The ephemeral distance between thoughts, the given anecdotes to distraction and the want for focus, the details and humdrum converging in limits to condone wonder: what tends to hold attention, what parts of thought are deemed important enough to actually participate in the medium of the mind and how many thoughts do we imagine or have that are never actually noticed? That which is just beyond thought and the thoughtfulness it takes to wonder about it, strange instances of conundrum and paradox, conversions of space that continually change and manifest more distances and possibilities in the spaces between wondering. Excitements and presentations of interest, the focal points of intensity and the ways in which voice is noticed internally: wind blowing through empty spaces of contemplation and deriving the postulates of contriving impression or actuality in mental event. At what point is it an actual mental event? How far and removed from any number of them could anyone be or become? Physiological constructs of imaginary spaces, of thought, mental and imaginary event consorting in focal devoid patterns according to potential and gradient, according to free will and the ability to actually focus upon any given matter. What differences would there be beyond record, and how close could any really get to the actual instance of thought or imagining? Impressions of space and the contrivances of manipulation, easily seen and avoidable messes of consciousness assured of absolutes and conditioning according to potential alone, as though that were all we really are…areas of the brain lit with excitement, dualism automatically incorrect, the distance from physiological presence imaginable, and as real to me as imaginary space: dualism and monism, that we cannot be separated from these physiological forms but is it possible we actually create imaginary spaces from physical space that exists? Could both simultaneously be correct? The doubtful concordances of interest and the want for the matter of mind to be recorded accurately, how far could we separate these simple machines from the ghosts within them? How far could thought be from the body and how close to actual record of it have we really gotten? Fallible writing, as close as one could get to the actual instance, but still far and removed: thoughtlessness and nothingness in writing and the distances imagined between thought and its record. Is writing actual record of imaginary and mental event, or something else? A formulate of the spaces between these simple machines and the ghosts within them or wanted record of the possibilities in inspiration and potentials being met as we make them for ourselves. Free thought and the want for accurate record of imaginary and mental event, of the distances from physiological space that are possible in imagination and inspiration, the exactitudes of excitement and impressions of reality from space that is anything but. Imagining ways to thoughtfulness, to constructs of thought and its capabilities, of that which could be imagined separated from these simple biological machines and the need for accurate record. It is a physiological construct of data regardless, and depends upon sense to be described: imagining these separations may be as close to any actual separation as we ever get. If I imagined it hard enough, I could be a glass of water, and everything and everyone in my environment would agree with me. I don’t want to trust my imagination for reality, but is it possible that non-matter and non-space manifest from within physiological construct? What aspects of spirituality are allowed in this type of discussion and where does that leave thought and its accurate record?
*Gilbert Ryle, Descartes (Ghosts in a machine)