TED Conversations

This conversation is closed.

What is the opposite of "Idea " ?

Concept / idea - what could be the most closest opposite of it ?


Showing single comment thread. View the full conversation.

  • Mar 8 2013: Nn- U said mind creates illusion !! Though, it seems U hit the bulls eye - clearly , firmly, no illusions ;) !! Yes, mother Englsih tongue adopted me
    • thumb
      Mar 8 2013: The illusion is that the visual reality is "real" but truly it is real our atoms are real, the light is real, our cells are real.....the illusions it that the real is something that it static or tactical.
    • Mar 9 2013: In this case, mother Russian tongue adopted me ! :)
      • Mar 9 2013: Interestingly ! Is Russian your natural mother and English adopted mother tongue ?
        • Mar 10 2013: Hi, Charan !
          You see now i haven't hit the bulls eye :) I didn't quite understand what you meant by ' English mother tongue adopted me'
          I thought that you referred to infant glossolalia as natural mother tongue. Some linguists tend to think it's the case.
          A baby enjoys sounds, it produces sounds investing no meaning into them, a sound partakes no quality but it's own, like a colour for a baby. Shamans speak in tongues to sing reality into existence. Shamanic culture is a humanity's babyhood.
          In this context our natural mother tongue that adopted us is our first language after we stop entertain glossolalia.
          So, to make it clear, Russian is my natural mother tongue and the only mother tongue. My first language. English is my second language, the only second language so far but i am optimistic :)
          Is English your second language, if yes, what is the first ?.
          Thanks !
      • Mar 11 2013: ;) What I understood for several years that my mother tongue is Punjabi , has changed ;) How? I m convinced now that my mother tongue is GuRMuKhee - from which Punjabi is derived. So "what is the first ?" It is GuRMuKhee - that has its own grapheme/ phenome correspondence, thus independent in its own ;) doesnt borrow script from some other language to manifest - become visible ;) Interestingly it has a piece in it that is very clearly understandable unlike "glossolalia"/"Speak in tongue" type to connect
        to what you rightly said "humanity's babyhood. " You may agree - both threads that I started were intended to explore -with collectively knowledge /wisdom's participation -more on that piece of connection only.
        • Mar 12 2013: I would like to see more conversations like yours. I have a lot of vague ideas about the lost connection and share your belief that it is important to rekindle the connection. Maybe, we need a kind of linguistic revolution. People need to realize we're all using downloaded templates of understanding for understanding from our parents who are using templates from their parents.
          Old preliterate/pre written languages were audial languages, i am not sure about the 'visual' part.
          Our modern languages are abstract, we operate with ' means ' ( means ' are the smallest concepts of meaning ) .
          OK... you see, a lot to think about together :)
          Could you help me with a proper link on GuRMuKhee ? I've found this
          looks not bad, but i would appreciate your recommendations.
          Thank you !
      • Mar 13 2013: "Downloaded templates!" - your linguistic revolution is right here! ;) where and when "I" the electron finds the connection in this template- the people, the world around, changes - the veil of ignorance lifted - all light , no darkness;) add another electron - bonding with one another !!! Your proposed revolution starts, right here !! - does one need anything else ? The link Nn you have found is correct , those are prevalent spellings - the transliteration GuRMuKhee as I use has more phonetic reflections than the commonly used as Gumukhi. ....will send you a link later - not handy right now ! Cheers
        • Mar 13 2013: I see you have something very big in your mind !!!!
          Re: "does one need anything else ?"
          To reprogramme the mind , each of us have between our ears, not more not less than that :) And, i think, the right place to start is to realise that what we have is MIND which we perceive through mind/language.
          I think, that language is the thin web on which our perception of the reality hangs. As someone said '' the reality can be easily hacked " through language. And it can be restored/reinvented through language.
          Where we need to go back to is not to my russsianness or your punjabiness or someone irishness,.... but to our collective shared humanness, which is rooted in nature. Nature is not mute, in fact it's the only available true statement. That's what preliterate cultures understood. People used to say : plants talk to us ! Can we hear nature's voice again ?
          Maybe the first downloaded template we need to part with is the idea that we are two with Nature.
        • Mar 13 2013: I don't mean the famous : "everything you know is wrong." Maybe it's true, but usually not everything we know is wrong, and normally we have to wisely use what we know of our current situation to navigate to the next level.
          Maybe you'll be interested in what D. Bohm suggested as a new/old way of human communication, a dialogue... how to think the thought together, instead of exchanging opinions or , god forbid, debating :) I think , it's something 'real' that should be practiced, at least, it's worth while trying.
          Here is the link:


          Please, pay attention to the 16.15 mark
      • Mar 14 2013: This conversation about the whole and the part seems very interesting . Thanks for sharing. The point to me seems is when we talk about whole as a thread, instead of two parts - individual being at the other end makes individual part as well as separate from the whole at the same time. It seems "Everything we know is right " because it is thread connection - the farther/ distanced one is positioned on this thread from the other end it looks wrong or one perceives it separated, incorrect, wrong - what actually is not wrong. Thus we are One with Nature as the other end only - Oneness of this thread is critical- distance from it will make us two or even unaware of the connection;) what do you think?
        • Mar 14 2013: Hi, Charan !
          Re :"... we talk about whole as a thread "
          Yes, but let's view it as a field, as a flux, an individual unfolds from the whole of humanity, his/her thread from Past to Future is not possible without the whole, without all complexity of interactions, history ,cause/affect feedback ...etc.
          Humanity/ a human unfolds from the Nature. Here the analogy with wave/particle duality may be helpful. A particle, behaving like a separate particle never leaves the domain of the wave where it is embedded ; they are entangled they are One forever. Maybe this is the lost piece of information that QM findings reveal. No matter how far we've gone from Nature, we are Nature. As someone aptly put : we are at war with ourselves and we are winning . We may say ' loosing ' and it will make no difference , it's what the Whole is about.
          " Oneness of this thread is critical- distance from it will make us two or even unaware of the connection "
          Yes, and here is the idea of biblical ' fall' reemerges. We fall apart from God/ Whole/ Nature... what have you, and it's bad/wrong, but if we didn't we would never understand our oneness rationally.
          So what is the 'fall' ?
          The opportunity to rise through rational comprehension, only humans are capable of .
          What is the distance ?
          The possibility of return, come back with experience.
          What is right/wrong here ? Who is to judge ? :)

Showing single comment thread. View the full conversation.