Our Mind

Although I am beginning a new section entitled “Our mind” in which I will define this second aspect of our nature, the separation is neither an accurate representation of the process nor of the biological reality I see. The definitions of “our body” and “our mind” emerged simultaneously as they should have because there is no separation between them. It is possible to see them separately only by viewing the ‘cross section’ at the respective ends of the body/mind continuum. Then, looking at the physical end I do see our body as the physical container of life; and at the mental end I ‘see’ what I think is best introduced as a concentration of ‘vapor’, the ‘container of our being. However there is only one ‘container’ and the problems I encountered defining the physical and mental aspects of it were the same. Like our body, our mind is a common aspect of our nature in that we all have one and generally speaking, our minds all function the same way. Specifically however, our minds all function somewhat differently and our ‘concentration’ is unique. These common problems were solved in precisely the same way as the problems encountered in defining “our body”. Rather than trying to use the vaporous ‘container’ in my definition of our mind, it became the process that creates the ‘container’. Thus in my view our mind is the integration of our realized potential mental capacity, mental activity and mental knowledge. 1

The potential mental capacity of our mind is the measure of what we are able to become mentally. It is genetically determined so that while we all commonly have a given potential mental capacity, they are all unique. Our realized potential mental capacity is the measure of what we have become mentally. Our potential mental capacity remains potential until we realize it with mental activity. It, unlike physical activity, can only be indirectly observed, electronically. I believe it would be conceded that “mental activity” is most commonly interpreted as thinking but I feel that connotation is far too general. I want mental activity to include association, memorization, interpretation, speculation, deduction, induction, extrapolation, question, rationalization, organization, categorization, analysis, recollection, creation and all remaining unnamed processes involved in acquiring, storing and ‘menipulating’ mental knowledge. 2

For my purpose mental knowledge is the information we have acquired and stored in our memory. Neither how our memory works nor the part of the brain in which the information is stored, affects my definition nor does the collected myriad analyses of knowledge that occupies epistemological space. All I need to explain is that in my view I ‘see’ mental knowledge divided into factual knowledge, theoretical knowledge, sensory knowledge and emotional knowledge and stored in a ‘box’ partitioned into four equal compartments with those tags. In which compartment I put factual knowledge is not important but after that choice I see a specific relationship between it and theoretical knowledge. So I will say that when I look down at the ‘box’ containing our knowledge I see factual knowledge in the upper left compartment and theoretical knowledge in the lower right compartment. Sensory knowledge can be placed in either of the two remaining compartments and emotional knowledge in the last. 3

Factual knowledge contains facts, “things that are known to have occurred, exist or be true.” (Canadian Oxford…) Among these “things” are the words of our language that besides being counted among our facts are the primary means by which we acquire, store and ‘menipulate’ information. Along with our vocabulary are the facts about our existence, places, things, events, time, space, life circumstances, distance, numbers, measures, food, survival principles, other aspects of daily living and the other categories of knowledge. Perhaps within “aspects of daily living” are facts pertaining to a trade, profession, vocation, occupation, job, hobby, skills, generally what we are able to do. Also within this category are historical facts, ‘laws’ of physical nature, and all other bits of scientific information and medical facts. Finally among the last facts are the vastness of the universe, the minuteness of its constituent parts, our miniscule period of time in eternity, knowable unknowns, death; and the unknowable known, to which I will return. 4

Theoretical knowledge contains our theories, “suppositions or systems of ideas explaining something…2. speculative views.” [ibid.] I see no distinct boundaries between them but within theoretical knowledge I recognize three areas of concentration. In one are our theories about nature that attempt to explain what we don’t yet know about the physical world, our physical form and the universe. In another area are theories about our human nature that attempt to explain why we do what we do, why we don’t do what we think we should, why we think we should do one thing rather than another, why events happen to us, why we feel the way we do and all related but unlisted explanations. These give birth to the theory of our instinct for survival, religious and philosophical theories, political, economic, social, psychological and all theories created to answer the unknowable known. In the third area are theories concerning the supernatural. 5

Sensory knowledge contains information related to our physical senses. Generally sensory knowledge concerns all information in the sights we see, the sounds we hear, the odors we smell, the flavors we taste, the textures, temperatures, hardness/softness, weight, pressure and the kinesthesia we feel. More specifically there are the associations between sources of stimuli and their stimulations such as those between a ball and roundness, a flower and its fragrance, a musical instrument and its sound, polished glass and its smoothness, fire and its heat, foods and their tastes, a feather and its lightness. To conclude this list of examples I believe is long enough to convey the contents of “sensory knowledge” there are qualitative differentiations between shapes, sizes, colors, hues brightness, odors, pitch, tone, loudness, roughness, smoothness, sweetness, sourness, spiciness, blandness, lightness and heaviness. 6

Emotional knowledge contains all the subjective information we associate with our emotional senses. Their labels and thus the fact that these emotions are part of our lives are already in the compartment of “factual knowledge”. In this compartment though we record senses of hate, love, anger, turmoil, frustration, obsession, possessiveness, hysteria, frenzy, dread, agitation, despair, sadness, sorrow, depression, apathy, emptiness, loneliness, meaninglessness, abandonment, restlessness, isolation, happiness, joy, elation, ecstasy, hope, concern, self-respect, self-esteem, self-confidence, pride, purpose, meaning, connection, affection and others I have surely missed, all through the complete range of intensity. 7

When introducing a model into a presentation there is always the danger that the model becomes a tangential distraction. I hope I can prevent this from happening for at the end I want to refer to “mental knowledge” without questions. I have already disconnected my definition from the physiology of memory including where we store mental knowledge. So the fact that placing “sensory knowledge” in one compartment isn’t physiologically accurate should not generate a question. I also separated my definition from the interminable epistemological debate by confining my study of knowledge to a walk around “the box”. I trust this restriction while acknowledging the different aspects of knowledge I ‘see’ is sufficient to prevent launching a trip into epistemological space from which we might never return to what is important, the definition of our mind. 8

I chose “the box” because its simplicity matches the image I ‘see’. Having placed “factual knowledge” in the upper left compartment I considered pacing “theoretical knowledge” in the lower left and I could have rationalized that choice; but I thought the diagonal relationship which gave the two compartments only their interior corner in common better conveys the separation I ‘see’. Even though “sensory knowledge” and “emotional knowledge” were then separated by default, that relation also seemed appropriate. The fact that I have the interior corners of “factual and theoretical knowledge” occupying the same point as the interior corners of “sensory and emotional knowledge” will generate a question only if “the box” is taken literally. When accepted as an image, the point where facts become theories and theories become facts; and the point where sensory knowledge and emotional knowledge merge can been ‘seen’ occupying the same ‘space’. Although most bits of knowledge fit into their assigned categories without a struggle, some like “faith” for example, don’t. Forcing them to fit would have generated an unending debate. To avoid this distraction I let the difficult bits occupy places on the common partitions of the categories or if need be, at the common internal corner. 9

At this stage of “tying up”, the only distraction I can think of that might remain is that “mental knowledge” is in a box with four compartments and I have not yet mentioned unity. I hope I can preclude the obvious question by giving my model life. Up to this point when I have looked down at my “box” I have been seeing two intersecting lines that are actually the edges of common partitions, but more precisely planes, that extend from the top to the bottom of the box. I bring this static model to life by imagining the lines and thus the planes separating the compartments transmit streams of mental activity. As these streams of activity flow through the planes and along the lines they collect bits of knowledge from the four compartments then merge in the common internal corner to become a single stream of “mental knowledge”. 10

“…because there is no separation between…” body and mind, our mind, our mental integration has to begin with physical integration at conception. There is at conception no mental activity or mental knowledge as defined. However, we do possess our potential mental capacity and the activity which begins at conception eventually creates a nervous system that enables the continuum of physical/mental activity. So in my view I ‘see’ mental integration beginning at conception but only at rate slightly above zero at the microscopic level. If mental integration were visible it would start becoming so sometime prior to birth when our creative activity has developed our nervous system to the point it enables us to begin making and storing sensory and emotional associations. Mental activity at this increased realized mental capacity gathers additional sensory and emotional knowledge further expanding our realized mental capacity. As integrating mental activity continues after birth we begin to acquire factual and theoretical knowledge which successively expands our realized mental capacity; and activity at each successive expansion gathers additional knowledge. Our mental integration continues as long as our mind allows our body to last. 11

There are collective complications that can interfere with our mental integration I will explain more appropriately in “Our reactions to the void”. For now it is enough to know that in theoretical isolation our mind determines how long our body will last by the activity it dictates. If our mind allows the innate natural activity initiated at conception to continue throughout our life then we will maintain the ideal rate of integration and mental integration will end with natural physical disintegration. If our mind replaces some of our allotted natural activity with unnatural activity which restricts and thus actively diminishes integration, then mental integration will end with unnatural physical integration. If our mind replaces some of our allotted natural activity with unnatural inactivity which passively diminishes integration, then mental integration will also end with unnatural physical disintegration. The rate of unnatural physical disintegration is proportional to the amount of unnatural activity or unnatural inactivity respectively, by which we diminish our natural activity. The greater the amount of natural activity we replace with either unnatural activity or unnatural inactivity, the further below the ideal our rate of integration will be, the further above the ideal our rate of disintegration will be and thus the sooner the merging rates will meet in complete unnatural disintegration. 12

In case I have been too subtle I want to now note explicitly I have just reiterated for the third time what I consider to be the biological reality that “…there is no separation between…” body and mind. There are physical and mental aspects to the integration of our realized potential capacity, activity and knowledge, but it defines our body/mind continuum. Using my imagination again, I see our integration beginning at conception as a ‘sphere’ that becomes rod-like, initially as natural physical activity ‘pushes’ the mental aspect away and eventually as increasing natural mental activity stretches the rod to its ”ideal” full length. We achieve “full length” only at the ideal rate of integration that increases from zero at conception to a peak but is always the maximum it can be at any given time. When at full length at the peak of integration I imagine our ‘rod’ is visible at the physical end but as I shift my gaze toward the mental end I see that though the ‘rod’ maintains its shape, it becomes naturally less and less visible. As our maximum rate of integration descends from its peak and our complementary minimum rate of natural disintegration increases, the ‘rod’ becomes naturally less visible, gradually along its entire length until at some point our body/mind disintegrates completely. Replacing natural activity with unnatural activity shortens the “length”, diminished the “peak”, decreases our rate of integration, increases above the “ideal” our rate of disintegration and lessens overall visibility in proportion to the amount of natural activity we replace. 13

Whatever its length and visibility relative to the “ideal”, the integration of realized potential capacities, activity and knowledge defines our body/mind. Like our body alone I believe its natural expansion to include our mind satisfies the criteria that establishes the definition of our nature. Potential and realized capacity, activity and knowledge are basic elements and their integration is simple, common and constant from conception to death. Our body/mind is constantly changing naturally and we cause unnatural changes by replacing natural activity with unnatural activity. Among other effects, unnatural activity diminishes our individuality according to the amount. Nevertheless, at the theoretically achievable “ideal” rate of integration we would be visibly unique. Now, in addition to still needing to define natural and unnatural activity and deal with accountability, I introduced and left unexplained the unknowable known; “collective complications” interfering with our integration; and the “other effects (of) unnatural activity” besides diminishing our individuality. I will return to these after defining “Our Spirit”. 14