SpaceweaverWed, Mar 19, 2008 Sjef thanks for your clarifying comments. It seems to me we basically agree, and I would like to add a few clarifications of my own.
I do not think that personal growth of the kind you describe as "The exploration of self for the betterment of self" is of any interest or relevance if it is not put in a wider perspective that goes beyond the individual and at least strives to transcend the locality of one’s existence. This already sets a standard of relevance and significance one can work with.
We change, we transform and transcend by the power of ideas, and the source of ideas is nothing but inner space exploration. I dare claim that in some deep sense, our so called external existence is but a complex metaphor to our inner exploration. Our reality is transformed by ideas and the activities that are derived from these ideas. If you happen to live in a town and look around, you find you are immersed in physically materialized ideas. Even our communication here is a flow of ideas within ideas (computers) within ideas (the web), and so on.
This being said, I certainly agree that not every musing that crosses one’s mind deserves the status of a significant idea mostly because they are not put in the light of a relevant context that extends their meaning beyond the locality of the individual experience. Indeed most of what you called “staring at fluorescent objects” belong to this category of local experiences within a local perspective, things we can hardly share or be fertilized by. The proliferation of such mind products may perhaps hint to their general mediocrity. Insightful potent ideas are difficult to come by and therefore are rare. It seems to me that the significance and potency of ideas follow an inverse power law of some kind, that is, quality is generally in inverse proportion to quantity.
In this sense, what matters in thought and inner space exploration is the quality of the process and the quality of the products. How do we achieve a persistent increase in quality? I think the key is selection. Selection is the force that drives biological evolution; I suspect that in the evolution of ideas it is as critical, perhaps much more. Ideas and other mind products should stand to a selective standard, and it seems we should be able to establish such standards individually and collectively. This, I believe, makes life more interesting and fertile.
As a concluding note, you should not read my position as defeatist but to the contrary. I think that human mind is in its infancy. Our minds are noisy and are wired to respond best to survival situations of all kinds. There is very little coherent reflective thought going on. It takes courage to accept this reality and strive to persistently increase the quality of our thought processes and their products. This is how one can actively participate in the evolution of mind.
Sjef thanks for your clarifying comments. It seems to me we basically agree, and I would like to add a few clarifications of my own.
I do not think that personal growth of the kind you describe as "The exploration of self for the betterment of self" is of any interest or relevance if it is not put in a wider perspective that goes beyond the individual and at least strives to transcend the locality of one’s existence. This already sets a standard of relevance and significance one can work with.
We change, we transform and transcend by the power of ideas, and the source of ideas is nothing but inner space exploration. I dare claim that in some deep sense, our so called external existence is but a complex metaphor to our inner exploration. Our reality is transformed by ideas and the activities that are derived from these ideas. If you happen to live in a town and look around, you find you are immersed in physically materialized ideas. Even our communication here is a flow of ideas within ideas (computers) within ideas (the web), and so on.
This being said, I certainly agree that not every musing that crosses one’s mind deserves the status of a significant idea mostly because they are not put in the light of a relevant context that extends their meaning beyond the locality of the individual experience. Indeed most of what you called “staring at fluorescent objects” belong to this category of local experiences within a local perspective, things we can hardly share or be fertilized by. The proliferation of such mind products may perhaps hint to their general mediocrity. Insightful potent ideas are difficult to come by and therefore are rare. It seems to me that the significance and potency of ideas follow an inverse power law of some kind, that is, quality is generally in inverse proportion to quantity.
In this sense, what matters in thought and inner space exploration is the quality of the process and the quality of the products. How do we achieve a persistent increase in quality? I think the key is selection. Selection is the force that drives biological evolution; I suspect that in the evolution of ideas it is as critical, perhaps much more. Ideas and other mind products should stand to a selective standard, and it seems we should be able to establish such standards individually and collectively. This, I believe, makes life more interesting and fertile.
As a concluding note, you should not read my position as defeatist but to the contrary. I think that human mind is in its infancy. Our minds are noisy and are wired to respond best to survival situations of all kinds. There is very little coherent reflective thought going on. It takes courage to accept this reality and strive to persistently increase the quality of our thought processes and their products. This is how one can actively participate in the evolution of mind.