Inert / Private / Neutral / thoughts or actions, do they exist?

[Ali Quadir]

Ali, you possess a very interesting viewpoint in regards to this subject. Could we also look at the preconceptual self as kind of an inner core part of your being that, due to experience, has become predisposed to some things? I imagine a large portion of humanity has a similar preconceptual self (i.e. the predisposition to call a cow a cow) due to our many years of shared experience.

That we represent the animal we call cow with the symbol cow isn't so much the preconceptual action. The experience of the cow is preconceptual, the name is symbolic thought.. They do lie very close together though. One is the experience of the world the other is the description of the world. So the predisposition to call a cow a cow isn't a preconceptual thing.

But what you say that the preconceptual self is a kind of inner core part that is predisposed to things due to experience is absolutely right on the money. It's also the important thing to remember. Not just events from this life. But from past lives as well, what we call karma is a result of it. In effect Lavazza when he watches men fighting is dabbling with karma. More likely his karma makes him enjoy watching the fights than that he builds karma by watching the fights. This could be due to a lot of reasons.

My Sufi friend did psychic healing. He worked with this preconceptual self, which he calls a lightbody. And the predispositions he calls archetypes. If you've been a farmer in a past life. As lets be honest we've all been farmers in past lives Then in this life you're predisposed to certain farmer traits. Which is good because it gives us the instincts we need to sow things that we harvest later. In an abstract way. Working dilligently to gain a bonus later on in any form is a kind of farming. Similarly there are patterns of the aristocrat, someone who demands more of himself than he demands of others, the father or mother patterns, and a lot of other patterns. These are just examples, these names are just symbols for patterns in the preconceptual self that we may manifest in our lives. They are just descriptions for the benefit of those who try to speak about the topic, so don't think there's an actual farmer in your preconceptual self. When we say there's a farmer there we mean that there's farmer-ish movements in the preconceptual.

So if the preconceptual self has the archetype of a warrior in it. Then the thoughts of the individual will be like those of a warrior, his environment will respond to him like a warrior, and his world will sometimes demand him to take the warrior role. So being a warrior in the preconceptual isn't necesarily a good thing because it may actually cause violence. Fortunately in this case it also gives you the mindset to deal with that. Victim patterns are much nastier to have and yet we all have at least a slight bit of that. We've all been victimized if only slightly.

Misunderstood is a funny one, for some reason 99.9% of humanity is convinced that it's misunderstood. Almost every person has that. My sufi friend met one person without that pattern, and people always understood what she meant. Al least she was utterly convinced of that, so in her world that was the truth.

The preconceptual understanding of being rich doesn't mean you have a lot of money, it means you never encounter the experience of not being able to do something for lack of money. People who have this karma may never have lots of money in the bank, but they never run out. People who are preconceptually poor just keep running out of money, give them a million and they'll lose it. Even if they manage it really well they just seem to have bad luck after bad luck forcing them to give it up.

There's all sort of preconceptual mechanisms. Like for so many the understanding that closeness converts to violation. Or compartmentalisations where for example we're brilliant at speaking in front of groups of strangers but for the life of us can't speak to our family. Weird stuff like that happens all the time.

This is literally the stuff that builds our fates. And the good thing is it's our own body we have theoretical full control over it. Right now it takes some convincing and clear choices, work. But it will be much more under our control as we hit 4th.

I see that you differentiate an animal's thought from a human's "symbolic" thought, and I like that term. The point I was getting at there was that you can't have a brain without thought.

It's a good analogy, though animals especially mammals still have a great capacity for symbolic thought. We're just better at it. But a dog, a chimp, a cat, even birds have the capacity for symbolic thoughts. Insects do not. You can as far as I know never teach an insect to push a button to get a snack.

The difference is that mammals have inside of them the symbolic internal representation of the world. Insects do to a much much lesser degree. Insects directly respond to the world. They don't reason about it to the degree that mammals do. They have not seen the evolutionary need to create that faculty. If nature would demand it of them they probably would. (And yet apparently fruit flies can be trained to fly towards specific scents) I think it's probably more a primitive adaptation of hard wiring rather than an internal model though.

Chimps were unable to learn altruistic sharing even when it means they end up with more. Unless!!! They were given the altruistic sharing as a model to think about. As soon as they were inside the situation and not thinking about it they would no longer share.

So chimps while they have the ability are still ruled more directly by their preconceptual selves because in nature that just works for them.

It's like blood flowing through the veins, there's always thought present. I also think you've shed a little more light on the topic of conscious vs subconscious manifestation, and understanding your concepts more clearly now, I think I can agree with you. But I would add, as a compliment to what you say, my understanding that the purpose of conscious thought is to guide or act as a frame or focuser of the more subconscious powers of manifestation. I also like your differentiation between faith and belief.

Yes exactly, thoughts are literally the flashlight that we use to draw attention to experience. In a way in order to think about something we have to give it a name first.

In mexico there were deaf people who had never learned sign language. These people were essentially devoid of language, their thinking process was totally different. They did not have symbolic thoughts or really only rudimentory ones. As was discovered when they were taught sign language so we could ask them, signing even improved their memory immensely because now they have something low bandwidth to encode experiences in. There was nothing wrong with the hardware before, they just did not have the encoding symbols to use it efficiently.

You could say a belief is a symbolic representation of an inner faith. This means much of what we believe doesn't literally come about we may believe one thing because we have faith in the other. Weird conversions that cause us to give our power away.