Which Is More Meaningful – The Thought or the Action?

Have you ever seen the physical properties of “love” outside of human interaction?” (Johnny)

Yes, in artistic creations like music, art, film, writing. One could say the action of continuing to do something for a period of time (ie’ blog) could reveal a nature of loving that action. This is not something neccesarily shared between 2 people not is it neccesarily physical – it manifests physically – but the continuance is like a ritual we continue to be pulled towards.

Regardless of that, my contention is love is an ‘idea’ – and like most ‘ideas’ – they manifest into some reality (action or thing). But I would contend the thought/idea itself can be as real to the person as the action, or at least as deeply meaningful.

For example, in schizophrenics with a certain chemical imbalance where they hear ‘voices’ and ‘sounds’ that alarm them – they even feel ‘it’ asks them to committ certain ‘actions’. Well, here is the question – which is worse – the action or the thoughts? Without the thoughts would the action happen? Without the action would the thoughts happen?

My contention is that in some ways what is within the person, ie: thoughts and ideas, is just as real and tangible as it’s material expression.

*Comment first aired on ‘Spirits in an Immaterial World’ (below)

Advertisements

9 thoughts on “Which Is More Meaningful – The Thought or the Action?

  1. This post puts me in a real bind, because in many ways I value the actions of people over and above just their words or thoughts.

    I rationalize it this way:

    For me, words and actions are not enough, I need to do something for others to know what I mean. However, again for me, what I think and feel is quite personal and makes me ‘me’ – and some of that is internal and within this being called ‘Jason’.

    So in 2 ways, ideas and actions are semi-important even within the very same person – depending on what the end result to be achieved is.

    I would say, with regards to figuring someone else out, all we really can go by is what ‘they do’ – not so much what they ‘think or feel’ (this we can never really know).

  2. “I wrote a post about this” (John)

    I remember, I read that one, I agreed with you on your conclusions!

    “Dawkins calls them ‘memes’” (tildeb)

    The meme theory is quite interesting, I know it has flaws, but the idea cultural ideas could be passed on via some ‘meme’ (like a gene) could be inherited by the next generation.

    • It’s really about encoding information in a symbolic vehicle, which is then transmitted as a facsimile. In this way an idea is made ‘physical’ in the sense of sounds or sights that is copied from its neurological residence, translated into the symbolic language that is meaningful (through recognized patterning), transmitted as a facsimile, and then decoded within another neurological residence. The information itself never really ‘goes’ anywhere but its represented facsimile does: it is made manifest for any transmission to occur.

  3. Thoughts carry energy (The Living Matrix, et al). In the theory of Intention, I believe carefully crafted thoughts (intention) produce physical results. Studies have shown this to be so. These things reside in an area defined by quantum physics. More research must be done in the field, pardon the pun. What I mean is the energy from the “field” is exchanged, is part of how our hearts and minds cause our bodies, as well as the bodies of others, to function correctly without disrupting the energy flows in the body, which basically will result in good health. So to sum up, thoughts and ideas do have physical manifestations for us and others.

    • The Theory of Intention? Come on. There is no such thing as a “theory of intention.” McTaggart (the journalist who heads up this money-making generator of woo) never gives any theory that can be tested scientifically. She doesn’t have a theory, does she, just vague pseudo-spiritual platitudes. Unless you count this as a theory: “If you wish for something, it will come true,” then I guess we have us a theory of Intention. Of course, it would be terrific if the world worked like that, but it doesn’t. If you can make something appear just by thinking about it, or affect just by thought, there’s a million dollars in it for you. But McTaggart has probably made more than this just by selling her books to a gullible, under-educated populace.

      No doubt you are saying to yourself, “But the plant studies ARE scientific!” and think yourself justified not by what you want to believe is true but by what is. Again, this shows your willingness to favour your bias.

      So let’s find out, shall we?

      From the journal Explore comes this paper Nonlocality, Intention, and Observer Effects in Healing Studies: Laying a Foundation for the Future. From the abstract we learn:

      Experimental data suggest that a nonlocal relationship exists among the various individuals participating in a study, one which needs to be understood and taken seriously. We argue that it is important to account for and understand the role of both local and nonlocal observer effects, since both can significantly affect outcome. Research is presented from an array of disciplines to support why the authors feel these issues of linkage, belief, and intention are so important to a successful, accurate, and meaningful study outcome. Finally, the paper offers suggestions for new lines of research and new protocol designs that address these observer-effect issues, particularly the nonlocal aspects. The paper finally suggests that if these effects occur in intention studies, they must necessarily exist in all studies, although in pharmacological studies they are often overshadowed by the power of chemical and biological agents.

      And, sure enough, this is exactly what we find. No ‘intention’ field of energy but a common and knowable effect that can be accounted for by better research policies and procedures instituted by those doing the studies.

      As for her (and your and my) understanding of quantum mechanics, let’s remember Richard Feynman’s famous quote, “If you think you understand quantum theory, you don’t understand quantum theory.” McTaggart is not a physicist but a journalist of woo. Her ‘explanations’ are based on misunderstanding and misrepresenting quantum mechanics… but one should expect this from someone without years of advanced math and that’s exactly what we get: someone who suggests something with the intention only to make profit from people’s gullibility for woo rather than honestly inquire after what’s true.

      There is an overwhelming number of legitimate studies that show no efficacy of thought projections. This so-called Intention Theory fails to address them AT ALL in any meaningful way other than dismiss them as insufficient to show what presumed true. This is not honest and we can do better than promote woo rather than honest inquiry… especially from someone who calls himself an educator.

  4. Experience is the best teacher for me tildeb. I am not asking that you believe what I say. What works for me may not be for you. I am not hear to argue or debate with you. You must find what works for you. All I ask is not to belittle others beliefs if they do not harm you.

    • How you attribute your experiences can very easily fool you into believing things that are not true. What’s true works for me as well as for you, whereas your attributions may not because they are not true. Beliefs is woo harms all of us because it tries to make attributions the equivalent of what’s true. This is a terrible kind of relativism that needs to be loudly and publicly criticized whenever and wherever it appears. You have the right to your beliefs and the right to express them. You also have the right to have your beliefs if they are untrue soundly criticized as I have done here and maybe even in tones you find offensive.

Leave a Reply

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

WordPress.com Logo

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

Twitter picture

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

Facebook photo

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

Google+ photo

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

Connecting to %s