Schizophrenia Type I: An Intro to Life

schizophrenia type i an intro to life:

walking in the mist, pebbles and stones beneath feet, turning, around the bend
a figure crouched by a tree, a meeting, an instance, a precedent
now i see more, much more, the sun is rising, the colours bloom, irradiating my world
in the dusk, when i close my eyes, i still see yet
schizophrenia has begun
a rainbow swirl of colour in my world

CLEARCHARGE

Conscious Think

conscious think:

it is apparent that the conscious person is, if you like, in the driver's seat in life. you have, in fixed real space, an immobile clump of matter, call it consciousness, or think, surrounded by light, sound, in a working system, and consciousness manipulates the field around it. "brain in a vat" is quite a material description, and what is material, after all? light makes illusion and what seems material is in some sense a trick of the light, the material can be seen, first of all. indeed, the material involves light and its rules and the sense of touch. in reality the think matter in your head is surrounded by different matter, least bits of matter connected in a numerically huge network, all chained together.

you might think that consciousness is special, as it is the driver. it seems the field around it is all for the driver, so to speak. or you could think that the consciousness has a job, a responsibility, as it has control. but really, what can the consciousness know but its own consciousness first of all, is that why consciousness is special?

what is thought? well, you can think about light, sound, that is, other types of matter, very real things, or it could become abstract. why do we use language? what is the power of certain words? unique words change the think crystals in our heads a certain way, we arrive at something abstract. posit that our native languages are not truly learned with any effort, that such a language with its words naturally lead to certain states of meaning in our heads.

the question becomes what is the limit of abstract thought? it is noticeable, asleep, we have thoughts that we cannot define or easily explain, a general mood often being the only explanation. while we are awake, the think is less abstract, we often think about light and sound, that's where the bias is. asleep, it is more abstract.

what is the original state of consciousness? is there a cycle in which reset to the original states for each think least bit of matter happens? well, can we remember time zero? what is the original balance between real and abstract thought?

CLEARCHARGE

The Return of the Ideas

the return of the ideas:

"so i had this idea years ago, actually, several ideas, maybe a couple, you know, 2, maybe 3. and this idea just came to me. i was somewhere, maybe i was in public doing my shopping or whatever, and i just thought of this thing, and i've been wondering about this all my life."

"when did you have this idea?"

"i don't know, maybe 17 or 18 years ago. i had a full mental life then, you know? i don't know what happened. maybe i got tired, maybe i got old, or something."

"so, in your subconscious, or your unconscious? you've had this a long time. when other ideas attach themselves, i don't know, maybe you have something. it's a little dangerous."

"dangerous? i've never had a lot of time in my life, maybe if i had more time? anyway, i can see the danger in a lot of things."

"life is dangerous? so what? tell me about this idea."

"well, to go into it in any depth would only reveal my inadequacy at explaining things in detail. so, anyway, i put this old idea together with another idea, and bang, suddenly comprehension. you know what it seems?"

"anyone can do it? if you only thought about putting different ideas together, magic would happen? it's a tired story."

"really, i didn't say it was easy. you're too hard on yourself, i think. maybe i'm too easy. i don't know."

"you think i'm hard on myself? you have no idea. sometimes. i get bored and then i get angry. i think, you don't have the time for this. anyway, so you put a few ideas together in a new way and you get what? the realization that they are related concepts in reality?"

"exactly. so, you seem you know a lot about this. it's deceptive. you think, why didn't i think of this then. if only..."

"it's like history. history gets revised. it's called revisionism."

"well that's brutal. but true. i guess we're getting there. at least i hope so."

"let's hope so."

CLEARCHARGE

The Odds on That

the odds on that:

correctly flipping and predicting coin throw at rest is very difficult. the odds are against but it happens. what does that mean? psychic for a few seconds?

first throw predicted correct is easy but to 10 throws? that's hard. but has happened with me several times. the odds are like a thousand against.

the odds of predicting 2 throws is like 1 out of four. not bad, but probably not good enough for realizing what the immediate future will be.

let's think about odds in theory. 1:3 what does that mean? 1 right versus 3 wrong? or 1 out of three? in gambling terms 1/3 that's a payout of one third of the bet or stake. like a payout of 3/1 pays three times your stake but a winning bet also returns your original bet size. so five pounds on a horse or dog payout would be a win of 15 pounds plus five the original. three pounds at 1/3 is a win of a quid. not too bad really, but that's like backing a favourite. it doesn't impress anybody, a shame really!

what are the odds on that? that it will succeed? betting, yes please!? the surprising thing about gambling given that you could win, is that the sequence of a winning streak actually is calm throughout.

but what is the point of gambling? is it to prove that you are psychic or to win a huge sum you could spend? i think originally it was to gain knowledge of all things mathematical and to be able to predict!

of course, spending a win always feels good!

CLEARCHARGE

Ask of What You Think

ask of what you think:

"so your thought process is often a little vague to start with. maybe what you're thinking about has been in your subconscious for a while and only now you're really thinking about it. what comes from the subconscious may seem random and disorganized. it's the conscious thinker's job to organize it, if you like, to have it make sense and to question the assumptions it rests on. it may be thinking of an action, for example, something you should do. well, the first assumption you've made is that the action is possible and the second is that it is a good thing. if we examine the action part, we need to define our terms, what exactly is the action? if we express this as a sentence, what does each word mean exactly? then we can consider whether it is truly possible or not. the second part is an opinion and based on our own personal value systems, what is good and what is bad."

"most thoughts don't come into our consciousness with everything so clearly defined. i guess the subconscious is like a melting pot of ideas, mixing and combining them all the time. and what's going on in the subconscious is often not pretty, it's based on fears."

"what makes the conscious mind different from the subconscious is that it asks questions and isn't really satisfied until it has answers."

CLEARCHARGE

The Extremes of Thought

the extremes of thought:

"you know i can't say it's true for everyone, but i think it tends to be that when people think, they think in extremes, in superlatives, or that something applies to everything. it's like they add words like "all" or "infinite" or "maximum", something like that. an example, the word "god", i mean that gives the impression of a person who is all powerful, all seeing, knows everything, infinite magical powers, present everywhere and so on. or when people make generalizations about nationalities, or gender, etc., it's like, without actually saying it, they're still implying it's true about everyone. it's like a common fallacy of thought."

"well, "god" is an extreme example, it's just that the word has that impact, you know? it just suggests all that naturally. but maybe that's why people don't believe in god, put like that, it's hard to imagine anyone really being that powerful. i mean what if a lesser version of a god existed, like just people who were powerful in ancient times, you know, who did things that determine what the present is today, like inventors or creators, but then again, maybe you wouldn't call them gods, i don't know. i mean it occurred to me, i had this idea that maybe someone drew a picture of a cat in ancient times and then cats appeared after that, you know something more prosaic like that. but anyway, i think the truth is that it's hard to think of exceptions or that something is only partially true, simple thought tends to initially assume the statement is generally true, that it's qualified by the word "all"."

"like space, for me, it's hard to imagine that real space, this reality, is infinite in size. i mean theoretically, the universe, which would be virtual if the external world were an illusion, could be infinite but that's only because the space of the universe is not real space. it's far easier for me to imagine and believe that the size of reality is finite. i mean maybe my own personal bubble in space, if you like, is part of the outer limit of real space and i sense there is nothing beyond that, who knows? but there are far more questions about time."

"here we go. time is change. real space is made up of discrete particles of matter and these change. that's what time is."

"or least bits of matter. even mental things are matter. everything in real space is matter."

"so it's sort of like philosophical idealism for you but mental is material, is a form of matter, in your concept. the problem for you is that the state of the language at present assumes materialism, "matter" generally means something else, something that exists in an external world, and therefore as it is, mental is not "material", is not "matter", to a lot of people, if that makes any sense."

"it's just that it's far simpler to call everything that exists truly in real space, matter."

"anyway, at least some of these least bits of matter change and in all time is a set of states that these can have, right?"

"yes, you can't assume that everything changes. the question is whether an individual least bit of matter's set of states is infinite or finite, i mean, even if change is discrete, theoretically you wonder still if the set were infinite."

"that's confusing because if the set were infinite, it would suggest that time would be continuous, because if change were continuous, obviously the set would be infinite, but maybe not the other way round, an infinite set does not necessarily mean that time is continuous. but i agree theoretically even if change were discrete, the set might still be infinite. but emotionally speaking, would i prefer to live in infinite change or finite? i mean first, you think, finite, well maybe that's not so good, i'm being limited, but then you think infinite, well, that includes all bad things as well, so rationally maybe it's not such a good idea? i think the length of time a state could last also changes. obviously, like, we can vary the length of time between blinks, for example, while still looking at the same thing, something like that."

"it's like a grand tapestry of life where everything that could happen is depicted in one huge picture, that's what finite is."

"and the whole question of immortality and death, though. again we can't help but think in extremes, what is immortality? perfect health, infinite time, free from illness and physical damage, fine food, beautiful gardens, wonderful life, etc. again, it makes it hard to believe in. and death, my thinking gets very confused. first what would it be in a metaphysical sense? when something ends? well what is time if not everything ending and becoming something else? and if you tried to stay the same forever, wouldn't that be the death of time? isn't there a contradiction there? time is a killer, it kills off the past? i mean what could real immortality, that is the opposite of death, what could it be?"

"but time repeats, at the micro level, and maybe even as a whole, at what you could call the end of time. this time now, unless it's a complete repeat already, like it's actually the year 40 trillion or something and we've already done like 300 repeats of this life but we still think the date is 13 billion or even Year 442 going into Year 443, it's a time of great change in general. actually hopefully it's just a once through event, i really don't want to repeat this lifetime."

"yes. maybe time is very "thin" now and this is not to be repeated, like once on earth is enough, never mind having to repeat this lifetime over and over again. but we think finite, and then little, but even if time were finite in a metaphysical sense the numbers are still huge. but back to thinking in general, we tend to think the word "all" about statements, but time and space make a difference, like maybe something is only true sometimes and not others and maybe something is only true somewhere else."

"like maybe it's true for someone else, somewhere else, but it's not true for me. also what about overestimation, something's true but it's not really that important?"

"well that's a problem of the mind, we can only focus on a few things or even one thing at a time consciously and everything we think, it blows up in our minds, so we overestimate it's importance. it's like, something was a huge deal when i was sixteen, but now i think, what was i thinking? and the mind is a fickle thing, because in actuality, we forget, we can't keep things in our conscious mind, but that's just time for you."

CLEARCHARGE

The Problem of False Memory

the problem of false memory:

of course, ideally, we'd like memory, what there is of it, to be true, but inevitably some of it is false, perhaps only a little part even, but that is enough to make us uneasy, if not question whether we are losing our minds.

as an example, i remember December, 1985, on winter school holiday, as a time of staying up late watching television. in my memory, a few years afterwards, i saw the film, Night Shift, on a Thursday night but also that it was New Year's Eve. now New Year's Eve, 1985, was a Tuesday so Thursday is perhaps a false memory. now for a long time right up to today, i thought i had seen the movie on a Thursday and therefore not on New Year's Eve, but having just discovered TV Tango's website and checking the listings for December 31, 1985 confirms that it was on CBS that day though of course this record may be false as everyone is confused. i thought for years that i had conflated two memories, and before that, that i had seen the movie on New Year's Eve and that December 31, 1985 was a Thursday. now one avenue of thought is that actually yes it was and somehow the calendar had changed after that but that is unlikely as i remember that August 27, 1986 was definitely a Wednesday and assuming the calendar hadn't changed between the two dates and that TV Tango is correct, December 31, 1985 was definitely a Tuesday and i saw Night Shift that night. where did the memory of Thursday come from? i did also have the vague memory that New Year's Day was Wednesday at the same time as thinking i saw the film on Thursday, so pretty confused there.

my dream life has some continuity as well, like a parallel world where i have a different history with the dream versions of people in waking life and in that they often happen in dream versions of places like schools i went to or old homes i lived in. it happened where i realized i was in a dream but struggled to remember whether such things had happened in waking life with people i knew. what i conclude from this is that memory is very bad in dreams, false memories are ever present, which explains why we remember so little of what happened before our lives on earth. that i was born into earth, this world, means that i had an amnesiac break from what went before, my previous life, perhaps i was asleep for days, if not months, dreaming and eventually captured and propelled by my dreams of earth into earth.

so i've muddled days and confused memories or that things had happened slightly differently or that the order was hard to determine, but most disturbingly, have i memories of events that never happened at all but which i have vivid details of in my mind? well, hopefully not, and nothing stands out.

what about when we cannot remember something, like a name, but obviously we have not forgotten entirely because when we check or ask someone, we instantly recognize that as the thing forgotten? there is some residual memory that exists even though we cannot bring it into conscious thought. how does this recognition work? i think it is something like an incomplete electrical circuit and when we introduce the missing element, the current flows and we recognize. now i digress, if the theory of eternal return of time were somewhat true, wouldn't we have a buildup of residue that got bigger and bigger with each repeat of events, that we might predict the future accurately? i don't think we do. and residue must exist, perhaps some of it's ancient, for some things feel familiar to us, without us being able to explain why.

what about the start of time? let us assume our minds always existed, predating earth. it is easy to think, because we don't think we can remember what happened before our lives on earth, that perhaps it is a solipsistic nightmare and that earth began when we were born. what do i remember of the first day? when i think about it, i imagine a scene of the ground covered with pebbles and stones, a reddish brown colour, not much visibility, there was fog, walking forwards slowly, looking around, seeing trees, and alone at first. now presumably, the first day was a shocking time and thus more easily remembered than any other day.

CLEARCHARGE

The Building Blocks of Thought

the building blocks of thought:

now what we have in our minds or our brains perhaps is a network, a web of connected ideas and concepts or what we might call items of thought. these relate mostly to real things but also those abstract. by real things, i mean images, actions past, sounds, and so on. yes we all have imagination and a surprising capacity to think about things that do not exist in actuality and also we can think about abstract subjects like mathematics.

now i digress. can a fiction, a made up story, ever allow us to wander far enough away from reality to ever be truly believable? a word always connects to something real. we cannot turn off thoughts about real things that we have experienced and seen and heard. a writer creates a work, but the audience has its own individual interpretation of it. of course, if we were less strict, yes it could be admitted that we all share a general sense of this work, but each individual brain whilst reading it works in its own way. i might mention the word "drink", but whilst i think of the coffee i've just had, a reader elsewhere in space at another time might think of whatever he or she just had, orange juice perhaps. the word triggers something in our own experience. what i am saying is that we cannot truly have a "clean" reading of any work, fiction or non fiction, for everything is coloured by individual experience. to deconstruct any work is to work out what is connected to what in the world of real things, to undermine imagination really, and in so doing perhaps we discover more of the impossible and the possible.

it is clear that the conscious mind is little in relation to the unconscious and memory. it is a slim "holder" of thoughts, like a tiny screen lit up on the side of a mainframe computer. it can only hold so much at any one time. it is volatile like a multicoloured flame of a candle or lighter blowing in the wind. i would say it is incorrect to attach all of our identity to our consciousness, for we are more than what we are thinking of at any given moment. i think, therefore i am, but i am not only what i think.

let's say an intelligent person's consciousness, or mental "holder", could have 50 discrete items of thought at once. of course, let us consider that this could be a variable number. perhaps in concentrated thought, even a 100 in one go, like the flame were adjustable. now the items of thought are like building blocks which a person might play with, each represents something real or abstract. in writing this work, i've thought of a computer, a flame, building block toys, etc. i have ghostly images of these things in my mind's eye now. i have a little collection of building blocks of thought. now what lateral thinking is, briefly, is the manipulation of these building blocks, creating a new collection or arrangement of thoughts, by adding a new, different block to what we had before, something seemingly unrelated usually. what do we have now in our conscious mind? what has the addition forced us to think of?

there is an argument that the consciousness is not the leader of the total mind, rather it is the larger unconscious that is so, even that calculation is led by the unconscious. then the concept that the unconscious is the supercomputer seems more apt. the conscious mind is more like a passenger viewing the scenery of thoughts.

CLEARCHARGE

To Think Awake and Asleep

to think awake and asleep:

we have few words as signifiers for the various states of what is perhaps the most important component of our minds, our consciousness and its cycle of change. for something that is complex, that could be considered to have many different states, we commonly reduce this to two words, "awake" and "asleep", or "conscious" and "unconscious". is it really that simple? or is this a prime example of the poverty of the language in its current form?

let us deconstruct the situation. when we are awake we are self consciously thinking, our thoughts are clearer, and so the word "think" is linked to the word "consciousness". now i seek to dismiss the most common false assumption which springs from this, that when we are asleep or unconscious we are not thinking at all, that consciousness equates to thinking and unconsciousness to no thinking, like a dead animal in our sleep, so to speak. indeed, i posit that we are thinking all the time, that a fundamental part of the self is the eternal thinker, that we can never stop thinking, even in our sleep.

however, the quality, so to speak, of what our thought is when we are asleep may be very different. words that you would associate with thinking whilst awake are "clear", "focused", "distinct", "conceptual". words that you would associate with thinking whilst asleep or unconscious might be "blurry", "cloudy", "thematic", "moody", "emotional", "stuck", etc. generally, thinking when awake could be slow or fast. when asleep without dreaming, it seems slow. thought is most volatile upon falling asleep and waking up and when dreaming.

you would think, at the very least, this subject deserves a greater, more precise vocabulary, to eliminate the misconceptions arising from the over simplistic present binary terms, "awake" and "asleep".

CLEARCHARGE

The Voyage of Sleep

the voyage of sleep:

"...so at one point i used to think that sleep was kind of like being dead, but that wasn't very satisfactory, in that you don't really know what death is, right? all the time you're alive, being dead is just some vague as yet undefined state of being, or not being, like nobody knows what death is while they are alive, right?"

"i used to think that when you are fast asleep, you're just not thinking, so you don't remember anything when you wake up."

"right. so sleep, and in extension, death, seems like an absence of thought. i mean the word "consciousness" is used, but like all words, i mean, if words and thought were like food, a particular word has its own unique flavour, right? all the words that mean the same thing, all the synonyms, might be like one type of food, like ice cream, but ice cream comes in all these different flavours, and so do words. for me, the word "consciousness" seems to suggest something mystical and fragile and fleeting, but it means the same thing as the phrase "thought in your head", right?"

"how about head think?"

"yeah. so words have different connotations. but the most commonly used words might not be the best or the simplest words. sometimes it seems the oddest words get promoted the most. it's like the most popular sandwich was banana with mustard and cucumber on raisin bread! but i digress..."

"you were talking about sleep and consciousness."

"again the word "consciousness" just makes it seem like it could go at any moment, like it was a flickering candle flame or something, and you know any minute something could come along and put it out. you know, maybe it's just the wrong word."

"right, but we are stuck with it, don't you think? as much as you'd like to, you can't change the vocabulary. anyway, i don't believe that you're not thinking whilst you're asleep anymore. i wanted to try to, you know, like observe myself as i was falling asleep, and remember what was happening."

"monitor yourself, like thinking about what was going on while you were falling asleep?"

"exactly. and a few times as i was falling asleep, i forced myself awake, you know, sat up suddenly so i could think about what i was thinking just before. and it's like, as you are falling asleep, everything in your mind becomes cloudy and violent, in that your thoughts change really fast, and they don't make much sense. you certainly couldn't easily explain in language what you were thinking about clearly. and then, yesterday, i had been drinking coffee, and i woke up further along the sleep cycle, i think actually just fallen completely asleep and then suddenly awake and i realized, you are completely thinking all the time you are asleep, that you stop thinking is a complete lie."

"i know but what you are thinking, or the quality of your thinking, if thoughts could be conceived of as like a matter substance like a diamond, are completely different to what they are when you are awake. it's like the mind switches to another substance."

"yeah, so my head could be like a giant crystal glass marble, but it's a magical marble and keeps changing inside."

"yes. during consciousness, it's say more or less clear and slow swirls and waves happening inside but as you fall asleep, the marble clouds over like you're saying and it's almost getting violent inside, everything is moving and twisting and turning so fast. that's probably why most of the time you can't remember what happens at this stage."

"yes, it's ironic. sleep seems slow and peaceful but what is really happening in the first stage is completely not."

CLEARCHARGE

Time and the Question of the Limits of Thought

time and the question of the limits of thought:

thinking about time and what it really is has absorbed the minds of many. theories abound but we find some contradict each other, so not all could be true. we enter a thought space starting with binary propositions, but then realize that perhaps the issue is more complex than a simple question and the answer true or false would tell us.

questioning time, in turn, makes us question our own capacity for thought and for thinking about the truth about reality. the subject is so difficult and so easy to wander off the path into falsity is it that we begin to doubt that full knowledge could ever be obtained. could we ever know everything or even at least think about reality, what goes on, clearly?

again, it cannot be contested against that time is to do with change. and again, in the model with the fixed spatial position of all matter, that is, everything that exists, it is true to say that a lot of matter changes state, though it is not certain that all matter changes. now, whether change is "discrete" or "continuous", is a binary proposition, i hazard. and this is where the thinking about time becomes difficult, certainly for me. the discrete change of a "least bit of matter" or "particle", to use another word, is, i would say, far easier to think about the other theoretical possibility. for a period, it has one state, then suddenly another, and so on, never mind how long it stays in one state or how many states it could have. i admit this may seem impossible. but how to think about continuous change? to me, this seems even more impossible, if both seem impossible. continuous change, if it were to be considered, would be something that never "stops" and seems therefore that could not be measured at any point, if that makes any sense?

the question then becomes, does because discrete change is easier to think about make it more likely to be true, the theory being that the non-existent is harder or even impossible to really think about?

CLEARCHARGE

The Imprecise Nature of Words

the imprecise nature of words:

but think, if words were merely tools to manipulate thought, to shape concepts crystallizing in the conscious mind, it would seem they are often but a blunt instrument, lacking the precision to control the hoped for outcome of perfect realization of the truth. not only that, when misused, they can easily lead the thinker astray, into the realm of half truths and falsity, or even madness.

what is conscious thought? what is it to think? now this is a world of objects and feelings and sounds. in that the mind is actually connected to the very fabric of this world, these things are highlighted, so to speak, or thought about, by the conscious mind. i am conscious of, i am thinking about various scraps of images, events that happened in my world, places i have been to, and so on. it is a tangled mess. in real time, certain parts fall away, new parts appear.

now all of these things are labelled by words. what words mean to me may not be the same as what words mean to someone else. inevitably our own life experiences colour and ensure that our individual complexes of words and the personal events and things seen and heard and felt by us, to which they are connected, are unique.

however, let us assume that words can have some universal meaning. even so, words and their connections are wrapped up with the past of the universe. when something totally new happens, it has the effect of altering the language complex, for it is a disturbance. and so it always was. the mind, both conscious and subconscious or unconscious, makes and breaks connections continually. as the words in a sentence are read, each word amplifies whatever it is describing, like a live current passing through space. the very act of thinking alters the mind, and perhaps even what it is thinking about.

we all have various conceptions of what reality is, or may be. all are metaphysicians. it cannot be denied that that affects significantly how we define words for ourselves. if i believe that time is infinite, for instance, and this was the original use of the word, this affects what i think when i think about the word infinite when used generally. my argument is that it cannot be divorced from this original plank of belief. so later i may think about infinite numbers as supposedly a purely mathematical concept, but i am still thinking about time all the while. it is almost impossible to separate later thought from its original basis.

if thinking were like guiding a ball to a target, the truth, then words in a sentence hit the ball this way and that way, each word carrying its own "baggage" from the past. often it is difficult to hit bullseye. how did words come into creation? well, it is not hard to guess that merely they were the words people first thought of when something happened, that they were "in the air" at the time. the language universe has its own inflation. we know new words come into being. what may be disturbing, for as ever the new replaces the old, is that parts of the past are lost, and we have no idea how we got here.

CLEARCHARGE

The Place of Consciousness

the place of consciousness:

located in space are many, or few perhaps, centres of mental activity, each point being where individual consciousness lies, surrounded by a vivid, fluctuating field, different and to a degree separate from all others. was this arrangement always thus or was it created or was it shared?

what controls the flow of conscious thought? other than light and sound? raw data from the unconscious mind? we are so locked into thinking about what we see and hear that other things have less of a place in our thoughts.

consciousness endlessly mixes and matches ideas together to form new concepts. some thoughts are well defined, some only vague. we don't always know what we are thinking about! consciousness is a speculator, an explorer, a thing that is always chasing knowledge and understanding.

CLEARCHARGE

Awake, Asleep and the Cycle of Thought

awake, asleep and the cycle of thought:

there is an interesting universal question, that is, was i born awake or was i born asleep? i mean, really? let us explore what we mean by these two words, awake and asleep.

awake, conscious, seeing light and hearing, thinking about the world around us. asleep, though the lights are off so to speak, this does not mean that our thoughts have died, and our thinking ceases to exist, only that it has become more abstract, less to do with the very real senses of sight and hearing.

well, why can't we remember what we dream of, and what we were thinking of before we fell asleep? when sleep fades in, our thinking becomes blurry, less controlled by what we see when awake, and it is an often wild, volatile sequence of thoughts, unto the state of being dead asleep, that we experience daily.

what is typical in the states of being awake and being asleep, probably exist simultaneously all the time. in a sense, we are never "100% awake and 0% asleep" or "0% awake and 100% asleep", at any time. which leads to a refining of the first question, well, how awake was i, at true birth, and how asleep?

dreams are a strange mixture of the two, a fluid state that is similar to the stage of falling asleep, in that thoughts are often abstract, for we cannot easily define what we are thinking about.

is this an important question, the nature of our minds at birth?

CLEARCHARGE

Reality Levels

reality levels:

usually thought about at first then more apparent, an idea or vague concept crystallizing in the mind....

can i see it? can i hear it? how far does reality differ from initial imagination?

is this my intention?
is it even a good idea?

not everything thought about becomes any more real. are we perpetually insane? common obsessions may dominate our thinking.

the capacity to think clearly about what could be is most valuable.

CLEARCHARGE

Think Like Think 1000

think like think 1000:

there are levels of consciousness....

thinking, associative analysis, verbal reasoning, concept evaluation, variable manipulation, calculation, programming....
call it what you will, think is often crucial.

imagine if you will the ability to think about 1000 different variables or concepts or ideas....
what is the aim of thinking? how to achieve this aim, if there are 1000 different things to think about?
it is to form an acceptable arrangement of variables, a complex if you like, that is pleasing and true, or rather, what goes with what?
well, truth be told, think 1000 has a grand strategy, to change somewhat nebulous concepts to fine form, that is, not to attack the problem but to return now and again to analyze how it has developed.

levels of consciousness....
although not really thinking thinking about something many people are aware of certain facts which proves at some subconscious levels they are still thinking about them.

CLEARCHARGE

Think!

think!:

we need answers....

idea
concept
theory
thought
solution

raised consciousness of the truth....

....crystallizes in the head, so to speak, and is difficult to shake. it affects our mood, our emotions, our subconscious mind and ultimately our actions or indeed in some cases our nonactions or omissions. the truth is hard to forget, especially when gained through dreadful experiences: damaged, carrying baggage. our emotions are a powerful source or influence.

....i can't stop thinking about something. am i missing something?

CLEARCHARGE