Limitions of Linear Thought—

The best way to prolong humanity is to stop choosing sides

Humans are limited by strictly linear thinking, being able to handle only a few variables of thought at a time. There are thousands of variables to every concern, yet the consciousness of the human brain is primarily a scanning system of a very, narrow focus of attention—and can only catalogue one line at a time by recapping the past (that’s why your basic education takes so long—miles of text must be read on a single line)

Our personality then, is to own the thoughts we think, or have been told to think are the most important thoughts of life, yet defining ourselves with such myopia is to discount every other human that have attended their focus to some other angle, which is equally worth exploration.

When we study physics we are dealing with processes that contain millions of variables we handle using statistics, which works fairly well when using extremely large numbers. But the practical problems of human life, deal in variables (lineal) in only the hundreds of thousands, and here statistical analysis is very poor. Charting it out with figures in this same limited, linear thinking is impossible.

We also try to solve our political and social problems with in the same way with total frustration—and with that same equipment we are now proposing to interfere with our genes? I digress.

The human brain however, is able to handle an enormous number of variables that are not available to our conscious attention. Your brain is now handling your blood chemistry, the secretions from your glands, and millions of cells without thinking about it—without translating what is happening into consciously reviewed words, symbols, or numbers. Translating what is going on in nature into words, numbers, and symbols, we confuse the world as it is, with what it is thought about, talked about, and figured about—while the difference between these two is vast—so we interfere.

Every human instinctively knows how to handle it all, but we then lose it in the language of discussion, primarily due to beliefs held by linear thinking.

It may be too late for solutions, but understanding is the first step. We cannot solve anything by interference. Nature will solve it all though natural selection, while human morality will try to fight it, preserve it, confront it and own it. But it is of no use. The only way to prolong humanity is to stop interfering—and we do this by understanding the founding principles of the game.


Author: jimoeba

Alternatives to big box religions and dogmas

19 thoughts on “Limitions of Linear Thought—”

  1. I’m not going to answer that quite yet. Western thought has two basic mythologies that are not in accordance with very, very basic observations. One being the world is created and we are visitors put here as a test, tolerated if we follow the rules, but only if we follow them voluntarily. That man is subject to an uncertain set of rules for the duration of life and he’d better guess right, or else.
    The second would be that man is a consequence—a result of cataclysm, hot gasses and time—a fluke of nature. In the end he can claim he’s stardust and kinda like the idea, but really either philosophy means man is nothing. That consciousness is an organic accident. When your dead your dead. No collection of thought or experience is catalogued anywhere, and in a few generations it will be as you never existed. But if something can only happen once it can never happen at all, because everything is a pattern—crests and waves, ins and outs of polarity. That everything arises mutually, for you cant know one without the other. Black must have white to be comprehended at all, positive has negative and up has to have down accompany it. Its very fundamental to every single thing, like good and evil.
    Even in christianity, who sits on the left hand of god? It never says because that would be quite embarrassing to admit, but everything has this polarity, and so do we. You can’t come with out going and you cant die without living. It goes on forever and ever, and its so obvious it escapes notice.
    If you were to identify the biggest cultural taboo, something that would get you locked up for a long long time, what would that be? And remember, the exact opposite of christianity is what we always find to be true.


  2. Linear is an interesting way of describing it, but I think if you want to put comprehension on a grid and break down thinking patterns, what you end up is with a system which is essentially binary. Zeros and ones which exist as separate entities because we can spot what distinguishes them rather than what is similar in them 🙂

    Liked by 1 person

    1. Interesting. I feel I tend to connect seemingly disparate topics because of similarity, not differences. I can pretty much connect anything in my head and write it down. Not everybody gets it, but I do.
      Time and time again we come across beliefs, and the believers seem to be unable to comprehend a different view. While you all understand me for the most part, the believer says its incoherent. I wonder whats up with that, because I understand them and you just fine?

      Liked by 1 person

      1. Yes, but you’re referring to comprehension in a macro sense. Layers upon layers, upon layers. And you’re looking at what you can do with those layers of information. In a sense you’re talking about walking into a library and choosing which books to get, I’m talking about how the books got into the library and laid out on the shelves.

        Liked by 1 person

  3. i love this! fascinating topic.
    i feel language follows consciousness. at this point, we follow a ‘linear’ mode of thinking, which is a rather primitive and non-sophisticated way of thinking, really. it is followed by misunderstandings and automatically creates duality (I and the world). it also keeps us locked in the illusion of time. i say “at this point” because there is no doubt that as consciousness expands our language will reflect that.

    take for comparison the movie “Arrival”, where language used by aliens was much more holistic, with the ability to open dimensions into past, present and future all at the same time.

    language should reflect the whole experience of being, which exists outside time and outside space. these are both mind concepts (where is the past or future, if you don’t think about them??).

    at the present time, only mandalas and symbols are superior methods that allow the mind to comprehend a wider range of experiences of being. no wonder the more spiritually-inclined tribes (ie aboriginals) use symbols to transmit their stories.
    and i’m sure the crop circles are embedded with knowledge that we just don’t have the ability to unlock.

    this limitation of language is why monks and sages sometimes chose to abstain from speaking altogether. only silence is the proper vehicle for teaching of reality.
    Rumi has a wonderful quote “Silence is the language of god. All else is poor translation”

    Liked by 1 person

    1. It really does tie into language in very, key ways. All that is currently known (accepted as knowledge) is only what can put into words, while the words themselves also dictate what can be known. This is a very important feature to look into, because herein lies a key to the way things are viewed.
      The opposite of a correct statement is a false statement. But the opposite of a profound truth may well be another profound truth”—Niels Bohr
      In my cursory studies of language, the very structure of the language seems to influence the way we see things. I inherited the english language (i wasn’t born with it) and even though I may one day surpass its limitations, for now i must borrow, explain, and like the physicist, make up words to describe what we see. The real trick is to be able to express these ideas in math, for even if they’re true, nobody will believe it without that.


      1. the question is, can we reduce reality down to conceptual understanding? i think the experience comes first, then the mind tries to put it in words. so our language reflects our experience.

        the Sanskrit language is abundant with spiritual words. in fact, most all other traditions use Sanskrit terminology. there are no equivalents (not even close) in English. and that is because the culture itself has a long spiritual tradition.

        for example, take the word ‘Mukti’ (loosely meaning liberation) is a day to day word in India because the practice of spiritual liberation is common, whereas it is almost non-existent in our western culture. there is a joke that in India if someone says “i am god!” the people will respond “finally, you got it”. in the west if you say “i am god” you will be diagnosed as schizophrenic and put in a mental hospital.

        finally, experiences (especially those transforming experiences of truth) are highly personal. they are not meant to liberate others, they are meant to illuminate things within us. maybe that is one reason why they cannot be expressed in words?
        words can never liberate, they can only point. you can read all the books about climbing Mt Everest, you will still not know what it is to climb Mt Everest. that is the difference between words and reality

        Liked by 1 person

        1. If I had the time to run this experiment to its final conclusion I think I would have to say this; that reality is the sum total of all possibilities of the linear thinking of 8billion different, active perceptions and interpretations (ethnosphere?) …+1. And also with a caveat; that most of the world does not explore their own observations, but have studied opinions and persuasion, acquiescing to the pressures and fears of a few influential “men of words” that did not quite get the experience in total, because if they had, there would be no urgency to save souls. For there is only one, equally shared between the many outposts that collectively is god. Everything is connected, everything is god.
          If you were to ponder who and what you are to the full frustration of that mystery, the only conclusion that you absolutely know, is I am, that I am.


          1. But doesn’t that ignore the basics? When an animal (including human) is born it interprets very basic concepts. Most of which are derivatives of Safety/Danger, or in even more basic terms survive/die. The expansion of that will happen (or not) depending on the circumstances one is confronted with. Speaking in terms of dogs, one whose had a miserable time trying to survive is stuck in a more basic set of responses and reactions. One that was born is safety and protected will have a completely different outlook.

            Liked by 1 person

            1. I don’t think this discounts the idea that these things arise through natural processes. The fact that we come from the earth and are not visitors to it, supports this too, in eastern philosophy, that this is all one organism (which is what liberation/awakening illustrates) and that survival is indeed important for the game to continue. Sensing danger to insure survival would obviously be a basic necessity. But I think you answered your own question. ”one whose had a miserable time trying to survive is stuck in a more basic set of responses and reactions. One that was born is safety and protected will have a completely different outlook”—and everything in between would be all the varieties of experience, culture, situation, and nurture. Yes?
              Once we choose our rabbit hole, linear thinking can take us completely out of the big picture, sometimes for a lifetime.

              Liked by 1 person

            2. Taking your scenario, wouldn’t linear thinking be a limitation rather than a choice? Successful survival is highly dependant on the tribe we’re born into, and that will play a near absolute role in determining how simple or complex our thinking can be.

              Liked by 1 person

            3. It is a limitation people in general are unaware of. With training we can be aware of more. Think of the discipline of playing an organ, where you can learn to track multiple lines, seemingly at once, but much of that is training to scan ahead and remember lines, switching back and forth very quickly. Multitasking is just that, but its still one line at a time. The other option (better) is learning to see both staffs at once by not focusing on any of it.

              Liked by 1 person

          2. reality is completely independent of mental activity. mind/thoughts is a layer of ‘movement’ that covers our most essential nature, awareness.

            consciousness is the vehicle for thoughts.
            only awareness is aware of consciousness.

            when thoughts subside, do you disappear? no, you are aware that you are still there. you say you are ‘self-aware’, but what self is that? is that self inside your body or mind? look for it.
            who is this i you refer to when you say “I am, I do, I walk, I sit”. are you sure it’s jim living in a particular time and space? that is your only search.

            yes, there is god. but god is only What happens. awareness is that in which it happens. without awareness… can anything be experienced? so… Who is aware? is jim aware? or is something aware of jim as well?? be aware of awareness. that is watching the movie roll.

            Liked by 1 person

            1. This is an example of omnipotence. It doesn’t know how everything is done, it just does them. Only when we try to put such behavior into words, does it become confusing at all.
              Have you ever heard of Pat Rummerfield? He found a way around this too, but cannot put into words how it is done.

              Liked by 1 person

            2. heheh! very good. the same thing that keeps the heart beating, that enables the body to convert food and air into energy, that thing keeps the whole universe running.

              if we feel we are that doer, then we must take responsibility for all of these functions, not just those actions we’d like to feel we are responsible for.

              you either do it all, or you do nothing. there is no in-between.

              Liked by 2 people

  4. Jim, I think this post is right on. This is part of the difficulty in our political and social discourse today which has led to such division. It’s not enough for sincere people to have different perspectives. No, it’s assumed that because someone disagrees with our view, they must automatically be an enemy with malevolent motives. And, then of course, discussion falls apart into personal attack.

    Liked by 1 person

    1. I agree. Of course there is more at play in political and social (and religious) discourse because those require us to choose beliefs, and beliefs as we know are vagaries that mess with hormones intended for other uses. Challenging beliefs, challenges the validity of hope, which hope is essential to human comfort when we don’t have assurance of the outcome. But there is more at play as well.
      What most people fail to realize is that each of these opposites need each other to comprehend anything at all, and they arise mutually. Even your religion attempts to leave out this key element, that there can be eternal bliss without non bliss. That the bible makes this clear (by omission) as well. Why is it, it never tells us who is on the left hand of god? We have jesus on the right, and unless heaven is a place that strictly is a place of only right-sided people, we know who is on the left hand, but that would embarrass the “all good” god christians have constructed, for their is no good without evil, lefts without rights, nor backs without fronts. Polarity is absolutely fundamental to existence at all to mean anything, or to even manifest as existence. Can’t have one without the other.


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: