What is shareable ?

i am not using the sense of the word "share" in a way that implies any kind of ownership whatsoever.  I am using it in the sense that there are thingeys in the world of facts that we both experience pretty much the same way ... in that sense we "share" those thingies.  You and i can agree to a time and a place to meet ... then meet there in person and share an experience ... that is the sense in which i am using the word. 

Now consider some different kinds of worlds:  the physical world of facts,  our mental worlds of mind,  and "the" spiritual world.   My primary observation here is that both the latter two kinds of world have the same characteristic that things cannot be shared.  That contradicts, me thinks, the way anthrophsophy, and for that matter most religions talk about "the" spiritual world.  Their language presumes that the spiritual world can be shared objectively just like the physical world of facts ... if only people would train themselves to do so.  Me, i no longer believe that presumption is true.  i think a spiritual world is just like my mind ... in that the only way i can share in either of those domains is through our mutual communication and ceremonies.   Honestly, have you not noticed the very same thing ??

Note this item was penned about a year and a half ago.

Tags

  1. share
  2. shareable
  3. spiritual world
  4. subjective
  5. mind
  6. mind body
  7. mind vs manifestation
  8. item 16942
  9. item 18271

Comments


Seth says
seth 2013-12-08 11:22:21 16942
mr 2013-12-07 09:03:25 16942
seth 2013-12-06 15:16:02 16942
mr 2013-12-06 13:55:53 16942
seth 2013-12-06 13:14:51 16942
mr 2013-12-06 12:50:44 16942
seth 2013-12-06 12:33:13 16942

thing is there is a strong casual feedback between the mind of my analysis and interpretations and imagination and the universe of fact ... in that i frequently do what i calculate and imagine.  its like the possibilities that i imagine in the future get manifested as facts in the now.  so i do have a continuum of change that breaches both the universe of fact and my subjective mind ... were the line is drawn becomes, as things get moving, quite arbitrary.  i too assume the universe of fact is singular and that we all share it ...  but that the universe of mind is multiplied by each of us. 

There is question as to whether there is a universe of mind outside of yourself that is shared. Collapse as much as you like to serve your own story, but please observe that you are doing nothing more noble or scientific than metaphysicians & Anthroposophists who claim there is a Spiritual world.

hmm ....

well if a Spiritual world is not shared, then, as you kind of observe,  i am making the same kind of assumptions as are the meta-physicians .    But most meta-physicians talk as if their Spiritual worlds are shared.  Me, i don't talk like that, for it seems to me that we can only share through the "one World & one universe [of] fact".
They both are accessible to him who makes the effort to use the right senses & faculties in the right place at the right time etc. Shareable is a different distinction.




well yes, there are two different things here ... accessible .... and .... shareable.  let us leave for for a moment the topic of accessibility.   

so we are just talking about whether the spiritual world is shareable ... like the "one World & one universe [of] fact".   i am claiming that my subjective mental feelings, imaginations, interpretations, intuitions etc,  are only shareable by you through our communications and habits in the world of fact.  my spiritual world is exactly the same.  that is all i am saying. 

In a way i am just totally agreeing with your assumptions in what you said above ...
"There is question as to whether there is a universe of mind outside of yourself that is shared. Collapse as much as you like to serve your own story, but please observe that you are doing nothing more noble or scientific than metaphysicians & Anthroposophists who claim there is a Spiritual world."
... in other words, in my mind there is no grand distinction (or chasm) between my Spiritual World and what i talk to you about my subjective mind of imagination and intuition, calculation and analysis.  You don't have access to mine and i don't have access to yours.  Of course the more we communicate through the world of fact that we can share ... the more we practice the same habits and ceremonies ... the more we synchronize our feelings ... the more of those subjective mental worlds we actually do share. 

the closer i listen to what is being said the more  agreement i am hearing here.   The only disagreement might be that you seem to believe there is a The Spiritual World that can be shared if people will only learn how to do it ... whereas i believe there are only subjective mental worlds that people could learn how to share through the one universe of facts.  almost the same thing if you think about it.  for me there is no chasm between my mind and a spiritual world ... they are the same thing ... there is no special access ... just more and more awareness.  the only chasm is between my mind and the world of fact.  to  breach that chasm i would need to crawl out my eyes and ears and grock without the reflection of sign.  
It is hard to share something which you don't own or have but is something you exist within or part of you exists within if you make a distinction between the spiritual & the material or physical.
Your mind is a different story since without other ontoligies it is particularly a walled garden of your own & only mediated into the physical via language & metaphor.


Well i am not using the sense of the word "share" in a way that implies any kind of ownership whatsoever.  I am using it in the sense that there are thingeys in the world of facts that we both experience pretty much the same way ... in that sense we "share" those thingies.  You and i can agree to a time and a place to meet ... then meet there in person and share an experience ... that is the sense in which i am using the word. 

Now consider some different kinds of worlds:  the physical world of facts,  our mental worlds of mind,  and "the" spiritual world.   My primary observation here is that both the latter two kinds of world have the same characteristic that things cannot be shared.  That contradicts, me thinks, the way anthrophsophy, and for that matter most religions talk about "the" spiritual world.  Their language presumes that the spiritual world can be shared objectively just like the physical world of facts ... if only people would train themselves to do so.  Me, i no longer believe that presumption is true.  i think a spiritual world is just like my mind ... in that the only way i can share in either of those domains is through our mutual communication and ceremonies.   Honestly, have you not noticed the very same thing ??

this dialogue belongs in my blog and not in group funnypages on 16942 where it started.

Seth says
seth 2013-12-08 15:16:54 16954
mr 2013-12-08 14:51:30 16954
Yep, redefine share a bit & you can be right again. Works every time it is used in your garden.

mark it is not a redefinition ... it is another common usage of the word.   please try not listening for rwg and maybe you won't hear it so very much where it does not exists except in your ears. 

what i am saying here needs of that particular concept.  the short pithy word "share" does a fine job indeed ... sans that word i would need to construct a very complicated phrase to say the same thing.


Mark de LA says
seth 2013-12-08 15:18:37 16954
seth 2013-12-08 15:16:54 16954
mr 2013-12-08 14:51:30 16954
Yep, redefine share a bit & you can be right again. Works every time it is used in your garden.

mark it is not a redefinition ... it is another common usage of the word.   please try not listening for rwg and maybe you won't hear it so very much where it does not exists except in your ears. 

what i am saying here needs of that particular concept.  the short pithy word "share" does a fine job indeed ... sans that word i would need to construct a very complicated phrase to say the same thing.

Yep - missed my point again! But I am sure you feel good about yours.


Seth says
mr 2013-12-08 15:52:59 16954
seth 2013-12-08 15:18:37 16954
seth 2013-12-08 15:16:54 16954
mr 2013-12-08 14:51:30 16954
Yep, redefine share a bit & you can be right again. Works every time it is used in your garden.

mark it is not a redefinition ... it is another common usage of the word.   please try not listening for rwg and maybe you won't hear it so very much where it does not exists except in your ears. 

what i am saying here needs of that particular concept.  the short pithy word "share" does a fine job indeed ... sans that word i would need to construct a very complicated phrase to say the same thing.

Yep - missed my point again! But I am sure you feel good about yours.

i don't know what  your point is ... sorry.   was it contained in this sentence, "It is hard to share something which you don't own or have but is something you exist within or part of you exists within if you make a distinction between the spiritual & the material or physical."  ??    Something that is shared in my sense, eg we agree to meet at a certain time and place and both of us experience something in common,  has nothing to do with ownership or even being within something.  Things in the common firmament ... which incidentally is not limited to physical things ... can be experienced by and verified by anybody.  Sorry, i've tried about 20 times to parse your sentence and grock its meaning in this context but have failed.  Can you help me here to actually get your point ??

Mark de LA says
seth 2013-12-08 19:11:40 16954
mr 2013-12-08 15:52:59 16954
seth 2013-12-08 15:18:37 16954
seth 2013-12-08 15:16:54 16954
mr 2013-12-08 14:51:30 16954
Yep, redefine share a bit & you can be right again. Works every time it is used in your garden.

mark it is not a redefinition ... it is another common usage of the word.   please try not listening for rwg and maybe you won't hear it so very much where it does not exists except in your ears. 

what i am saying here needs of that particular concept.  the short pithy word "share" does a fine job indeed ... sans that word i would need to construct a very complicated phrase to say the same thing.

Yep - missed my point again! But I am sure you feel good about yours.

i don't know what  your point is ... sorry.   was it contained in this sentence, "It is hard to share something which you don't own or have but is something you exist within or part of you exists within if you make a distinction between the spiritual & the material or physical."  ??    Something that is shared in my sense, eg we agree to meet at a certain time and place and both of us experience something in common,  has nothing to do with ownership or even being within something.  Things in the common firmament ... which incidentally is not limited to physical things ... can be experienced by and verified by anybody.  Sorry, i've tried about 20 times to parse your sentence and grock its meaning in this context but have failed.  Can you help me here to actually get your point ??
I'm sorry did you have a point either? I don't understand your point if you had one. One has to be in possession of something to share it or someone else has to have possession to share it with you. You may have been mesmerized by your own point too deeply to grok mine it was so simple. Of course you can redefine words any way you want but common language & semantics is necessary for mutual understanding.  I will draw you a mentograph later when I get a - otherwise probably not.


Seth says
mr 2013-12-08 20:22:34 16954
seth 2013-12-08 19:11:40 16954
mr 2013-12-08 15:52:59 16954
seth 2013-12-08 15:18:37 16954
seth 2013-12-08 15:16:54 16954
mr 2013-12-08 14:51:30 16954
Yep, redefine share a bit & you can be right again. Works every time it is used in your garden.

mark it is not a redefinition ... it is another common usage of the word.   please try not listening for rwg and maybe you won't hear it so very much where it does not exists except in your ears. 

what i am saying here needs of that particular concept.  the short pithy word "share" does a fine job indeed ... sans that word i would need to construct a very complicated phrase to say the same thing.

Yep - missed my point again! But I am sure you feel good about yours.

i don't know what  your point is ... sorry.   was it contained in this sentence, "It is hard to share something which you don't own or have but is something you exist within or part of you exists within if you make a distinction between the spiritual & the material or physical."  ??    Something that is shared in my sense, eg we agree to meet at a certain time and place and both of us experience something in common,  has nothing to do with ownership or even being within something.  Things in the common firmament ... which incidentally is not limited to physical things ... can be experienced by and verified by anybody.  Sorry, i've tried about 20 times to parse your sentence and grock its meaning in this context but have failed.  Can you help me here to actually get your point ??
I'm sorry did you have a point either? I don't understand your point if you had one. One has to be in possession of something to share it or someone else has to have possession to share it with you. You may have been mesmerized by your own point too deeply to grok mine it was so simple. Of course you can redefine words any way you want but common language & semantics is necessary for mutual understanding.  I will draw you a mentograph later when I get a - otherwise probably not.


ok i'll say it using different words that do not imply what, to me, is the irrelevant concept of possession.

Mark de LA says
seth 2013-12-09 07:14:38 16954
there are many experiences which seem the same, perhaps even identical, to different people.  for example different people looking at the same chair will sit down on it a similar manner.  many common events happen within people's experiences of time and space ... for example we can agree to meet in a specific place in San Francisco at a specific time and engage in the same event.  for the sake of brevity i would like to call these kinds of experiences "shaperiences".  shaperiences have the quality that they can be recorded as facts.

Now shaperiences are by no means the only kind of experiences of which people are aware ... there are also thoughts and feelings and interpretations and imaginations and intuitions.   for brevity i would like to refer to these kinds of experiences as "mental experiences".  mental experiences happen to just one person, and only that one person is aware of that particular experience.  mental experiences can be described in language or art or music or drama and communicated to other people ... but there is scant chance that the communications create the same experiences in other people. 

All i am saying is that the spiritual things described by Rudolph Steiner and other religions are mental experiences ... they are not shaperiences.  they cannot be recorded as facts. 
I will try out the seth-word shaperiences  to see if it is shareable later or the usage count goes above 2. There may even be an already existing word in the philosophy of mind lexicon somewhere. Maybe try it out in G+
All I found on Wikipedia is this.


Seth says
there are many experiences which seem the same, perhaps even identical, to different people.  for example different people looking at the same chair will sit down on it a similar manner.  many common events happen within people's experiences of time and space ... for example we can agree to meet in a specific place in San Francisco at a specific time and engage in the same event.  for the sake of brevity i would like to call these kinds of experiences "shaperiences".  shaperiences have the quality that they can be recorded as facts.

Now shaperiences are by no means the only kind of experiences of which people are aware ... there are also thoughts and feelings and interpretations and imaginations and intuitions.   for brevity i would like to refer to these kinds of experiences as "mental experiences".  mental experiences happen to just one person, and only that one person is aware of that particular experience.  mental experiences can be described in language or art or music or drama and communicated to other people ... but there is scant chance that the communications create the same experiences in other people. 

All i am saying is that the spiritual things described by Rudolph Steiner and other religions are mental experiences ... they are not shaperiences.  they cannot be recorded as facts. 

Seth says
mr 2013-12-09 07:47:44 16954
seth 2013-12-09 07:14:38 16954
I will try out the seth-word shaperiences  to see if it is shareable later or the usage count goes above 2. There may even be an already existing word in the philosophy of mind lexicon somewhere. Maybe try it out in G+
All I found on Wikipedia is this.


People talk about the so called "physical world" in quasi scientific terms that can be measured with instruments apart from human experience.   People then cop attitudes twards those experiences and there is even some religious doctrines which wish that firmament away and consider it an illusion.  The thing i wanted to say was about the things we humans actually experience.  i wanted to ground these thoughts in that experience ... that experience which, if you think about it, is the reality of our lives.  Our experiences are what cannot be denied.  ... er ... just keeping it real.

Mark de LA says
seth 2013-12-09 08:02:00 16954
mr 2013-12-09 07:47:44 16954
seth 2013-12-09 07:14:38 16954
I will try out the seth-word shaperiences  to see if it is shareable later or the usage count goes above 2. There may even be an already existing word in the philosophy of mind lexicon somewhere. Maybe try it out in G+
All I found on Wikipedia is this.


People talk about the so called "physical world" in quasi scientific terms that can be measured with instruments apart from human experience.   People then cop attitudes twards those experiences and there is even some religious doctrines which wish that firmament away and consider it an illusion.  The thing i wanted to say was about the things we humans actually experience.  i wanted to ground these thoughts in that experience ... that experience which, if you think about it, is the reality of our lives.  Our experiences are what cannot be denied.  ... er ... just keeping it real.
Yep, I know what my experience is.  Do you truly know what my experience is?


Mark de LA says
The physical world is simply that which can be sensed with/through the regular 5 senses of sight, sound, touch, smell & taste.  No need to cop an attitude about it.


Seth says
mr 2013-12-09 08:13:57 16954
seth 2013-12-09 08:02:00 16954
mr 2013-12-09 07:47:44 16954
seth 2013-12-09 07:14:38 16954
I will try out the seth-word shaperiences  to see if it is shareable later or the usage count goes above 2. There may even be an already existing word in the philosophy of mind lexicon somewhere. Maybe try it out in G+
All I found on Wikipedia is this.


People talk about the so called "physical world" in quasi scientific terms that can be measured with instruments apart from human experience.   People then cop attitudes twards those experiences and there is even some religious doctrines which wish that firmament away and consider it an illusion.  The thing i wanted to say was about the things we humans actually experience.  i wanted to ground these thoughts in that experience ... that experience which, if you think about it, is the reality of our lives.  Our experiences are what cannot be denied.  ... er ... just keeping it real.
Yep, I know what my experience is.  Do you truly know what my experience is?


no i do not!   that is the point.  you know your experience i do not.   but i'm pretty sure that some of those experiences are very similar to my own and can be verified as such ... those i am calling "shaperiences".  try reading your recent email re some shaperiences that we need to have relative to something called "nwells". 

Seth says
mr 2013-12-09 08:24:09 16954
The physical world is simply that which can be sensed with/through the regular 5 senses of sight, sound, touch, smell & taste.  No need to cop an attitude about it.

right! 

yet many do at times in the guise of being spiritual cop an attitude of degradation towards it.  me, i think that attitude sucks .

Mark de LA says
seth 2013-12-09 08:53:18 16954
mr 2013-12-09 08:24:09 16954
The physical world is simply that which can be sensed with/through the regular 5 senses of sight, sound, touch, smell & taste.  No need to cop an attitude about it.

right! 

yet many do at times in the guise of being spiritual cop an attitude of degradation towards it.  me, i think that attitude sucks .
As does yours since you assume that the only senses are those five. Try looking in your mind & you will find that most of the shit in there doesn't submit to the 5 senses & at best reflect a shadow & afterglow of some of them.


Seth says
mr 2013-12-09 09:52:57 16954
Is tigging another seth-word ?

yes ... prolly should have been "chigging" because apparently there is some tigging already going on in norway .

Seth says
mr 2013-12-09 09:25:10 16954
mr 2013-12-09 09:00:33 16954
seth 2013-12-09 08:55:10 16954
mr 2013-12-09 08:53:49 16954
I don't know what  "nwells" are.

did you read your recent email?
I have lots of recent emails - received & sent from several email addresses you could shorten the conversation by quoting the part that seems to have buggered you otherwise this means nothing to me & I will ignore it.

I finally found the email which had nothing to do with this subject, but the recent hacking.  I did not put that directory there. The php file was nothing I put there & was garbage & I deleted it. All that is left is probably a jpeg which may offended someone. http://icyberspace.net/index.jpg
- thanks for the heads up.

well my message was an example of a shasperience that we needed to visit ... that is why it was put here ... that and i did need to make you aware of that thingey ... so i killed two birds with one message as it were ... sorry for the tigging of contexts .

Seth says
mr 2013-12-09 08:56:20 16954
seth 2013-12-09 08:53:18 16954
mr 2013-12-09 08:24:09 16954
The physical world is simply that which can be sensed with/through the regular 5 senses of sight, sound, touch, smell & taste.  No need to cop an attitude about it.

right! 

yet many do at times in the guise of being spiritual cop an attitude of degradation towards it.  me, i think that attitude sucks .
As does yours since you assume that the only senses are those five. Try looking in your mind & you will find that most of the shit in there doesn't submit to the 5 senses & at best reflect a shadow & afterglow of some of them.


well, i make no such assumption ... and am not even counting senses here ... but am merely pointing to whatever is experienced ... and then classifying those experiences which can be shared  and verified from person to person and those which cannot.   modern psychology calls the former "public" and the latter "private".  On the public experiences we form a Gestalt in our mind and people frequently call that "the physical world" .   On the private experiences we also form a Gestalt and part of that perhaps we call "consciousness".   On those private experiences anthroposophy Gestalts the spiritual world.  Rudolph Steiner clearly expresses his preference for these private worlds even in the titles of his books, eg "Higher Worlds and Their Attainment".  We grew up with the word "materialism" ... which unfortunately has several meanings in today's world ... but associates "matter" with a certain disdain.  Go back in history and look at the sentences in which you used the word ... perhaps you will be able to hear the attitude. 

incidentally, this is obviously an area between us where we have chosen different assumptions and paths.  it is extremely important to me that we eliminate any being right or being wrong from our dialogue about it ... or any arguing to be in the right or project the other into wrongness.   i do not judge your path ... in fact i love it.  i kind of hope you feel the same about mine.   but i have always wanted to talk with you, apart from our ego transactions, about the real edges, rational and otherwise, in these different world views. 

mrU says
Good luck with trying to eliminate the right-wrong game.  In RS's ontology all the 4 major "bodies" are co-inhabited by Lucifer & Ahriman as well as your own "I" (whatever that is in your ontology). Another way of saying the co-inhabitation is calling them Doubles. I suspect that is because they seem to be just like the I  (i.e. you) at one time or another. I see the task as taming the group with the Christ.  Your results may vary. The right-wrong game is part of the mischief of the doubles.


Seth says
mrU 2013-12-10 08:36:33 16954
Good luck with trying to eliminate the right-wrong game.  In RS's ontology all the 4 major "bodies" are co-inhabited by Lucifer & Ahriman as well as your own "I" (whatever that is in your ontology). Another way of saying the co-inhabitation is calling them Doubles. I suspect that is because they seem to be just like the I  (i.e. you) at one time or another. I see the task as taming the group with the Christ.  Your results may vary. The right-wrong game is part of the mischief of the doubles.

actually i find it quite easy to get rid of the right-wrong game with many people except the one called Mark .  In my ontology the right-wrong game is just a bad habit best discarded if i want to accomplish anything with someone. 

I have never been able to gestalt RS's doubles.  Perhaps i am just blind to them .. well so be it.  Thing is nobody i have evern know has talked to me about their double in a way that convinces me that they gestalt them either.  So to me they are a mythology that has no effect on my life.  Ahriman and Lucifer ... well those are quite easy to gestalt ... and i can feel those forces permeate my being as does love ... er, Christ.  But sure, i have a whole lot of mischievous ego horseshit going on ...i privately watched some go by after the meeting as i was driving home ...  i am working at shutting the fuckers up mostly by trying to ignore them and focus on more interesting emotions .

See Also

  1. Thought The Mind Body Paradox with 554 viewings related by tag "mindBody".
  2. Thought train of thought (wallaby) in progress ... with 260 viewings related by tag "share".
  3. Thought Sensing ... with 169 viewings related by tag "spiritual world".
  4. Thought Sharing with 166 viewings related by tag "share".
  5. Thought I am a variable with 112 viewings related by tag "spiritual world".
  6. Thought Copy of - Sharing with 91 viewings related by tag "share".
  7. Thought Different Kinds of Thoughts with 82 viewings related by tag "subjective".
  8. Thought What are the facts ... and what do we make up that we can share ... with 70 viewings related by tag "share".
  9. Thought Midnight Cowboy in Seattle with 63 viewings related by tag "share".
  10. Thought about: Greg Yardley's Internet Blog ? 2006: watch your mouth and the bottom line with 53 viewings related by tag "subjective".
  11. Thought I am moody with 33 viewings related by tag "subjective".
  12. Thought [title (20177)] with 22 viewings related by tag "mind".
  13. Thought Thinking consistent with why "physical" is not in my vocabulary with 17 viewings related by tag "mind body".
  14. Thought A big deep mind with 16 viewings related by tag "mind".
  15. Thought A drawing of NOWs in my life with 6 viewings related by tag "mind".
  16. Thought Loui Jover: Interesting Art Style .... with 4 viewings related by tag "mind".
  17. Thought trinity with 3 viewings related by tag "mind".
  18. Thought FAIR ? with 3 viewings related by tag "spiritual world".
  19. Thought Bozos Discovery with 3 viewings related by tag "subjective".
  20. Thought I go with what happens with 2 viewings related by tag "share".
  21. Thought Dualism with 2 viewings related by tag "mind".
  22. Thought A swing to the objective ... with 2 viewings related by tag "subjective".
  23. Thought Thoughts about ego: The view from inside versus, the view from outside with 2 viewings related by tag "subjective".
  24. Thought Positive words not in our language with 1 viewings related by tag "mind".
  25. Thought Gaia Breathing with 1 viewings related by tag "subjective".
  26. Thought Occult Science with 1 viewings related by tag "spiritual world".
  27. Thought about: are space and time an illusion? | iflscience with 1 viewings related by tag "shareable".
  28. Thought What consequences ... with 1 viewings related by tag "mind".
  29. Thought mind versus machine discussion with 0 viewings related by tag "mind".
  30. Thought Awareness requires representing with 0 viewings related by tag "mind".
  31. Thought Sharing a reality with 0 viewings related by tag "share".
  32. Thought Combining 2 thoughts with 0 viewings related by tag "mind".
  33. Thought Why some philosophers say we can?t with 0 viewings related by tag "mind".
  34. Thought Traveling with 0 viewings related by tag "mind".
  35. Thought A dialogue on G+ with 0 viewings related by tag "mind".
  36. Thought Everything in my mind is a relationship? with 0 viewings related by tag "mind".
  37. Thought [title (19291)] with 0 viewings related by tag "mind".
  38. Thought Coagulated Energy anyone? with 0 viewings related by tag "item 18271".
  39. Thought peculiar to each particular mind with 0 viewings related by tag "item 18271".
  40. Thought about: Representationalism with 0 viewings related by tag "mind".
  41. Thought Testing with 0 viewings related by tag "share".
  42. Thought about: Semantics of Social Media with 0 viewings related by tag "mind".
  43. Thought The beauty of what we do with 0 viewings related by tag "subjective".
  44. Thought The brain as a better model for describing the Internet with 0 viewings related by tag "mind".
  45. Thought Direct Consciousness with 0 viewings related by tag "mind".
  46. Thought The TAO of Craft with 0 viewings related by tag "spiritual world".
  47. Thought about: muslim immigrants smash & urinate on virgin mary statue in italy with 0 viewings related by tag "shareable".
  48. Thought How using language changes consensus reality with 0 viewings related by tag "mind".
  49. Thought Brain as a Sense Organ for Thought? with 0 viewings related by tag "mind".
  50. Thought about: what is salient identity? with 0 viewings related by tag "mind".