Design of Mind: Analytical "I" mind vs. Feeling mind
First of all, by "Design of mind" what I mean is to find out how things came about: What are the first principles? How do we do what we do? What is the underlying model? Indian philosophy embodies certain elements of theme. For e.g., the concept of individuality doesn't exist; there is only universal awareness which is beyond time and space - and its expression has got locked into a false "I sense". There are many topics in this theme, and I am putting my intuitions into these words on the topic of analytic mind and feeling mind.
We should be able to compare the "design" from three angles: How the mind comes to know what is out there (i.e. perception), Our immediate response to that information, and the long-term response - for e.g., our outlook or the way of being.
What is analytic mind? It builds its world model based on the sensory and other types of perceptions (for e.g. reading a scientific article), is able to use logic to subscribe to various concepts, and to derive new concepts/conclusions. The logic is very important factor: Every concept has independent existence in such a mind; but can be explained using more basic concepts. Ultimately the basis for all concepts have to come from observations in external world. Response to the short term situation is quite mechanical, driven by standard reasonings. Such a mind is usually devoid of emotions because emotions can't be clearly explained by science - except as a humane need as general good. On a long-term basis, such a mind develops an approach of believing other similar minded community (like scientists), and overall world model is very mechanical.
And when we want to define a feeling mind, we have an interesting problem: We are already trying to apply analytical principles to understand feelings! The very point is that feeling is that aspect of mind which is not covered by analytic approach. If analysts dub all the perception and responses through the only approach they know, then they will miss the main points. That is why, the feeling-type people always respond "You will never understand!".
So is there likelihood that there is indeed something in the feelings? My intuitive understanding is: Yes! Here it goes, as per the model of reality under Indian philosophy.
Reality is continuous; it has no boundary. However, "I" is a boundary, but the underlying awareness doesn't have that boundary; just like the physical world has artificial boundaries based on sensory perceptions. There is more orders of empty space within an atom than between the physical world. So when we say "A" perceives "B", we are really saying that we are bringing some aspects of B into "A"'s analytical mind. In essence, it is a small subset of reality which is copied into "A"'s mind. Much like the computer CPUs use registers for processing.
So obviously, this very process is limited, and in essence, you are playing with the boundary. Now if you ask "Is it possible to let go of that boundary?" then you are again analytical, and by definition, analytical approach requires a boundary. For that matter, even in simple act of sensory perception (say, through eyes), there is first an almost unbound perception - a lot of data. The interpretation then happens first at level of physical bounds (i.e. retina etc.) and then mental bounds (in terms of concepts). So by the time you see a "window" and not a "bunch of iron rods and a glass", a lot of boundary-creation has happened. And all this not possibly involving brain. What you want to perceive arises from somewhere else, and brain simply tunes to that perception and creates right images and other responses.
Because mind is not just about analyzing; it is about being aware and responding to the reality around, there must be processes which directly perceive the reality in other ways. Feelings arise from these angles: It is when you are aware of something, but not with the corresponding logic or analytical data that can support the final thing. For that matter, by its very nature, feelings create only hazy pictures of abstract concepts. For example, you may have a feeling that a some close friend is going to come and meet you; but you can never really know it in words. More importantly, it surpasses time and space - because time and space are themselves subject to flow of the ultimate reality. It is particularly powerful when you are going to have a strong association with a particular person or place. For example, if you are going to own a particular building, you may get that feeling of attraction much much earlier - as you pass by that building.
When we respond to situations, the best response is that which takes into account the overall reality. For example, a friend may ask you some money, and you may respond without considering the overall context of why he is asking for that money. If you directly/indirectly try to get that information, you are using analytical approach. If instead, if you indeed tune yourself to be less of "I" and more a part of totality, the feelings will automatically arise, and you will do the right thing. (It is like your hand will never hit your face, because both are under the same "owner".) There is no "how" there, because the moment you try to analyze, well, you have lost it. You are creating a boundary. This type of response will indeed create a great friend for you.
So, feeling is that aspect in which totality just responds (and you go into a different state of mind). "I" is that aspect of mind which acts out of a boundary, and responds with logic and analysis. With totality, there is only action. But the fruit of action - which is the experience, requires "I", and associated with it, the whole world which magically appears with that "I".
First of all, by "Design of mind" what I mean is to find out how things came about: What are the first principles? How do we do what we do? What is the underlying model? Indian philosophy embodies certain elements of theme. For e.g., the concept of individuality doesn't exist; there is only universal awareness which is beyond time and space - and its expression has got locked into a false "I sense". There are many topics in this theme, and I am putting my intuitions into these words on the topic of analytic mind and feeling mind.
We should be able to compare the "design" from three angles: How the mind comes to know what is out there (i.e. perception), Our immediate response to that information, and the long-term response - for e.g., our outlook or the way of being.
What is analytic mind? It builds its world model based on the sensory and other types of perceptions (for e.g. reading a scientific article), is able to use logic to subscribe to various concepts, and to derive new concepts/conclusions. The logic is very important factor: Every concept has independent existence in such a mind; but can be explained using more basic concepts. Ultimately the basis for all concepts have to come from observations in external world. Response to the short term situation is quite mechanical, driven by standard reasonings. Such a mind is usually devoid of emotions because emotions can't be clearly explained by science - except as a humane need as general good. On a long-term basis, such a mind develops an approach of believing other similar minded community (like scientists), and overall world model is very mechanical.
And when we want to define a feeling mind, we have an interesting problem: We are already trying to apply analytical principles to understand feelings! The very point is that feeling is that aspect of mind which is not covered by analytic approach. If analysts dub all the perception and responses through the only approach they know, then they will miss the main points. That is why, the feeling-type people always respond "You will never understand!".
So is there likelihood that there is indeed something in the feelings? My intuitive understanding is: Yes! Here it goes, as per the model of reality under Indian philosophy.
Reality is continuous; it has no boundary. However, "I" is a boundary, but the underlying awareness doesn't have that boundary; just like the physical world has artificial boundaries based on sensory perceptions. There is more orders of empty space within an atom than between the physical world. So when we say "A" perceives "B", we are really saying that we are bringing some aspects of B into "A"'s analytical mind. In essence, it is a small subset of reality which is copied into "A"'s mind. Much like the computer CPUs use registers for processing.
So obviously, this very process is limited, and in essence, you are playing with the boundary. Now if you ask "Is it possible to let go of that boundary?" then you are again analytical, and by definition, analytical approach requires a boundary. For that matter, even in simple act of sensory perception (say, through eyes), there is first an almost unbound perception - a lot of data. The interpretation then happens first at level of physical bounds (i.e. retina etc.) and then mental bounds (in terms of concepts). So by the time you see a "window" and not a "bunch of iron rods and a glass", a lot of boundary-creation has happened. And all this not possibly involving brain. What you want to perceive arises from somewhere else, and brain simply tunes to that perception and creates right images and other responses.
Because mind is not just about analyzing; it is about being aware and responding to the reality around, there must be processes which directly perceive the reality in other ways. Feelings arise from these angles: It is when you are aware of something, but not with the corresponding logic or analytical data that can support the final thing. For that matter, by its very nature, feelings create only hazy pictures of abstract concepts. For example, you may have a feeling that a some close friend is going to come and meet you; but you can never really know it in words. More importantly, it surpasses time and space - because time and space are themselves subject to flow of the ultimate reality. It is particularly powerful when you are going to have a strong association with a particular person or place. For example, if you are going to own a particular building, you may get that feeling of attraction much much earlier - as you pass by that building.
When we respond to situations, the best response is that which takes into account the overall reality. For example, a friend may ask you some money, and you may respond without considering the overall context of why he is asking for that money. If you directly/indirectly try to get that information, you are using analytical approach. If instead, if you indeed tune yourself to be less of "I" and more a part of totality, the feelings will automatically arise, and you will do the right thing. (It is like your hand will never hit your face, because both are under the same "owner".) There is no "how" there, because the moment you try to analyze, well, you have lost it. You are creating a boundary. This type of response will indeed create a great friend for you.
So, feeling is that aspect in which totality just responds (and you go into a different state of mind). "I" is that aspect of mind which acts out of a boundary, and responds with logic and analysis. With totality, there is only action. But the fruit of action - which is the experience, requires "I", and associated with it, the whole world which magically appears with that "I".
posted by Vinod Kulkarni at 7:26 AM
