View Full Version : Psychological granularity, accessibility & support

01-10-2008, 11:38 AM
Psychological granularity, accessibility & support

Often psychology is dismissed as pure fantasy, i would counter that it is crucial, key to human level intellect & mentality.

We talk about moral support or morale, but i think many would agree these are psychological in nature.
Sustainable psychology helps to make it more accessible.

I will say i am, at least intellectually, a moral relativist. Emotionally i am probably still a knee-jerk absolutist.

I think moral absolutism makes things psychologically inaccessible, perhaps non-existent.

I think the healthy psychological/mental development & growth of children depends on being able to achieve small psychological/moral 'successes'. Probably not that different for adults.

Moral absolutism is sort of ingranular psychology, perhaps non-psychology. Instead of small, appropriate scaled psychological increments it is absolute binary in determination which is virtually non-psychological in nature. Non-psychological is, i am pretty sure, non mental in nature.

Mentality depends on psychology. It might easily be a foundative or defining characteristic of it.

[weirdly i may be making a moral absolutism against moral absolutism]

Absolute right & wrong do not allow all the grey areas where virtually all of us operate.
I wonder if we could come up with some other more measured terms that still held great emphasis of import that were not absolute in nature.

[b]political sidetrack:

Hillary Clinton said while everyone cares, some people are right & some are wrong,
how the hell is that any better than absolute religious or ideological edicts?
while there is some probably not quite zero probability of some single two things being absolutely right or wrong, infinities of infinities of infinities infinitely are neither of those things.

Saying you know absolute right & absolute wrong makes it almost certain you are simply ignorant.

Hillary, please, you are smarter than that aren't you?
Or are you simply pandering to the lowest common intellect?

George Bush is stupid, i expect that garbage from him & his supporters.
Perhaps in counter to that you need something verging on that, but that kind of absolutism makes me very wary of supporting you.

apology to anyone who has suffered to read this far along for intermingling of politics with what otherwise might be a more intellectually pure artifact,
but i think everybody probably should improve their thought processing, at the very least when they are able.

03-25-2008, 05:11 PM
It occurred to me this morning that i have psychological needs,
implying i require psychological sustenance.

On a very personal basis i think i am more psychologically autonomous than many people.

I am pretty sure all humans need psychological sustenance,
I would add virtually all conscious beings require it,
even dogs & other mammals can be seen using it.
All our cajoling words to pets & children are designed to either draw them in or sustain/feed them psychologically.

I will say perhaps you could have some kind of strobe like consciousness that didn't require psychology, but i think it would be an odd thing from my perspective.

Consciousness itself may be a form of psychology, but for now i will characterize it as generally exclusive of it. Obviously we blend both consciousness & psychology everyday in variant & changing amounts.

Laughter is probably psychological abandonment.
When we let go of some idea and don't let it take conscious root in our minds.

What might be a bit disconcerting is that by in large i think it operates very ad hoc. ie. we have no general frame of reference, no guiding sculpting guides about it.
Frighteningly our societies operate mostly on the minimal standard of psychological success/superiority or failure/inferiority, without any well reasoned frame of reference to guide it.
We win or lose argument not on empirical or inspired logic, but on psychological tyranny.

I am not sure how interchangeable psychology & emotions are, but i am quite certain they are profoundly linked.
Religion must very certainly be about psychological sustenance,
a 'reason' for people to do things in their lives, a motivation.
Virtually everything we do has some motivation. They are intimately linked with Psychology, emotions & what if any intellectual framework sculpts/organizes them.

I suspect psychology is dynamic, whereas [pure] consciousness is not dynamic in quite the same way/degree.

It seems likely there are many different configurations & utilizations of psychology/psychologies.

Perhaps one characteristic comparison is that consciousness/intellect creates & is woven into the fine detail of our lives, whereas psychology creates the broader frame of reference [abstractions] we see things from.

03-28-2008, 11:13 AM
Aren't secrets kept because of their psychological potential?

Objectively things are simply what they are, so the only difference a secret can make is in/on the minds of others, on their psychology.

03-28-2008, 11:30 AM
You will most likely think this an odd thought, but

What if the psychology of the Universe/space is evil?

Like completely raw, almost [completely?] formless evil.
It has practically no form, no objective coherence, no particular purpose.
Perhaps wickedly gleeful for its own sake.
Maybe very like what we see reflected in schizophrenia.

We are of course biological beings with biological needs. The majority of psychologies that would interest us would be internal or contained psychologies. Productive, useful psychologies.

In some ways it is the creative imaginations of schizophrenics that are/can-be tapped for new ideas. Some might be practically applicable, & if not then they make great materials for the X-files & other entertainment vehicles.

Interestingly, because of the subtle, inaccessible nature of space and who knows maybe even more subtle/rare media, that it is like a wealth of secrets.
Is it the source of most of our 'conspiracy theories'?

Proposal: Perhaps what we want to do is reach out to the outlandish & strange & co-opt it into our quasi-coherent existences.

Isn't that one of the several major functions of the imagination?

But more-so to be much more open to the potential for useful ideas, not so easily or quickly dismiss things.

additional odd thought:
perhaps holding on to delusions serves some potential purpose in itself, despite the fact that it would almost certainly be a delusion. Like holding onto a potential of some sort. Some sort of stored something, energy, structure or something. it gets a bit iffy. Does that mean you have groups in society running around half blind & maniacal? Maybe a good caveat would be holding the delusion without necessarily acting upon it rashly.
Holding it like a library of potential ideas, without commitment to it or abandonment of it.

03-28-2008, 05:37 PM
You will most likely think this an odd thought, but

What if the psychology of the Universe/space is evil?

Like completely raw, almost [completely?] formless evil.

Other people have said this.

I thought it was incredibly anthropocentrically silly.

A vain attempt to press human behavior onto an exteriorized scapegoat, to find some excuse for human activity and intertpretations.

I think "space", the universe around us, is far worse than "evil".

It is completely neutral. Heedless of our emotions.

That, to we humans, is far more troubling than the thought of an actively evil universe.

If it was merely evil, a punishing jehovoid malevolence, it could be appeased, blood sacrifices made, and it would favor the tribe that killed the virgins and give them victory and death over their human enemies.

But the universe is worse.

It doesn't care. It has no interest. Spilled blood doesn't gain it's attention.

03-28-2008, 07:22 PM
Do not get me wrong, i am not blaming it,
i am merely trying to conceptualize & understand/comprehend it,
from an operational standpoint.
If anyone is amoral, i am, i even work towards that end.

It is understanding it that give us a technological leverage.

It might be psychologically evil, but physically completely helpless.

It may be the way we experience it, but as a commodity, this is what it is for us.

Intellectually, on its own, it is operationally inert.

it is incoherent evil, casual, almost ambivalent evil.
We are structural [to a great degree], we are coherent.

I also suspect it is the ability to conceive of evil that helps forestalls us acting on it.
I am pretty sure evil actions because people act as stupid automatons that get steered around by it.
It is only when you take the concepts of evil into your mind that you even begin to have even a microscopic mastery of it.

It is the vulnerability of stupidity that is our worst enemy.
The evil actor rather than the evil thinker.

It is not able to do anything except [to some degree] throw phantoms up in our minds.
My experience is that it tells us to do stupid, reckless things,
we as cogent beings must always look sidelong at what it throws at us to digest it for our purposes & use.

Only stupid foolish people are vulnerable to its phantoms, its specters & suggestions/ideas.

03-28-2008, 08:04 PM
It might be psychologically evil, but physically completely helpless.

it is incoherent evil, casual, almost ambivalent evil.
We are structural [to a great degree], we are coherent.

I'm sorry I bothered to ask you about it.

03-28-2008, 09:17 PM
I concede you are probably correct.
Space itself is probably stark, empty, cold, serene, obliviously depressing,
hopeless & uncaring domain.

But it is a new medium to inhabit.
As is air, water, [molten lava?],
we have to learn what sensations guide our impetus to launch ourselves & operate there. To navigate & negotiate it as agile deft minds & beings.

It is probably my projection of the intensity, wild & high energy internal activities that i associate with evil that is a [one?] tag that we can identify our operation there & access to it.

I suppose the amazing thing about space is just how available it is to the smallest of impulses. All unchanging inertia & no friction.

We are so inured to our seeming all encompassing gravity field.
I suppose it is [trying to] finding the energies that allow us to overcome its tyranny & dominion.

Maybe it is the powerful, intense, energies we sense as evil that allow us to escape gravity, but once we actually arrive in space the smallest [lamest] of energies is all that is needed to effect desired actions. And in fact anything more than that is problematic & largely useless.

In space pure intellect is almost enough to do anything,
but to get there takes great intensity of energies.

And where we live & operate, at the bottom of a planet's surface gravity field, the energies it takes to interact in a 'spacial' way evil IS a constituent part of that.

03-29-2008, 06:35 PM
Isn't depression essentially in many [most/all?] cases a psychological deficit?

When one's psychology becomes depleted of power, dis-empowered.

Analytically, objectively, in many cases there may be no identifiable circumstantial reason for it [although certainly in some cases there are].

Depression in perhaps literal sense is being un-psyched.

That isn't saying brain [other?] chemistry & biological factors aren't involved, but those things are also interactively involved in our psychology.

Depression often involves feeling that everything is the same, monotonous & largely hopeless.

I think psychology relates to the transitory, dynamic aspects/characteristics of the mind, & since most depression is a kind of lodgedness in a fixed mindset, they are in ways, opposite.

I suppose good psychology is like keeping things in play, juggling & launching them well at appropriate targets/operations. [Bullshit, Bluffing?]

Depression is like when all ones juggling balls have been/are dropped [or perhaps are gone?].

Depression may often have the characteristic of a lack of granularity of mind. The simplistic, hardened abstractions seem unavailable to finer scrutiny or sub-division, making them also unavailable to action, activity, change.

Psychology can't replace the real circumstances of the world around us, but it profoundly affects our relationship/attitude to it & thereby our ability to optimally engage & work with it.
From an evolutionary standpoint that has to make a pretty profound differential.

Perhaps psychology is the 'seating' context of the mind?

Perhaps humans have a better capability of sustaining psychology? perhaps not.
Perhaps humans have the ability to leverage their psychology in a way no other species has yet been able to.*
Much of our self assured 'intelligence' as a species is more a psychological prod rather than an analytical fact.
In a way it is very like inertia, it keeps us moving 'forward'.

Psychology allows us to get excited about small things & amplify them in our minds into seeming probably larger than they empirically are.

Maybe humans are better psychological tacticians, via biology & learned culture.

I am quite certain we are not nearly the intelligences we so often repeat to ourselves [individually/collectively] we are.

[ancillary note: you may notice my posts are often a collection of ideas rather than a highly fixed overall form]

If one takes the notion that psychology is those things in 'play' & depression is those things gone from play, one might even over simplify that life is like very fine granular psychology in action that juggles & bobbles the [appropriately accessible] depressed elements of the Universe into play/juggle.

Juggling is a nice paradigm,
it is both fixed in elements retained, yet that is done in a dynamic state of movement.
Gestalt is a good word.
Locally contained, but never absent of inertia or movement.
Still but moving. Moving but still.

*Perhaps our xerox mentalities allow us to have many, multiple layers of xerox, so in theory we can hold on to multiple subjects [frames of reference] whereas a strictly comprehending mind can only have one [a few?] ideas it can jump around to?
Of course that means our xerox references are necessarily shallow.
I suppose you could have some kind of translation of which ever xerox was active was projected [polydimensionalized] so you could actually be comprehending it real-time,
then perhaps storing any updated alterations back in xerox form.
Very similar to translation software interfaces, like text editors, browsers, spreadsheet software, ets.

03-29-2008, 06:59 PM
I was thinking about fear.
I am pretty sure it must be very substantially psychological in nature.

It helped me clarify a notion that one might categorize psychology into three generalized categories.

Internal mind psychology, disconnected from external psychology.
Transitioning psychology, between the external world & the internal mind.
& perhaps [very speculative] strictly External psychology.

I think fear/anxiety might be when all ones psychological energy is drawn in, internally. Crisply cleaved from the external world.
the term 'Holding one's breath' comes to mind.
Like saving all one's kinetic energies ready & prepped for action.
The form becomes tense, often muscularly so.

When we relax we often let go of our breaths, probably easing peripheral blood flow. We don't differentiate quite so scrupulously between that which is around us & ourselves. We are less self-conscious.
This is where we would probably have the maximal interchanges between internal & external psychologies.
How this would or would not relate to social circumstances i am not sure.

Not sure about purely external psychology. Maybe that is better described as pure physics?
Maybe that would be like depression,
where all the motivation seems to come from the outside, rather than internal motivations or impulses.
Impulsiveness might be a sign that one's internal psychology is struggling to keep up a smooth sustained dynamic.

04-03-2008, 03:20 PM
In some ways depression & fear are opposite.

Depression is a psychological lock out [inaccessible, unavailable to it]
Fear is a psychological lock in, retaining & amping it up.

Depression is probably an inability to integrate psychology with other biology/chemistry so that any psychology becomes sort of mutually exclusive, it slips past them.
ie. there is no chemical, biological source of psychological support. so it is not ongoing, integrated or sustained. It doesn't 'touch' [connect with] the person with depression.

Young [many/most?] people like occasional fear rushes as we see with the success of slasher movies. Of course over ramping up on adrenaline does have degrading effects if relied on too much.

I suppose this could lean to almost a sense of hyper realism. Where everything becomes sharp & detailed. This might [or might not] be associated with strong memory imprints. I suppose it makes a strong initial impression, & then it is up to the long term to store if it senses it is significant.

Perhaps that is why we like stories where humanity, life, the nation, the universe hangs in the balance. It amplifies ours sense of importance, of drama. We like mental rushes at least for recreation. Generally favoring those that are crafted to have some happy, revealing or satisfactory ending/pause/interlude.

I suppose an odd question is could our faith, belief or drive to create drama actually make an event or issue actually more significant,
or does in the end the Universe call all the shots?
Almost certainly our ramping up our mentality pushes it to its maximum capacities, and may enable us to view things from a quite different & perhaps more creative perspective.

I suppose it turns on applicability.
Is it all just pure hype,
or is the hype really reaching out in its tenuous way to grasp, manipulate manage reality.

04-13-2008, 02:19 AM
[initial previso: presumes we can have some altering effect on the future]

I was thinking about 'positive' psychological states, which would seem like they should be favored by evolution.

I was thinking there is a complacent, satiated state & and an anticipatory state.
The anticipatory state would seem to be the more motivational of the two.
Complacency probably wouldn't get in the way of motivation but doesn't have any itself.

I think anticipatory psychology inherently requires more structure & form than complacency would. In a sense one must draw up some kind of design on reality with our expectations.

I think our expectations, anticipations probably have a great deal of effect of the way we interface & navigate into the future. I don't want to oversimplify this so i will just leave it at that for now.

I think some kinds of [doctrinal?] religion gives people a certain large scale [vague?] anticipatory structure, but the immediate detail is VERY open to interpretation.
Alternatively, some [philosophical?] religions or schools of meditation provide calm complacency, a place to restore composure & coherence.

The motivation to do/practice science/observation to learn from is based on the belief/anticipation that there are things to be learned. Useful science i think is fairly precise, disciplined & focused on immediate activity. Only after the data have been gathered does the scientist try to sift through it for the larger themes. Many organized doctrinal religions are sort of the converse, where the overall theme is already stated & the details are 'read' to be a part of [fit into] that larger theme.

Most doctrinal religion can be thought of as having a built-in [automatic] certain happy ending.
Science is reading the story & seeing where it takes you.
In a sense doctrinal religion would have a stronger, simpler more robust positive motivation.

Science is a bit more ambiguous. Some times the motivation is just raw, hungry curiosity. Sometimes it is research that anticipates the information will likely be useful &/or profitable.
Science is more clarifying, disciplined & based on more precise, finer grained thinking. The outcome is [hopefully] scrupulously read for both its negative & positive results. It is a faithful seeking of the truth of the world around us.

Doctrinal religion is a powerful, [simple?] robust, dependable psychological device.

In a sense science is non-psychological. Obviously the people engaged in it have a mix of any number of psychological motivations, but the scientific results are expected to be independent of psychology. In a word empirical.

Religions [psychologies?] act as bridging [sustaining?] devices, but science produces hard gems & structures of intellect that are sound foundations to work with/upon. Things that we as psychologically motivated beings can utilize for optimal benefit.

And i think one of the problems with doctrinal religion [IMO] is that it has heavy overhead to sustain. It is pre-loaded. like a skyscraper that is sort of top heavy.
Science has a much lighter [ambiguous] more distributed tread upon reality.
Religion is like putting a massive [infinite?] structure on a very few pilings.
Science is a bit more like wearing snow shoes that allow you traverse a problematic medium lightly & agilely with best expected ease.

Doctrinal religion gives great psychological benefit at very high technological risk.
Science has low [no?] technological risk, but you have to provide your own psychological sustenance. BYOP-bring your own psychology

I suppose we could try to create some kind of system of beliefs, a sort of secular humanism that attempted to provide some of the psychological benefits of religious faith. I suspect it would be weak, fragile & easily undermined though.

Perhaps we could create some kind of ambiguous undefined mysticism.
Like create some word who's meaning was taken as secret & we would through the application of science and deep mysterious thought ponder and slowly form/find its meaning.

Like the idea we are supposed to be something, but we have no idea exactly what that something is or how to achieve it. So we have to learn to be more skilled, agile, robust both physically & mentally. Slowing peeling away the layers of an infinite onion to find buried depths of our greater selves.

Perhaps a great paradigm would be applying the passion, faith & zeal many now have for doctrinal religion instead to scientific learning & pursuit,

and to have philosophical, meditative religions that allowed us to re-compose and re-structure our coherence and calmly focus ourselves in the positive, enthusiastic, even firey pursuits of our lives.

Gentle restoring religion/philosophy & wickedly intensely ravenous science.

Explosive, shattering science, reconstructing meditation & reflection.

04-13-2008, 02:26 AM
Science is a pursuit that must feed [usually with good rewards] off of some kind of psychological motivation.
Doctrinal religion is a [too?] powerful psychological feeder.

Like a giant center wheel of religion, that creates/feeds/motivates small peripheral counter wheels of science that turn the opposite direction.

05-12-2008, 08:03 PM
It is not possible for the universe to be either good or bad. That mistake is called anthropomorphication. The idea of good and bad is wholly a human precept. It is not evil when a wasp stings a spider and buries it alive after laying an egg on it. It is the evolutionary solution to a food storage problem.
When millions die from a plague it is only good or bad to the humans involved the universe is neutral to the evolutionary equilibrium battle between man and microbes.

" the owl "

05-13-2008, 09:03 AM
Everything that is not me, is 'not-me'.

If i am not absolutely neutral in composition and presuming initial neutrality doesn't that sort of imply that all the 'not-me' mathematically can not be neutral either?

0 - (+1) = -1 not 0

Whether the Universe is separate from ALL of the other 'not-me' or not is debatable.

But a presumption of absolute neutrality is mathematically questionable.
And in the absolute macro picture is clearly arguably mathematically wrong.

I suppose the implication is that that quantity of negation from initial humongous neutrality is proportionally negligible,
but as i/humanity become more & more 'positive' in an enlarged [polydimensionally?] way that might have some identifiable proportion to the massive, humongous totality.

05-13-2008, 09:35 PM
Everything that is not me is "not- Me" -----> By Definition

If (...............Premise........................... .....)

You proceed to have no " then " . Without the " then " it is not debatable
only a series of loosely strung conjectures,

The first is a quite dubious mathematical model of the the above incomplete
( if/then statement) proving only that you can correctly add signed numbers.

Yes I presume neutrality, I always presume neutrality unless otherwise demonstrated. In physics all charges and forces generally (there are exceptions) go to neutrality at equilibrium. jI suppose equilibrium if it seems that the system is not being acted upon by external forces. I believe the big bang theory is our current strongest model. It assumes no external forces.

Disrupter you need to step away from the dictionary, it is not your friend. It smiles at you to your face but talks about you when your back is turned.

" the owl "

05-14-2008, 12:17 PM
For every action there is an equal & opposite re-action.

Likely for every 'existence' there is [probably] an anti-existence.

We tend to presume this is a distributed anti-existence [in the Universe], which seems likely as not. But if it is distributed
it is very likely a local distribution of anti-existence,
making it more prominent/potentially-problematic to a given existence.

It is a bit like time or existence pollution, it is sort of inevitable. Whether we can or do mitigate this or not i am not sure, but i kind of think the extended span of our existences would imply our biologies do have some capacity to mitigate it or we would evaporate in some anti-wave configuration almost immediately.

In infinite perfect balance there also may be some coherent anti-me in some anti-existence with its own [insulating?] distributed pro-existence. an anti-mirror realm.

If i am the 'actor' [perhaps the thing with the nanosecond precipitator in time] then it is like my shadow.
But perhaps after some build up of time 'pressure' it has some [approximately] equal span of time where it is the time precipitator ['actor'] & i am its shadow [perhaps my death].

It is kind of heavy [psychologically depressing] thinking, but i think it is not without valid intellectual merit.
Painful truth is still truth.

05-14-2008, 12:21 PM
It also suggests that the best way to address passage through the delicate ephemeral realm of time into the future is to do/act as little as possible.

But we are compulsive. We thrash were studious observation might suit us better.
Pragmatically it is small actions, with incredibly detailed observations & vast analysis of it that probably is most rewarding, with a minimum of detriment,
but over time, unless one does absolutely nothing there will be some accrual of detriment.
Whether we can effectively address this cumulative detriment with sophisticated strategies or whether we are just tilting at windmills & forestalling the inevitable, gets pretty philosophical.

05-14-2008, 12:24 PM
LOL, your anthropomorphizing the dictionary is lovely.

05-31-2008, 01:52 AM
I was thinking more articulately about the dichotomy(?) between fear & depression.

In a sense fear is like the most perpendicular to the in & out flow to the self. The sharpest blocking of it. It is generally thought of as an uncontrolled, reflexive response. I think fear takes a good deal of overhead to sustain, but it would seem it is so valuable a thing for young creatures that they seem to have immediate access to it & a lot of it. It would seem to be a built in mechanism. There is probably a very distinct differentiation between the external realm & the internal one. An extremely, tensely, heightened sense of 'self'. Perhaps a psychology that draws in upon itself? (congealed, contracted, condensed, intensified?) Increased self-familiarity? Fear is intensively self-involved?

Depression is where the in & out flow ceases to have any meaning. Where inside & outside are not differentiated, at least psychologically/emotionally.
The in & out flow is uncontrollably 'flat'. Not so much a 'response' as a lack of response to virtually any stimulus. A neural 'deadening'. Perhaps it is a degraded sense of self that is a large contributor to depression. Depression is perhaps a lack of involvement with one's self? A disinvestment from the self. A lack of excitement & engagement with one's self?

sort of an angle of inclination differentiation.

Confidence, i think is an experienced based assertiveness(?).
If you have limited [unvaried] experience you will most likely have some easy, fixed inclination [relationship] with the external realm. With expectations of easy benefit.
If you have a more varied experience through time, your confidence will not be so easily acquired & will more likely be based on the ability to adapt one's inclination/relationship with the external realm, as 'expected' changes occur.

If fear does have actual benefiting uses, is it possible to instigate it without the straining, damaging aspects of it?
To imagine one's self to be in some kind of hostile Universe and then convincingly believe it?
When some external threat is amorphous, vague, abstract it is much harder to get that great neural amplification.
The coherency of a threat is relevant, such as a freight train aimed at us.
Fear is often strongest when we can anthropomorphize some external threat.
I think that probably gives it the richest detailing of all our human neural experience.

I suppose the problem with fear is that it closes us off to external things that are potentially beneficial. At the extreme is shooting a friend who comes to your house because you get so wrapped up in some paranoid threat inside your head. With depression you are sort of open to anything, but unable to grasp it for one's self. Unable to articulate/speculate [create?] a purpose or meaning for it.

I suppose the optimized mind is one that best [most luckily?] intakes useful, beneficial things from the external environment, & best avoids identifiably negative things as well as prolonged flattening/degrading contexts that dull the excited sense of self.

[speculating] If in fact most of the eternal threats we individually & collectively face are amorphous, vague & abstract, maybe we have to have some aggregating layers of abstraction that make it more, apparent, immediate & personal to us. I don't know if that is window dressing it or simply finding some likely, personalized rooting, relationship to it.
perhaps we have to actively work to impress the reality & relevance of it to & upon us. We [may] have to invest it with meaning, even while we have no precise details on the extent, depth & shape of it.
It reminds me sort of of mysticism. Like a preparation for 'significance'.
Preparation to be awed.
Fasting is common in religious events.
I wonder if people ever do slightly preparatory or ceremonial fasting or ritual when engaging in science or delving into math or logic theory?
Although often when one is mentally wrapped up, caught up in some captivating activity we forget eating & avoid sleeping & other bodily functions.

I suppose then one gets to the quandry,
can we create a life rich & full of seeming meaning, awe & splendor, but that over the long run has no significant content?
Although it may be like a kind of magnetism or fluid dynamics, that draws significance to it?
Or is that like people who have become absorbed by [presumptive] mysticism which we today dismiss as flaky, trivial or dementedly delusional?
Are we simply indulging in mystic seduction for its own sake?
Or are we utilizing it to motivate & perhaps inspire us to concrete products of the mind?
Can we ever differentiate between the two completely,
or do we simply have to accept the pot-luck the Universe seems to deliver our way or not,
And simply try to be available to it, should it happen to meander our way.

Help! I am drowning in my own mind.

teasing, mostly.

what is the sound of one voice talking to itself?
(see above)