jmcgready’s misc universe

and I blame “Web 2.0″ .

That’s right.
I’ve committed sacrelige - how dare I malign
the darling child of the digerati?

because I’m convinced that the internet,
far from broadening our horizons,
has Balkanized them so that its extensive use
has conditioned us to the belief that
the external world molds itself,
or can be made to mold itself,
to our every exacting whim.

when non-virtual realities do rear their ugly head,
they’re the source of our savage denial and vitriolic hissy fits
which seem more childish than mature.

but how do I reconcile this delusion with
the foreground/background (FG/BG) mind model which, if applied,
would seem to establish the very delusion I seek to avoid?

the first thing is what FG/BG requires -
It only requires the individual and only concerns itself with individual actions,
unlike the New Thought/Wattles/Jarrett/Ponder school of thought,
which requires an individual to put thoughts “out into the Universe”
so that “the Universe” will act like Aladdin’s Genie - i.e. “our wish is its command”

second, is what FG/BG does not require -
It does not require “the Universe” to alter in any way, shape, or form -
save for its necessary reaction to [and/or interaction with] an individual’s activity.

so FG/BG, while concerning itself exclusively with our internal reality (perceptions, intentions, thoughts and actions),
does recognize an external reality that is not necessarily bound to correspond to our internal reality.
i.e. just because we can only work with our internal reality doesn’t mean that external reality can be dismissed
and/or subtly redefined into non-existence.

more later

Technorati Tags: reality, intention, mind, web 2.0, new thought. wallace wattles

Technorati: observations

been wanting to write down my observations
and opinions on how the mind works.

my approach would closer to mind technology
than mind science - i.e. application vs theory.

I’m convinced that the mind is a single infinitely complex processor
with 2 major classes of processes - foreground and background.

foreground processes are what most people refer to as “conscious thought”
they’re the most resource intensive of the 2 major classes and
the most ascendant of the two as of late, evolutionarily speaking.

it’s much like the new kid in town with the shiny new tool -
we gather ’round, oooh and ahhhh, then quickly declare it the new
standard of acceptability and belongingness, advocating its adoption and use
even when it’s not the right tool to use -
so if the new tool’s a hammer, every problem is redifined to be a nail.

and so it is with foreground processes - even the popular vernacular
for the 2 major processes defines the 2nd major class as either
below (i.e. subconscious)
or against (i.e. unconscious) the foreground process.

so what is the foreground process good at doing?
analyzing and encoding new input so that it can either
be assigned to a relevant preexisting background process
or be used to create a new relevant background process.

the factors that influence a new encoding are:
Authority
Intensity
Duration

encodings are also influenced by repetition and prior definitions.

I guess it clear by now that I believe our background processes
have more to do with what we do and how we live than the foreground processes,
which can be good, since it is the most effective use of mental resources.

that’s all I have to say for now -
I’ll expand on the topic in later posts…

Technorati: observations