Apathy: Psychological Inertia

[Animus]

I have been toying with this idea that psychological states are essentially egotistical representations of physical phenomena. I was initialled inspired by "Love" and the claim that "God is Love". Although the claim sounded ridiculous to me when I first heard it, and I had a strong tendency to reject it. I fought myself to understand how someone could make such a statement without being totally bonkers.

I began by examining what exactly was meant by "Love". I understood that many people conceive of love as merely a bond between two people, but this statement said much more to me. The very fact that the individual identities of "two people" are retained in the act of forming a "bond." It reflected to me the very fact of individual identity coupled with the unity of all individual objects which characterizes the state of reality. All things are preserved in their individuality while simultaneously relating to each other in infinite "love." This idea isn't really that unusual and I believe Rowden alludes to it in his video on Agape. By stating "Agape is a correct understanding" not necessarily of "love" but of Truth.

This has led me to consider other human emotions. But first, it occured to me from studying neuroscience that the brain which is a physical organism does not represent "love" in the form of emotions emitting from the physical matter. By looked objectively at the brain there is no appearance of "love" with our current understanding. But if the preservation of individual concepts while simultaneously being bound were occuring in the representational structure of the brain and this was pushed through the subjectifying lens of the ego it would become a subjective experience of love. An experience which correlates with physical properties of the brain. Furthermore, we could then say "Reality loves Me" if we manage to interpret this dialectically. With Reality existing as a whole as one perspect relating to the individual ego as another perspect. Without elevating the ego to a role higher than it has naturally.

Philosophically speaking, if the ego is an illusion of subsistence only, and somewhat of an after-thought. Then the intelligence which "I have" is not really in my possession. The idea that I have intelligence is wrapped up in the notion that I subsist as a causative agency. The truth may be that intelligence happens, cause and effect happens, and when it happens through "me" it takes a subjectified look. Such that cause and effect, and the logical certainty thereof, is re-presented subjectively as "intelligence" which "I" am the cause of, when in-fact I'm not the cause of it.

Finally, I've turned to Apathy in a flash of insight that suggested it bore some similarity to the thermodynamic law of inertia. As it turns out, "inertia" was a term coined by Aristotle derived from the Latin word iners meaning idle, or lazy. And the term "inertia" is regularly used interchangably with "apathy" and "lethargy" in psychology. So I wondered how this could map more directly onto the physical notion of inertia. I began looking for research on apathy and brain correlates and it seems people suffering from Huntington's Disease tend to suffer from increasing apathy due to a breakdown of the caudate nucleus. The caudate nucleus links the executive prefrontal cortex with the limbic system. Initiative from the prefrontal cortex does not percolate down to the limbic system so no action ever takes place. Patients describe the experience as either wanting to do something and not finding the initiative to take action or a declining desire to act at all. The "initiative" which correlates with a transmission of energy from the frontal lobes to through the caudate nucleus and to the limbic system becomes inert at the damaged tissue. When the energy transmission itself becomes inert the individual experiences apathy.

I began to think how this could apply to world-views and concepts. And it occurred to me that a set of ideas or thought structure might be so rigidly formed as to resist any change, and that this could be represented physically by a mass with sufficient internal rigidity to resist the change it would incur from an insufficient outside force, and that the outside force would become inert. Isaac Newton describes it thus:

"The vis insita, or innate force of matter, is a power of resisting by which every body, as much as in it lies, endeavours to preserve its present state, whether it be of rest or of moving uniformly forward in a straight line."

In other words, when a person has a sufficiently solidified world-view, especially one with all kinds of emotional attachments, the force of conflicting concepts is not sufficient to cause a change in the rigidly formed neuroanatomical structure of the brain. In that way, what one experiences as apathy toward certain world-views, is reflectived of physical inertia in the brain, or the physical inertia is representative of apathy. Ultimately both apathy and inertia, whether applied to the human mind or to the objective-physical universe describe the same logical truth. As this is pushed through the ego it appears to become something else. This creates a big illusion that there is a fundamental difference between ourselves and the physical universe in our operation. It renders the whole idea of "anthropomoprhisization" relatively moot on all accounts.

So perhaps when I first heard "God is Love" my concepts of "God" and of "Love" were already so rigidly formed as to resist any change the statement might have evoked. At first, I was apathetic, I would say "Yea well, I don't know what that means." and I would resist any explanation. It was easier to think the speaker was insane than to tear down my concepts of God and Love. The structure came down however, when the changing force sufficiently over-powered the rigidity of my concepts. Then I could make sense of the statement.

[Diebert van Rhijn]

Interesting thoughts Animus. I'll try to hook my own to them and see what might come out.

In other words, when a person has a sufficiently solidified world-view, especially one with all kinds of emotional attachments, the force of conflicting concepts is not sufficient to cause a change in the rigidly formed neuroanatomical structure of the brain. In that way, what one experiences as apathy toward certain world-views, is reflectived of physical inertia in the brain, or the physical inertia is representative of apathy. Ultimately both apathy and inertia, whether applied to the human mind or to the objective-physical universe describe the same logical truth. As this is pushed through the ego it appears to become something else.

Who wants to live forever? Many processes, or patterns, seem to have this tendency to survive even when it means to become completely inert. To me, thoughts are like stagnated, temporary frozen feelings. Pockets of impressions which echo around in our brain. Often I've envisioned a feeling somehow curved back onto itself like Orboros, and it explains the many links between feelings and thoughts, and the use of the word crystallize.

A mind caught in thought becomes more and more like a frozen desert. A mind caught in feeling becomes more and more like a deadly swamp.

So perhaps when I first heard "God is Love" my concepts of "God" and of "Love" were already so rigidly formed as to resist any change the statement might have evoked. At first, I was apathetic, I would say "Yea well, I don't know what that means." and I would resist any explanation. It was easier to think the speaker was insane than to tear down my concepts of God and Love. The structure came down however, when the changing force sufficiently over-powered the rigidity of my concepts. Then I could make sense of the statement.

God is Love can make sense when looking at the duality of the Hindu god Shiva. It should be clear that love (Love) can often have the form of a bond or attachment but also behaves like a blind (?) force that moves, upsets, melts, liberates and even kills. Like "God" appears as too.

What one could aim for however is the notion of change, the 'ever moving" also called "spirit", "truth", "life" and many other terms could be given. It's a living thing, a moving target, a changing appearance. It's not the force that breaks down the walls, neither it's the force that fortifies the city. The truth lies in the understanding how one thing leads to another. Causality, duality, god, love, birth, death.

Can such notions tear down "the structure"? The bigger truth lies in understanding that sometimes structures need to be build and maintained, building the house on the rock. Other times destruction is in order when attachments and ignorance are taking over. Love for truth is a force that enables both, but the secret is to find a sense of good timing; a proper path.

[Diebert van Rhijn]

[database glitch]

[cousinbasil]

In other words, when a person has a sufficiently solidified world-view, especially one with all kinds of emotional attachments, the force of conflicting concepts is not sufficient to cause a change in the rigidly formed neuroanatomical structure of the brain. In that way, what one experiences as apathy toward certain world-views, is reflectived of physical inertia in the brain, or the physical inertia is representative of apathy. Ultimately both apathy and inertia, whether applied to the human mind or to the objective-physical universe describe the same logical truth. As this is pushed through the ego it appears to become something else. This creates a big illusion that there is a fundamental difference between ourselves and the physical universe in our operation. It renders the whole idea of "anthropomoprhisization" relatively moot on all accounts.

All of this is logical and consistent, meaning it can easily be corroborated in many ways. There is a saying "you can't teach an old dog new tricks." The young mind, on the other hand, necessarily has less "mass" and can be accelerated (change in velocity or direction) by external influences.

It appears to depend more on the environment than on the age, although those are not mutually exclusive factors, since generally as one's age increases, one has been exposed to a greater variety of experiences which "force" the solidification you mention.

In many ways, this "solidified" world-view is evidence of disuse. It is like a proto-planet slowly accreting matter and therefore mass and form and gradually crusting on the outside and falling into a predictable orbit around something more massive and stable in the organism's environment. I say "disuse" because such a process is entirely mechanical. A passive mind can form at an early age and establish an orbit around a small idea - one sees this in groups like the Aryan Nation whose simplistic ideals appeal to weak young minds which are not sufficiently challenged or "accelerated" in other directions.

As one grows older, one's musculature tends to ossify in positions one routinely places it. The resultant aches and reduced flexibility can be mitigated if not eliminated by diligent exercise. Likewise, one's mind need not ossify. In other words, it is possible to teach an old dog new tricks, especially if you have been teaching that dog new tricks all along.

So perhaps when I first heard "God is Love" my concepts of "God" and of "Love" were already so rigidly formed as to resist any change the statement might have evoked. At first, I was apathetic, I would say "Yea well, I don't know what that means." and I would resist any explanation. It was easier to think the speaker was insane than to tear down my concepts of God and Love. The structure came down however, when the changing force sufficiently over-powered the rigidity of my concepts. Then I could make sense of the statement.

This is a very important realization - one that the vast majority of people do not seem capable of reaching. I am not referring to the specific "God is Love" example, although that is obviously significant, but I mean in general.

If one adopts the attitude of the student, one never stops learning. This means one can supply that changing force oneself, and so remain supple.

[Animus]

In other words, when a person has a sufficiently solidified world-view, especially one with all kinds of emotional attachments, the force of conflicting concepts is not sufficient to cause a change in the rigidly formed neuroanatomical structure of the brain. In that way, what one experiences as apathy toward certain world-views, is reflectived of physical inertia in the brain, or the physical inertia is representative of apathy. Ultimately both apathy and inertia, whether applied to the human mind or to the objective-physical universe describe the same logical truth. As this is pushed through the ego it appears to become something else. This creates a big illusion that there is a fundamental difference between ourselves and the physical universe in our operation. It renders the whole idea of "anthropomoprhisization" relatively moot on all accounts.

All of this is logical and consistent, meaning it can easily be corroborated in many ways. There is a saying "you can't teach an old dog new tricks." The young mind, on the other hand, necessarily has less "mass" and can be accelerated (change in velocity or direction) by external influences.

It appears to depend more on the environment than on the age, although those are not mutually exclusive factors, since generally as one's age increases, one has been exposed to a greater variety of experiences which "force" the solidification you mention.

In many ways, this "solidified" world-view is evidence of disuse. It is like a proto-planet slowly accreting matter and therefore mass and form and gradually crusting on the outside and falling into a predictable orbit around something more massive and stable in the organism's environment. I say "disuse" because such a process is entirely mechanical. A passive mind can form at an early age and establish an orbit around a small idea - one sees this in groups like the Aryan Nation whose simplistic ideals appeal to weak young minds which are not sufficiently challenged or "accelerated" in other directions.

Hmm, yea I'm beginning to see how the whole psychological phenomena correlates with physical processes. The critical question for me is; is our experience of being human really opposed to the physical medium? In a way we are feeling the medium subjectively, but this elevates the physical medium to the position of antecedent. I'm trying to envision them in tandem rather than as one proceeding from the other, and in that way the physics correlates with the phenomena and neither would account for the 'noumena'.

As one grows older, one's musculature tends to ossify in positions one routinely places it. The resultant aches and reduced flexibility can be mitigated if not eliminated by diligent exercise. Likewise, one's mind need not ossify. In other words, it is possible to teach an old dog new tricks, especially if you have been teaching that dog new tricks all along.

So perhaps when I first heard "God is Love" my concepts of "God" and of "Love" were already so rigidly formed as to resist any change the statement might have evoked. At first, I was apathetic, I would say "Yea well, I don't know what that means." and I would resist any explanation. It was easier to think the speaker was insane than to tear down my concepts of God and Love. The structure came down however, when the changing force sufficiently over-powered the rigidity of my concepts. Then I could make sense of the statement.

This is a very important realization - one that the vast majority of people do not seem capable of reaching. I am not referring to the specific "God is Love" example, although that is obviously significant, but I mean in general.

If one adopts the attitude of the student, one never stops learning. This means one can supply that changing force oneself, and so remain supple.

Exactly! This general principle is something which I've been trying to express without the need for colourful language, but it still proves an elusive truth to share with someone who doesn't see it. Perhaps correlating it with physical phenomena large scale will make it easier. But this brings me back to my earlier concern that a relationship with God characterized by person-to-person interrelations actually is quite realistic and effective. I can see that operationally this is not entirely true, so I must be missing something, perhaps it is only an effective perspect for the one who completely understands it.

[Blair]

Love is god, better.

Marrying someone and wanting to have offspring with them is the same force as that which stops you from being bashed to a pulp boy a complete stranger, love. (mutual masturbation of aspirations)

[cousinbasil]

Love is god, better.

Marrying someone and wanting to have offspring with them is the same force as that which stops you from being bashed to a pulp boy a complete stranger, love. (mutual masturbation of aspirations)

How romantic! Blair - you could make a fortune writing Valentine's Day cards for Hallmark!

[Ryan Rudolph]

Animus,

In reference to apathy, I think apathy results in a mind that has poorly defined values, a mind that isn't clear on what it believes is important, and so its motivation is haphazard, not focused and without direction.

For instance: At least a capitalist materialist like Kevin O'leary knows what he values, and so his action/motivation is very directed, centered and transparent. Regardless of whether one agrees with him or not, he has a thought out personal philosophy that guides his action, and so apathy doesn't occur.

I think people who have a difficult time with big thoughts, or big ideas are of high risk for apathy because their action and motivation will be the result of blind instincts, unconsciousness, and blind responses to the environment. And so the brain structure slowly degenerates over time because its not being used.

[jufa]

I have, in my journey awoke to there is an open ongoing secret. There is nothing, nothing, nothing in this world of material matter more real, more important, or more powerful, and which activates the Law and love of God in the life of all men, than that which comes out of their mouths. "God is no respector of person." God's Law assures "God will perform that given us to do," What He/She/It has purposed and intended for us in saying "Let there be." God's Law of love is the Law of Gravity. It is the Spirit of the Principle Substance and Pattern Essence which governs the avenues all forms must, I repeat, must take according to the Principle and Pattern of the word spoken out of man's mouth. It is the Gravitational Law which holds the universe and all elements within the universe in the pattern principle of their kind, purpose and intent, and performs that which they are purpose to do by the order of Gravities Oracle of Obedience.

God's Law of Gravity is really "the Law of the Spirit of life" which man gives to all word thoughts which activates The Law and makes sure nothing can escape the pattern The Law has principled for Living Life, or influence anything that is not of its own kind. That which is of man kind, that which man acknowledge and accept as real is relativism.

Relativism which form only objective pictures of imagined images, thoughts of fictitious forms, thinking on patterns of selfishness and manipulation, and reciprocal eternal dualism. This is the subjectiveness which relativism of man's words produce and which the Law of Gravity cannot release from the eternal world of man's relative worlds of dualism until man's repent from his pictures, images, thoughts and thinking.

"Thou shalt have no other gods before me."

Never give power to anything a person believes is their source of strength - jufa

[mental vagrant]

Animus / cousinbasil - That realization is a primitive, one taken as a youngling, giving conception. Maintenance is quite an evident necessity and a consistently observed phenomena of the ages, expressed as wives tales or whatever. It will be interesting to explore this as surgeons. Also, this conversation is a subject of your faltering inertia, i want to hear where you happen.

Jufa - You must assert yourself absolutely to maintain your spirits essence as a spirit, how can you tell it is awareness blooming with argumentum opposed to an ego driven persuit?

[cousinbasil]

Animus / cousinbasil - That realization is a primitive, one taken as a youngling, giving conception. Maintenance is quite an evident necessity and a consistently observed phenomena of the ages, expressed as wives tales or whatever. It will be interesting to explore this as surgeons. Also, this conversation is a subject of your faltering inertia, i want to hear where you happen.

Please elaborate. What do you mean by "where you happen"? And by "faltering"? How can inertia falter? Inertia is itself the condition whereby no changes are occurring. Try to be more lucid. (Not a criticism, but a request - from a member of the "pre-texting" generation.")

[mental vagrant]

Animus / cousinbasil - That realization is a primitive, one taken as a youngling, giving conception. Maintenance is quite an evident necessity and a consistently observed phenomena of the ages, expressed as wives tales or whatever. It will be interesting to explore this as surgeons. Also, this conversation is a subject of your faltering inertia, i want to hear where you happen.

Please elaborate. What do you mean by "where you happen"? And by "faltering"? How can inertia falter? Inertia is itself the condition whereby no changes are occurring. Try to be more lucid. (Not a criticism, but a request - from a member of the "pre-texting" generation.")

Where you happen - From this conversation means: you are a part of space time, thusly your condition will be somthing somewhere, in other words your neuronal state to be.

Inertia faltering - It's a resistance to change in being. Faltering: barriers breaking down, new ideas, happening. Inertia being removed. Hope that is more clear. I wrote that after reading the thread.

[movingalways]

What Was Told, That

What was said to the rose that made it open was said
to me here in my chest.

What was told the cypress that made it strong
and straight, what was

whispered the jasmine so it is what it is, whatever made
sugarcane sweet, whatever

was said to the inhabitants of the town of Chigil in
Turkestan that makes them

so handsome, whatever lets the pomegranate flower blush
like a human face, that is

being said to me now. I blush. Whatever put eloquence in
language, that's happening here.

The great warehouse doors open; I fill with gratitude,
chewing a piece of sugarcane,

in love with the one to whom every that belongs.

- Jalal al-Din Rumi

[cousinbasil]

Laughter is wisdom's orgasm.

Every day on my way to work, I pass by a school bus stop. Every day I see the same gaggle of preteen middle-class girls all giggling amongst themselves. So they are all wise and having orgasms...?

[movingalways]

The orgasm of wisdom is the laughter that takes nothing of the impermanent world seriously. Good grief, man, is not this whole board devoted to the understanding of the impermanence of form? First, by the intellect, reasoning why, then by the heart, being reborn into knowing why?

Look how love is being described in this thread, like a corpse on a steel slab, the scalpel of reason cutting, cutting, cutting, finding only the dust of love's death. So afraid of emotion is reason [for good reason] that it mistakes emotion for the spirit of life itself.

I tell you, accept it or reject it as being truth: the poetic wisdom mind arises from the ashes of the reasoning wisdom mind.

As for the gaggle of giggling girls? Most likely their giggling is not the result of having reasoned the wisdom of impermanence, but for those who are fortunate enough to hear the aliveness of giggling's impermanence, the orgasm of reason's expansion awaits.

[cousinbasil]

The orgasm of wisdom is the laughter that takes nothing of the impermanent world seriously. Good grief, man, is not this whole board devoted to the understanding of the impermanence of form? First, by the intellect, reasoning why, then by the heart, being reborn into knowing why?

Look how love is being described in this thread, like a corpse on a steel slab, the scalpel of reason cutting, cutting, cutting, finding only the dust of love's death. So afraid of emotion is reason [for good reason] that it mistakes emotion for the spirit of life itself.

I tell you, accept it or reject it as being truth: the poetic wisdom mind arises from the ashes of the reasoning wisdom mind.

As for the gaggle of giggling girls? Most likely their giggling is not the result of having reasoned the wisdom of impermanence, but for those who are fortunate enough to hear the aliveness of giggling's impermanence, the orgasm of reason's expansion awaits.

I knew you'd say that. ;-)

[movingalways]

Winks are quickie orgasms, but I'll take whatever comes my way. :-)

[cousinbasil]

Winks are quickie orgasms, but I'll take whatever comes my way. :-)

You could have winked back!