This and all other postings are WORKS IN PROGRESS. Each selection is added to, corrections made, and questions asked are answered as needed. I add new findings as they become available, often before proofing.
Thank you,
Ernest Earl Dennis.
Rational Thought -- Part Two
Beginning Rational Terms: Mind
There could be no better place to start learning the terms of rational literacy than with the basic definition of the rational term “mind.” Mind is one of the no more than ten core-terms forming the basic platform for rational thought. As with most quantifying rational definitions, there is little or no obvious relationship with the variable casual “meanings” found in the common lexicon. In rational context the synonym that best characterizes “your mind,” would be goal-seeking instrument.
Within that “goal seeking” depiction is a precise description of “your mind” at a rational level of function. Once this is understood, it gives insight as to why lack a "handle" on the most commonly used rational terms is required for “your mind” to function at a rational level.
There are no substitutes for the role of rational terms in logical resolution. The most critical are the core terms forming the underlying platform of the operating system, which consists of ten-or-less terms. Not all ten terms are used universally. Some individuals have a lifestyle in which less than ten core-operating terms would still provide all the factor values used from cradle to grave, and serve to operate their entire range of rational resolutions addressed.
Lacking a key term, or having a core term with an error in meaning, and, therefore an error in its factor value, renders one unable process reliable conclusions in the area of rational process that term's factor value quantifies.
Regardless of the effort, or intensity of will power given, one cannot use a substitute in lieu of a missing rational term's factor value. This no more than one could substitute the numerical value of a number with something else. Of course, as rational literacy is still the rule today, it is all too common for people to try to replace missing factor values with “will power,” which is ineffective, and frustration is the ultimate return.
You will find surprising examples of rational illiteracy defeating what appears to be a clear-cut objective, such as the widespread attempt to consciously bring about “change” in the individual.
The very concept of “change” indicates an error in rational context and, therefore, rational function itself. Much less the flawed concept of applying will power to manage “change.” There are TWO critical errors in this concept. First is the “thought” that will power is an effective substitute for the power of preconscious motivation, which is only supplied from a rational process. The rational process supplying motivation is not directly accessible to the individual by their immediate flow of conscious thought.
Using the non-rational context of “change” is a typical assumption ascribed to the overall lack of rational literacy, typical for this period in history.
“Change” is just a word. It is a word with “meanings” however, and can be used with every other word in your vocabulary to frame the questions you ask your rational “mind” to solve, to give an answer to your conscious level, or, especially, to activate an element within you that your conscious “mind” itself cannot directly access to trigger.
“Change” was chosen for illustration at this point, as it is one of the easiest illustrations of a flawed syntax. It is also an all too common choice in an individual's vocabulary, such as in establishing the initiative to diet.
The error occurs in the rational distinction between “change” and “evolve,” as it relates to the real world; a physical world in which the laws of physics define the reality of what is, or is not, possible:
It is not in the realm of reality for our species to “change.” It is entirely possible, and most natural, however, for people to evolve.
If that distinction seems almost trivial, it will cease to appear as such, however, as you progress. In retrospect, the use of “change” where the thought should be qualified correctly as “evolve” represents a prime exemplar of how assumptions are a poor excuse for rational distinction. No less a case in point to a successful outcome, than when my Grandmother made her locally famous “Cloud Nine Biscuits,” and it slipped her mind to include the baking powder.
I call your attention to whether you have noticed that your highest level of intelligence does not take your daily directives seriously, especially when you demand “change.” This may be, in part, an acquired survival defense, which is soundly based on a history of how your “casual-thinking” lacks stability by its very design, being married to, and sharing, the same room as your family of emotions.
With a close relationship to emotions, the conscious “mind” lacks definiteness of direction. During any normal day it can change its objectives moment-by-moment, subject to a transition of focus, even subject to the next phone call.
The workplace of the conscious “mind” requires fluidity. Whereas, higher rational functions must have a “firewall” between them, and, what, to them, would be chaos from the conscious levels' constant corrections in direction. This constant tweaking of the agenda at the conscious level leaves it inherently flawed in the area of the dependability for the unwavering focus required for a long-term perspective.
The “mind” at the conscious level can be influenced by nothing more than how emotions happen to make it “feel” at that instant. Even the most “rock solid” intellectual among us has to contend with the shrill, ever-present chatter of emotion, of which a rational progression is not present, or part of its ever-changing, never logical “thinking” process. Therefore, your conscious level is not welcome to directly address the “rational processing room's director” to break its solitude, or leave you an avenue open for your emotions to jerk, rattle, or pull on, the “rational director's” chain.
Another analogy would be that one's “mind” at the level of rational process gets “wish lists” from an emotional level, like rock-stars get fan letters. Higher intelligence gets the delivery, is polite, and adds it to the pile, but seldom acts upon the occasional valid instruction YOU send that gets mixed within the daily bulk.
This lack of following you “wishes” is not done out of laxness on the “rational director's” part. Rather, the lack of response is the result of its familiarity of the sometimes-silly, variable emotional directives outlined in the “wish lists” it receives.
These conscious-level “orders” being delivered to the “director” are ever changing as the emotional goes with, and focuses upon, whatever is in the moment. Adding to the already erratic emotional variables is the susceptibility to the ebb and flow of hormones, blood sugar, even to the effects of that last cup of coffee.
One can be a mature individual, “sober as a Judge,” however, there is a part at the lowest emotional level that may well be throwing a tantrum, and screaming to be heard, and it will never fully mature. At times when the emotional level is sending out wish lists, your Emoter does so while engaged in beating its little head against the wall, and, the equivalent of purposely wetting its pants.
At the same time you little Emoter may be ruminating over how another person “struck it” as rude, and stay in the “mood” looking intently for something else to hit an emotional “hot button.” If nothing else, emotions never cease to seek something out to make it defensive, or a “victim,” even if it is nothing more than to focus on the room temperature.
Most people have little consciousness that somewhere hidden within is a cage of primitive emotions “bouncing off the walls,” just as in each of us at this very instant, whether or not we believe or recognize it.
For the most part, people are unaware of the constant background “noise” they are condition to “muzzle,” or filter out, much less aware that they are, in part, intelligent, because they have matured to the point in which their “intelligence” does not recognize, or take seriously, any consciously addressed command it receives. And, there are no exceptions.
So it comes with some degree of surprise and disillusionment, when last week's on-fire intention to “change,” such as with a diet, does a “Frosty the Snowman” hat-and-cane, tip-tap, tootle-do, soft-shoe routine, fading away stage left. Only the fadeout is so slow that the process cannot be observed directly.
Such is the transient nature and reliability of will power, and, its first-cousin determination.
The reality is we “win” in the physical world, not by force of will power or just working harder -- simply giving or applying more brute physical effort, nor with just persistence and conscious determination: “once more with feelings.”
Rather, we are profoundly blessed to have the rational capacity to work “smarter.” The “catch” is we need to understand just how that is achieved. Acquiring rational power at its highest level, to work “smarter,” does not come of itself as do the emotional hormonal “drivers” from birth automatically empower emotions.
Neither sheer physical force, nor a lifetime of output from emotional reactions, is a match against a single rational thought. Thankfully, we are not dependant on remaining “average,” “typical,” or “ordinary,” and total reliance on our senses as does our pets, with a reactive form of intelligence. We have the capacity to side-step reactive emotional stimuli and have the responsive power that flows from our ability to rationalize knowledge, though it is only an option.
This is a summation of the key: In understanding the rational context of “mind,” understand you do not exercise control by exercising your will. You do not simply “work harder” at mental functions, especially when they are at higher-levels such as rational conjecture, replacing habits, or defining a new manner of behavior: A deeper function rules. There is even a universal law defining this, a legal ruling most aptly described by Brian Tracy: “In higher mental functions, conscious effort defeats itself.”
So in higher mental applications, the key to lock onto is the reality that the harder you do not try directly, the better it works.
Once more, it is possible the conscious level of thought lacks direct control to higher rational process, from evolving a degree of wisdom to avoid our “emotional mind's” addiction to “instant gratification” Also to mitigate the never-ceasing emotional chatter that is universal in every human being. Emotions do not, ever, evolve, “wise-up,” need to rest, shut up, shut down, or “grow up,” rather, we “grow” to the degree we master managing their never ceasing outpouring of reactions.
Rather than a direct “hands-on” management, “mind” appears to be wired to operate independent of the requests of nonsensical daily ups-and-downs of emotions, and tends to see no distinction between your direct conscious pleas and those coming from within the cage hidden in your “basement” holding the emotional delinquents.
“Mind” even tends to ignore the almost-daily cries of crisis that characterize our irrational reactive emotions, even when cleverly disguised as childish pleas for sympathy.
Rather, “mind” has evolved to feel most secure with the long-term view, subject to the standards, goals, values, and limits to evolve one has established. Unfortunately, most often this evolution is limited to limiting painful experiences, rather then primarily evolvement for the better. (As to your regarding the inherent power of the long-term view, or perspective, it is something of a proverb accepted as a universal law by many, that it is quite impossible to lose an objective, or end in defeat, if you take a longer-term view than your competition.)
In consolidating your rational understanding of the context of “mind,” the point is you do not have direct access to program your highest-level-of-intelligence. For example, to stop or start a trait, rather than mustering “will power,” one defines the desired objective, which, in everyday conversation, and in rational context, is defined as A GOAL.”
We are “wired” to only rationally define, then emotionally empower, the goal we want the “mind” to achieve, at which time, the wonder is the rest is quite “involuntary.” This is true, whether the goal is to just get through the day, to “Get milk®,” or, at the other end, for the addict to get the next fix.
The point to grasp is “mind” ONLY responds, accepts, takes seriously, and is literate in understanding, the language of “goals.” You merely “sow the goal seeds.” How this process of defining goals in a manner that “gets through” and registers will be described further on in the definition of rational term “Goal.”
The access to the power of one's “mind,” is dependent upon a rationally clear understanding that the most formidable functions of your “mind” are not directly accessible to a hands-on, direct, much less instant, demand.
We could also say that you are not mentally “wired” to directly, or consciously, direct the rational sub-operation. Rather, the reality of our role, our operating function, is to learn, and then define, FIRST, the factor values, and standards, of the rational terms forming our basic operating system.
These “meanings” of rational terms are effective to the degree that their essence is instilled to never subjugate the universal objectives they define to the emotionally driven subjectivity of the moment. It is the depth and stability of the singular objectivity of terms, over a perversion to a convenient exception of the moment, which also defines one's character. Keep in mind that the universe does not make exceptions to law. All that is “wrong” in one's universe, all regret and grief can be traced back to “an exception” to a rational factor value.
Once assumptions are replaced by understanding and then applied, the rest is the “magic” of access to fully use the quantifying power of rational thought you were given at birth. Birds have wings and fly. We have intelligence and can quantify “thought” with logic and reason using the factor values of universal laws. So far this proclivity to quantify with rational “thought” has allowed us to “fly” to the moon, and NOW, even define the highest-level of our “thought” process: the rational quantifying process itself.
Within the awareness that your “mind” is designed to function as a goal seeking mechanism, it is useful to add, so you will be aware, that your “mind” is not “wired” to send you on the emotional “rabbit chases” of the passing moment; you do on your own, and, not very well you may note.
Rather, nothing actually happens for you at the highest level, until you properly define the objectives, and this is critical, as it is how your mind takes over behind the scenes giving you those “peak moments.” This includes the ability to access your best, which, without rational context, fails during moments of self-consciousness, depression, grief, distress, or, especially, at this juncture in our history, economic distress and political duress.
To make the understanding of “mind” workable for you, to make the understanding of the ration term “mind” workable in a rational context, one must pair it with a clear understanding of the rational term “goal,” which you will find remarkable, when you compare it to the casual meanings. In the next segment, the rational term “goal” is defined.
© Copyright 2006 by Ernest Earl Dennis, all rights reserved.
RationalPower.com will continue to define more rational process, answer your questions.
Please lend me your hand by telling friends about RationalPower.com
I appreciate you, your letters, your grants of support.
Thank you!
Ernest Earl Dennis, Editor
Post Office Box 1806
Longview, WA 98632-8117
For the sake of transparency regarding this site, and its editor,
you may go to the Editor's Page. Thank you.
© Copyright 2006, by Ernest Earl Dennis
|