Reclusland

March 5, 2010

- Dan Siegel’s definition of “mind” -

“A core aspect of the mind can be defined as an embodied and relational process that regulates the flow of energy and information.”

(full transcript here)

One thing to note is that this definition means we must separate “mind” from “awareness”…

quotes —

  1. Hi Ian,
    You may find this blog post of interest:
    http://zenyogagurdjieff.blogspot.com/2010/03/overgrown.html

    Comment by Ann Seeker — March 10, 2010 @ 3:49 am


  2. Thanks Ann, its a nice article. I very much identify with the struggle of trying to understand how an incomplete mind can complete itself, and I very much agree with his conclusion that we need to relax deeply and release tension on deep levels. In the Tibetan Buddhist tradition, its even said that the body itself is a kind of tension, and that if we can allow the body to receive enough higher energy, it is possible to relax it right out of existence.

    Of course, tension itself is not the enemy. Tension is simply our mind and body’s way of drawing our attention to problems, places where we’re grasping or pushing away. We wouldn’t call pain from a getting to close to an open flame an enemy either, its only when we don’t pay attention to it that we can get badly burned.

    However, I do find something rather depressing about the article as well. This sums it up pretty well:

    This is the dilemma we are presented with. This irrevocable conviction that the mind as I know it is a “real” mind. The knitting together of the three centers which could produce something of a higher order is no more than a theory, and my methods of working towards it remain largely untested hypotheses. The reason for this is that all of the approach to these questions is owned by the very entity that stands between me and the organic sense of being — this ephemeral, artificial “mind” which is my principal tool for interaction with life.

    And that’s after 30 years of doing the Gurdjieff work…

    If that’s the way he’s defining his mind, there doesn’t seem to be anything to be done. If the mind as it currently is is not capable of improving itself, of making itself more prone to the accidents of enlightenment and spiritual growth, then there’s no reason for him to beat himself up about it. However, the way I look at it is, if “mind” is not real, there still must be something that is real. We’re better off not worrying so much about the false “mind”. Instead, searching out what is real within us, and using that as a foundation for further growth.

    How we frame the question is really a key issue, and framing it as impossible glues our feet to the ground before we ever get a chance to start walking.

    Comment by Ian — March 10, 2010 @ 9:57 am


  3. Ok, and deep breath, release, and back into the body. :)

    Comment by Ian — March 10, 2010 @ 9:58 am



Leave a comment»
















Leave a comment





WP