The Technology of Mind

If the author were to take a leaf from the discourse of Science, and attempt to write something of a ‘Grand Unified Theory of Everything’, this would be it. Though given the nature of that which is described, it would be exceedingly difficult to write much.

Rather the point of this exercise is probably best conceived as a further elucidation of Truth. In this instance, from the perspective of some kind of rudimentary and spartan conceptual narrative whose only requirements are that it be both concise and pragmatic.

Joshua uses the term, Technology of Mind, to refer to and place emphasis upon a very specific but equally vast category of phenomenal experience. This category is defined by the limitations and intrinsic properties of the realm of conceptual understanding. Thus it is as relevant to theoretical mechanisms of psychology as to the physical mechanisms of computers and mechanical engineering. It is as relevant to the discourse of sociology as to the realm of art history. Indeed, the concept as defined touches upon every facet of human experience, without exception, in so far as it may be labelled and described. Though the term touches upon an almost unfathomably vast panoply of ideas, it is a term no less defined by pragmatism as by scope. Technology of Mind, refers quite specifically to the use of conceptual understanding to mediate perception and action.

Key to this idea, Technology of Mind, is that correctly deployed, it refers to conceptual understanding of the How, rather than the Why or the What of the realm of reality or nature. It relates to mechanism and structure, to description, conception and abstraction, and to communication. In this way, it is synonymous with the structure and behaviour patterns of reality. Thus it is that for which Science ought to be concerned when correctly understood.

Unfortunately, with respect to this definition, the Technology of Mind is evidently far more frequently misused than it is aptly deployed. Questions of Why and What are intrinsically and essentially unanswerable from within the realm of conceptual understanding – though paradoxically, the insolubility of these types of question within the realm is also the answer – these questions can only ever be addressed from beyond.

Indeed, Truth discourse is principally concerned with elucidating this great folly – the misuse of the conceptual realm to attempt to derive answers for the Why and What of reality. The meaning and value of concepts within reality is always relative to a root concept, the I Am. In turn, the meaning, value and reality of this root concept is always an imposition from source – the Self. This is the crux of the Enlightenment problem, such as it is. Being that the meaning and relevance of all concepts is inherited from or imposed from without (beyond the conceptual realm), any tentative answers the conceptual realm reaches in relation to these questions will always and forever be subject to further revision, and will always lack authenticity. The conceptual realm is a sub-realm of reality. It is a vast conceptual edifice. Yet it remains a paradigm within a far greater paradigm. That there are two paradigms is a concession to conceptual understanding. In truth, there are no words to do justice to the differences and incompatibility between these two realms. Seen from the perspective of conceptual understanding, the paradigm of reality itself often looks as if nothing, or meaningless in the extreme. Mind cannot go there. Yet it remains knowable with absolute lucidity.

Put simply, the unconscious deployment of the Technology of Mind in an attempt to derive direction, meaning or value in matters concerning fundamental being or nature, is as disastrous as it is whimsical. It is this attempt that characterises what spirituality so often refers to as ego, or ignorance of the Truth. For in seriousness, only ignorance of the intrinsic limitations of Mind could possibly be granted as a reasonable explanation for such a fundamental oversight. Conceptual mind is a tool. Though the analogy is overly simplified, it is nevertheless no less apt; just as one would not consult a hammer as to the design of a home, so too one should not consult the Mind as to the meaning or direction of existence. To do so is no less as absurd as asking a hammer for advice on building a house. The modes of the hammer are obviously incompatible with the modes of higher knowledge required for home design and construction. In the same way, the modes of the conceptual mind are equally as incompatible as the modes of higher knowledge required for an understanding of reality, meaning, purpose, value and the fundamental nature of being.

There is an important distinction to be made. The problem is not the Technology of Mind, but rather the attitude and assumptions behind how it is used. Hammers are great for banging in nails, but they do very little else with any finesse. Likewise, the Mind is great for abstract conception, understanding, logic and reasoning. Yet it remains intrinsically incapable of even fathoming the true meaning of meaning, existence, value, purpose, and other such existential concerns. In all such matters, Mind provides merely an abstraction – a means of communication around and about an issue but never the means to define or solve an issue.

More precisely, problems and solutions are the very essence of the behaviour of Mind. Of these concerns, Self knows nothing. From the perspective of Truth, all problems are illusion only.

All Enlightenment discourse is concerned with seeing clearly the nature of illusion. Beyond that, there is nothing specifically that needs to be done; anything that genuinely needs doing, will be.