An Analogy, From Physical To Mind

[Age]

How could a closed mind become open or even be aware that it wants to become open if it already believes that it is open ?

Would you admit that you are not open ? Are you even aware that you are not open ?

The nature of mind means it is always capable of change although that does not mean change will always come

To you, What is the 'nature of mind' exactly?

And so no matter how closed a mind is the potential to become open is always there regardless of anything else

I agree. BUT, if, as proposed previously, Minds ultimately control themselves, then HOW could a closed mind become open? which was and still is the clarifying question that I am asking.

How could some thing that is closed, or not fully open, open its self?

If a mind is not fully open, then how would it know that it is not?

My own mind is definitely more open than it has ever been from my own perspective but maybe not so from yours

What my view is on how open or not one is does not matter. What I want to know now is who is that one you say owns mind.

You say, "My own mind", whereas, before you said "Minds ultimately control themselves". So, who or what is actually owning and controlling things here? And, who or what are these 'mind' things exactly? (The true, right, and correct answers, by the way, can be found).

However what other minds think is not relvant as openness can only truly be measured from inside ones own mind

So, how does the who or what actually decide on how open or closed one is or is not, or how open or closed one's own mind is or is not?

There appears to be quite a few things, which need to be clarified first, before things start coming to together to make sense.

And my sense of detachment makes me less dogmatic and more neutral minded so openness is not hard to maintain

How open or not one really is can be clearly seen in their words.

How can the two; 'a sense of detachment from mind', AND, 'an understanding that minds ultimately control themselves', logically fit and work together?

As I age I am less interested in having my own fixed opinions and more interested in acknowledging those of others

You can say you are more interested in acknowledging the opinions of others, but that does not necessarily mean that you are truly OPEN to them.

Your insistence that there are many minds, and that 'mind' is cognitive capability, and, minds/cognitive capabilities ultimately control themselves but 'you' are detached from your 'own' mind seems to point to the fact that you appear more interested in having your own fixed opinion/s on this matter, and are not really interested in those of "others".

Being dogmatic takes up too much mental energy and my mind would not tolerate it any way so it is usually avoided

How would 'you' know what 'your mind' tolerates or not? IF 'minds ultimately control themselves', and 'you' are detached from 'your own mind', then 'you' have absolutely NO say in the matter.

I am only human and so perfection cannot be guaranteed but one is learning to slowly let go the older that one gets

That maybe what that one human being does or thinks it does. But this still does not bring 'you' nor 'I' any closer to 'you' clarifying what you are actually saying or trying to say here.

Are you still of the opinion that;
1. 'Mind' is cognitive capability?
2. 'You' sense a detachment from the mind/cognitive capability?
3. 'Mind/cognitive capability' ultimately controls itself?
4. 'You' own a mind/cognitive capability?

To me, the four do not sensibly nor even logically follow together. Maybe you could clear up my misunderstanding here?

There is, however, another view, which fits ALL of this together perfectly, as well as fits just about every thing else in Life, which ultimately forms one easy and simple to understand big picture of Life. That is, if any one is OPEN to looking at It?

[surreptitious57]

if as proposed previously Minds ultimately control themselves then HOW could a closed mind become open

Through the acquistion of new knowledge or experience or the re evaluation of existing knowledge or experience or a combination of these
Minds can become open through either emotion or logic or both [ ones of the future will be machine like so more logical and less emotional ]

[surreptitious57]

how does the who or what actually decide on how open or closed one is or how open or closed ones own mind is

One objectively [ not subjectively ] determines how open one is now compared to how open one used to be
Therefore if one is more open now one is relatively open and if one is less open now one is relatively closed

[surreptitious57]

How can a sense of detachment from mind AND an understanding that minds ultimately control themselves fit and work together logically

Detachment is from dogmatism not from mind because you cannot be detached from your own mind if it still functions
So detachment is from the external world not the internal world of mind which is always there if one is compos mentis

[surreptitious57]

How open or not one really is can be clearly seen in their words

Sometimes but not always because ones thoughts are not always easy to express
And so true openness can therefore only be ultimately known by ones own mind

[surreptitious57]

You can say you are more interested in acknowledging the opinions of others but that does not necessarily mean that you are truly OPEN to them

Very true because acknowledging something and being open to it are of course not necessarily the same
And so while I acknowledge all opinions regardless of what they may be I am only open to some of them

[surreptitious57]

Your insistence that there are many minds and that mind is cognitive capability and minds / cognitive capabilities ultimately control themselves but you are detached from your own mind seems to point to the fact that you appear more interested in having your own fixed opinions on this matter and are not really interested in those of others

I have already said I am detached from dogma not from mind - I cannot have fixed opinions if I am detached from dogma as that makes no sense
I have already said as well I acknowledge all opinions regardless of what they are - whether they interest me depends on the opinion in question

[surreptitious57]

Maybe you could clear up my misunderstanding here

It makes sense from within my own mind but maybe less so from within yours but one nevertheless does ones best to be understood
Although it is ultimately more important that it makes sense to me and only me but you can still try and understand as best you can

[Age]

if as proposed previously Minds ultimately control themselves then HOW could a closed mind become open

Through the acquistion of new knowledge or experience or the re evaluation of existing knowledge or experience or a combination of these

But a 'closed mind', by definition, does not acquire new knowledge, nor experience new things, nor is able to re-evaluate existing knowledge nor experience nor a combination of these.

By definition, a 'closed' "mind" is NOT open to any new things, knowledge nor experiences.

Also, If it is the acquisition of new things that open so called "minds" up, then that implies some thing else besides "minds", themselves, which is actually and ultimately controlling them.

Minds can become open through either emotion or logic or both [ ones of the future will be machine like so more logical and less emotional ]

Why, to you, are "minds" closed in the first place?

When do "minds" begin? Are "minds" open or closed in the beginning?

If emotion, logic, or both opens "minds" up, then that implies emotion, logic, or both has actual control over "minds", and thus "minds" are not ultimately in control of themselves.

How do you know that, in the future, "minds" will be machine like, more logical and less emotional?

To me, the Mind is absolutely logical and non emotional already.

Also, to me, and as far as I know, the Mind has never been observed with the physical eyes, so how do you propose that invisible "minds" will, in the future, end up becoming machine like?

IF "minds" are evolving into becoming machine like, then what were they like before, and, what are they like now?

[surreptitious57]

By definition a closed mind is NOT open to any new things knowledge nor experiences

A closed mind can become open whenever it wants to as they change over time as they are not something that is set in stone
The state of a mind is therefore not absolute but organic and changes according to its perception of knowledge or experience

[surreptitious57]

How do you know that in the future minds will be machine like more logical and less emotional

To me the Mind is absolutely logical and non emotional already

The Universe is absolutely logical and non emotional but the Universe and minds are entirely different phenomena though
The Universe is ALL THAT EXISTS but minds are an infinitesimal sub set of that and more specifically biological computers

[Age]

how does the who or what actually decide on how open or closed one is or how open or closed ones own mind is

One objectively [ not subjectively ] determines how open one is now compared to how open one used to be

But is it 'one' or the "mind" that ultimately controls this?

If one is "objectively" deciding things for themselves, which sounds very contradictory to me, but anyway when and how does the "mind" ultimately take over and control itself if it is the 'one' who is making the decisions?

Therefore if one is more open now one is relatively open and if one is less open now one is relatively closed

But could there be a 'relatively' if there is only one making the decisions?

And, how could one decided if they are more open now if they are in fact closed.

I have heard lots of human beings say that they are really open. But, if they were actually true to themselves, then they could easily see that they are not that open at all really.

Also, being more open now, relatively compared to previously, still does not mean that they are not that much more open at all really.

I have heard lots of people say that they are open, but obviously they are not at all.

Human beings like to think they are some things, but just thinking they are some thing does not mean that they actually are.

[Age]

How can a sense of detachment from mind AND an understanding that minds ultimately control themselves fit and work together logically

Detachment is from dogmatism not from mind because you cannot be detached from your own mind if it still functions
So detachment is from the external world not the internal world of mind which is always there if one is compos mentis

Okay, so 'you' are detached from the external to that body world but not to the cognitive capability within that body, correct?

If yes, then who or what is the 'one', or the 'you', which is detached from the external world but not to the internal world of "mind" or cognitive capability?

How do 'you' and the 'cognitive capability' relate to each other?

You did say before that "mind" or cognitive capability has the ultimate control over itself, so I am just wondering what you perceive 'you' are and how you relate to that thing that has ultimate control over itself?

Who or what has ultimate control over the 'one' that is 'you'?

You, also, are inferring that 'you' are attached to the cognitive capability or what you call "mind", so how exactly are you two attached to each other?

What does 'compos mentis' mean?

[Age]

How open or not one really is can be clearly seen in their words

Sometimes but not always because ones thoughts are not always easy to express
And so true openness can therefore only be ultimately known by ones own mind

But then we are back to the question; How does a closed "mind" KNOW if it is truly open or not?

[Age]

Your insistence that there are many minds and that mind is cognitive capability and minds / cognitive capabilities ultimately control themselves but you are detached from your own mind seems to point to the fact that you appear more interested in having your own fixed opinions on this matter and are not really interested in those of others

I have already said I am detached from dogma not from mind

Yes you did, AFTER I wrote the above.

You were, previously, talking about "minds" and how your sense of detachment made you less dogmatic, and from that I thought you meant your sense of detachment was from "mind" was what made you less dogmatic. Once again it would have been best if I asked you a clarifying question first, before replying.

Or, maybe if you made it more clearer that you meant that your sense of detachment was NOT of "mind" but of some thing else (external world), then I may not of read it the way I did? We will now never know.

- I cannot have fixed opinions if I am detached from dogma as that makes no sense

But you can still have fixed opinions of your own, which just form your own dogma.

One does not have to have dogma only from an external authority to be dogmatic about some thing. You can form and have your very own principle or set of principles laid down by 'you', an authority, as incontrovertibly true. In fact, it could be argued, that these principles, fixed opinions, views, et cetera are the hardest ones to actually detach from.

To detach one, from one's own self, can leave that one feeling completely alone and uneasy.

These fixed opinions, thoughts, views, beliefs, assumptions, et cetera are the bases for closed thinking, or what you call a "closed mind".

I have already said as well I acknowledge all opinions regardless of what they are - whether they interest me depends on the opinion in question

And, correct me if I am wrong, but an opinion or a view about there being only one Mind does not really interest you at all, correct?