance and Projection

Annemieke — Thu, 03 Sep 2009 13:59:01 +0000

Instead of going through the whole human development in a chronological way, I much more like to describe whatever comes into my mind. And at the moment it is REFLECTION.

The word reflection that is used here for the astological sign libra, is the essence of that sign midway between ignorance and projection.

It is above the horizon, the first concept that is beyond the personal. Here the individual is getting relationships that are based upon individuality. In its pure form there is no claiming (cancer), no need for attention (leo), or being overly critical (virgo).

But although reflection is the pure form, it does also have the polarity of projecting and ignorance. Projecting on others of characteristics the individual does not identify itself with. Or ignorance if the individual wants to have a constant peaceful relationship with others.

Where projecting is the active form, is ignorance the passive form with reflection as the healthy middleground.

Individual entering into relationship with others, partnership. One-to-one relationships. Meeting others as an equal, interdependency. Encountering repressed part of yourself through others. Going beyond ego boundaries. Peace, harmony, balance, social awareness. Learning how to get along with others, treating others as equals. Art, beauty, harmonious surroundings, distressed by inharmonious interactions. Dialogue, debate, justice.

It is the individual mind that differs from the primordial mind (gemini) that is curious, clever and rational.

And it is also different from the universal mind (aquarius) which is progressive, far-sighted and inventive.

Libra is about reflecting the individual self.

Other mental images from libra are art, balance and beauty. So one way to reflect is with art, which is a way to communicate the individual expression.

Reflection = libra

Polarity: projecting – ignorance

Integral: subjective impersonal

Zodiac: individual mind

(The model is turned now and I use some words different, described in the post Basic Concepts.